Cultural Riddles: Stylized Deer and Deer Stones of the Mongolian Altai

I'

•.... ~.: ............ ': .......•...•. . -',".'

. - . :. . ,." .... '" .

~'I ........•..... :

· BuUetirl oftneAsiamstitute

'NevvSenes/Volume 15 '

"2001

.. ~. . . . .

. 'Bulletitlpf the Asia Institute' . ......... . ........ 'J2.8? :Bradway Blvd. '. '.. .. Bl~6mfieldHills,M14830i,J:LS.A;

" ;.248~647-7917Fax·: 248-647~9223

.,' :

CuI tural Riddles:

Stylized Deer and Deer Stones of the Mongolian Altai

ESTHER JACOBSON-TEPFER

A highly stylized deer-part cervid, part bird, with wave-like antlers-is one of the most arresting images from the Eurasian early nomadic world. l In its finest formulations the image is graceful, elegant, and powerful, suggesting an animal in metamorphosis from deer to long-beaked water-fowl. At its most conventionalized, the image becomes deep-chested and heavy-headedindeed, wolf-like and wooden.2 This exaggerated, syncretic formulation appeared in northern Mongolia pecked into standing stones and on outcroppings of bedrock sometime in the late Bronze Age (ca. 1000 B.C.E.) and persisted as a rock-pecked image, with various permutations, for approximately five hundred years. The territory in which it is attested is vast, including much of Mongolia, the eastern Altai Republic, North China, and eastern Kazakhstan. Yet despite the length of its history and the extended region within which it seems to have functioned as a primary cultural sign, both the image of the stylized deer and the standing stones on which it appears remain enigmatic and, in the West, essentially unknown.

Perhaps no region better serves to contextualize this enigma than the Mongolian Altai on Mongolia's far western and northwestern border. This region, here referred to as mountainous Bayan Olgiy aimag (map), is unusually rich in petroglyphic imagery of these stylized deer, as well as in deer stones and their attendant surface archaeology.3 To date, moreover, the archaeology of that region has been relatively undisrupted by researchers too eager to reconstruct what they find. 4 Mountainous Bayan Olgiy also includes two of the largest and richest petroglyphic sites in North Asia-those of the Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor and Tsagaan Gal valleys.5 In both sites, and particular! y that of Tsagaan Gal, the stylized deer occurs frequently. In short, this region on the far

31

edge of Mongolia effectively serves as a kind of laboratory for examining the scholarship surrounding deer stones and their imagery and for testing existing assumptions regarding their cultural and "semantic"6 significance. It offers the opportunity to reconsider the intertwined issues of the deer image and the deer stones with fresh eyes and minds.

As ubiquitous as is its appearance in rock art sites of the Mongolian and Russian Altai, the image of the stylized deer referred to above has almost never been discussed in that context'? Indeed, scholars have for the most part ignored its appearance except as it occurs on quarried, standing stones called deer stones after the stylized images by which they are embellished. In details of carving as/well as in size and shape, these stones are certainly anthropomorphic in reference. With time, however, and with a perverseness peculiar to scholarly thinking, the appellation deer stone was extended to apply to several other standing stone types across the Eurasian steppe. Confusingly, while all these stone types share certain anthropomorphic references in common, only two, the so-called Mongolian and Sayan types, regularly carry zoomorphic imagery, and that imagery is not the same in style or in species reference. The third type, that associated with the Altai region, usually has no zoomorphic imagery and is often relatively crude in its carving. A fourth type is found in the far western edge of the early nomadic world, but on only one surviving stone is there said to be a single deer image.8 Strangely, within scholarly sources no questions have been raised regarding the wisdom of applying the term deer stone to stones with such radically different carved characteristics. Thus the enigma of the stylized deer and its curious combination of cervid and bird elements

J A COB SON - T E P FER: Stylized Deer and Deer Stones of the Mongolian Altai

Altai Mountain Region, Northern Central Asia: Altai Mapping Project, Jacobson/Meacham.

have become encumbered by the larger complexities of the North Asian stone called, generically, deer stone and presumed to be of one essential sculptural and iconographic type.

The purpose of the following discussion is to attempt to disentangle the stylized deer image and the related deer stones so that the cultural significance of each may be more carefully assessed. In approaching this complicated topic, I will be looking at specific instances and, in each case, the context in which they are embedded. Whether we speak of a rock-pecked image on an outcropping in the Mongolian Altai or the same

32

kind of image enwrapping a standing stone, it is the context that qualifies that image and constrains its meaning. Moreover, that context is multi-layered and requires a constant reconsideration of evidence regarding the primary subject-the image/object-and contingent material objects, images, as well as the physical landscape in which the primary subject is embedded. Ultimately, I will argue, meaning lies in the fluid interrelationship of image, object, natural and constructed space, and time. In speaking of the image itself, the most significant distinguishing element is, of course, the style in which it is ren-


dered. By style I mean here the manner in which the animal as a whole and in its parts is rendered: with elongated, beak-like head, for example, with attenuated folded legs, or with a swollen mouth area and hanging, clearly hoofed legs. Style, then, is as important a qualifier of the deer image as is the presence or absence of carved weapons for the standing stones.

Across the Eurasian steppe of the late Bronze and early Iron Ages, the image of the deer enjoyed a particular if as yet unclear significance. The image in question was not, however, the only cervid representation from that period. The deer image that appears to have been carried by Early Nomads9 across the Eurasian steppe early in the first millennium B.C.E. was considerably more realistic in appearance. 10 If we consider the history of the deer's representation in the Altai Mountains, it can be argued that the stylized deer was an offshoot of that which has been frequently documented in Altai petoglyphic complexes,ll but exactly how or under what pressures that descent occurred remains to be determined.

In the full Bronze Age preceding the early nomadic period, transhumant pastoralists in the North Asian steppe and forest steppe relied on their flocks of sheep and their herds of cattle and horses, supplemented by hunting. 12 Agriculture in that part of the world appears to have been essentially non-existent. Perhaps because of the increasing dehumidification inaugurating the onset of the late Holocene (ca. 4600-4000 cal yr BP), the resulting retreat of forests in the mountainous zones, and the expansion of grassland,13 the late Bronze Age seems to have coincided with momentous cultural changes. 14 Horse riding became widespread in the late Bronze Age, even if horses were not yet regarded with the mythologized importance they acquired in later centuriesJ5 Whether because riding offered considerably more power over animals in extended space or because of the decreasing carrying capacity of pastures and the increasing size of flocks and herds, there also appears to have been a radical shift towards transhumance in the late Bronze Age. This shift, marked particularly by petroglyphic images of households in movement and family goods loaded on the backs of yaks,16 may have also been catalyzed by social unrestY It is useful to recall that this period appears to have coincided with the movement of early nomadic populations across the Central Asian steppe.

33

Only when they reached the northern and eastern litoral of the Black Sea (ca. eighth-seventh century B.C.E.) did they settle down. These people subsequently became known to the Greeks and to history as the Scythians.

To summarize, then, four major cultural changes occurred in the North Asian steppe and mountain steppe between the eleventh and the seventh centuries B.C.E., that is, within the temporal context of the stylized deer image and deer stones. Climate change with its concomitant retreat of forests and the expansion of grasslands impacted hunting and the carrying load of pastures. A relatively settled pastoralism gradually gave way to transhumance or to a semi-nomadic way of life. The adoption of horse riding facilitated that shift in life style and probably, also, the shift to larger herds requiring more frequent change of pasture. Finally, an increasing horse dependency in the late Bronze Age unquestionably catalyzed the emergence of the smaller, recurved bow as the weapon of choice (see fig. 1).18 While its use is almost always associated in North Asian rock art with hunting, it is also possible that the adoption of the recurved bow reflects increased social unrest and conflict among horse dependent peoples of the steppe. I mention the issue of the bow, in particular, because it is this weapon that occurs so prominently on the standing stones enwrapped by stylized deer imagery (fig. 2).

Before turning to the deer stones themselves, two semantic problems must be addressed. The first relates to the use of the term deer stone in both scholarly and popular literature. As awkward and misapplied as that term is, there is no way to deny its embedded-ness in all discussions of North Asian archaeology over the last hundred years. To refuse to use it might be academically honorable but it would also amount to an obstinate refusal to face semantic reality. Because the term is probably here to stay, I will continue to use it, albeit reluctantly. The second semantic problem relates to the antlered subject of this discussion. The animal referred to here and commonly in Western scholarly sources as deer is more accurately designated an elk (Cervus elaphus) known also and variously as True Deer, Red Deer, Noble Deer, cer! (French), or maral (Russian) (Cervus elaphus sibiricus). Second only to a moose (Alces alces) in size among cervids, the elk is a heavy, powerful animal with antlers


that are large and widely branching, sometimes extending more vertically, sometimes vertically and back over the animal's spine. In contrast to reindeer, only males develop antlers. Moreover, elk develop two clearly recognizable forehead tines, while the racks of reindeer (like North American caribou) are characterized by one forehead tine. In contrast to smaller deer (e.g., fallow deer, Dama dama), the elk has a massive neck and chest reflecting, in part, the weight of the antlers it carries. 19 Given a number of semantic problems endemic in the North American designations of moose and elk,20 throughout this paper the word "deer" will be used in place of "elk" unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Scholars identify four types of deer stones depending on the treatment of the imagery and, to a certain extent, on the region in which the stone has been found. The classical deer stone-that enwrapped with the images of stylized deer-is associated with Mongolia and the Transbaikal and will here be referred to as the Mongolian deer stone (e.g., figs. 2, 3). A second type is associated with the Sayan Mountains of Tuva and is marked, most typically, by the images of deer, wild caprids, and sometimes horses, all executed with a distinctively enlarged mouth area and the treatment of the body in terms of strongly defined curves and counter-curves (e.g., fig. 4).21 Wild boar are also represented on Sayan deer stones in tense, stylized formulations; and deer, caprids, and even boar are sometimes (but not, by any means, always) represented as if standing" on tiptoe," with dangling hoofs, and vertically stacked along the length of the stone. This manner of representation has, unfortunately, been referred to by most scholars as realistic,22 while in fact it is no more realistic than are the elongated deer of the Mongolian deer stones. The infrequent appearance of a coiled feline on this deer stone type and of a crouching feline on the Mongolian deer stones has only complicated discussions of meaning.23

A third deer stone type is associated with the Altai region and is characterized as lacking in animal imagery (e.g., fig. 5). But even that rule is broken by many stones from the Altai region on which appear stylized deer, coiled or crouching felines or wolves, horses, and wild sheep, all in a considerable variety of styles.24 By a peculiar extension of logic, the anthropomorphic stones associated with the Black Sea Scythians are also often referred to as deer stones, even though only

34

one stone with a deer image is known.2s In actuality, the deer images found on all these regional stone types are various or non-existent; in that respect, the blanket application of the term deer stone creates, in effect, a false unity. The characteristic more obviously common to all these standing stone types is a general anthropomorphic reference. Varying in size from about 1 m to as much as 3 m above ground, the stones are almost always carved as if wearing some kind of belt from which might hang weapons and tools familiar to the Early Nomads. The "front" of the "body" is most regularly associated with the narrow, east-facing side; and in the region of the "head," this side is usually taller in front (on the east side) than on the back (west side). Three diagonal slashes usually found on the "face" section of the Mongolian, Sayan, and Altai variants appear to refer to human features. Round earrings on either side (north and south) of the stone's head and a beaded necklace around its "neck" reaffirm the anthropomorphic reference of the stones, whether of the Mongolian, the Sayan, the Altai, or even the Black Sea type.

