CC BY
51
Оригинальная статья / Original article УДК 904
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21285/2415-8739-2021-1-90-109
About the new classification of deer stones
© Dimaadjav Erdenebaatar
Ulaanbaatar State University, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Abstract: The researchers have reached a consensus that the deer stones left by the owners of khirigsuur and deer stone culture during the Bronze Age on the territory of Mongolia were erected in dedication for human in terms of purpose. However, no consensus has been reached to date among researchers in terms of dating and classification. In this article, I propose a new postulation to classify the deer stones into two categories, including the deer stones dedicated for men and the deer stones dedicated to women. Previous researchers have often classified deer stone statues based on differences in appearance, but in this article when writing about the deer stone statue clearly shows to me the gender differences of the person to whom it is dedicated. Some researchers believe that the depictions on the stone statues of deer stones are not based on gender differences, but on facial expressions, necklaces, belts, images, weapons, deer, moose, ungulates and wild animal predators. However, some scientists do not equate to the statues of deer stones statues stone women and consider them subhuman statues image. Although some researchers have classified deer stones the same type of classification as previous researchers, some forms were considered subclasses within the main classification. This is because the subclass considers other additional images depicted on the deer statues as a special class. Deer stones are one of the most interesting and still largely mysterious types of archaeological sites that have become a kind of symbol of the ancient culture of Mongolia and Central Asia. Deer stones are located on the territory of Mongolia and a large region of Altai Mountain and Khangai Mountain, also Mountain Sayan-Altai, Tuva and Transbaikalia. These archaeological cultures Deer stones with khirigsuur have a number of characteristic natural features, which largely determined the paths of the historical development of its population and that special role in world history.
Keywords: Deer stone, khirigsuur, bronze weapon, classification, purpose of utilization, man, woman, rank, worship rite, sacrifice, funeral sacrificial rite
For citation: Erdenebaatar D. (2021) About the new classification of deer stones. Izvestiya Laboratorii drevnikh tekhnologii = Reports of the Laboratory of Ancient Technologies. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 90-109. https://doi.org/10.21285/2415-8739-2021-1-90-109
Аннотация: Исследователи пришли к единому мнению, что оленьи камни, оставленные представителями культуры херексуров и оленных камней в эпоху бронзы на территории Монголии, с точки зрения предназначения, посвящались человеку. Однако до настоящего времени среди исследователей не было достигнуто единого мнения в отношении их датировки и классификации. В этой статье я предлагаю новый подход, классифицируя оленные камни по двум категориям, включающим камни, предназначенные для мужчин, и камни, предназначенные для женщин. Предыдущие исследователи часто классифицировали изображения оленнных камней на основе различий во внешнем виде, но в этой статье при описании изображений оленных камней обращается внимание на их гендерные различия, указывающие на то, кому были посвящены эти изваяния. Некоторые исследователи считают, что различия изображений на оленных камнях основаны не на гендерных признаках, а на мимике, ожерельях, поясах, изображениях оружия, оленей, лосей, копытных и диких животных-хищников. Однако ряд ученых не считает оленными камнями каменные изваяния женщин и относят их к нечеловеческим изображениям. Хотя некоторые ученые классифицировали оленные камни по тому же принципу, что и предыдущие исследователи, некоторые их формы рассматривались ими как подклассы в рамках ос-
О новой классификации оленных камней
© Д. Эрдэнэбаатар
Улан-Баторский государственный университет, г. Улан-Батор, Монголия
новной классификации. Это связано с тем, что подкласс рассматривает другие дополнительные элементы, изображенные на оленных камнях, как особый класс. Оленьи камни - один из самых интересных и до сих пор во многом загадочных видов археологических памятников, ставших своеобразным символом древней культуры Монголии и Центральной Азии. Археологическая культура оленных камней и херексуров имеет ряд характерных природных особенностей, которые во многом определили пути исторического развития его населения и ту особую роль, которую оно играло в мировой истории.
Ключевые слова: оленный камень, херексур, бронзовое оружие, классификация, функциональное назначение, мужчина, женщина, ранг, культовый обряд, жертвоприношение, погребальный жертвенный обряд
Для цитирования: Эрдэнэбаатар Д. О новой классификации оленных камней // Известия Лаборатории древних технологий. 2021. Т. 17. № 1. С. 90-109. https://doi.org/10.21285/2415-8739-2021-l-90-109
The are major forms of Bronze Age archaeological monuments found in Mongolia khirigsuur stone mounds, and deer stone stelae. The major type of archaeological site of the Mongolian Bronze Age is a type of stone stele known as a deer stone. The stelae are prepared with four distinct sides oriented in cardinal directions when the stone is erected. Images on the deer stones are carefully carved into the rock surface, presumably with metal tools, and there is no evidence for the use of either mineral or organic colorants. Deer stones were made from a variety of different stone materials, some of which were locally obtained and others which were transported from external quarry sites. The height of these standing stones ranges from 1.8 to 2.5 m above the contemporary surface, and are on average 0.3-0.6 m in width. Stylistically, the deer stones can be divided into three horizontal bands. Each of these three sections contains a different set of images for which researchers have offered a variety of interpretations. In general, the uppermost section usually contains a circular outline and occasionally a full-figured face would have been carved into the stone adjacent to the circle. Therefore, deer stones are interpreted as anthropomorphic monuments. The circular image has been viewed as a earring and of ear decoration. When faces occur on deer stones they are invariably oriented to the east, while the north and south sides of the stone receive the circular images, reinforcing the earring interpretation.
