The discussion about the problems of studying primitive art on the pages of our journal does not have a pronounced polemical character, although it is unlikely that researchers have such similar views on this phenomenon of culture or agree with all the provisions expressed during the discussion. Authors of articles presented in this journal category usually consider their own new archaeological materials, formally linking them to the context of the discussion and touching only on certain aspects of the problems proposed for discussion. The opportunity provided by the editorial staff allows you to address the most controversial stories and the most polemical speeches.

This is what I see in the content of E.'s work. Jacobson's "On the informative value of petroglyphic and funerary monuments of the Bronze Age", published in the journal two years before the discussion [2002], especially since the main postulates of the author's methodology were re-submitted for discussion in an article written jointly with A.-P. Frankfort and together with the speech of Ya. A. Sher, which opened the discussion [Frankfort, Yakobson, 2004]. In a 2002 publication, an American art critic based on extensive material obtained during the work of the Russian-American-Mongolian expedition, conducted as part of the international project for the study of petroglyphs of the Mongolian Altai, raised the question of interpreting the content contained in the subjects and images of rock art of the Mongolian Altai of the Bronze Age.

Along with the generally accepted approaches to the study of rock art monuments based on the methodology of archaeological research, E. Yakobson offers her analysis of Bronze Age petroglyphs, which, in her opinion, corresponds to the desire to take into account the context of images carved and engraved on the rocks of the Mongolian Altai as fully as possible [2002, p.32]. The researcher rightly notes the objective difficulties of identifying cultural and chronological layers of Bronze Age rock paintings in Central Asia. The main conclusion of E. Jacobson argues that Bronze Age petroglyphs in Northern Asia, and especially in the Altai, are "significantly more informative" than the data that archaeologists get when studying sources "in presumably simultaneous funerary contexts." "Bronze Age petroglyphs," she writes, "show a more multifaceted vision of life by their creators than what is reflected in any funerary context" [Ibid., pp. 45-46]. According to E. Jacobson, rock carvings associated with the emotional impulses of ancient artists and serving to "reflect life", "the whole essence... they reject the conservative and idealized concepts that prevail in funerary rites" and "do not obey the usual canons of classification" accepted in archeology. Nevertheless, they can provide a deeper insight into the past than the materials of the excavations [Ibid.].

A number of similar conclusions, sometimes softened and sometimes polemically pointed, are repeated in the joint work of E. Jacobson and A.-P. Frankfort [2004]. This publication offers new approaches to the analysis of extensive petroglyphic material obtained during the implementation of international research projects in the territory of the Russian Federation.

page 89

Central Asia and Southern Siberia, as well as accumulated by various scientific schools of the Eurasian states. Some of the proposed approaches are called innovative, based on the desire to move away from the "traditional perception" of the content of rock art in the region [Ibid., p. 69].

According to A.-P. Frankfort and E. Jacobson, "there are several approaches to revealing the meaning of rock art that have not yet been seriously discussed in relation to petroglyphs in North, Central and Central Asia," but two of them deserve the most attention. However, the article identifies only one, "related to the social aspects of the content of rock art, in particular, with the reflection of kinship ties in society" [Ibid., p. 68]. Co-authors believe that its application can bring us closer to a deeper understanding of the real essence of social relations in the past, it is only necessary to critically review the interpretation of a number of images and scenes [Ibid., p. 69]. Such suggestions, formulated in the article that opened the discussion, are clearly worthy of discussion, even though only one of the several approaches known to the authors and "not discussed" is named.

It is indisputably important that the authors of this publication point out current problems, fairly show the discussion points and possible choice of scientific paradigms in interpreting the content of rock art in North Asia, as well as outline the ways and possibilities of approaching the information contained in petroglyphs. Extensive practical experience in studying a number of well-known rock art monuments in Central Asia (Saimaly-Tash, Ust-Tuba, Tepsey, Aral-Tol-goi, Tsagan-Salaa/Baga-Oigor, etc.) allows them to demonstrate the effectiveness of the chosen research strategy on comparative material.

The announced approaches and techniques that were "not seriously discussed" until recently in relation to the rock art of North Asia would be of undoubted interest and great value, especially if they were successfully tested on some other rock art monuments. Unfortunately, the text under discussion does not indicate on what materials such methods of studying "social aspects of the content side of rock art" were developed and what is meant by this, it is unclear, moreover, in the petroglyphs of what era and on what continent, and most importantly, how "family ties in society" were established. E. A. Novgorodova's research on this topic, based on Central Asian materials, comes to mind [1984, p.43-44; 1989, p. 99-100]. The researcher interpreted the peculiar petroglyphs of Chuluut, in which three female figures "are placed one above the other so that the legs of the upper figure are at the same time the hands of the second, and the legs of the second - at the same time the hands of the third" as "the idea of the infinity of the human race, the unity of many generations"; graphically, the idea of a woman-mother is repeated three times: "great-grandmother grandmother and mother, who carries the beginning of a new life" [Novgorodova, 1984, p. 43]. "The three-step figure shows diachronically existing generations of women who are connected over time; it is a kind of tree of life, where kinship is counted along the maternal line" [Ibid., p. 44, Fig. 13]. Such a reading, which is not indisputable, but, in my opinion, quite interesting, E. Jacobson does not take into account, considering it either frivolous or irrelevant to the reflection of kinship ties in society in rock art, and suggests finding out these connections in a different way.