Given their often elegant carvings and frequently impressive appearance within the steppe landscape, it is a curious fact that deer stones are essentially unknown in the West. They have not, however, lacked for attention in Russia and the former Soviet world. Indeed, the relevant scholarship in Russian is both voluminous and complicated and can here be referred to in only a highly simplified form.26 In the late nineteenth century, the explorer and geographer G. N. Potanin was one of the first savants to identify the deer stones of Mongolia and to discuss their relationship to the large altars known as khereksurY He also proposed solar and cosmic interpretations of the stones that have persisted, in one form or another, to this day.28 Many scholars followed Potanin's interest in the deer stones, but the commentary of G. 1. Borovka, the eminent scholar of Scythian-period antiquities, was especially significant. On the basis of the stylistic rendition of the imagery on the stones, he proposed that deer stones should be associated with the Scytho-Siberian cultural tradition and dated accordingly to the Iron Age rather than to the Bronze Age.29 G. P. Sosnovskii's interest in the so-called Slab Grave Culture of the Transbaikal and Mongolia led him to argue that the deer stones should be associated with that cultural de-


velopment and dated to the period sixth-third century B.C.E.30 It is therefore clear that before the middle of the last century, scholarly disagreement regarding the dating and cultural significance of the deer stones had begun to crystallize.

In an article dated 1954 and devoted to a stone found on the Ivolga River in the Transbaikal, A. P. Oldadnikov drew attention specifically to the stones with highly stylized deer images.31

Noting the form of the weaponry carved on these stones, Oldadnikov associated the stone type with the late Karasuk Culture and proposed a date between the seventh-fifth century B.C.E.

Like Potanin, he interpreted the deer stones in terms of solar and cosmic mythic traditions. In a somewhat later discussion of the Bronze Age of the Transbaikal, N. N. Dikov focussed attention on the different types of deer stones, distinguishing them on the basis of the treatment of their zoomorphic imagery.32 Dikov was one of the first to propose a cultural and chronological distinction between stones with elaborately ornamental treatment of deer (dated by him to the seventh-second century B.C.E.) and those with a more "realistic" treatment of deer and horses, dated by him to the early Tagar period. For better or worse, Dikov's distinction between the" ornamental" and "realistic" treatment of the animals has persisted, even though, as indicated above, neither term is satisfactory; on the other hand, his identification of at least two deer stone traditions is solid and has been generally adopted. Finally, Dikov proposed that the deer stones represented the person of a dead leader and were thus memorial in nature.33 Despite the fact that the association of deer stones with burials is not clear, especially with reference to the stones with elaborated deer imagery, his interpretative strategy has persisted in one form or another.

In the decades after WW II, an increasing number of scholars turned their attention to the deer stones of particular regions, noting their distinctive stylistic characteristics and proposing chronology, semantics, and cultural associations with the stones of other regions. Among the most important discussions are those of N. 1. ChIen ova and 1. F. Kyzlasov.34 They and other scholars increasingly used the weaponry carved on the stones to identify the deer stones with various cultural groups in Tuva and Mongolia in the late Bronze and early Iron Ages. In a later publication, Chlenova discussed the stone im-

35

ages associated with the Black Sea Scythian culture and called them deer stones, drawing them into the larger issues of origins and meaning.3s

Her perspective has had considerable influence on subsequent scholarly discussions. As far as I know, no one has effectively challenged Chlenova's extension of the term deer stones to include the anthropomorphic imagery of the Black Sea Scythians.

Savinov has identified two events in the early 1970s that intensified interest in deer stones. In their excavation of the great burial of Arzhan, Tuva, in the early 1970s, Gryaznov and MannaiOollocated the fragment of a deer stone of what came to be known as the Sayan type within the rubble of the mound of the Arzhan burial.36

The images on this stone fragment were distinctive. They included two deer with dangling legs as if on tiptoe, tensely recurved bodies, raised heads, and fleshy mouth areas. Beside the deer and under and around the weaponry hanging from the fragment of a "belt" were six boar, all with similarly dangling legs and tiptoe hoofs, heads dropped forward, and enlarged eyes and tusks. The future consideration of this stone was complicated by the fact that within the plundered and burned burial was found a magnificent bronze plaque representing a coiled feline, precisely of the type found on deer stones as far flung as H6vsg61 aihIag, Uvs aimag, and Bayan Khongor aimag.37 Gryaznov dated the burial to the eighth century B.C.E., making it the earliest significant burial of the early nomadic period. The stone fragment's location within the stone mound over the burial suggested to the excavators that the stone type should be dated to the late Bronze Age and associated with burial contexts. For a number of reasons, that conclusion is questionable.38

The second event was the publication by Volkov and Novgorodova of the deer stone site at Ushkiin-Uver in H6vsg61 aimag, Mongolia (figs. 2, 3).39 This site is distinguished by fine stones of the "Mongolian" variety, and by the presence of an unusually beautiful stone with a human face. 40 In a subsequent discussion of Mongolian deer stones with stylized deer imagery, Novgorodova proposed that the deer image was a totemic sign and that the stones themselves represent a complex cosmology: the upper section of the stones, with earrings as solar signs, refers to the realm of heaven; the middle section,

~-------~-'~'-'""';T'T:-=CO==:="'''''''''''''"'''''"'''"''''''''''''''''=''''''''=''''."""""",~''''~""".,,,,,",,,",,-:::--"', "',.-3'""""",_"""",~",,, ""'. OE' ",. """". =~~~=~======---------------L

I'

rAe 0 B SON - T E P FER: Stylized Deer and Deer Stones of the Mongolian Altai

Fig. 1. Scene of early nomadic herder and horses on trail, SK-F2. Tsagaan Gol complex. Late Bronze Age. Bayan blgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

Fig. 2. View of Ushkiin-Uver, from south looking north toward larger khereksur complex. Hovsgol aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

36


37

Fig. 3. (Top left) Deer stone of Mongolian type (Type I), Ushkiin-Uver. Hovsgol aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

Fig. 4. (Above) Deer stone with inverted carvings, Type II, Aral Tolgoi. Bayan blgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

Fig. 5. (Bottom left) Deer stone with cupmarks, Type III. Left bank of the Tsagaan Salaa, Tsagaan Gol complex. Bayan blgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.


with deer and" other hoofed animals," refers to the earth; and the section with the belt and below refers to the underworld. The weapons worn by the stone man refer to death and sacrifice.41 As we shall see, this interpretative strategy was subsequently further developed by Savinov.

The most important publication devoted to Mongolian deer stones has been that by Volkov, in which he catalogued over seven hundred stones and reproduced many of them in drawings, a few shown within their immediate ritual contextsY' Volkov concluded that the stones had to be dated to

... the pre-Scythian or Karasuk-Cimmerian period. The great number of these stones relate to the two great epochs-that of the Bronze and that of the Early Nomads and present themselves as an early stage of the Scytho-Siberian animal style.43

Because of the clan burial contexts in which Volkov assumed they appeared, he interpreted the stones as representing an "idealized image of the heroized ancestor-warrior and protector."44 Finally, the slightly earlier publication by V. D. Kubarev of the mostly fragmentary deer stones found in the Russian Altai indicated that these represented a tradition distinct from those associated with northern Mongolia and the Sayan region.45 In his consideration of the stones' "semantics," Kubarev argued that their phallic appearance referred to the masculine power of a deified ancestor and to a cult of fertility.46

In his comprehensive discussion of deer stones published in 1994, Dimitri Savinov reviewed the entire history of deer stone scholarship and presented a conceptual model of the development and spread of deer stones across Eurasia.47 Critically drawing on and assessing the scholarship of previous researchers, Savinov divided the anthropomorphic deer stones of North Asia into three types and subtypes.48 He argued that Type I, characterized by elegant, stylized images of deer wrapped around the standing stones, is characteristic of central and eastern Mongolia and the Transbaikal. It must have emerged in Mongolia's central region and spread from there into eastern Mongolia, with some penetration into Tuva and the Russian Altai. Type II, referred to as the Sayano-Altai type,49 is characterized by a variety of animals-mostly deer, but also horses, wild caprids, boar, and felines. Savinov's Type III

38

(Kubarev's Altai type) is generally lacking in zoomorphic images but may be decorated with "belts," "necklaces," round disks, and three parallellines in the area of the "face." According to Savinov, Types II and III emerged in the SayanoAltai uplands and in adjacent areas of western Mongolia. From there they spread further west and southwest into the mountainous regions of Central Asia.5o He further hypothesized that. the three cultural traditions represented by Types I, II, and III would have overlapped and merged in western Mongolia. Savinov's typology is convenient and will be used in the discussion below. His interpretation of the deer stones develops on earlier interpretative approaches. Persuaded by the apparent ties51 between the anthropomorphized deer stones of North Asia and the anthropomorphic stones of the Black Sea region and influenced also by the discussions of Novgorodova, Savinov sees the image of the deer as referring to the sacrificial animal and the stone itself as being the image of the sacrificial officiant whose ritual function was undertaken on behalf of society as a whole.52

This brief overview of the history of deer stone research can only suggest how varied and problematic have been the approaches of the last century or so. The complexities involved in the study of deer stones, however, are rooted in a number of methodological issues that cut across almost all the scholarship on the subject. In too many studies to date, researchers appear to have worked on the topic without viewing the deer stones in their original locations, or without consideration of the context beyond the immediate precincts of the stones. Possible exceptions to this rule in Mongolia seem to have been Volkov and Novgorodova, but even they ignored the surface archaeology beyond the immediate setting of the stones they recorded. 53 In other cases, there is inadequate consideration of the fact that the stones have clearly been reused: the nature of their original location and function remains uncertain and even unquestioned. In yet other situations (e.g., the stones from the Chuya steppe), we are dealing at best with fragmentary evidence found originally in damaged settings and, since then, too often moved; such conditions hamper a reliable consideration of function and meaning. Finally, as attractive as are the many strategies used in the interpretation of the stones' meaning, or what are usually referred to as their semantics,


none can be said to be based on anything more than speculation. We are, after all, considering a prehistoric period from which there are no texts to support an interpretation of the stones in terms of solar cults, as heroized ancestors, indicators of fertility, clan leaders, or even officiants of cult sacrifices. Moreover, there is nothing in the archaeology of related burial mounds or altars to support any of these meanings. Using mythic traditions from other regions (e.g., the Caucasus and the Near East) or from much later cultures (e.g., that of the Turks) to interpret anthropomorphic stones from prehistoric North Asia can only be deemed speculative at best. It is easy to understand how stones enwrapped with elegant deer imagery could encourage romanticized interpretations, but there has to be some more solid basis for these interpretations than wishful mythologizing.