The carvings in the central band include sets ofhighly stylized deer, shield-shaped images, and depictions of re-curved bows. These depictions can
occur on any side of the deer stone and may also occur on all sides simultaneously within the central band. The images of deer appear in groups with three or more animals depicted. The deer image is very complex and consists of an animal while the muzzle of the deer is elongated, such that it somewhat resembles the beak of a bird. Based on the position of the deer, some researchers suggest that the image is oriented towards the sky, which in Inner Asian cosmology has long been regarded as the symbol of a powerful deity. The shield images most commonly consist of a pentagon shape containing chevrons pointed upward and occasionally a small circle located approximately in the middle of the pentagon. The re-curved bow image references a hunting implement and weapon used throughout Mongolian history and is known to be widely distributed across Inner Asia.
The third and lowermost section of a deer stone stele usually contains images of a wide variety of weapons with what has been interpreted as a decorated belt encircling the stone. The images are thought to represent weapons including knives, daggers, swords, axes, and battle picks. Other images commonly occurring inthis lower section have3 yet to be interpreted, but are still thought to represent tools or weapons. These images usually occur on a single side of the stone, or more often on oppsite sides of the stone, suggesting to some researches that they hang on the right and left sides of an anthropomorphic figure. The decorated band encircling the stone is interpreted as a belt from which these weapons are suspended. The "belt" bands appear in either thick or thin strips and are
often decorated with patterned hatch marks. In summation, these pictorial elements taken as a whole suggest to Mongolian and Russian researchers that the deer stone is a representation of an armed individual and most likely one having some social distinction in local society. The images of the deer are understood to represent tattoos on the body of this individual, similar to those preserved on bodies excavated from Pazyryk type kurgans in the Russian Altai. (Fig. 1) (Novgorodova, 1989. P. 181).
The chronology of deer stone stelae is based mainly upon the style of the weapons depicted, since these can be recognized as artifacts actually found in dated burial assemblages. Though controversy still exists over the dates for these monuments, most researchers now agree that the period of their production probably falls between the fifteenth and fifth centuries BCE. The excavations of the Arzhan kurgan in Tuva, which contained fragments of deer stones in and among the kurgan rock fill, support these dates. There remains some question as to whether thee deer stone fragments were originally
placed on top of the kurgan or whether they were used as construction material. However, assuming the period of 1000 to 800 BCE, based on several radiocarbon dates for the Arzhan site. Deer stones are distributed across Mongolia province of Khentii in the east to the farthest western Mongolia and Russian Altay mountain, to the Tuva, in China of the province Xinjiang.
Deer stones, archeological monuments widely spread throughout Mongolia serve as one of the vital historical resources to study and clarify the ancient history of Mongolia. Deer stones date from mid Bronze Age and are historical resource that were formed within the culture of the same ethnicity within the scope of the same historical period as the khirigsuur monuments.
Archeologically, this historical resource was thoroughly studied by Mongolian and foreign archeologists from many aspects. The researchers who have focused on deer stone study, proposed their hypothesis on dating of deer stones and delivered their significant research works on its
Fig. 1. Distribution of deer stones of types 1,2 and 3 in Eurasia (by Novgorodova, 1989) Рис. 1. Распространение оленных камней 1,2 и 3 типов в Евразии (Новгородова, 1989)
function and form to date are (Okladnikov, 1954; Chlenova, 1962; Chlenova, 1984. P. 56-57; Mannai-Ool, 1968. P. 139-145; Kyzlasov, 1978; Tseveen-dorzh, 1979; Volkov, 1981. P. 99-122; Khudyakov, 1987. P. 150-154; Novgorodova, 1989. P. 173-201; Savinov, 1994. P. 70-84; Tivanenko, 1995; Kovalev, 2001; Bayarsaikhan, 2017. 71-193-р тал). These researchers are main representatives of many other researchers who have conducted studies on deer stones to a certain extent and I state their names for they have acknowledged a common view on the forms, classification and dating of deer stones located in the territory of Mongolia with less dispute.
For I have conducted my studies focusing on the culture of khirigsuur and deer stones for over 30 years and the hypotheses and research resources on deer stone styles, classifications and relating dating to these classifications by researchers are highly varied, I aimed to explicate the results of my study on the forms and classification of deer stones.