E. Jacobson's publications consistently set out to approve the methods of art criticism, since "the study of petroglyphs is somewhere between science and art" (see, for example, [Frankfort and Jacobson, 2004, p. 76]). To me, such a definition of the "spheres of influence" of various muses and the ranking of research methods do not seem sufficiently justified; attempts to assert the priority of art criticism approaches over the methodology of archaeological (historical) research, as well as some unsubstantiated value judgments, as well as the main conclusion of E. A. Tolstoy. Jacobson's "on the informative value" of petroglyphic monuments raises objections.

Discussing the informative value of rock art and comparing the possibilities of analyzing funerary and petroglyphic materials, E. Yakobson touches upon the problem of interpreting chariot rock images [2002, p. 44-45; Frankfort and Yakobson, 2004, p. 68, etc.]. This is an extremely important subject that has a long and very serious tradition of discussion in Soviet and Russian scientific literature, and in the framework of our discussion, I will focus only on its interpretation, while some other provisions of the works of E. Jacobson's works on the interpretation of the Altai petroglyphs also seem to me worthy of critical consideration.

Chariot scenes in petroglyphs of Central and Central Asia and Southern Siberia were actively studied by archaeologists in the second half of the last century. Methods of studying wheeled transport in Eurasia based on rock art materials are developed, which is an informative and popular archaeological study.-

page 90

Kozhin, 1968, 1977, 1987, 1990; Kadyrbaev and Maryashev, 1973, 1977; Zhukov and Ranov, 1974; Devlet M. A., 1976, 1982, 1998, 2004; Littauer, 1977; Novgorodova, 1978, 1984, 1989; Sher, 1980; Pyatkin, 1985; Leontiev 1980, 2000; Varenov, 1983, 1990a, 19906; Novozhenov, 1989, 1994; Okladnikova, 1988; Filippova, 1990; Maryashev and Potapov, 1992; Zhang Zhiyao, 1993; Savinov, 1997, 2002; Cheremisin, 2003; Cheremisin and Borisova, 1999; Balonov, 2000; Ranov, 2001; Francfort, 2002; Kubarev, 2004a; et al.].

A step-by-step study is V. A. Novozhenov's monograph " Rock carts of Central and Central Asia (on the problem of migration of the population of steppe Eurasia in the Eneolithic and Bronze Age)". The author presented the most complete summary of images of carts in petroglyphs of steppe Eurasia, developed their typology, singled out different types of carriages based on the design features of vehicles reproduced on rocks and artifacts from burial complexes, showed the role of wheeled transport in the culture of pastoralists of the belt of mountains and steppes of Eurasia, proposed a reconstruction of migration processes in steppe Eurasia at the end of and the interpretation of some petroglyph plots as an integral part of the sign and communication system of steppe pastoralists [1994].

At the same time, the possibilities of further scientific research are not exhausted, and many issues remain debatable. Unambiguous readings of rock scenes with wheeled transport are not always possible: it is problematic to interpret a number of petroglyphs as reproducing two - or four-wheeled carts, "articulated carts" or "chariot collisions"; it is not always indisputable to determine the design of carriages that are presented schematically; the context of chariot scenes is often not clear: earthly or" heavenly " chariots are depicted on the map. chariots - real vehicles or signs of certain mythological subjects. Anthropomorphic characters depicted standing on chariots - deities, heroes of myths or leaders of large-scale military campaigns?

The authors discuss the ethnic attribution of the creators of chariot plots in petroglyphs, the scope of chariot use in the Bronze Age - hunting, war, or cult ceremonies, and the significance of the design features of the carriages depicted on the rocks (in particular, wheels with or without spokes). as chronological markers, the combination of images of certain animals with images of wheeled sleds, the semantics of rock art scenes with carts and methods of its research, as well as the origin and formation of various traditions of reproducing chariots in the vast expanses of Eurasia [Kozhin, 1968, 1977, 1987; Sher, 1978, 1980; Novgorodova, 1984; Evsyukov,1984; Evsyukov, 1984]. Komissarov, 1985; Varenov, 1990a; Novozhenov, 1994; Tsimidanov, 1996; Sergeeva, 2000; Savinov, 2002; Slobodzyan, 2002a, b; Francfort, 1998, 2002; et al.].

The study of Bronze Age rock carvings depicting wheeled vehicles allowed researchers to assess the level of development of ancient technologies and technical means of migration, establish cultural ties between Bronze Age populations, judge ancient Eurasian communications, record the directions and boundaries of ethno-cultural contacts, as well as the spread of pictorial traditions, reconstruct methods of military operations, interpret the content of mythological plots,and analyze the history of diagnose the ethnicity of the creators of petroglyphs, etc. Coverage of this issue is important for forming ideas about the cultural interactions of the population of steppe Eurasia of the Bronze Age.

On the grounds that the petroglyphs of Northern Asia do not contain compositions that can be unambiguously identified as "real scenes of military battles on chariots", A.-P. Frankfort and E. Jacobson in their article basically reject the possibility of identifying the crews depicted on the rocks with chariots - (war) chariot [2004, p. 72]. In their opinion, the wheeled transport depicted in the rock art of Central Asia is represented only by wheeled carts, but not by chariots: "A careful study of the images of wheeled carts does not confirm their identification with chariots" [Ibid.; Yakobson, 2002, pp. 44-45].

This point of view, in my opinion, is unjustifiably radical, since the light two-wheeled carriages (gigs) depicted on the rocks with standing anthropomorphic characters are traditionally defined as chariots, combat vehicles used by the population of the Eurasian steppes in the Bronze Age also for hunting and ritual ceremonies. If we follow the logic of critical authors, who base their judgment on art criticism criteria, and not on the totality of archaeological sources, then the complete absence of " real "scenes of milking cows in the rock art of steppe Eurasia should be taken as evidence that this practice was completely unknown to the population of the region in the Bronze Age, and a reason for denying the pastoral nature cultures of these peoples. Will an approach be adopted that proclaims the rejection of identifying pictorial traditions with archaeological cultures in favor of finding out "the real essence of social relations hidden behind artistic images" [Frankfort, Jacobson,

page 91

2004, p. 68-69, 76; Yakobson, 2002, p. 45-46], it may be useful to discuss the proposed methods.