The application of the term deer stone to a certain set of standing stones raises another issue, one that is hardly ever considered but is substantial. Across the same region as that claimed for the deer stones there existed a broader and more extensive tradition of standing stones with which the deer stones share a number of elements in common. Within North Asia, the pattern of erecting standing stones in some kind of ritual or memorial activity goes back at least to the early Bronze Age in the Minusinsk Basin, where it was expressed in the form of massive stones carved with monstrous images combining bovine and female elements. 54 This specifically North Asian expressive tradition continued down through the Bronze Age and well into the Iron Age in Mongolia, Tuva, and the Altai Republic, taking the form of standing stones without the anthropomorphic references of belts, necklaces, and earrings but intended, clearly, to have had a ritual function. The stones vary in size and may appear individually or in small groups, usually aligned north to south but "facing" east (e.g., fig. 6). These generalized standing stones cannot be dated precisely: although some archaeologists have claimed to find materials indicative of an early or pre-Bronze Age date within the soil surrounding the base of the stone,55 the stones themselves, as inorganic material and only uncertainly related to burials, defy a clear dating. Within mountainous Bayan Olgiy, where such standing stones are unusually richly represented, they are sometimes found in proximity

39

to mounds or to rock art imagery indicating a Bronze Age date. 56 While none of these standing stones are carved with any anthropomorphic reference, their human-like form is undeniable, especially when viewed from a distance: from that perspective they are easily mistaken for standing figures in the landscape.

In addition to fundamental shape and anthropomorphic resemblance, there are a number of elements indicating that deer stones are but one variety of the more general standing stone. Deer stones frequently appear side by side with uncarved stones. For example, among the deer stones of Tsagaan Asgat in mountainous Bayan Olgiy (map) (fig. 7), are many stones that lack any carving at all. In a large ritual site on the upper Tsagaan Gol (map), a fine stone of Type III (fig. 5) stands beside a now-fallen standing stone; nearby, in a finely detailed "frame," are four other standing stones. Common to these generic standing stones and to most deer stones found in situ is the use of a frame of long stones around the base of the standing stoners) and the appearance of several small circular altars made of rounded boulders (see fig. 6),57 In these respects, both the unmarked stones and the deer stones clearly belong to a single North Asian tradition of ritual or memorial activity, one that preceded the emergence of early nomadism in the late Bronze Age and continued well into the period of developed nomadic cultures in the early Iron Age.

There are some stones that combine elements of deer stones with elements of the simple standing stone. Within the Altai region there are at least two instances in which a standing stone, not a deer stone, includes a clear human face carved on the upper, eastern side but otherwise lacks any animal imagery. A particularly beautiful example of this stone type, also framed at its base, is located in the valley of the Sogoogiin Gol in Bayan Olgiy aimag (fig. 8); a second, massive example, is found with two other standing stones-one with a possible human face-outside the village of Inya, in the Altai Republic. 58

With muted face, hood, and belt, this stone is, in essence, a human image but without the addition of any zoomorphic imagery. These two figures underscore the probability that all standing stones-carved or uncarved, embellished with human features or not-carried a clear anthropomorphic reference for those peoples who erected them.

·"-.C''-''--;;'0.·''''''&''''~","",,'''''''''''''''''' _______ ~=~~~'''''"'''!!'''''"'_--------------------------------------------------r


Fig. 6. Standing stones, TS-K4, Tsagaan Gol complex. Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary

Tepfer.

Fig. 7. Deer stones, Tsagaan Asgat. Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

40


Fig. 8. Standing stone with human face, valley of the Sogoogiin Gol. Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

The previous statement is supported by the last major expression of the standing stone tradition within western Mongolia: the Turkic image stones from the second half of the first millennium C.E. 59 These image stones typically stand on the east side of a framed enclosure, facing east and holding a cup in their right hand and grasping their belt or dagger hilt with the left. There are many Turkic image stones in the Tsagaan Gol valley as well as along the shores of Khoton Nuur (mapL to the south j

60 but there are also many uncarved stones, stand-ins for image stones, as it were, set up in the same manner as the fully carved versions and in the same relationship to an enclosure. In fact, one finds all gradations of carved stones fulfilling the same function: fully

41

carved images, partially carved stones, and stones only vaguely reminiscent by their shape of a human image. Not infrequently, fully carved image stones stand side by side with uncarved stones erected on the east side of the ritual enclosure and, as in the case of the image stone, facing east.61

Within the tradition of Turkic image stones, the easy slipping from one degree of representational clarity to another should be instructive for our consideration of the relationship between deer stones and standing stones. It argues that ultimately the tradition of carved standing stones must be regarded as unified in genesis and in formulation across the millennia. Within it, those stones referred to as deer stones are distinguished only by the appearance on their surfaces of the imagery of deer or other animals, or by the appearance of a few more explicitly anthropomorphic elements. When one considers the longstanding stone tradition critically and within a total ritual context, the distinction between deer stones and non-deer stones becomes academic, at best. This is certainly the case in mountainous Bayan 6lgiy, a region unusually well represented in all categories of standing stones from the Bronze Age through the Turkic period and in related petroglyphic imagery.

Perhaps, however, the most significant problem relating to the cymsideration of deer stones is that their study has been so consistently separated from the study of rock art, within which one finds almost all the same animal images that are carved on the deer stones themselves. In other words, deer stones have been considered separately from the very imagery that gives them their name.62 Between 1994 and 2004, the Joint Mongolian/American/Russian Project "Altay" worked on the identification, documentation, and analysis of surface archaeology in Bayan 6lgiy aimag (map). The materials gathered by the Project include an extensive number of deer images from petroglyphic sites and a significant number of deer stones. None of the petroglyphs had been previously published, and most of the deer stones were previously recorded, if at all, only through field notes. The material from Bayan 6lgiy offers an opportunity to test the theoretical model of deer stone typologies and regions developed by Savinov and other scholars against concrete evidence from a specific geographic region. This material also allows us to


consider a number of questions that relate more closely to the symbolic significance of the deer and of the deer stones.

There are a number of deer stone sites in Bayan blgiy aimag that merit mention either because of the quality of the stones, the intrinsic interest of the site, or because of the eccentric nature of the stones and their curious settings. We have documented four in the valley of the upper Tsagaan Gol; three appear to be Type III and two of these are crudely carved and apparently reset with reference to later surface archaeology.63 The third stone, mentioned above (fig. 5 L is the most carefully done of all. It was set near the west edge of a large ritual site on the left bank of the Tsagaan Salaa, the largest tributary to the Tsagaan Gol. In addition to three parallel lines on its east "face/' "earrings/' and a necklace, this stone is covered with cup marks. In the immediate vicinity are large standing stones, Scythianperiod mounds, Turkic enclosures, and a partially dismantled khereksur. The deer stone appears to occupy an original location within a site of unusual physical beauty but is no more directly connected to the burial mounds than are any of the other elements in this site. To the south, on the opposite side of the glacial Tsagaan Salaa, loom the rocky black cliffs of the sacred mountain' Shiviit Khairkhan. To the west are visible the glacier-wrapped peaks of Tavan Bogd, and to the east one sees the winding white stream of the river and the cliffs on the north side of the valley. Lower in the Tsagaan Gol valley, above the administrative center of Tsengel', are two other impressive stones set within the center of a khereksur. One of the stones is grey-white and the other blue and one has a human face, but both stones are covered by deer images of the Mongolian type.64 In terms of the stones' sizes-tall and slender-and in terms of the treatment of one with a human face and both in terms of the elegant deer images of Type I, these stone~ are unique, as far as I know, within Bayan Olgiy aimag. Their isolated location, here, and in the middle of the khereksur is puzzling.