The first researchers who correlated the deer stones with the khirigsuur and slab burial monuments from Bronze Age Mongolia are Russian scholars of (Khudyakov, 1987; Kovalev, 1986). These two researchers, almost concurrently, proposed their postulation that the deer stones are coeval archeological sources in line with other archeological finds dating from Bronze Age, which became the core factor to focus the study of this field into the proper direction. Following the results of my archeological studies in the Egiin gol River basin in Khutag-Undur soum, Bulgan province since 1990s and the preliminary outcomes of my compound study on khirigsuurs and deer stones - main historical monuments from Bronze Age in the provinces of Khovd, Khuvsgul and Arkhangai in 2000s, I had proposed that the monuments of Deer stones and khirigsuurs are coeval archeological sources made by people of the same ethnicity within the same period of time in the same age, emphasizing the postulation by Yu.S.Khudyakov and basing on the similarities of the funerary rite performed at the interment complex surrounding the deer stones and those at the interment complex in the eastern and southern sides of the khirigsuur
(Erdenebaatar, 2002; Erdenebaatar, Kovalev, 2003; Allard, Erdenebaatar, 2005. P. 75-80; Erdenebaatar, 2007).
Furthermore, I propose a different type of classification than the classifications by external styles by other researchers. To date, there hasn't been any different approach than the classification by Russian researcher V.V.Volkov, that divided the deer stones into three main categories, including
1. typology of General Eurasian deer stones (without zoomorphic depiction),
2. typology Sayan-Altai deer stones (displaying animals in realistic natural rendition),
3. typology Mongol-Baikal Deer stones (Volkov, 1981. P. 102). Russian researcher E.A.Novgorodova, in her work 'Ancient Mongolia' published in 1989, had classified the deer stones, where the third style by V.V.Volkov was listed as 1st, the 1st as 3rd and the 2nd as 2nd (Fig. 2) (Novgorodova, 1989. P. 173180), while there hasn't been any other attempt to classify the deer stones from a different point of view. Mongolian researcher J.Bayarsaikhan proposed to classify the deer stones into four categories, yet there wasn't much difference in terms of principle. His classification listed 1. Deer stones with stylized deer renditions, 2. Deer stones with realistic animal renditions, 3. Deer stones with mixed (realistic and natural) renditions and 4. Deer stones without animal renditions (Bayarsaikhan, 2017. 71-200-p Ta^fl), which doesn't display much difference or change from V.V.Volkov's classification. Another researcher, who expanded the classification of V.V.Volkov is Russian researcher D.G.Savinov. Russian archaeologist Savinov made the following classification. 1. Deer stones with stylized images of deer. 2. Deer stones with "realistic" images of animals. 3. Deer stones no images of animals, without depictions of animals. He divided the Mongolian-Baikal deer stones into four sub-classes, the Sayan-Altai deer stones into two sub-classes, while Eurasian style deer stones without sub-classes (Savinov, 1994. P. 70-83). Yet he categorized the deer stones discovered in Eurasia and Mongolia in terms of rendition styles as 'A group deer stones with mixed animal renditions', 'A group of deer stones
МОНГОЛИЯ \ ЗАБАЙКАЛЬЕ ТУВА АЛТАЯ БАШКИРИЯ
Fig. 2. Old typology of deer stones (by Novgorodova, 1989) Рис. 2. Старая типология оленных камней (Новгородова, 1989)
with dagger and horse depiction', 'A group of deer stones in Kazakhstan, Middle Asia and Ural', 'A group of deer stones in northern Caucasia', 'A group of deer stones in western Europe', 'A group of deer stones with animal face imagery, 'A group of deer stones with human face imagery', and 'A group of deer stones with a parallel lines on the facade' (Savinov, 1994. P. 94-194).
All these researchers have reached the same conclusion that these styles of Deer stones are archeological monuments that were formed in different periods of time. Moreover, the Eurasian
deer stones dare from earliest period of time, while the rest date to later period of time.
The excavation of our Mongolian-Russian joint archeological field expedition in 2006 at an interment with deer stones in Surtiin Tal in Burentogtokh soum, Khuvsgul province, unearthed 3 forms of deer stones in the same cultural layer in the same internment (Fig. 3), (Fig. 4), (Fig. 5), (Fig. 5A), (Fig. 6), (Fig. 7), (Fig. 8). The result of this excavation urged to reconsider the hypothesis by previous researchers that the above-mentioned classifications of deer stones date to different period of time.