The idea of a "more multifaceted vision of life" by the creators of petroglyphs, "than what is reflected in any funerary context" (Yakobson, 2002, p. 46), is nothing more than an illusion. The subjects of Central Asian petroglyphs of the Bronze Age with the participation of anthropomorphic characters (it is hardly possible to clearly determine whose image is embodied on the rocks and who is depicted - people-heroes, deities, ancestral spirits, mythical zooanthropomorphic creatures, masked participants in ritual actions or cult bearers in vestments embodying the nature of various animals) are quite limited. Hunting or stalking animals, military or ritual duels, wheeled transport and "migrations", so-called erotic (coital) scenes, often incomprehensible "ritual actions" and "signs" - this is the main repertoire of plot themes that are constantly repeated in infinitely varying versions on the rock art monuments of the mountains and steppes of Eurasia.

Rock carvings of stationary dwellings are relatively rare, while those of portable dwellings are not known at all; plants and certain animal species are completely absent. In a number of pictorial traditions of the Bronze Age, animals are represented more realistically than anthropomorphic characters, whose images are rendered schematically. Female figures are few and far between and occur in a "ritual" rather than any other context; there are no images of children, which makes it hypothetical to conclude that petroglyphs reflect "family ties in society". It is impossible to determine unambiguously what place reality occupied in the works of rock art, the visual activity for the creators of which was probably an important part of the ritual, and the events of life correlated with the paradigms of myth (see: [Sher, 1980, pp. 257-289; 2004; Devlet E. G., Devlet M. A., 2000, 2005]).

For the study of subjects with the image of wheeled transport, in my opinion, the least significant are art criticism judgments "about the role of the artist in creating individual images and compositions", ideas about the individual beginning in ancient "artistic creativity", determining the level of "perfection of individual images and compositions" and "assessing the quality of artistic images". To identify the "artistic features of each particular image", to assess its "artistic expressiveness" [Frankfort and Jacobson, 2004, p. 65-66] and other similar requirements put forward as an example of new approaches to the study of rock art in Northern, Central and Central Asia, in my opinion, are extremely doubtful as a methodological basis. Unfortunately, researchers have not presented any innovative methods for "identifying more significant content related to aspects of the social structure, tribal beliefs, customs and rituals" [Ibid., p. 69], except for art criticism.

It seems to me that there are also no methodological grounds for the earlier attempts by art historians to" extra-archaeological " study the information contained in the Bronze Age petroglyphs of Central Asia (Yakobson, 2002). References to the special "emotional" and "artistic" nature of rock art monuments are untenable, in which, according to E. Jacobson, the individual creative potential of ancient "artists" was realized, which, in her opinion, determined the very special "informative value" of petroglyphs when "displaying life" in comparison with funerary complexes of the Bronze Age [Ibid., pp. 45-46].

Behind the types of funerary structures, it is impossible not to see the emotions of their creators, human feelings associated with the death of relatives and tribesmen, the content of funerary and memorial rites that united ancient societies, while clearly reflecting the very features of the social structure, tribal beliefs, customs and rituals that are proposed to be seen in the vague "emotional motives" of rock artists [Ibid., p. 46]. It seems that the volume of human emotions, determined only by the labor costs associated with the burial practice of ancient populations of Northern Asia, is quite comparable with the postulated by art historians emotional component of rock art. Archaeologists are unlikely to ever agree with an art critic that the subjects and images of petroglyphs in Central Asia, and especially Altai, are "significantly more informative" than the burial complexes of this region of the Bronze Age, and the "complex ornamentation of the body of the vessel" from the burial is an expression of "good taste and individuality of the deceased" [Ibid., pp. 45-46].

As an "archaeological alternative" to such innovative approaches to petroglyphs, we cite the conclusions made by E. E. Kuzmina (1974; 1980; 1994, pp. 165-194; 2000, 2001; Kuz'mina, 1994, 2000) and E. A. Novgorodova based on a comprehensive analysis of sources, including pictorial ones, concerning the chariots of Eurasia [1978; 1984, p. 60-81; 1989, p. 140-165], Ya. A. Sherom [1980, p. 194-200], M. A. Devlet [1990, p. 102-108; 1998, p. 181-184], P. M. Kozhin [1987, p. 112; 1990], V. A. Novozhenov [1994]. We also refer readers to the reconstructions of A.V. Varenov, M. V. Gorelik, and V. B. Kovalevskaya,

page 92

S. A. Komissarov, S. T. Kozhanov, A. I. Solovyov, Yu. S. Khudyakov and other archaeologists.

As E. E. Kuzmina points out, the remains of chariots (wheels with spokes and pairs of harness horses), psalms, a set of weapons that included bronze and stone axes, daggers, spears, stone and bone arrowheads, whips ' pommels, and a number of other items are associated with the graves of charioteers, representatives of the elite layer of Indo-Aryans in the steppes of Eurasia. also tesla [2000, pp. 72-75]. Rock paintings of armed anthropomorphic characters standing on a chariot-most often warriors shooting bows, as well as warriors with other weapons (for example, with a mace or spear in Elangash), as well as weapons in the Sintashtyn or Anyan complexes with chariots, confirm the use of chariots in military operations.