Within Bayan Olgiy aimag are at least two major khereksur sites that include deer stones or their remnants. One is a huge ritual site in the Mogoitin Gol valley (mapL south of the Tsagaan Gol drainage. Surrounded by high slopes covered with pasture and remnant forests, and

42

with views south to the snow-covered peaks at the border with China, this broad valley includes many standing stones, Turkic- and Scythianperiod burials and altars, and a large number of khereksur, some of impressive size. Many of the Turkic enclosures (located primarily within a small side valley) include image stones on their east side as well as long horizontal framing stones around the enclosures. Close examination of these image and framing stones indicates that many are recarved deer stones. On one framing stone, for example, is still evident the axe that would have hung from the stone's "belt/' and on one image stone are still visible parts of elaborate deer images of Type I stones. In the main valley and close to one of the huge khereksur, the image stone on the east side of another Turkic enclosure also represents a reworked deer stone, probably of Type II or III. Altogether in the Mogoitin Gol complex it was possible to identify at least nine reworked deer stones; as mentioned above, at least one appears to have been a stone of Type I, but most seem to have been Type III. It is quite possible that many more of the long stones now framing the Turkic enclosures were originally either deer stones or standing stones, carved and erected in the early to middle first millennium B.C.E. It is uncertain where the deer stones originally stood: in which part of the valley, in relationship to which other surface structures, or even whether they originally constituted one or more deer stone groups. One un-reworked deer stone, also Type III, can be found in what presumably was its original location, albeit tumbled now into an irrigation ditch. When first documented in 1998, this stone stood on the east side of a curious overlay of archaeology on the north edge of the Mogoitin Gol complex. A view from high above the site indicates that it was originally dominated by a large khereksur. That structure was subsequently demolished to make three kurgans of Scythianperiod burials. All that is visible now of the khereksur are skeletal sections of its outer "wall." The burial mounds, in turn, are being mined to build the walls of a modern Kazakh cemetery that has sprung up in the same area of the Mogoitin Gol valley. It is not possible to say whether the deer stone belonged originally to the khereksur or to the burials, just as it is impossible to be certain of the original location of the other deer


stones or whether they had any relationship to the great khereksur in the main valley.65

To the south of this valley and just north of the shore of Khoton Nuur is a curious stone associated with a Scythian-period burial. 66 Small, with a clearly defined "head" indicated by the high narrow east side, the stone's north and south sides are marked by Type I deer. These images are arranged vertically but with their heads down, as if flying into the ground. While infrequent, such a treatment of the imagery occurs occasionally across Mongolia and may reflect either a specific meaning or simply the result of craftsmen executing the imagery before the stone was raised, and without regard to the end intended to be embedded in the ground.67 In either case, the placement of the deer on this stone and others bears further consideration. Whether the animals' inverted positions were intended to be meaningful or not remains as speculative as are almost all interpretations of the deer stones to date. 68

A complex of Scythian-period burials and Turkic enclosures at Aral Tolgoi (mapL on the west end of Khoton Nuur, includes a Type II stone (fig. 4). This stone is tall and pointed at its upper end, and on the "body" are pecked, above the belt, several small recumbent and standing horses (?) and deer, as well as a dagger; below the belt are several inverted caprids. The stone is curious in two respects. Although the animal images on the stone are of a modified SayanoAltai type, the only relevant deer images in the adjoining petro glyphic complex of Aral Tolgoi are of the Mongolian type (Type n not of the Sayan type. Moreover, the stone has been deliberately placed in the ground in inverted fashion, so that all the animals are head down and so that the dagger "hangs up" from the belt.69 Despite this curious treatment, the stone's belt is in the correct position, carved about one-third up the height of the stone. Another stone, possibly a combination of Type I and II and quite ruined, is located within the same complex, closer to the hill and to a row of plundered kurgan burialsJo

The most elaborate group of deer stones in Bayan Olgiy is located in the plain of Tsagaan Asgat (map) within a huge ritual complex including a large number of unusually elegant khereksur, burial mounds, and small altars. Like the complex of Mogoitin Gol, this complex is striking for the great size of the valley and for the im-

43

pressiveness of the surrounding view shed. From the location of the deer stones, the large mountain, Tsengel' Uul, is visible to the north; to the south rise the snow-covered mountains at the border with China (fig. 7); and to the east is visible the lake Dayan Nuur backed by high mountains. The main concentration of deer stones is located at the far western edge of the khereksur complex which itself stretches to the east and north around a small mountain. The deer stones number more than 80, including standing and fallen, whole and fragmentary stones. They are lined up in irregular N-S rows, apparently related, albeit in somewhat disorderly manner, to circular altars on their east side. The deer stones are mostly unmarked; however, at least two are covered with the images of elegant Mongolian deer and several appear to be of a modified Type II and III.71

This brief overview of most of the recorded deer stones in mountainous Bayan Olgiy would appear to confirm Savinov's theory that the three deer stone traditions met and overlapped in the Mongolian Altai, but the larger canonical associations Savinov proposes, of Type I stones with khereksur and Type II and III with burials and altars, are either not confirmed by this material or are complicated by it. Two Type III deer stones at Tsagaan Asgat and the nearby site of Khargantiin Gol are found iIVthe context of khereksur and two Type III stones in the upper Tsagaan Gol valley are as closely related to khereksur as they are to burials. The two Type I stones near Tsengel' appear to have been eccentrically set within the center of the khereksur rather than at the side. In fact, while such a placement of Type I stones has been recorded elsewhere in Mongolia,72 in all cases the stones have been discovered and documented lying on or close to the mound, rather than standing as in the case of the Tsengel' stones. Such a position sl..lggests the distinct possibility that the placement of the Tsengel' stones at the very center of the khereksur represents a reuse of stones originally located elsewhere. A second point to consider is that while the elaborated deer of Type I stones are never combined with the deer, boar, or cap rid images associated with Type II stones, the stones at Tsagaan Asgat indicate that the different types of deer stones might appear together in the same complex and as if they were erected during the same period


of time. Moreover, the difference in zoomorphic imagery between the inverted stone at Aral Tolgoi and the only contemporaneous deer images carved on the adjoining hill is curious: where archaeological traces are so closely connected in space and time, one would expect a greater unity of cultural reference. This fact raises the question: can a consideration of the petroglyphic context clarify or complicate the situation revealed by the deer stones?

Petro glyphic sites within mountainous Bayan blgiy include a great number of images of both the elaborated deer of Type I stones and the deer and associated animals (sheep, goats, boar) of Type II ("Sayano-Altai") stones.73 Moreover, one can identify a substantial series of deer images suggesting the gradual transformation of a relatively realistic animal to its familiar exaggerated form with elongated beak-like head and vestigiallegs. An example is offered by a composition from Baga Oigor II, where an animal reminiscent of the Kostromskaya stag is surrounded by ungainly hunters and a few small animals.74 Different pecking techniques and partial elements emerging out from the belly, back, and hind quarters of the deer suggest that the deer may have been pecked over an earlier, clumsier scene. The artist has accentuated the animal's sensitive head, powerful chest, and superb antlers but without extreme exaggeration. These characteristics are repeated in two deer images from Tsagaan Salaa I, unfortunately never finished and partially lost under lichen.75 Another animal, recumbent, more refined and surrounded by animals and a cart done at an earlier date, comes from TS IVJ6 Its elongated antlers and thin legs are the principal indicators of how the deer will develop in its more stylized form. An unusually beautiful standing example comes from the Tsagaan Gol complex (SK-F4) (fig. 9h on the same surface are found a horse (not shown here) and two other deer images done in a different style and with a different patina. In this case, style and patina relate the deer to the horse; and the style of each associates them with the Scythian period. In each of these cases, the refined confidence of the image and the excellence of its execution argue against the notion of a provincial rendition of a more stylized formulation. These images reveal, instead, the possible manner in which the form and qualities of the wild animal could give rise to an artistic but extreme stylization.

44

This process of transformation toward the exaggeration of the deer image of Type I stones is reflected in a composition from Baga Oigor III in which two stags are attacked by a number of wolves.?7 The realism of the composition can be contrasted with the exaggeration of the animals' racks. A more conventional stylization of the deer is found on a large boulder from Baga Oigor II, where several deer are seen together with the images of birthing women.78 The deer are standing, their bodies and heads elongated to bring them close to the proportions of the deer on the Mongolian deer stones. Their images are balanced between naturalism and extreme stylization; in their association with birthing women and in their juxtaposition with hunting scenes, they convey references to the fertility of the natural world represented by the women and the hunt.79 The hunters here carry the recurved bows associated with the rise of horse riding and the Scythian period. This is true, also, of the hunter on foot in a composition from SK-H780 in the Tsagaan Gol complex.8l In both cases, the archers' bows, like the bows on Type I deer stones (fig. 2), indicate a date in the late Bronze or early Iron Ages.

The group of images presented above summarize the evolution of the deer image we are calling Mongolian from a pictorial acknowledgement of the real animal and its salient characteristics to the stylization that will ultimately, and radically, transform the deer image into an elegant but often static sign. Other images from the Mongolian Altai carry stylization further, but without any pictorial context. A good example may be found on a surface from SK-F5 with three deer, two of which are unfinished. The finished animal raises its head but in a manner suggestive of the overwhelming weight of its rack. On the other hand, its legs are vestigial, despite its apparent size, and the muzzles of all three images are elongated into beak-like forms. An unfinished but elegant image from KSBS reveals increasing loss of naturalism: in this case, the animal's muzzle has been exaggerated into a true bird beak, elongated and open. This association of bird beak and deer was certainly intentionaLB2

Within the petroglyphic complexes of Bayan blgiy, stylized deer images of the type associated with Type I stones occur in a variety of narrative contexts expressing the gathering and movement


of animals in a herd, predation on such animals by wolves or felines, or hunt scenes involving archers on foot or on horseback. In the Khar Salaa section of the Tsagaan Gol complex can be found a group of five stylized deer apparently related to two superb hunters on horseback (KS-BS). Another surface from the same KS-BS includes an animal back-turned toward its mounted hunter (fig. 10). In both cases, the riders' hoods, soft boots, and bows confirm a date in the early nomadic period. The style in which the horses are rendered is essentially that of horses found on several Mongolian deer stones with images of stylized deer.83 Such narrative contexts are actually less frequent than representations of deerone, a pair, or several-unrelated to any narrative context and represented as if in movement or standing within an undefined setting and recalling the treatment of Type I deer stones. For example, a beautiful grouping of these deer is found in the Shiviit Khairkhan section of the Tsagaan Gol complex, on a large dark outcropping (SKG7); and an unusually elegant, complicated representation of deer can be found in the Tsagaan Salaa section of the same complex (TS-B6) (fig. 11). In both cases, the artists were clearly masterful designers and stone workers. One may multiply by many times similar examples from the Tsagaan Gol and Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor complexes. They indicate conclusively that within the Mongolian Altai, the stylized deer image was a significant part of the repertory of rock artists in the early first millennium B.C.E. and that there had to have been some reason, some meaning, in their reiteration. At the same time, the variety of contexts or narrative compositions in which they appear defy one to propose a single interpretation.

Earlier mention was made of Savinov's proposal that the stylized deer and deer stones in general refer to ritual sacrifice, within which the deer was the sacrificial animal and the dagger the sacred instrument of sacrifice. This interpretation is intriguing, especially since it represents a variation on the traditional explanation of the deer stone as a reference to the heroic ancestor. It is useful to test it against the rock art record because that material preserves an ample tradition of pictorial narrativity. Despite the number of stylized deer images throughout the sites referred to here, however, and despite their inclusion in many narrative settings, there are no representations that would suggest the activity

45

of sacrifice. Furthermore, except in the case of hunting scenes-where the hunter is armed with bow and arrow (e.g., fig. lO)-in no composition is there any other association of deer and weaponry.