Fig. 3. Excavations at the site of the Serte in province Khovsugol Рис. 3. Раскопки местонахождения Серт в Хубсугульском аймаке
Fig. 4. From the excavation of Serte, found the first deer stones Рис. 4. Первый оленный камень из раскопок на местонахождении Серт
Fig. 6. From the excavation of Serte found the 3rd deer stone Рис. 6. Третий оленный камень из раскопок на местонахождении Серт
Fig. 7. From the excavation of Serte found the 4th deer stones
Рис. 7. Четвертый оленный камень из раскопок на местонахождении Серт
Fig. 8. From the excavation of Serte found the 5th deer stones
Рис. 8. Пятый оленный камень из раскопок на местонахождении Сeрт
Mongolian-Japanese joint archeological field expedition team and the Mongolian-Russian joint field expedition team conducted excavations at Deer stone-khirigsuur complex at Uushgiin Ulaan site in Tuya bagh, Burentogtokh soum, Khuvsgul province in 2002-2013, which deepened the demand on precise study and accurate explication of the archeological resources.
It's definite that Deer stones are monuments erected in honor of someone from that period of time. Consequently, it's certain that the size, style and illustrations of each deer stone are distinct in accordance with the personage dedicated. Observing the research resources we've collected to date, it's potential to classify the deer stones into two main categories, one dedicated for men and the other, dedicated for women. In particular, it can be considered that the typology of "Mongolian-Baikal" deer stones and typology of "Sayan-Altai" deer stones, as referred 3rd-4th categories by above-mentioned researchers, are dedicated for men (Fig. 9), (Fig. 10) and the typology of "Eurasian" deer stones are dedicated for women. (Fig. 11), (Fig. 12).
The deer stones erected for men employ fewer renditions of deer and other animals, as well as definite depictions of face, headdress, crown, earrings as well as warrior's regular implements such as belt and weapons suspended from the belt, including bow, arrow, quiver, dagger, sword and shield. The deer stones dedicated for women, mostly smaller in size, mainly display one, two, three or four diagonal slashes on the face, headdress, necklace, pendent talisman, narrow belt and a knife suspended from the belt as well as renditions of horse, livestock or an animal. It's certain to question to whom were dedicated particular deer stones that are of larger size and display both weaponry and deer renditions as well as parallel diagonal slashes on their faces? The history and traditions of Mongolia provide abundant resources that in the distant past, women were involved in military and war traditions actively and equally in the early nomadic societies engaged in pastoral livestock husbandry and hunting. Accordingly, it's potential to consider that deer stones of larger size and renditions of deer and
parallel or triple diagonal slashes on the stone faces were erected in dedication to women. The deer stones erected in dedication to women can measure from 5cm (Bayarsaikhan, 2017. 189-200-р тал) to 2.7 meters in height. These one, two, three or four diagonal slashes on the face of deer stones dedicated to women represent the tattoos on the symbolic face, indicating which wife in number she was. D.Bayar, Mongolian prominent archeologist, once stated in his research article that these diagonal slashes on deer stones are the tattoos on the faces of women in the distant past (Bayar, 1995). In his treatise, he stated the diagonal slashes are the facial tattoos of women of that time, yet there was no mentioning about the woman's status as which wife of the husband. It's evident that these diagonal slashes in different numbers engraved on the facade of deer stones serve as a sign of her marriage as well as indication of her status as which wife she was of her husband.
All the deer stones images recorded by us on the Russian East Altai deer stones can be conditionally divided into eight groups:
1. Drawings of signs of sacral and magical meaning, which are most often applied to the upper face of the stones.
2. Images of different types of ringed earrings, embossed on the sides in.
3. The main types of images of necklaces, torques and tiaras.
4. Images of belts.
5. Drawings weapons (daggers, axes and battle-axes), located mainly in the statues, deer stones Belt.
6. Arms Figures (quivers, bow and arrow case) carried out under the belts on the sides of the stones.
7. Images of deer and horses, applied both on the front and on the sides of the stones.
8. Drawings of various animals (predators, goats, etc.), located mainly on the sides of the stones (Kubarev, 1979. P. 42-43).
There are researchers, who have explained the three diagonal slashes on the facade of deer stone from a different point of view. For instance, Russian scholar D.V.Kubarev stated that '...these three lines
Fig. 9. Deer stones for a man in archaeological site Uushgiin Ulaan, of the Huvsgol province Рис. 9. Оленный камень для мужчин с местонахождения Уушгийн Улаан Хубсугульского
аймака
Fig. 10. Deer stones for a man in archaeological site Jargalantiin am, of the Arkhangai province Рис. 10. Оленный камень для мужчин с местонахождения Жаргалантын Архангайского
Fig. 11. Deer stones for a woman in archaeological site Bayanzzurkh, of the Hovd province Рис. 11. Оленный камень для женщин с местонахождения Баянзурх Ховдского аймака
аймака
Fig. 12. Deer stones for a woman in archaeological site Bayanzurkh, of the Hovd province Рис. 12. Оленный камень для женщин с местонахождения Баянзурх Ховдского аймака
represent the nose and eyes of the owner' and explained that 'it can be a symbol of the earth, sky and human being' on the basis of particular Chinese mythology and resources...' (Kubarev, 1979. P. 4243). If to consider these explications accurate, there raises a question 'What do the one, two or four diagonal slashes symbolize?' Accordingly, the postulation I propose is that these slanting lines are a mark that indicates which wife of her husband she was in her marriage, which seems to be more rational.