M. A. Devlet describes a rock composition in the Sayan Canyon of the Yenisei River, in which a warrior standing on the platform of a steam-horse chariot shoots a bow at the head of an armed pedestrian enemy [1990, p. 106; 1998, p. 184; 2004, p. 45-50, Fig. 24, 3]. Chariots depicted on the rocks of Chuluut Novgorodova defined both Khovd-Somon and Khovd-Somon as combat, in which other archaeologists agreed with her. She attributed the similarity of images of Bronze Age chariots in the vast territory of Central and Central Asia and Southern Siberia to "new methods of combat, new military equipment" [1989, p. 163-164].

The evidence of ancient languages is extremely important. The results of the analysis of Near Asian written sources allow linguists to speak specifically about horse-drawn chariots in the general Indo-Iranian era, and the correspondence of the Indo-Iranian word denoting this type of transport for its purpose and device can be seen in the ancient Hittite term "war chariot" [Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1994, p. 728]. E. E. Kuzmina pointed out that in the ancient Indo-European, Semitic and Chinese languages had separate words for carts and chariots. "A chariot is a military light carriage with two wheels with spokes and a horse-drawn team" ([1994, p. 276], for a similar definition, see [Novozhenov, 1994, p. 253, p. 255, p. 89-90]). In his works, A. - P. Francfort uses the English word chariot and the French word char to denote a particular type of chariot depicted on archaeological artifacts, including petroglyphs of Eurasia [Francfort, 1998, 2002], without doubting the existence of real chariots. All the more strange are the doubts of colleagues regarding the similar identification of rock carvings of wheeled vehicles in North Asia (Frankfort and Jacobson, 2004, p. 72). Obviously, the opinion that North Asian petroglyphs show only wheeled carts, but not chariots, belongs to the art critic E. Jacobson (2002, pp. 44-45).

The refusal to see wheeled vehicles depicted in the petroglyphs of North Asia as real gigs and light combat crews is based on the unwillingness to take into account the results of typological analysis of rock carvings and artifacts from burial complexes, as well as the very "real essence of social relations", in which chariots were a means of warfare and a prestigious element of culture that characterized the " elite"N. A. - P. Frankfort evaluates the role of chariots in the Bronze Age and Iron Age in the history of the population of Eastern Eurasia in this way, emphasizing not the military, but only the transport functions of chariots that bring hunters to the place of a prestigious hunting event, the elitism of which is precisely symbolized by the image of the chariot in petroglyphs [Francfort, 2002, p. 81, 84]. Discussions about the purpose of the chariots of Eurasia often include interpretations of the contents of the Iliad, which attested to the transport role of chariots that only brought heroic fighters to the place of foot battles; however, there is no reason to doubt the military purpose of chariots in the ancient Near and Near East (see fig.: [Gorelik, 1985; Kozhin, 1985; Kuzmina, 1994; Novozhenov, 1994; Nefedkin, 2001; et al.]).

V. D. Kubarev, analyzing the complex of weapons of the Altai population based on petroglyphs, also notes the absence of battle scenes on the rocks depicting chariot battles, and concludes that the petroglyphs of Altai "do not confirm the use of chariots in military affairs" [20046, p.76]. At the same time, the researcher reasonably doubts the possibility of real use of chariots for hunting mountain goats, although such a composition is depicted on the rocks of the Mongolian Altai, and sees in the scenes with chariots (in particular, in combination with images of the chariot of the image of a deer) a reflection of the mythological ideas of the creators of petroglyphs.

The absence in the rock art of Eurasia of multi-figure scenes of military operations, "lists", duels or confrontations of warriors standing on chariots, gives rise to discussions about the role of chariots as vehicles that served exclusively for moving participants in battles or other prestigious actions such as the royal hunt. However, in accordance with modern ideas about the nature of ancient art (which, quoting E. Gombrich, also refer to A. - P. Frankfort and E. Jacobson), it implements a conceptual, not "photographic" principle, which should be taken into account when interpreting the content of images and reconstructing the phenomena reflected in art. Plots of Central Asian petroglyphs with co-

page 93

foresters, in my opinion, have stable semantics. The stylistics of these images are repeated on such a significant number of Eurasian rock art monuments that foreign colleagues ' doubts about the validity of determining the types of vehicles depicted in petroglyphs [Jacobson, 2002, p. 44-45; Frankfort and Jacobson, 2004, p. 72] seem unfounded*.

In my opinion, the very fact of reproducing the chariot actualized a whole range of semantic meanings associated with military symbols and determining the context of the image or composition. In order to express the triumph of the victor or emphasize the specifics of the means of transportation of the supreme deity, it was not necessary to graphically represent the entire narrative epic cycle or all the episodes of the myth, it was enough to visualize the "mythopoetic formula" [Sher, 2004, pp. 38-41]. B. N. Pyatkin suggested reading the symbolism associated with the chariot in funerary places. It allows us to talk about different ways of object and graphic presentation of the mythologeme [1987].

The conclusion that the identification of Eurasian rock art images of light two-wheeled carriages with chariots is erroneous, made on the basis of a "thorough study" of the subject (but using methods that do not allow obtaining reliable historical data), in my opinion, is completely unjustified and once again demonstrates the conventionality of art criticism definitions and the limitations of art criticism approaches to the analysis of monuments of primitive art (see: [Primeval art..., 1998, pp. 8-12; Sher, 2000, pp. 82-83; 2004, pp. 43-44; et al.]). It is preferable to use the method of historical research. Based on the study of weapons items from Yin complexes, the tactics of combat operations using chariots are reconstructed. According to A.V. Varenov, it consisted in firing enemy infantry bows from long and medium distances (see: [1990b, p. 70-71; 1980; Solov'ev, 2003, p. 39, Fig. 31; p. 43; p. 50-51, fig. 52]). According to Yu. Since Khudyakov, war chariot detachments formed the shock part of the army, they broke the enemy formation in open steppe spaces, served for operational military movements and pursuit of the enemy [2002]. The important role of the chariot troops of the Caucasian population of Central Asia at the turn of the II-I millennium BC is reflected by the kereksurs, which resemble a wheel with spokes in plan, as well as deer stones that model the image of a charioteer warrior with a characteristic set of weapons [Khudyakov, 1987a, b]**.