Like the stylized deer, deer of the type associated with Type II deer stones occur frequently in petroglyphic sites of the Mongolian Altai. Representing what has been called the Sayano-Altai or Arzhan-Maimir style,84 these images appear in a variety of contexts: as objects of a hunt, as the objects of predation, or as individual images without narrative context. On a stone from Baga Oigor III, for example, they are juxtaposed with similarly rendered syncretic animals and with camels distinctly reminiscent of a Scythian-period style.85 Two other Sayano-Altay images are found at a point higher on Baga Oigor III, where their formulation is drier and more conventionalized.86 A hunting scene from SK-K4 demonstrates how the Sayano-Altay style can slur into the style typical of Payzyrk representations. And on a large panel comprising over 740 images from the Shiviit Khairkhan section of the Tsagaan Gol complex are found several images of deer and horses in the Sayano-Altai style, as well as several magnificent images of boarP It is interesting that on this panel there is only one incomplete image of the highly stylized deer image of the Mongolian type. It is also worth noting that in none of these images and their contexts is there any implication of sacrifice or death. Just to confuse the issue more, on the large panel there are also many images of crouching snow leopards, but this feline form does not occur on deer stones of either Type II or III; it is closer to a form known on stones of Type 1. 88

The images considered above force us to recognize a number of complicating factors. Within the petroglyphic sites we have been considering, deer of both the Mongolian and Sayano-Altai types and their related imagery frequently appear within the same panel or on the same surface but not within the same narrative context. Secondly, if we assume that the deer stone types reflect-as virtually all scholars have argueddifferent ethno-cultural populations, then on the basis of the petroglyphic record one could conclude that groups of both populations must have inhabited the valleys of the Tsagaan Salaa/ Baga Oigor and Tsagaan Gol complexes and that, therefore, the deer stones and deer images associated with both cultural traditions would be


Fig. 9. Petroglyphs of Bronze Age and early Iron Age deer, SK-F4, Tsagaan Gol complex. Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

Fig. 10. Hunting scene with deer and mounted archer, KS-BS, Tsagaan Gol complex. Early Iron Age. Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

46


Fig. 11. Petroglyph of stylized deer ("Mongolian" deer), TS-B6, Tsagaan Gol complex. Late Bronze or early Iron Age. Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

found there. Moreover, given the sheer number of stylized deer found within the major petroglyphic sites, one would expect that Type I deer stones would be particularly well represented. With the exception, however, of the two curious stones set in the center of a khereksur in the lower Tsagaan Gol valley, we do not find any examples of that type in these two major valleys.89 The majority of deer stones within the Tsagaan Gol valley are Type II or even Type III; but within the large Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor complex, where there is such an abundance of deer imagery of both kinds, several standing stones, and many khereksur, no deer stones have been found to date. In other words, the petroglyphic record reaffirms that any discussion of deer stones must distinguish between the anthropomorphic stone formulation as a cross-cultural indicator, on the one hand, and deer imagery on the other. I would argue that the deer image was the critical cultural indicator and that the anthropomorphic stone-the deer stone-was, in a sense, a vehicle for its representation possessed in common by a variety of communities in the North Asian steppe and mountain steppe. These

47

communities shared a similar life style and material culture but differed from each other in the artistic and ritual elaboration of that culture.90

'" As is the case with the petroglyphic represen-tation of stylized deer, when the Sayano-Altai deer appear in petroglyphs vertically stacked or represented" on tiptoe," there are no indications of any weaponry. Let us recall Savinov's theory that the image of a deer with dropped, rigidly stretched legs refers to the animal in death.91 Furthermore, in both its petroglyphic formulation and on deer stones, that image indicates a necessary connection between the sacrificial animal and the instrument and act of sacrifice.92 Whether or not that interpretation is valid with reference to the deer stones, we would have to argue that such a symbolic load is not carried by identical images of deer within the petroglyphic context, where there is never any indication of deathdealing activity other than that associated with the hunt or animal predation. Although we have documented at least five surfaces with representations of Karasuk or Tagar daggers in the sites referred to, on no occasion is there any reference to a sacrificial animal,93 Savinov has pointed to


the close association, on Type II deer stones, of deer and boar, reflective of the balance between sacrifice and sacrificial officiant. Within the petroglyphic contexts we are considering, however, boars never appear within any kind of a narrative context involving the Sayano-Altai deer, or even in any kind of narratively charged juxtaposition. The only representations of predator and prey involve scenes of hunting or animal predation: both narrative possibilities were manifestly apparent in the "real" world of the late Bronze Age.

However one understands the "semantics" of deer stones, conventionalized meaning must be drawn back to real experience. This observation raises three points. Firstly, in none of the many compositions involving stylized deer are there any scenes even remotely reflective of the sacrificial ceremonies said to be embedded in deer stones. Given the overwhelming concern evident in the petroglyphic tradition of the Mongolian Altai for the activities and textures of everyday life, this complete absence is worth considering. Secondly, the deer of the Mongolian and SayanoAltai formulations are clearly those of True Deer (maral or elk, Cervus elaphus sibiricus). These large animals have hoofs and tines quite capable of maiming or killing any creature that draws too close. In the wild, it is only the young, the old, and the sick that are attacked by predators. Traditionally humans have been able to kill elk only by weapons of distance, such as thrown spears or arrows. Knives or daggers would serve no purpose but for the cutting up of the dead body. For these reasons, among others, it is highly improbable that the deer image on any of the deer stones represented a sacrificial animal; nor can one find confirmation within the petroglyphic record of a tradition that would privilege the act of sacrifice as the principal context of these images or the dagger as a sacrificial weapon. It is certain that the deer stones are anthropomorphic in reference, but the totality of their weaponry points to a concern with a wellequipped hunter, one carrying not only the most useful of instruments, a knife, but also bow, gorytus, battle axe, and so forth (fig. 2).

A group of images from the Tsagaan Gol complex presents other complicating issues. We have referred earlier to a scene from KS-B8 (fig. 10) in which a deer of the Mongolian type turns its head back towards a much smaller horse and rider. Although the body of the rider is lost in the

48

stone's pitting, the stylization of his steed's hindquarters points to the nomadic world of the early Iron Age. His beautifully rendered soft boots and the bow protruding from a gorytus behind his back could be transposed from the Scythian Kul Oba vessel of the fourth century B.C.E. Another composition, mentioned earlier, from the same site, includes two riders and a group of small stylized deer. In this case, the deer have the elongated bodies of the Mongolian type but the soft, enlarged lips reminiscent of the Sayano-Altay type. In style and in pecking technique, the horses and riders are close to that we have just seen: the figures appear to wear conical hoods and the same soft boots. As in the case of the other hunting scene, these riders suggest a date well into the Scythian period.

The merging of the two deer types, Mongolian and Sayano-Altai, is more explicit in the case of a group of five deer from the same section, KS-B8 (fig. 12). The depth and quality of the pecking as well as the treatment of the animals' proportions indicate that one hand was responsible for all five images. There are significant differences between them, however. The antlers of the deer on the left sweep back and low over its spine and its muzzle is extended into a bill-like form. The antlers of the large deer on the right are split into two main branches, very similar to those of a deer on one of Savinov's Type II, subgroup I stones, from Hovsgol.94 Its muzzle is shorter and enlarged. In the center is an animal that appears to be stylistically balanced between its companions, a vital merging of the Mongolian and SayanoAltai types. Finally, to complicate the situation further, the crouched treatment of the small deer above is reminiscent of the Sayano-Altai style. This group of images makes clear that variety was possible even within a single composition; whatever his ethno-cultural identity, the artist selected stylistic elements as he desired. Considering the variations at these Mongolian sites, one begins to suspect that the highly stylized formulation of the Mongolian deer stones and the more compact Sayano-Altay type were closely related; indeed, they were branches from one ancestral source. This situation greatly complicates the proposal above that the deer image, not the deer stone, was the distinguishing cultural marker. The material just discussed would suggest that whatever cultural distinction may have been significant in the appearance of both the


Mongolian and Sayano-Altai deer images in the late Bronze Age, that distinction became less important with the passage of time. By the time the scenes with riders hunting deer, referred to above, were carved, the ethno-cultural distinctiveness of the two deer types-if there had ever been such-seems to have become of considerably less significance.

One more point needs to be considered here because it possibly does relate the cultural impulse represented by the stylized deer to that represented by the Type I (Mongolian) deer stones. Elsewhere I have discussed a curious characteristic of the stylized Mongolian deer: rather than being merely juxtaposed with earlier imagery it is often pecked over that earlier material.95 There are many examples of this process found in the Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor and Tsagaan Gol complexes. In addition to two mentioned earlier, from TS IV and BO II and another from BO 1,96 there is a composition from BO IV showing a large and relatively clumsy Mongolian deer laid over an earlier Bronze Age hunt. 97 On a large boulder from BO IV, a stylized deer was deliberately pecked over part of a late Bronze Age herding scene.98 The same aggressive overlaying occurs spectacularly in a large panel from the Shiviit Khairkhan section of Tsagaan Gol, where a stylized deer covers an earlier Bronze Age deer hunt (fig. 13). The process of overlay is reflected more simply on the surface of SK-H7, where a fine deer overlays a Bronze Age horse or in KS-B3, where a darkened, stylized deer obscures the underlying Bronze Age images of a bear and horse. The number of times this peculiar form of overlay occurs within the large petroglyphic sites of mountainous Bayan Olgiy has not yet been determined. Although the number found to date is relatively small (approximately twenty), its persistence is striking. It is also significant that this process of overlay is characteristic only of the Mongolian deer and never of the Sayano-Altai type. 99

Another issue deserves brief mention here. For all the ubiquity of the stylized "Mongolian" deer image in petroglyphs and on deer stones of Type I, the image is singularly lacking from representational materials recovered from Altai burials of the early nomadic period. Among the objects found, for example, in burials of the Pazyryk culture (burials at Pazyryk, Ukok, the Chuya Steppe, and so forth), there are no examples of "Mongolian" deer. Conversely, the combination of birds