Scythian for tomb stones "human stone" are well known and differ in a number of features that exclude their genetic connection with deer stones. This issue has already been specially considered where it was shown that statues of the " human stone" type differ from statues of the type of deer stones: on the Scythian statues the front face is wide, and on the deer stones it is narrow, the sets of depicted details and objects are different. In the Scythian "human stone" the head is sculpturally highlighted, the face, mustache, hands, shoulder blades are depicted. they are anthropomorphic, and deer stones have none of this. Maybe the deer stones without signs of anthropomorphism are just the ancestors of the Scythian "stone women"? Maybe in the 7th century BC. they simply did not know how to depict a human face and hands, and in the 6th century BC. have already learned? The history of art testifies that people knew how to depict the human face of the hand for many hundreds of years before the 7th century BC (Chlenova, 1984. P. 56-57).
Mongolian-Russian joint archeological field expedition team of 'Central Asian Archeology' project conducted an excavation in 2001 at a Deer stone-khirigsuur complex surrounded by a circular fence in Bort bag, Munkhkhairkhan soum, Khovd province, which employed an interment with a deer stone dedicated to a woman. As a result of the excavation, we discovered a deer stone buried in personification inside a stone chest in the center of this round-fenced khirigsuur (Fig. 13), (Fig. 14), (Fig. 15), (Fig. 15A), (Fig. 16), (Fig. 16A), (Fig. 17).
(Erdenebaatar, Kovalev, 2001. T. 15-35)1, where merely a femur was left due to looting in the distant past. Consequently, it's evident that the owners of Deer stone-khirigsuur culture exercised their specific norms of practicing the burial and interment structures or men and for women separately. The dispersal and quantity of archeological monuments of Deer stone-khirigsuur complexes demonstrate that the core of Deer stone-khirigsuur culture was located in the region of Khangai mountain range in the territory of modern-day Mongolia. It's a fallacy that most of Russian scholars entitle the Deer stone culture as 'Scythian culture' and consider as the culture of the people who migrated to Mongolia from the west. It's necessary to take into consideration that over 80 per cent of the total deer stones discovered to date in the regions of Eurasia are found on the territory of modern-day Mongolia. Accordingly, there is no basis to consider that the Deer stone-khirigsuur culture is an archeological monument left by 'nomads who migrated' somewhere else. It's a priority for us to comprehend our history as the bearer of our history and to explicate the archeological monuments and historical resources found on the territory of Mongolia on the basis of our history and ethnographic culture.
In 2006, Expedition team of the Russian-Mongolian joint project "Central Asian Archaeology" headed by A.A.Kovalev and D.Erdenebaatar examined a ritual and funeral complex at Sortiin hondii (Valley of the Sort) in Burentogtokh soum, Khuvsgul province, As a result of our excavation's at the interment complex with Deer stones site in Sortiin hondii it was certain that the interment complex established by the owners of Deer stone-khirigsuur culture was dedicated for women because
1 Erdenebaatar D., Kovalev AA Report of the 2001 field study of the Mongolian-Russian joint project "Archeology of Central Asia". UB., 2001. Institute of History of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Department of Archeology, Ulaanbaatar University. Эрдэнэбаатар Д., Ковалев А.А. Монгол-Оросын хамтарсан "Тев Азийн археологи" теслийн археологийн шинжилгээний ангийн 2001 оны хээрийн судалгааны ажлын тайлан. УБ., 2001 он. ШУА-ийн ТYYXийн XYPээлэн, Улаанбаатарын Их Сургуулийн Археологийн тэнхэм.
1-p зураг
Fig. 13. The excavation khirigsuure archaeological site of Har govi, of the Hovd province Рис. 13. Раскопки хересура на местонахождении Хар говь Ховдского аймака
all the four deer stones found in this site employed diagonal slashes on their faces (Fig. 3), (Fig. 4), (Fig. 5), (Fig. 6. Figure of the Bayarsaikhan), (Fig. 7), (Fig. 8), (Fig. 9).
Eastward of this site, a Deer stone-khirigsuur complex located at the eastern foot of Uushgiin Ulaan mountain is evidently an interment complex for men. Four deer stones that were erected in this
complex employed all the three forms of 'Mongolian-Baikal', 'Sayan-Altai' and 'Eurasian' styles as of early classification, yet all the deer stones displayed diagonal slashes on their faces, which were specifically erected in dedication to women.
In 1999-2006, the Mongolian-Japanese Expedition headed by D.Erdenebaatar, Shu Takahama, and Toshio Hayashi, examined the site.