It should be emphasized that the main source of information about the war chariots of the population of Southern Siberia and Central Asia are rock carvings of the region (Khudyakov, 2002, pp. 139-141). It seems that methodically correct and well-sourced reconstructions can be more adequate to the historical realities of the past than conclusions based on art criticism criteria (the absence of scenes of chariot battles in rock art as a reason to deny the very existence of combat wheeled carriages).

In the petroglyphic materials studied by me, there is a series of images of chariots depicted on monuments of the south-east of the Russian Altai. On them, the teams are shown in detail, especially if the images are made in the graffiti technique or a combination of embossing and engraving (Figs. 1, 2). In a number of petroglyphs, the reins in the hands of the driver are clearly shown (Fig. 3; 4, 3; 5; 6; 7). The reins, an important control element for harnessed horses, were often reproduced in the form of carved lines along the drawbar-both in cases where the driver is absent (see Figures 5, 3), and when unharnessed carts are shown (Figures 8, 2). Probably, in the composition in the Sok-Tyt tract on the right bank of the Chagan River where chariots are shown following each other, the reins are shown attached to the belt of the driver of the first carriage (see Figure 6). Apparently, in the scene in the Shin-Oozi tract (see Figures 8, 1), where the charioteer warrior, standing on the platform of the body, shoots a bow, the reins are also attached to the belt of the driver of the first carriage. They are also shown attached to his belt; the simplest method is to tie the reins around the charioteer's thighs.

To fix the controls of harnessed horses and free the hands of soldiers standing on the chariot, special devices could be used - buckles of charioteers, which are made of-

* Their position seems more than surprising, since other historical realities reproduced on the rocks of the Altai were determined by E. Yakobson quite categorically, for example, by analogy with the accessories of modern Mongolian hunters, the so - called dalluurs were identified-inexplicable attributes of anthropomorphic rock characters of the Bronze Age, in Kalbak-Tash - "mysterious bird women", which, in my opinion, it is absolutely incredible; in some subjects of petroglyphs of the Mongolian Altai, the researcher sees "the theme of the struggle for the preservation of hunting camps or lands", and this theme could later be used by other artists "for the sake of expanding the meaning of the narrative captured earlier", etc. [Yakobson, 2002, p. 43].

** Note that in both cases we are talking about the author's interpretations based on the study of a complex of diverse sources, and the degree of reliability of the proposed reconstructions in different aspects of these models varies.

page 94

Figure 1. Kalbak-Tash.

Fig. 2. Elangash.

4. Elangash (1, 3), Shin-Oozi (2, 4, 5).

page 95

5. Shin-Oozi (1-3), Kalbak-Tash (4, 5), Elangash (6).

Figure 6. Cookies.

Figure 7. Abijay.

page 96

8. Shin-Oozi (1), Sook-Tyt (2), Chaganka (3), Kalbak-Tash (4).

9. Eshki-Olmes (according to [Maryashev and Goryachev, 2002]).

known from artefacts from Late Bronze Age burials in Southern Siberia and China (Varenov, 1984). On the deer stones, items of equipment of warriors, similar in shape to similar buckles, are depicted suspended from the belt. It is quite possible that their presence was also implied in the rock carvings. It is possible that the analysis of detailed images of chariots made in the engraving technique will allow us to determine the cases of possible reproduction of such devices in the petroglyphs of Eurasia (see Figures 8, 1; 9). For example, rock carvings in the Negev Desert on the Sinai Peninsula demonstrate the practice of fixing the reins on the lower back of charioteers in whose hands weapons are depicted [Anati, 1981, p. 52-53, 77] (fig.

As for the design features of the chariots that were used by the Altai population in the second millennium BC, as far as can be judged from rock carvings, they did not differ much from the combat crews known in the neighboring regions of Central Asia and Southern Siberia. This similarity is explained by the evolution of vehicles and migration processes in steppe Eurasia, which has had both invasions and military confrontations between carriers of different archaeological cultures. The content and nature of historical processes are undoubtedly reflected in archaeological sources, and the methodology of archaeological research allows us to adequately perceive the information contained in them.

page 97

10. The Negev Desert (according to [Anati, 1981]).
Reliable definitions of the design of the depicted carriages play an important role in drawing conclusions about the content of chariot plots in the Altai petroglyphs. It is also necessary to take into account a certain commonality of mythological representations of the population of steppe Eurasia in the Bronze Age, and when analyzing the semantics of rock carvings, to a greater extent, take into account the content (mythological) context with which the images of chariots in petroglyphs of Central Asia and Southern Siberia are associated. In particular, in Elangash, wheeled transport is often represented in multi-figure compositions; a pair of anthropomorphic characters are often depicted on the chariot [Okladnikov et al., 1979, p. 81, tab. 40; p. 83, tab. 42; p. 124, Table 83]. In addition, the concentration of several images of chariots on the same plane was repeatedly recorded. The same patterns are typical for petroglyphic monuments of the Mongolian Altai.