49

and deer occurs frequently, but in the form of deer with bird-headed antler tines. These birds are reminiscent of rap tors rather than of water birds,lOo but, with only one or two possible exceptions, this particular formulation is absent from rock art. On the other hand, the deer, rams, and boar of Type II deer stones are well represented in the materials recovered from the recently excavated Arzhan II, in Tuva. In other words, petroglyphic representations of deer and other zoomorphs do not necessarily compare with the culturally more certain goods from bUrials even when we would expect them to do so. One might tentatively conclude that the iconography of burial was, in some early nomadic cultures, quite different from that found in openair art on rock surfaces and standing stones. lOl

Since the observations of the Russian geographer Potanin, at the end of the nineteenth century, there has been a presumption that there is a genetic relationship between deer stones of Type I and khereksur. The presumption has been repeated so frequently, in fact, that at least one scholar has referred to a "culture of deer stones and khereksur."!02 This presumption of association is due at least in part to the fact that most scholars have not looked carefully at the larger physical context in which the deer stones have been found. Such a perspective might be corrective. At Mogoitin Go), for example, most of the original deer stones were probably set in the small valley presently characterized by Turkic enclosures and reworked images rather than in the main valley with the large khereksur. The two tall, Type I deer stones outside Tsengel' curiously stand in the center of a khereksur. At Tsagaan Asgat, the deer stones seem to be rather unceremoniously imposed in the far west side of the large khereksur compJex, as if they were a kind of cultural afterthought. This eccentric placement is not unique to Bayan Olgiy deer stone complexes; they may, indeed, point to an anomaly in the placement of Type I deer stones across Mongolia. This suggestion is supported by two major deer stone sites in Hovsgol aimag. At the famous site of Ushkiin-Uver, the khereksur referred to in the first major report of this complex are only the tip, one might say, of the real archaeological iceberg. lo3 They and the deer stones stand on the far southeastern edge of a huge khereksur complex, one that extends for several kilometers up the valley. This khereksur complex includes over

ejacobs

Highlight

"


Fig. 12. Petroglyph of five deer, KS-BS, Tsagaan Gol complex. Early Iron Age. Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

Fig. 13. Stylized deer (late Bronze Age) pecked over earlier Bronze Age hunt scene, SK-J13, Tsagaan Gol complex. Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia. Photo: Gary Tepfer.

50


twO hundred large surface structures (khereksur, small round altars, and mounds of uncertain significance)104 and clearly must have required far more time to erect than did the deer stones themselves. The same is true of the deer stones from Erkhel, in Burentogtokh sum. lOS This group of five stones of classic Type I is located at the far eastern edge of what is also a huge khereksur complex, one that stretches across the face of the mountain up to the north and west. Even casual observation indicates that the deer stones seem to have been located abruptly and intrusively on the west edge of a khereksur. 106

Reason indicates that khereksur complexes as large as those at Mogoitin Gol, Tsagaan Asgat, Ushkiin-Uver, and Erkhel would have taken generations to develop. At what point in that process would the deer stones have been raised? At the beginning? at the end? And given the ordered regularity of the khereksur themselves, why are the deer stones sometimes here and sometimes there? It is distinctly possible that the Mongolian deer stones do not, in fact, reflect a culture of "khereksur and deer stones." I would propose that, like the overlaid images of stylized deer on Bronze Age compositions, these stones are a late Bronze Age intrusion into ground ritually sanctifiedby Bronze Age predecessors. Whether this is true or not with reference to all deer stone and khereksur complexes in Mongolia will only be clarified when scholars have studied the two forms of surface archaeology in situ and with a view to the larger physical setting.

For all the scholarly discussion of North Asian deer stones, they remain as enigmatic as are the images of highly stylized deer. Although they can confidently be dated on the basis of their carved weaponry to the late Bronze and early Iron Ages, we still do not understand either their function or their symbolic load. The materials from mountainous Bayan blgiy reveal the problems inherent in the study of deer stones and deer imagery. In that region, the stones of all three types overlap, raising questions about their role as cultural markers. Their locational proximity and form similarities to the more generalized standing stones underscore the argument proposed here: that deer stones must be studied as but one variant of the larger North Asian tradition of standing stones. Within the great petroglyphic complexes of this region, the ubiquity of stylized deer imagery of the Mongolian deer stone type,

51

as well as of that of the Sayano-Altai type, forces one to ask why we find so relatively few deer stones of Types I and II. The very frequency of such rock-carved deer images and the manner in which they are combined on only a few and possibly late surfaces allow one to argue that the critical cultural marker was not the deer stone itself but the deer image. On the other hand, it is still premature, I believe, to identify any particular deer formulation with any specific culture. The inconsistencies between materials found in burials and petroglyphic representations of all kinds of deer, sheep, boar, horses, and felines precludes an easy identification of culture to cultural sign. 107 Attempts, to date, to use deer stones as dependable traces of the movement of ancient cultures end too often in highly tangled scenaria. 108

It is impossible not to recognize that the aggressive imposition of the stylized deer image over Bronze Age imagery is parallel to the imposition of Type I deer stones into khereksur complexes. In both cases, it would seem, the sign of an early nomadic culture was used for a time as a marker of expanded territory and hegemony. Nonetheless, the aggressive self-assertion suggested by the petroglyphs in question and by the location of deer stones with reference to khereksur is not well supported by the body of apparently contemporary petro glyphic representations. The very few representations of conflict we have documented in the large sites of Bayan blgiy aimag suggest raids or occasional conflict over hunting grounds and nothing more. Moreover, if the petro glyphic images were, as is argued here, the primary cultural indicator and only "borrowed" for the deer stones, then it becomes difficult to support the elaborate interpretations of deer stones that have been adduced to date. Deer imagery and deer stones indicate the movement of cultural communities from originating areas in the Sayan Mountains and in central Mongolia at some point in the late Bronze Age. Why they moved out of their original homelands-whether because of the impact of climate change on pasture or because of social upheaval further to the north, east, or south-we still can not say. Whatever the impulse, it is certain that these people were already horse dependent and transhumant in their life style. It is also clear, as Volkov and Savinov proposed, that these communities overlapped within the Altai regions of Mongolia,

ejacobs

Highlight

ejacobs

Highlight

ejacobs

Highlight


China, and Russiaj but what constituted their relationship within the Altai, and what relationship these people had with the early nomadic groups that pressed on across the Central Asian steppe: these issues, also, remain unclear. It is correct that a deer image remained the central zoomorphic image of the whole early nomadic world, at least until the late fifth century B.C.E.,

but the specific treatment of that deer image varied radically from one part of the early nomadic world to another. The stylized, "Mongolian" image we have been considering and the specific formulation known as "Sayan" never went further than the early nomadic communities of the T'ien Shan. Perhaps their appearance at such sites as Tamgaly109 in eastern Kazakhstan indicates the westernmost and latest movement of the carriers of the Mongolian deer image.

My own surmise is that the stones enwrapped by deer images were intended to stand for generalized tribal representatives garbed in the weaponry appropriate to a late Bronze Age hunter and facing the East-the direction from which comes sun, spring, and the renewal of life. The small round altars were most certainly used for burnt offerings, but there is no reason to assume that these offerings involved the sacrifice of deer. The deer images themselves must have referred to a tribal sign, totemic or otherwise, or, as I have argued elsewhere, the fundamental sign of both origins and end. liD And until we have other material, that is all that we can safely say about meaning.

Notes

l. For fuller discussion of the Early Nomads and the chronology implied by that designation, see below, and n. 9 below.

2. In its early formulations the image is stylistically almost identical to that exemplified by the gold shield plaque from the Scythian burial at Kostromskaya (Kuban region). There is considerable evidence from Mongolian sites that its late formulation should be associated with deer imagery most famously known from the Filippovka burial at the southern tip of the Russian Urals. This will be detailed in the publication of Tsagaan Gol, presently in preparation.

3. In addition to open air petroglyphs, this term, "surface archaeology," comprises large altars (khereksur), small altars, circles, mounds, and standing stones:

52

those archaeological monuments that are perceived on the surface of the earth. Regarding khereksur, see n. 27.

4. Unfortunately, some of the finest deer stone sites in Mongolia and the Altai Republic have been significantly altered by past archaeological work. See, e.g., n. 40 below.

5. The Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor site has been published (E. Jacobson, V. Kubarev, and D. Tseevendorj, Repertoire des Petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale, fasc. 6, Mongolie du Nord-Ouest, Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, 2 vols. [Paris, 2001]; hereafter referred to as Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor). Regarding the Tsagaan Gol complex, see E. Jacobson, D. Tseveendorj, and V. D. Kubarev, "A Petro glyphic Complex in the Upper Tsagaan Gol Valley, Mongolian Altay," International Newsletter on Rock Art, no. 32 (2002), pp. 16. The full report on this complex is being prepared for publication.

6. This term is used by Soviet and Russian scholars to refer to what we would call the iconographical and iconological meanings of a motif or composition.

7. Exceptions to this rule include some discussion of rock art imagery by E. A. Novgorodova, D. G. Savinov, and V. D. Kubarev, but their brief discussions are tangential to the larger topic of the deer stone. See works cited below. For a fuller discussion of this and other deer images of the late Bronze and early Iron Ages in North Asia, see E. Jacobson, The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia: A Study in the Ecology of Belief (Leiden, 1993).

It is admittedly awkward to make a distinction between the imagery pecked into the standing stones called deer stones and that found within rock art sites: both represent variations on the petroglyph. In order to maintain a working distinction here, however, I will use the term "petroglyph" only for the imagery that appears in open-air sites on bedrock and erratic boulders, in contrast to those images found on deer stones.

8. A broken figure of a male from the Kuban, now in the Krasnodar Museum, seems to be wearing a plaque of a deer on its chest. See Jacobson, The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia, p. 163, pI. XXI£; and P. N. Shul'ts, "Skifskiye izvayaniya," in Khudozhestvennaya kul'tura i arkheologiya antichnogo mira (Moscow, 1976), fig. 6.

9. The designation" early nomadic" is here used to refer to the period in North Asia describing the transition from the late Bronze to the early Iron Ages (late 2nd-early 1st millennia B.C.E.) and the emergence of an increasingly horse dependent semi-nomadism. The Early Nomads would then refer to the peoples who made that transition in life style and from the Bronze to the early Iron Age. Although a number of named cultures are associated with the transition-most particularly Karasuk and Tagar-there is as yet no agreement as to the cultural affiliation of the Early Nomads or of those early nomadic people who must


have left the Altai region in the late Bronze Age and brought North Asian horse dependency and the socalled "Scythian triad" to the shores of the Black Sea. The term has been used, capitalized and not, by a number of scholars; see, e.g., M. Gryaznov, "The Age of the Early Nomads," chapter III in his Southern Siberia (Geneva, 1969); and V. V. Volkov, Olennye kamni Mongolii (Ulan-Bator, 1981), p. ll8.