Fig. 14. From the excavation of Har govi, found the first deer stones Рис. 14. Первый оленный камень, раскопанный на местонахождении Хар говь
Fig. 15. From the excavation of Har govi, found the 2nd deer stone Рис. 15. Второй оленный камень, раскопанный на местонахождении Хар говь
Fig. 15A. From the excavation of Har govi 2nd deer stone drawing figure Рис. 15А. Рисунок на втором оленном камне, раскопанном на местонахождении Хар говь
л
<D
о
tu
a
¡3
*
3
3
X
IU
3 a s
^ S
a 1С iS X
¡3 о £
и
To IU
<u §
с s О X
§
IU о
X
■e X
о
С с
fo о
*
'S и
о в
a а
^ IS X ъ X 1 *
с §
о
¡3 X
X
¡3 IU
§
IU §
■c IU
л
s £
12 IU %
LU £
< в
VQ X
*
о X
£ ^
и
3
а
<
ю
ч
о
3
а
<u
IS
fo
<u £
T3
с
£
'S
0 a
1 *
hS §
e
I
IU -C
s
£ vo
С
¡3
x
>3
3
X X ¡3
с
5 ^
* to
^ о
6 £
ё 3
§ 3
Q X
X <U
5S ^
9 S
3
a
1' со
\ \
3 3
х
<и "га
J = §
о £
<л ¡5
3
"S >3
i i
£ о
& с
5г О
5 *
а: й
о
с J
.О I
§ I
£ '3 й)
^ о
J,- * £
■о
X *
I §
* 1 * $
Ш £
о 3
а
u S
•£ £
15 s
Isi
о. e
"i3 о
™ la
2 §
* I £ £
e £
S *
JS e
3 §
* i
3 I
£ §
к i
e <o i
I? 3
° S
° S
iu x
¡3 о
-с £
Й С
S iu
IK §
a о
§ *
а о
та в
■S &
§ §
« 3
ь *
e с
¡5 §
<u u
Jg s
cn 4
Stele 1 Л
DS 21 ф) Catacomb 5
DS 20 (Щ
■:s m
iS 87;
DS19(13)4^
.......JS 102} Эе,е3 ;Q
4.....X ЦБ 18 (12>---"'
S 101 ;'S 103'; I
4.....iS 44
О Pit for DS 67*f '•■.... Pit (str. 2) (str. 5^.* • '■/ ^
Pit for DS 7* Ши
■ (06pit 2)-> JH
■
Stele 4
%.......•,S74 ;.......jê 67; ¿ eg'';
i S 79 '••;... / ';-...•>.....-V /'.......i
.....$7-,'"-\S 72 / : S 62 Г" ;S 41
S 110;
jl-.....
.......... ;S 58.
«s 1 iVt '".....
^ataçornb 1
icomB"?
S 115
S 112
Stele 12 Stele 13i Stele 14'
Stele 11
Steie 19 Д Stele 20 Д Stele 21 Д
Platform 3
itele 15« DS 16 (I
sii3:
DS 17 (4) Stele 6 a. Stele 7\ Stele 8 _
Fig. 19A. The excavation khirigsuure archaeological site of Uushgiin Ulaan, drawing figure of the Huvsgol province Рис. 19А. Раскопки херексура на местонахождении Уушгийн Улаан Хубсугульского аймака,
план расположения конструкций
A detailed topographic map of the site was made (Fig. 18) The expedition excavated one large khereksur (Kh-1) located to the north of the deer stones, a burial-mound with a circular enclosure to the east of the stones (kh-12), and several other burial and ritual structures, including stone constructions concentrated in a small area near deer stones 4 and 7. New drawings of the fringe of the khereksur and showing some of those attributes such as an "earring" and a beveled upper facet, supports, as the authors believe, the idea that those structures are contemporaneous with the deer stones. In addition, four radiocarbon dates were obtained for animal-bones from the studied ritual structures accompanying the khereksure and deer stones. All the dates (after calibration) fall within the range of the 13th to 9th centuries BC (Takahama Shu, 2010. P. 127).
In 2013, the International Central-Asian Expedition headed by A.A.Kovalev and
References
Allard F., Erdenebaatar D. (2005) Khirigsuurs, ritual and mobility in the Bronze Age Mongolia: ANTIQUTY. Vol. 79. P. 70-83. (In Engl.)
Bayar D. (1955) About some deer statues newly discovered in Mongol Altai. Arkheologiin sudlal = Archaeological Research. Ulan-Bator. Vol. XV. Fasc. 15. (In Mong.)
Bayarsaikhan Zh. (2017) Deer statue in northern Mongolia. Ulan-Bator: Interpress. 323 p. (In Mong.)
Volkov V.V. (1981) Deer stones of Mongolia. Ulan-Bator. 254 p. (In Russ.)
Kovalev A.A. (1986) About the "culture of deer stones". Istoriya i kul'tura Vostochnoi i Yugo-Vostochnoi Azii = History and culture of East and Southeast Asia. Moscow. Pt. 1. P. 51-56. (In Russ.)