As for the methods of art criticism focused on identifying "the artistic features of each particular image" [Frankfort, Jacobson, 2004, p. 66], in my opinion, their application does not provide decisive arguments for adequate coverage of the historical problems of primitive art. In this connection, the hopes expressed in this discussion by some archaeologists for art historians who will "finally appear", "push aside archaeologists and deal with the problem of the origin of art" seem completely utopian [Grigoriev, 2004, p.49]. Here, as they say, comments are superfluous; the obvious desire to be relegated is probably caused not so much by the success of art historians in studying Paleolithic figurativeness (which is difficult to assume due to the lack of any achievements), but by the attitude to their own capabilities. The only thing that can be stated with complete certainty is that the definitions and methods of modern art studies are even less applicable to the monuments of visual activity of the Paleolithic period than to the works of the Paleometallic era.

List of literature

Balonov F. R. Chariots and charioteers in the petroglyphs of Eurasia: semantics from the extrovert's point of view // International Conference on Primitive Art. Kemerovo: SAIPI Publ., 2000, vol. 2, pp. 50-55.

Varenov A.V. Yinskie kolesnitsy [Yin chariots]. Izv. SB RAS. - 1980. - N 1.: Ser. of societies, sciences, issue 1. - pp. 164-169.

Varenov A.V. On the interpretation of rock paintings of chariots of Central Asia. Novosibirsk: IIFF SB of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1983, 5 p. (in Russian)

Varenov A.V. O funktsionalnom prednachenii "modeli yarma" epokhi Yin i Zhou [On the functional purpose of the "yoke models" of the Yin and Zhou eras]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1984, pp. 42-51.

Varenov A.V. Etnokul'turnaya otlichnost', semantika, datirovka "gobiyskoy kvadrigi" [Ethnocultural belonging, semantics, dating of the "Gobi quadriga"]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1990a, pp. 106-112.

Varenov A.V. Reconstruction of the Yin defensive armament and army tactics based on the data of weapons hoards.: Research and problems. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 19906, pp. 56-72.

Gamkrelidze T. V., Ivanov V. V. Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans: reconstruction and historical and typological analysis of proto-language and prakulture. - Tbilisi: Publishing House of the Tbilisi State University, 1984. - Vol. 1/2. - 1328 p.

Gorelik M. V. Boevye kolesnitsy Perednego Vostoka III-II thous. B.C. [Battle chariots of the Fore East of the third-second millennium BC]. Drevnyaya Anatoliya, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985, pp. 183-202.

Grigoriev G. P. Comments to the article by Ya. A. Sher "Disputable issues of studying primitive art" / / Archeology, Ethnography, Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 4 (20). - p. 48-49.

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

page 98

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

Devlet M. A. Sheets of the stone book of Ulugh-Khem. - Kyzyl: Tuvan Publishing House, 1990, 119 p.

Devlet M. A. Petrolyphs on the bottom of the Sayan Sea, Moscow: Monuments of Historical Thought, 1998, 287 p.

Devlet M. A. Stone "compass" in the Sayan canyon of the Yenisei (stone with the image of the "road" at the foot of Mount Ustyu-Mozaga). Moscow: Nauch. mir Publ., 2004, 88 p. (in Russian)

Devlet E., Devlet M. Spiritual culture of the ancient peoples of Northern and Central Asia. The World of petroglyphs / / Russian studies on world history and culture. - N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2000. - 502 p.

Devlet E. G., Devlet M. A. Myths in stone. Mir naskalnogo iskusstva Rossii [The World of Rock Art in Russia], Moscow: Aleteya Publ., 2005, 472 p.

Evsyukov V. V. Mythological image of the chariot-microcosm in philosophical texts of the East and antiquity // Semantic analysis of concepts in historical and philosophical research. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1984, pp. 41-54.

Evsyukov V. V., Komissarov S. A. Kolesnitsy na zemle i v neboakh [Chariots on the earth and in the heavens]. - 1985. - Vol. 14. - p. 79-94.

Zhukov, V. A. and Ranov, V. A., Ancient Chariots in the Pamirs, Pamir, 1974, No. 11, pp. 62-67.

Kadyrbaev M. K., Maryashev A. N. Karatau chariots / / Archaeological research in Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1973, pp. 128-146.

Kadyrbaev M. K., Maryashev A. N. Rock images of the Karatau ridge. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1977, 232 p. (in Russian)

Kozhin P. M. Gobi quadriga / / SA. - 1968. - N 3. - pp. 35-42.

Kozhin P. M. Nekotorye dannye o drevnikh kul'turnykh kontaktakh Kitay s vnutrennymi rayonami Evraziyskogo materika [Some data on ancient cultural contacts of China with the inner regions of the Eurasian continent]: Materials of the Conference, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1977, part 2, p. 241.

Kozhin P. M. K probleme proiskhozhdeniya kolesnogo transporta [On the problem of the origin of wheeled transport]. Drevnyaya Anatoliya, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985, pp. 169-182.

Kozhin P. M. Kolesnichnye zagorety v naskalnom iskusstve Tsentral'noi Azii [Chariot plots in the rock art of Central Asia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1987, pp. 109-125.

Kozhin P. M. Etnokul'turnye kontakty na territorii Evrazii v epokhi eneolita - rannego zheleznogo (paleoculturology i kolesny transport): Avtoref. dis. ... d-ra ist. nauk [Ethnocultural contacts on the territory of Eurasia in the Eneolithic-Early Iron Age (paleoculturology and wheeled transport). Novosibirsk, 1990. - 36 p.

Komissarov S. A. Zhousskiye kolesnitsy (po materialam mogilnika Shangtsunlin) [Zhousskiye chariots (based on the materials of the Shangtsunlin burial ground)]. Izv. SO AN SSSR. - 1980. - N 1: Ser. obshchestv, nauk, issue 1. - pp. 156-163.