10. See, for example, the recumbent deer from Chiliktin, Kazakhstan, dated to the 7th c., and the large golden deer plaque from the Kostromskaya burial, in the Kuban, dated to the late 7th-early 6th c.

11. See, for example, Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, vol. 2, pIs. 140,247,248. The history of the deer image in the Mongolian Altai will be detailed in the publication of the Tsagaan Gol complex.

12. For a discussion of this period, see, e.g., A. P. Okladnikov, Istoriya Sibiri (Leningrad, 1968), vol. I, pp. 172-87; Gryaznov, Southern Siberia, pp. 89-130.

13. See, inter alia, N. I. Dorofeyuk and P. E. Tarasov, "Vegetation and Lake Levels in Northern Mongolia in the last 12,500 Years as Indicated by Data of Pollen and Diatom Analyses," Stratigraphy and Geological Correlations 6.1 (1998), pp. 70-83; P. Tarasov, N. Dorofeyuk, and E. Metel'tseva, "Holocene Vegetation and Climate Changes in Hoton-Nur Basin, Northwest Mongolia," Boreas 29 (2000), pp. ll7-26; P. D. Gunin, E. A. Vostokova, N. I. Dorofeyuk, P. E. Tarasov, and C. C. Black, Vegetation Dynamics of Mongolia (Dordrecht, 1999).

14. I have detailed this argument and its supporting documentation elsewhere. See, inter alia, Jacobson, "Petroglyphs and the Qualification of Bronze Age Mortuary Archaeology," Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia 3 (ll) (2002), pp. 32-47; Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, vol. I, pp. 7-33; and E. JacobsonTepfer, "The Emergence of Semi-Nomadic Pastoralism in the Mongolian Altai: Rock Art and Paleoenvironment," forthcoming in the publication of the Fourth Cots en Seminar on Nomadism (UCLA), ed. H. Barnard and W. Z. Wendrich.

15. This is well documented in many petroglyphs datable to the late Bronze Age in the complexes of Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor and Tsagaan Gol. This period also, I would argue, saw the first appearance of Bactrian camels in the Altai region, and in many of the earliest representations of camels they are being ridden. See Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, vol. 2 , pIs. 184, 344,345.

16. Ibid., pIs. 217, 218, 262, 331-34, 393. 17. Although the mortuary evidence for this hy

pothesis is ambiguous, it is occasionally suggested by petro glyphs of the late Bronze Age. In that material, social conflict was a far less significant subject for representation than was hunting, herding, or moving households; but there are enough scenes of raids or ap-

53

parent conflict over hunting grounds to make one take notice. This is particularly noteworthy in the still unpublished materials of Tsagaan Gol; but see, ibid., pIs. XXIV; pp. 369-71.

18. I offer this hypothesis on the basis of the documentation of hundreds of petroglyphic images from the Altai Mountains. To the best of my knowledge, there is no surviving record from excavation archaeology to prove or disprove this argument; on the other hand, by the time we get to burials of the late Bronze and early Iron Age, it is apparent that riders were carrying large numbers of arrows in a quiver form known as a gorytus. Those arrows were shorter than would have been used for a long Bronze Age bow. The gorytus allowed the hunter or rider to store his recurved bow within the case, together with the arrows. This is well represented by the scene in fig. l.

19. M. Cremades, "Les Cervides," in L'Art Parietal PaJeolithique (Paris, 1993), pp. 143-44.

20. See E. Jacobson, "Siberian Roots of the Scythian Stag Image," Journal of Asian History 17 (1983), pp. ll7-20.

2l. See, for example, those discussed in D. G. Savinov, Olennye kamni v kul'ture kochevnikov Evrazii (St. Petersburg, 1994), pIs. IV, V, XXII.

22. Ibid., pp. 75-78. 23. Ibid., pp. 131-34. Savinov implies that the infre

quently represented feline is a counterpart to the more frequently seen wild boar. Since, in his estimation, the boar is a sign of the sacrifice of the deer, the feline, also, represents that aspect of the stones' semantics (ibid., pp. 130-31).

24. This is quickly observable in the major corpus of Altai deer stones, collected and discussed by V. D. Kubarev (Drevnie izvayanie Altaiya [Novosibirsk, 1979]).

25. See above, n. 8. 26. The most recent and comprehensive discussion

of deer stones is that of D. G. Savinov (Olennye kamnil. More recently the landmark study of Mongolian deer stones by Volkov, Olennye kamni Mongolii, has been reissued (Moscow, 2002) with far better reproductions than were included in the original publication (1981).

27. These surface structures are characterized by a large central mound, an enclosing circular or squared "wall" or boundary marker, and-often, but not always-by rays or radii extending from the central mound to the enclosing "walL" These rays are generally aligned with the four quarters and with their subdivisions. In recent years there has been an increasing interest in khereksur and in whether or not they served as burials. In the opinion of this author, these structures were built as altars, on which may then and later have been performed sacrifices. The small circular rings that so frequently accompany them were

ejacobs

Highlight


more certainly the locations of burnt offerings. Later peoples occasionally inserted burials in the central mounds, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that the khereksur were originally conceived as burials. Several khereksur mounds have been excavated, in Tuva, in the Altai Republic, and in Mongolia, and the results appear to be inconclusive. Their design suggests that khereksur could have been used in ceremonies intended, on some level, to reaffirm order in this world and in the next. It is also possible that they were used in relationship to the consecration of surface burials, the traces of which have long since been lost. In this paper, the term, khereksur, will refer to a singular or plural number.

28. Savinov, Olennye kamni, p. 9. 29. Ibid., p. 10. 30. Ibid., pp. 1O-1l. 31. A. P. Okladnikov, "Olennyi kamen's reki Ivolgi,"

SA 19 (1954), pp. 207-20. 32. N. N. Dikov, Bronzovyi vek Zabaikal'ya (Ulan

Ude, 1958), pp. 45-46. 33. Ibid., p. 46. 34. N. 1. Chlenova, "Ob olennykh kamnyakh

Mongolii I Sibiri," in Mongol'skiy arkheologicheskiy sbornik (Moscow, 1962), pp. 27-35; 1. R. Kyzlasov, "K izucheniyu olennykh kamney i mengirov," Kratkiye soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii 154 (1978), pp.25-30.

35. N. 1. ChIen ova, Olennye kamni kak istoricheskii istochnik (Novosibirsk, 1984).

36. M. P. Gryaznov, Arzhan: tsarskii kurgan ranneskifskogo vremeni (Leningrad, 1980), pp. 54-55, fig. 29/2.

37. Ibid., fig. 15/4; or see V N. Basilov, ed., Nomads of Eurasia (Los Angeles, 1989), p. 20. The stone from Bayan bulak sum, Bayan Khongor aimag, is reproduced in Volkov, Olennye kamni Mongolii (1981), pI. 34/2; that from Undurkhangai sum, ibid., pI. 69/4; and on a stone from Khiadag, Burentogtokh sum, H6vsg61 aimag (personal documentation). On the stone from Undurkhangai appears to be the image of a Mongolian stylized deer, on that from Bayanbulak-two or three recumbent deer (or one deer and a moose?) of the Sayan type, and no other zoomorphic images on that from Khiadag. In addition, of course, the coiled feline is represented in a magnificent if unprovenanced plaque from the Siberian Treasure of Peter the Great, housed in the Hermitage State Museum; and in several small gold plaques from the 7th c. burial of Chiliktin, Khazakhstan. On these images and others, see Jacobson, The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia, pp. 50-5l.

38. The problem here is that the location of the fragmentary stone within the rubble of the burial mound could indicate that the stone itself was earlier or later than the burial; that it represents the reuse of a previously destroyed stone, the destruction of a

54

stone for the purpose of adding to the burial mound, or the opportunistic addition to the mound of an available-and by then meaningless-fragment. In other words, its relationship to the burial itself is thoroughly unclear.

39. V V Volkov and E. A. Novgorodova, "Olen'nye kamni Ushkiin Uvera (Mongoliya)," in Pervobytnaya arkheologiya Sibiri (Leningrad, 1975), pp. 78-84.

40. Unfortunately, this stone and several others were incorrectly reoriented when the researchers reconstructed the site. The face stone, the southernmost within the row on the west, now faces to the south, whereas it should have faced to the east.

4l. E. A. Novgorodova, Drevnyaya Mongoliya (Mos-cow, 1989), pp. 215-16.

42. Volkov, Olennye kamni Mongolii (1981,2002). 43. Volkov, Olennye kamni Mongolii (1981), p. 118. 44. Ibid., p. 96. 45. V D. Kubarev, Drevnye izvayaniya Altaya: Olen

nye Kamni (Novosibirsk, 1979). 46. Ibid., p. 86. 47. Savinov, Olennye kamni v kul'ture kochevni

kov Evrazii. 48. I will not try to discuss here Savinov's sub-types,

which become complicated and possibly open to considerable objection; see Savinov, Olennye kamni, pp. 70-83.

49. Ibid., p. 127. 50. Ibid., pp. 158-6l. 51. These were developed earlier by Chlenova, Olen

nye kamni. 52. Savinov, Olennye kamni, pp.129, 146-50. 53. Volkov, Olennye kamni; Novgorodova, Drev

nyaya Mongoliya, pp. 203-32. This is quite evident in the case of the large complex of Ushkiin-Uver, discussed below.

54. See, e.g., E. B. Vadetskaya, "0 kamennykh stelakh epokhi bronzy v Khakasso-Minusinskoy kotlovine, SA 4 (1965), pp. 211-22; and 1. R. Kyzlasov, Drevneishaya Khakasiya (Moscow, 1986). The possibility of filiation between the Okunev stones and deer stones has been suggested by several scholars; see, e.g., Savinov, Olennye kamni, p. 24.

55. Kubarev, Drevnye izvayaniya Altaya, pp. 19-20, fig. 11. The attempt to date this stone to the early Bronze Age is particularly problematic in light of the Karasuk-Tagar (i.e., late Bronze Age, early Iron Age) dagger and battle-axe pecked into the stone's surface.