Kovalev A.A. (2001) About the origin of the deer stone culture. Evraziya skvoz' veka = Eurasia through the ages. St. Petersburg. P. 160-166. (In Russ.)
Kubarev V.D. (1979) Ancient sculptures of Altai (deer stones). Novosibirsk. 120 p. (In Russ.)
Kyzlasov L.R. (1978) To the study of deer stones and menhirs. KSIA = Brief Reports of the Institute of Archeology. No. 154. P. 25-30. (In Russ.)
Mannai-Ool M.Kh. (1968) Deer stones of Tuva. Uchenye zapiski Tuv = Scientific Notes of Tuva. Kyzyl: NIIYaLI. Iss. XIII. P. 138-149. (In Russ.)
D.Erdenebaatar conducted large-scale excavations at Uushigiin Uvur in order to understand the spatial arrangement and construction-history of the ritual complex. During excavations, the central area of the so-called western row of the deer stones was examined. The excavation was arranged so as to encompass all the structures nesr Deer stones 5 and 10 preserved in situ (their arrangement is shown in Fig. 19 and Fig. 19A), not only the area of the highest concentration of the stone constructions. The maximum north-to-south and west-to-east widths of the excavated area are 75 m and 55 m respectively (Kovalev et al., 2016).
We excavated deer stones and khereksuurs at three complex archaeological sites, these three complexes, of the Uushgiin uvur archaeological monument was for men, two archaeological site Sort of the province Huvsugul and archaeological site Har govi of the province Hovd deer stone and khirigsuur complex were for women.
Библиографический список
Allard F., Erdenebaatar D. Khirigsuurs, ritual and mobility in the Bronze Age Mongolia // ANTIQUTY. 2005. Vol. 79. Pp. 70-83.
Баяр Д. Монгол Алтайд шинээр олдсон зарим бу-ган хешеений тухай // Археологийн судлал. Tom. XY, Fasc. 15. УБ., 1995.
Баярсайхан Ж. Монголын умард нутгийн буган хешеед. УБ.: Интерпресс, 2017. 323 т.
Волков В.В. Оленные камни Монголии. Улан-Батор, 1981. 254 с.
Ковалев А.А. О «культуре оленных камней» // История и культура Восточной и Юго-Восточной Азии. Москва, 1986. Ч. 1. С. 51-56.
Ковалев А.А. О происхождении культуры оленных камней // Евразия сквозь века. СПб., 2001. С. 160-166.
Кубарев В.Д. Древние изваяния Алтая (оленные камни). Новосибирск, 1979. 120 с.
Кызласов Л.Р. К изучению оленных камней и менгиров // КСИА. 1978. № 154. С. 25-30.
Маннай-Оол М.Х. Оленные камни Тувы // Учёные записки Тув. НИИЯЛИ, Вып. XIII. Кызыл, 1968. С. 138-149.
Novgorodova E.A. (1989) Ancient Mongolia (Some problems of chronology and ethnocultural history). Moscow: GRVL. 384 p. (In Russ.)
Okladnikov A.P. (1954) Deer stone from the Ivolga river. Sovetskaya arkheologiya = Soviet Archaeology. No. XIX. P. 207-220. (In Russ.)
Savinov D.G. (1994) Deer stones in the culture of the nomads of Eurasia St. Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg State University. 208 p. (In Russ.)
Tivanenko A.V. (1995) Deer stones of Transbaikalia. Kul'tury i pamyatniki bronzovogo i rannego zheleznogo vekov Zabaikal'ya i Mongolii = Cultures and sites of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Transbaikalia and Mongolia. Ulan-Ude. P. 102-111. (In Russ.)
Khudyakov Yu.S. (1987) Khereksurs and deer stones. Arkheologiya, etnografiya i antropologiya Mongolii = Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Mongolia. Novosibirsk. P. 136-162. (In Russ.)
Tseveendorzh D. (1979) Some deer stone statues found in Mongolia. Arkheologiin sudlal = Archaeological research. Ulaanbaatar. Vol. VII. Fasc. 13. P. 36-75. (In Mong.)
Chlenova N.L. (1962) Deer stones of Mongolia and Siberia. Mongol'skii arkheologicheskii sbornik = Mongolian Archaeological Collection. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR. P. 27-35. (In Russ.)
Chlenova N.L. (1984) Deer stones as a historical source (on the example of the deer stones of the North Caucasus. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 100 p. (In Russ.)
Erdenebaatar D. (2002) Mongolian square tombs and khirigsuur culture. Ulaanbaatar: Soembo printing. 275 p. (In Mong.)
Erdenebaatar D., Kovalev A.A. (2003) Connecting a stone statue of a deer and a deer. Ugsaatan sudlal [Ethnology]. Vol. XV. Fasc. 16. (In Mong.)