Komissarov S. A. Complex of weapons of Ancient China: the Late Bronze Age. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1988, 127 p. (in Russian)

Kubarev V. D. Horses and chariots in petroglyphs of the Mongolian Altai // Antiquities of Altai. Gorno-Altaisk: Gorno-Alt State University Publ., 2004a, pp. 12-26. archeol.; N 12).

Kubarev V. D. Armament of ancient nomads based on the petroglyphs of Altai / / Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 20046. - N 3 (19). - p. 65-81.

Kuzmina E. E. Wheeled vehicles and the issue of ethnic and social history of the ancient population of the southern Russian steppes // WFI. - 1974. - N 4. - p. 68-87.

Kuzmina E. E. Etapy razvitiya kolesnogo transporta Srednoi Azii v epokhu eneolita i bronzy [Stages of development of wheeled transport in Central Asia in the Eneolithic and Bronze Age].

Kuzmina E. E. Where did the Indo-Aryans come from? Material culture of the tribes of the Andronovo community and the origin of Indo-Iranians. - M.: East lit., 1994. - 464 p.

Kuzmina E. E. Novye dannye o rasprostranenii kolesnits v Evrazii i rasselenii indoirantsev [New data on the distribution of chariots in Eurasia and the settlement of Indo-Iranians]. in memory of E. A. Grantovsky, Moscow: Kogelet 2000, pp. 72-75.

Kuzmina E. E. Mifologicheskie predstavleniya o kone v kul'tury indoevropeytsev [Mythological representations of the horse in the culture of Indo-Europeans]. Dmitry Sergeevich Rayevsky. Sofia: Istoriya na kulturata Publ., 2001, pp. 117-134.

Leont'ev N. V. Kolesnyj transport epochy bronzy na Yenisei [Wheel transport of the Bronze Age on the Yenisei]. Abakan: Kn. izd-vo, 1980, pp. 65-84.

Leontiev S. N. New images of Karasuk era chariots from the Khakass-Minusinsk basin // West. SAIPI. 2000, Issue 2, pp. 12-13.

Maryashev A. N., Goryachev A. A. Rock images of Semirechye. - 2nd ed. - Almaty: Fund "XXI century", 2002. - 264 p.

Maryashev A. N., Potapov S. A. Plots with chariots in petroglyphs of Kazakhstan and Central Asia / / Archaeological research in Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata: Kaz State Pedagogical University. university named after him. Abaya Publ., 1992, pp. 15-26.

Nefedkin A. K. Fighting chariots and charioteers of the ancient Greeks (XVI-I centuries BC). - St. Petersburg: Petersburg, vostokovedenie, 2001. - 528 p.

Novgorodova, E. A., The oldest images of chariots in the petroglyphs of Mongolia, SA. - 1978. - N4. - pp. 192-206.

Novgorodova E. A. The World of petroglyphs in Mongolia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1984, 168 p.

Novgorodova E. A. Drevnyaya Mongolia [Ancient Mongolia], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1989, 383 p.

Novozhenov V. A. Wheel transport of the Bronze Age of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes // Questions of archeology of Central and Northern Kazakhstan. - Karaganda: Publishing House of Karaganda State University, 1989. - p. 110-122.

Novozhenov V. A. Rock images of carts of Central and Central Asia (on the problem of migration of the population of steppe Eurasia in the Bronze Age). Almaty: Argumenty i fakty Kazakhstan, 1994, 266 p. (in Russian)

Okladnikov A. P., Okladnikova E. A., Zaporozhskaya V. D., Skorynina E. A. Petroglyphs of the Elangash River Valley (south of Gorny Altai). Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1979, 137 p. (in Russian)

Okladnikova E. A. Kolesnitsy Altay i Kazakhstana (po materialam petroglifov) [Chariots of Altai and Kazakhstan (based on petroglyphs)]. April 1987. - L.: Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1988. - p. 44 ^ 15.

Primeval art (the problem of origin) / Under the general editorship of Ya. A. Sher. Kemerovo: Nikals Publ., 1998, 209 p. (in Russian)

Pyatkin B. N. Kamen s risinikami v urochishche Kizan (hora Oglakhty) [A stone with drawings in the Kizan tract (Oglakhty Mountain)]. Novosibirsk: IIFF SB RAS, 1985, pp. 116-127.

page 99

Pyatkin B. N. Povozka-kolesnsha - "Scythian Ares" (transformation of semantics of motive) / / Problemy arkheologii stepnoy Evrazii: Tez. dokl. - Kemerovo: Kem. gosudarstvennogo un-t, 1987. - pp. 125-127.

Savinov D. G. To the question of the formation of the Okunev fine tradition // Okunevsky collection: Art. Culture. Anthropology. St. Petersburg: Petro-Rif Publ., 1997, pp. 202-212.

Savinov D. G. Image of a four-wheeled cart on a slab from the Yoshino V burial ground // West. SAIPI. - 2002. - Issue 5. - p. 27-30.

Sergeeva M. S. O planovom stile izobrazheniya kolesnits [On the planned style of the image of chariots]. Kemerovo: SAIPI Publ., 2000, vol. 2, pp. 33-38.

Slobodzyan M. B. Naskalnye izobrazheniya kolesnits kak istoricheskiy istochnik [Rock images of chariots as a historical source]. 100th anniversary of the birth of M. P. Gryaznov. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage Museum, 2002a. - Book 1. - p. 227-230.

Slobodzyan M. B. Images of chariots in the Altai petroglyphs (Elangash and Kalbak-Tash-1 localities) // Northern Eurasia in the Bronze Age: Space, Time, Culture. Barnaul: Alt State University Publ., 20026, part 1, pp. 116-119.