56. Unpublished field observations. Materials supporting this position will be included in the publication of the Tsagaan Gol complex, presently in preparation.

57. These round altars are also "generic." They are found most numerously around khereksur and were apparently intended to be used for burnt offerings. The appropriateness of their form to their function probably dictated why this specific altar type should have


lasted several thousand years across the Bronze and early Iron Ages.

58. The Sogoogin Gol stone has not been published. That from Inya is not published in an available source.

59. These image stones are well known in Mongolia, Tuva, the Altai Republic, and beyond into Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and northern China.

It should be pointed out that there is one later phase in the tradition of stone imagery in Mongolia, that of the Mongols themselves. Without question this tradition depended upon the previous Turkic stone image tradition and its deep roots in prehistory. Regarding these Mongolian images, see D. Bayar, Mongolyn tov nutag dakh' turegiin khun chuluu (Ulaanbaatar, 1997); and for Turkic and Mongolian period stones in Mongolia, see 1. Dashnyam et aI., Mongol nutag dakh' tuukh soe1yn dursgal (Ulaanbaatar, 1999), pp. 93-138.

60. See V D. Kubarev and D. Tseveendorj, "Ancient Turkic Memorials in the Altai," Archaeology, Ethnology, eJ Anthropology of Eurasia l.9 (2002), pp. 76-95.

6l. There are many such combinations in the Tsagaan Gol complex and elsewhere in mountainous Bayan Olgiy.

62. See above, n. 7. 63. One damaged stone has been reset within a

Turkic enclosure, itself in immediate proximity to two khereksur and several other Turkic enclosures. Higher in the valley, in the section of the petroglyphic site designated as Shiviit Khairkhan, we located a second, broken stone that, curiously, stood on the west side of a mound of unknown significance. This stone was marked as a deer stone only by the large rings on the side of its "head."

64. Dashnyam et aI., Mongol nutag, pp. 87-88. The grey-white stone has a clearly carved face. There is a strange protruding area on the "face" side of the bluish stone, suggesting that it, also, may have been intended as a face. The fact that the grey-white stone faces south and the blue stone faces east is another indication that this was not the original location of both stones.

65. Work in this valley by the Joint MAR Project took place in the summer of 1998 and, more briefly, in 2003.

66. Dashnyam et aI., Mongol nutag, pp. 78-79. 67. See, for example, Volkov, Olennye kamni Mon

golii (2002), pIs. 5/2,3; 8/3; 9; 10; 12/1, 2, 3; 18/1; 24/ 2; 36/2; 46/2; 48; 56/1, 2; 60/2, 5; 61/2; 81/1; 82/3; 99/ 1, 2; 100/2; 106/1; 110; 133/3. It is curious that a few of the Black Sea stones said to be "Cimmerian" in origin were also carved with "heads" at both ends. See stones from Ust'Labinsk and Zubovskii khutor (Chlenova, Olennye kamni kak istoricheskii istochnik, figs. 2-4.)

68. A recent discussion of Mongolian deer stones interpreted the upward or downward position of the

55

deer images on the stones as indicating the movement of the deer between Heaven and Earth. See J. Magail, "Mongolian 'Stag Stones,'" International Newsletter on Rock Art, no. 39 (2004), pp. 17-27.

69. Scholars frequently surmise that the inverted position indicates the reuse of the stone at a time later than its original raising. Even if the stone was reused, it is hard to understand why it would have been put into the ground "head" down when it would have been just as easy to set it in a correct position. Clearly the inverted position was deliberate and meaningful.

70. Jacobson, unpublished field notes. 71. We have recorded two other deer stones of a very

simple Type III: one within the construction of a khereksur in the eastern section of Tsagaan Asgat complex' and another behind the "Black Mountain," at Kharganatiin Gol. Both are as yet unpublished.

72. See the deer stone within a small altar, at Zhargalant, Erdenimandal sum, Arkhangai aimag in Volkov, Olennye kamni (1981), pI. 2l.

73. The only image occurring occasionally on deer stones but not found within the petroglyphic record of Bayan Olgiy is that of the curled feline; on the other hand, there are significant examples of representations of felines that are crouched or rampant, or in the process of attacking their prey. See, e.g., Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, vol. 2, pI. 240; and forthcoming publication of Tsagaan Gol.

74. Ibid., pIs. 247, 248. 75. Ibid., pIs. 46, 47. In both cases, the animals are

standing, but with legs tensed for flight. 76. Ibid., pI. 140. 77. Ibid., pIs. 325, 326. 78. Ibid., pIs. XX, 280. 79. This material is discussed more fully in E. Jacob

son, "The 'Bird-Woman,' the 'Birthing Woman' and the 'Woman of the Animals': A Consideration of the Female Image in petroglyphs of Ancient Central Asia," AAs 52 (1997), pp. 37-59.

80. The Tsagaan Gol complex is divided into three main sections: that of the Khar Salaa (KS), of the Tsagaan Salaa (TS), and of the upper Tsagaan Gol (TG). The number following the letters indicates the specific outcropping or area within each section.

81. Unpublished material, to be included in the publication of Tsagaan Gol.

82. See E. Jacobson, "The Stag with Bird-Headed Antler Tines: A Study in Image Transformation and Meaning," Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 56 (1984): pp. 113-80, and Jacobson, The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia.

83. See, for example, a stone from Khargalant sum, Bayankhongor aimag (Volkov, Olennye kamni Mongolii, pI. 40/2; and another housed in the regional museum of Battsengel' sum, Arkhangai aimag (ibid., pI. 1/1).

\ \

/ /

l


84. Savinov, Olennye kamni, p. 127; J. Sher et al., Repertoire des Petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale, fasc. 1, Siberie du Sud I: Oklakhty I-III (Russie, Khakassie) (Paris, 1994), pp. XVII-XX.

85. Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, vol. 1, figs. 956-66. 86. Ibid., figs. 976-78. 87. These two surfaces will be included in the

publication of Tsagaan Gol. 88. Stone from Ushkiin-Uver, Hovsgol aimag; Vol

kov, Olennye kamni Mongolii, pI. 78. 89. Although, as indicated above, one in the valley

of Mogoitiin Gol was recarved and another is found on the north bank of Khoton Nuur.

90. I am reluctant here to enter into an extended discussion of the meaning of "culture." Although a variety of appellations have been coined to distinguish cultures of the late Bronze and early Iron Ages (e.g., Karasuk, Tagar, Pazyryk), I am increasingly uncomfortable with these distinctions and with what, exactly, they purport to mean.

91. Savinov, Olennye kamni, p. 129. 92. Ibid., pp. 146-50. 93. In TS-IV there is a fine representation of a male

figure holding a dagger of the Karasuk type (Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, vol. 2, pI. 157). In the complex of the upper Tsagaan Gol, in two cases, we have to do with simple representations of daggers. A third case is curiously and instructively a large dagger held by a woman. In a forth case, within an elaborate scene of combat, one figure appears to be stabbing another. It should be added that such a scene of close-combat violence is unique among the thousands of carved surfaces we have documented. This material will be included in the publication of the Tsagaan Gol site.

94. Savinov, Olannye kamni, pI. IV/4. 95. E. Jacobson, '''Emblem' Against 'Narrative' in

Rock Art of the Mongolian Altay," Bulletin of the Siberian Association of Prehistoric Rock Art Researchers 3 (2000), pp. 6-14 (in Russian and English).

96. Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, vol. 2, pIs. 140,247, 248; and see, also, ibid., pIs. 215, 216.

97. Ibid., vol. 1, fig. l172. 98. Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, vol. 1, pIs. 372-74.

Shortly after the deer had been pecked over the earlier scene, the boulder appears to have been split by lightening. Its parts scattered in such a way that the images became well preserved.

99. In general, one can follow a "rule of thumb" in attempting to discern petroglyphic images or compositions that are significant. If, within one complex, an unusual image occurs once, one notes it; if twice, one becomes alert to its possible significance; if three or more times, one should begin to pay careful attention.

56

And when it occurs more than several times in mOj than one complex, then one is faced with an elemer that must have had considerable significance.

100. See, for example, the horse crest from Pazyry 2 and the deer images sewn on a man's caftan from tb same burial (S. I. Rudenko, Frozen Tombs of Siberi [Berkeley, 1970], pIs. 142/D, ISlA).

101. This point can be supported by examining whole range of symbolic elements beyond birds an horned and antlered animals. I have addressed this iE sue in a paper submitted for publication in an anthol ogy devoted to the art of the early nomads.

102. IU. C. Khudyakov, "Khereksury i olennye kam ni," in Arkheologiya, etnograflya i antropologiYl Mongolii (Novosibirsk, 1987), pp. 136-62.

103. Volkov and Novgorodova, "Olennye kamn Ushkiin Uvera."

104. According to estimations made on the basi1 of aerial photographs, there are approximately 27C khereksur in the Ushkiin Uver site, but this numbel has not yet been ground truthed. The total site are2 is estimated at approximately 2,830 hectares. I am indebted for this information to Dr. Clyde Goulden, Director of the Institute for Mongolian Biodiversity (communication 4 Feb 2002).

105. See Dashnyam et al., Mongol nutag, pp. 86-87, where the site is incorrectly labeled as Khiadag, another site in the same vicinity.

106. Scattered stones may refer to disrupted small altars, but the two lowest deer stones seem to have been thrust unceremoniously into the skirt of the khereksur.;rhis site has been the object of investigations led by Dr. William W. Fitzhugh, Arctic Studies Center, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.c.; see The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project, 2001-2002 Field Report (Arctic Studies Center, 2003), pp. 43-48.

107. These questions and others are discussed in Jacobson, "Petroglyphs and the Qualification of Bronze Age Mortuary Archaeology," Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia 3.11 (2002), pp. 32-47.

108. See, in that regard, Savinov's final discussion of the deer stone as "historical source," in Savinov, Olennye kamni, pp. 151-65.

109. Personal, unpublished documentation. See, also, Z. Samashev, Petroglyphs of the East Kazakhstan as a Historical Sources [sic] (Almaty, 1993), pp. 62-65. The gold hoard recently found at Chiliktin argues for a close relationship between the people responsible for that burial and those responsible for Arzhan II in Tuva (personal documentation).

110. Jacobson, The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia, pp.229-46.

Documents

Cultural Riddles: Stylized Deer and Deer Stones of the Mongolian Altai