Erdenebaatar D. (2007) Funeral and Sacrifice Ritual of the Horse in the Bronze Age of Mongolia. Etnografiya i arkheologiya Severnoi Evrazii: Teoriya, metodologiya i praktika issledovaniya = Ethnography and Archeology of Northern Eurasia: Theory, Methodology and Practice of Research. Irkutsk. P. 201-208. (In Russ.)
Kovalev A.A., Erdenebaatar D. and Rukavishnikova I.V. (2016) A ritual complex with deer stones at Uushigiin Uvur, Mongolia: composition and construction stages (Based on the 2013 Excavations). Arkheologiya, etnografiya i antropologiya Evrazii = Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. Vol. 44. No. 1. P. 82-92. (In Russ.)
Takahama Shu. (2010) Research of Ulaan uushig I (Uushigiin ovor) in Mongolia and newly acquired 14C data. Drevnie kul'tury Mongolii i Baikal'skoi Sibiri: mat-ly Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. (Ulan-Ude, 20-24 sent. 2010 g.) = Ancient Cultures of Mongolia and Baikalian Siberia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Ulan-Ude, September, 20-24, 2010. Ulan-Ude: Buryat State University. P. 126-131.
Новгородова Э.А. Древняя Монголия (Некоторые проблемы хронологии и этнокултьтурной истории). М.: ГРВЛ, 1989. 384 с.
Окладников А.П. Оленный камень с реки Иволги. Советская археология. 1954. № XIX. С. 207-220.
Савинов Д.Г. Оленные камни в культуре кочевников Евразии. СПб.: СПбГУ, 1994. 208 с.
Тиваненко А.В. Оленные камни Забайкалья // Культуры и памятники бронзового и раннего железного веков Забайкалья и Монголии. Улан-Удэ, 1995. С. 102111.
Худяков Ю.С. Херексуры и оленные камни // Археология, этнография и антропология Монголии. Новосибирск, 1987. С. 136-162.
Цэвээндорж Д. Монгол нутгаас олдсон зарим буган чулуун хешее // Археологийн судлал. Tom VII. Fasc. 13. Улаанбаатар, 1979. Т. 36-75.
Членова Н.Л. Об оленных камнях Монголии и Си-бирии // Монгольский археологический сборник. М.: Изд-во Академии наук СССР, 1962. С. 27-35.
Членова Н.Л. Оленные камни как исторический источник (на примере оленных камней Северного Кавказа). Новосибирск: Наука, 1984. 100 с.
Эрдэнэбаатар Д. Монгол нутгийн дервелжин булш, хиригсYYPийн соёл. Улаанбаатар: «Соёмбо принтинг», 2002. 275 р.
Эрдэнэбаатар Д., Ковалев А.А. ХиригсYYP, буган чулуун хешеег холбон Yзэх нь. Угсаатан судлал. Tom. XV, Fasc. 16. УБ., 2003.
Erdenebaatar D. Funeral and Sacrifice Ritual of the Horse in the Bronze Age of Mongolia // Этнография и археология Северной Евразии: Теория, методология и практика исследования. Иркутск, 2007. С. 201-208.
Ковалев А.А., Эрдэнэбаатар Д., Рукавишникова И.В. Состав и композиция сооружений ритуального комплекса с оленными камнями Ушкийн-Увэр (по результатам исследований 2013 года) // Археология, этнография и антропология Евразии, 2016. Т. 44. № 1. С. 82-92.
Takahama Shu. Research of Ulaan uushig I (Uushigiin ovor) in Mongolia and newly acquired 14C data // Древние культуры Монголии и Байкальской Сибири: материалы Междунар. науч. конф. (Улан-Удэ, 20-24 сент. 2010 г.). Улан-Удэ: Изд-во Бурят. гос. ун-та, 2010. С. 126-131.
Information about the author Dimaadjav Erdenebaatar,
Professor, Head Department of the Archaeology, Ulaanbaatar State University,
5th khoroo, Bayanzurkhdistrict, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, ^ e-mail: erdenebaatar@usu.edu.mn; ediimaajav@gmail.com
Contribution of the author
D. Erdenebaatar carried out a research work, based on the obtained results made the generalization and prepared the manuscript for publication.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
The author has read and approved the final manuscript.
Article info
Received January 25, 2021. Received February 15, 2021. Accepted February 24, 2021.
Сведения об авторе Эрдэнэбаатар Димааджав,
профессор, заведующий кафедрой археологии, Улан-Баторский государственный университет, Монголия, г. Улан-Батор, ул. Баянзурх, 5-й хороо,
e-mail: erdenebaatar@usu.edu.mn; ediimaajav@gmail.com
Заявленный вклад автора
Эрдэнэбаатар Д. выполнил исследовательскую работу, на основании полученных результатов провел обобщение и подготовил рукопись к печати.
Конфликт интересов
Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
Автор прочитал и одобрил окончательный вариант рукописи.
Информация о статье
Поступила в редакцию 25 января 2021 г.
Поступила после рецензирования и доработки 15 февраля 2021 г.
Принята к публикации 24 февраля 2021 г.