Solov'ev A. I. Weapons and armor. Siberian weapons from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages. Novosibirsk: INFOLIO-press, 2003, 224 p. (in Russian)

Filippova E. E. Pogrebalnaya kolesnitsa karasukskogo vremeni [The funeral chariot of the Karasuk time]. Problemy izucheniya naskalnykh izobrazheniya v SSSR [Problems of studying rock images in the USSR], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1990, pp. 166-168.

Frankfort A.-P., Yakobson E. Approaches to the study of petroglyphs of Northern, Central and Central Asia / / Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 2 (18). - p. 53-78.

Khudyakov Yu. S. Boevye chariots in Central Asia in the era of nomadism formation / / Problemy arkheologii stepnoy Evrazii: Tez. dokl. - Kemerovo: Kem. state University, 1987a. - Part 1. - pp. 26-28.

Khudyakov Yu. S. Kereksury i olennye kameny [Kereksurs and olenny stones]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 19876, pp. 136-162.

Khudyakov Yu. S. Fighting chariots in Southern Siberia and Central Asia // Northern Eurasia in the Bronze Age: Space, Time, Culture. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 2002, part 1, pp. 139-141.

Severo-Vostochnoye Priazovye v sisteme evraziyskikh drevnostey (eneolit - bronzovy vek) [North-Eastern Azov region in the system of Eurasian antiquities (Eneolithic-Bronze Age)]. Donetsk: Donets State University, 1996, pp. 126-128.

Problems of Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Siberia and Adjacent Territories: Materials of the Annual Session of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2003, Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 2003, vol. 9, part 1, pp. 516-520.

Cheremisin D. V. Issledovanie petroglyphov Yugo-Vostochnogo Altay v 2005 g. [Research of petroglyphs of the South-Eastern Altai in 2005] / / Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: Mat-ly Godovoi sessii Inta arkheologii i etnografii SB RAS, 2005-Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 2005. - Vol. 11, ch. 1. - 0 485^188.

Cheremisin D. V., Borisova O. V. Kolesny transport v naskalnykh izobrazheniyakh Sin'tszyana i Vnutrennoi Mongolia [Wheel transport in rock images of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia]. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University Publ., 1999, Issue 2: Horizons of Eurasia, pp. 129-135.

Zhang Zhiyao. Rock carvings of ancient carts discovered in the Altai in Xinjiang / / Art of rock carvings on the silk road. - 1993. - N 2. - C. 313-323. (in Chinese).

Sher Ya. A. On the interpretation of the plots of some Saimala-Tasha petroglyphs / / Culture of the East: Antiquity and Early Middle Ages. - L.: Aurora, 1978. - p. 163-171.

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

Sher Ya. A. Primeval art: facts, hypotheses, methods and theory // Archeology, Ethnography, and anthropology of Eurasia. - 2000. - N 2 (2). - p. 77-87.

Sher Ya. A. Disputable issues of studying primitive art / / Archeology, Ethnography, Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 2 (18). - p. 36-52.

E. Jacobson. K voprosu ob informativnosti petroglyphicheskikh i pogrebal'nykh pamyatnikov epokhi bronzy [On the informative value of petroglyphic and funeral monuments of the Bronze Age]. - 2002. - N3 (11). - p. 32-47.

Anati E. Felskunst im Negev und aus Sinai. - Milano: Gustav Eiibbe Verlag, 1981. - 99 S.

Francfort H. - P. Art rupestre et tombes gelees // Dossiers d'archeologie. - 1996. - N212. - P. 2 - 9.

Francfort H. - P. Central Asian petroglyphs: between Indo-Iranian and shamanistic interpretations // The Archaeology of Rock-Art. - Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998. - P. 302 - 318.

Francfort H. - P. Images du char en Eurasie orientale des origines a la fin du I-er millenaire av. J. - C. // Первобытная археология. Chelovek i iskusstvo: Sb. nauch. trudov, prov. to the 70th anniversary of the birth of YAA. Shera. Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 2002, pp. 80-89.

Jacobson E., Kubarev V., Tseevendorj D. Repertoire des petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale. - P.: Diffusion de Boccard, 2001. - T. 5, fasc. 6: Mongolie du nord-ouest. Tsagaan-Salaa/Baga Oigor. - 132 p., 346 taf, 399 photogr.

Kubarev V.D., Jacobson E. Siberie du sud 3: Kalbak-TashI (Republique de l'Altai) // Repertoire des petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale. - P.: Diffusion de Boccard, 1996. - T. 5, fasc. 3. - 45 p. + 665 fig.

Kuz'mina E.E. Horses, chariots, and the indo-Iranians: an archaeological spark in the historical dark // South Asian Archaeology 1993. - Helsinki: Soumalainen Tiedekatemia, 1994. - T.l. - P. 403^112. - (AnnalesAcademiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Ser B, vol. 271).

Kuz'mina E.E. Charioteer-warriors in the Bronze Age in East Europe // Vlth International Meeting of European Associations of Archaeologists. - Pisbon, 2000. - P. 151 - 152.

Littauer M. A. Rock Carvings of Chariots in Transcaucasia, Central Asia and Outer Mongolia // Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. - 1977. - N43. - P. 242 - 262.

Ranov V. Petroglyphs of Tajikistan // K. Tashbaeva, M. Hujanazarov, V. Ranov, Z. Samashev. Petroglyphs of Central Asia. - Bishkek: Inrernational Institute for Central Asian Studies, 2001. - P. 122 - 150.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 12.06.06.

page 100

Permanent link to this publication: