Introduction

 

It is common theme in archaeological discourses to portray prehistoric rock art as the handmaiden to the history of religion. It is generally recognised that these ancient images are, undoubtedly, an important line of evidence in discussions about the archaeology of religion as they provide evocative evidence of the worldviews of forgotten and hitherto unknown prehistoric communities. These images, however, inevitably become embedded in colonial discourses of primitivism as we, as Westerners, attempt to grapple with the prehistoric past as a ‘foreign country’.

 

In the case of the rock art imagery carved into the cliffs of Central Asia they have been interpreted time and time again through classic Western ideas of primitive religion, such as hunting magic, totemism/zoolatry, solarism, etc [Note 1]. It has been argued that such disparate phenomena were apparently the characteristic of all primitive art [Note 2] and, thus the characteristic of all prehistoric art. Moreover, these ideals have reduced many peoples around the world into prescriptive categories which are part of the Western construction of the ‘primitive other’ [Note 3]. In essence, they presume how primitives behaved and projected these misconceptions into the past in order to establish a framework for the evolution of religious typologies to the present. These are also aligned with linear models of cultural evolution within archaeological discourses that ultimately seek sequential regularity to the rock art as well as prehistoric societies. We need to challenge these and other stereotypes of religious phenomena which misrepresent the peoples of the past and move towards treating their practices, as we would contemporary ones, as aspects of lived local religions.

 

Additionally, the representations of past religions in such idealised ways draw strict boundaries around the function of rock art in past societies. Solarism, for example, is an enduring out-of-date concept that still plays an active role within Central Asian discourses [Note 4]. In particular, the most famous rock art site in Kazakhstan is found along the Tamgaly River valley and contains extra-ordinary depictions of human figures with radiant heads (Figure 1). These evocative and striking petroglyphs have been time and time again called ‘sun-headed figures’ or ‘solar gods’ and argued to be the proof of the existence of heliolatry in the Bronze Age of Central Asia [Note 5]. Solarism imposes an idealised relationship between rock art and religion that constrains how we understand the past. The scenes from Tamgaly are treated in scholarly and popular interpretations as the fossilised remains of worship or petrified symbols that are essentially solar in nature [Note 6]. These constraints enable the creation of a standardised characterisation of prehistoric religion that colonises the past with Western notions of how non-modern persons should behave and treats the rock art as mere page-markers in the unfolding chapters of the history of religion.

 

Figure 1. The famous scene from Tamgaly (digitally enhanced photograph by the author)

 

 

Percolations of landscape

In the search for fresher avenues of understanding a more nuanced approach is explored herein that engages with the permeable and porous boundaries of rock art sites in the landscape. Places in the natural environment have many potential uses and certain points can be special locations where significant relationships are realised and accumulate throughout the ages. These places are localities that accrue biographical events, memories, stories, material objects, structures and rock art images as people dynamically engage with their discrete places. Some may possess liminal qualities where boundaries become permeable as the space becomes a place of convergence, connection, transition and/or transformation. The persistence of such places is then attested by their continuity and constant renewal through the interactions of individuals and communities time and time again.

 

We can investigate the persistence of these special places with archaeological methods and techniques. The archaeological project, however, is intrinsically based in the Western notion of time and space being linear. In particular, we all know the three ages system – Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age – which still dominate discussions of the prehistoric past. These categories cast time as a linear sequence of essentialised events which behave similarly to that of a reel of celluloid film [Note 7]. These temporal partitions are Western intellectual constructions based on the idea that the linear evolutionary progress of technology and culture is observable in sutured epochs. This temporal compartmentalisation of prehistory contributes to monolithic statements about activities conducted in large-scale spatial and temporal units that slowly progress frame by frame to the present.

 

This profoundly effects the perception of rock images as they are presented as being created en mass across wide geographical areas that misleadingly gives the impression of simplistic unity. The ‘Bronze Age’, for example, becomes a characterisation of a particular way of life (i.e. sedentary pastoralism) which creates an epoch peopled with uniform societies during the 2nd millennium of Kazakhstan that are represented by rock art depictions of solar cults. Meanwhile, the subsequent ‘Iron Age’ is the time of nomads where rock images have lost their ‘totemic-magical’ meanings as they had progressed into schematic figures with impoverished semantic contents [Note 8]. This laminar historicism creates periods of time bounded between frames that represents them as homogeneous sequences of events [Note 9] and leads to viewing prehistory as a succession and/or regression of social, economic and religious stages. Thus, looking at particular types of rock art (i.e. ‘solar-headed gods’) from this perspective only confirms the existence of a Western construction called the ‘Bronze Age’ and ignores the local processes involved in their production. Crucially, we need to recognise the installation of so many images in natural rock spaces around the landscape are part and parcel of a myriad of local events that were once the idiosyncratic actions and experiences of living persons and communities.

 

The way in which we perceive the setting of the rock art images is also important. The traditional archaeological approach to the landscape is based on extracting laminated layers of sedimentation and cultural depositions that follow linear chronological sequences. Moreover, now with the advent of GIS software this landscape has become a plot of points and shapes on a map which can be colour-coded and turned on/off in order to isolate specific time periods like peeling the layers of an onion.

 

An alternative approach to viewing the landscape has been put forward by L. Oliver (2003) who argues the physical environment in which communities live is composite in nature as it is compiled of elements from the past that continue to exist in the present. Oliver notes that societies time and time again have met head on with enduring structures from the past which still reside in contemporary times [Note 10]. There are abundant examples of this and I would like to point out in England today we can find megalithic structures (Stonehenge, Avebury) or Roman and Medieval roads that actively effect people’s movements and lives on a daily basis. The present is an aggregate mix derived from multiple times which do not follow strict linear relationships. Thus, we are able to move away from viewing the landscape as a monochronic object and acknowledge its many polychronic facets as various pasts still actively resonate within the realties of our various presents.

 

Ancient rock art sites in Central Asia have also resonated into the present and some, such as Tamgaly mentioned above, quite noticeably continue to play a significant role today as they did in the past. As opposed to being a collection of antiquated iconographic relics in an open-air museum I would suggest rock art sites are nodes in the landscape embodying temporal percolations of significant spaces. The concept of percolation put forward here draws upon C. Witmore’s (2006) observations of how things are filtered through porous processes in the landscape: material realities of the past – archaeological remains, structures, etc – continually bubble-up into the present [Note 11]. These become entangled in the present as they are still seen, heard, touched and even dreamed about. Entities and events perceived in traditional linear temporality such as ‘the distant past’ lie at permeable boundaries which are close to the present through entanglements and percolations. Thus, as opposed to conceiving the environment as progressing along a single, narrow line in time we can begin to consider the polychronic aspects of the landscape where times past continue as active pockets in the present. Moreover, Witmore points out it is through the activities of archaeology that it is possible to reveal aspects of the distant past which create close proximities and enable a crossing or mixing of times [Note 12]. Archaeological excavations, for example, reveal objects (handaxes, pots, swords, boats, etc) that were entangled in the lives of persons from the past. These can be sensually experienced once again as the past entwines with the present.

 

As we have seen above, the rock art of Tamgaly is ensnared in the laminar historicism of the ‘Bronze Age of Solarism’ and fresher perspectives are explored herein that move beyond these boundaries in order to tease out relationships to lived local religions. This entails examining the intersections, overlaps and convergences that twist and weave around its local landscape as well as bringing further illumination through comparison with another important percolating rock art site in Central Kazakhstan , Terekty Aulie.

 

Persistence of place

 

Decades of archaeological investigations at the famous petroglyph site of Tamgaly have provided a wealth of data that allow us to discuss a persistent sacred area in southeastern Kazakhstan [Note 13]. From the laminar perspective, the Tamgaly river valley contains numerous concentrations of petroglyphs which are dated primarily to the time of Andronovo archaeological culture (Middle to Late Bronze Age, c. 1400–1000 BCE) but there are also scenes from the Sako-Scythian period (‘Iron Age’, c. 800–200 BCE) [Note 14], the Early Turkic kaganates period (c. 500–800 CE) and up to the present day.

 

As we have seen above, the Bronze Age petroglyphs of Tamgaly are monolithically portrayed as the residual evidence of ancient solar cults. Archaeological investigations have, however, provided several forms of evidence that offer important clues to aspects of the lived local religions of these past communities.

 

We can start with the images themselves as many petroglyphs scenes have aspects that are strongly suggestive of being graphic representations of powerful visions intimately related to the personal experiences of individuals and embedded in the realties and perceptions of past societies [Note 15]. These carved scenes and individual images physically and psychically impact upon an observer and are mediated through multi-sensory engagements. Moreover, as we know from ethnographic studies, art and religion do not behave as disjunctive categories in numerous societies. Art objects in many native North American cultures, for example, are not passive artefacts but nodes of experience and actions [Note 16]. In particular, art among the First Nations of the Northwest Coast of Canada is closely entwined in performance as stories and objects come to life through performance. Kwakiutl artists, for example, create beautiful masks that transform during sacred ceremonies into the other-than-human-beings which they depict [Note 17]. Therefore, these masks are not merely representations of mythical stories but become the very beings they depict. Similarly, the anthropomorphic figures with heads radiating lines and dots from Tamgaly (Figure 1) disrupt normative categories of archaeological classification as we have tacit dimensions of light, space, time and motion, which are all equally part of the installation of the rock art. These scenes were perhaps material manifestations of powerful entities which were alive or awakened through performance and were engaged with by various members of the Andronovo community. All in all, by taking the above points into consideration they allow us to shift the emphasis of rock art images from being passive relics of ‘savage rites’ to a more nuanced approach that considers their dynamic relationships with other-than-human-beings through songs, stories, visions and performances in the landscape.

 

Evidence for local religious activities also can be garnered from considering the contexts revolving around the burial of the dead. Tamgaly valley’s petroglyphs are actually an important component of a special area bounded by Andronovo cist-burial cemeteries that date from 14th–10th centuries BCE [Note 18]. These graves were placed in flat areas at the natural entrances of the river valley and strongly indicate that there was a threshold before entering into a central area full of special rock art scenes – a nestled sacred space.

 

Moreover, the link of the ancestors to rock art in the Andronovo landscape comes from the presence of images carved into the sides of cist grave slabs. Archaeological excavations have uncovered three Andronovo cist graves with small singular images placed on interior stone surfaces [Note 19]. These cist engravings, however, are only a tiny sample of imagery that do not reflect the diversity of the Tamgaly petroglyphs, but instead strongly suggest that the living landscape of the river valley had underlying connections with the ancestors [Note 20]. Furthermore, some rock art scenes may have also been places where ancestors were encountered outside the burial context. The famous Tamgaly scene (Figure 1), for example, may have involved interactions between the tiny dancing ancestors and the two large other-than-human-beings with radiant halos. In turn, this scene was installed as part of kith and kin obligations to perform the actions and life-stories of gods and ancestors. Overall, the rock art and Andronovo cemeteries are more effectively viewed as facets of dynamic webs of relationships with the landscape of the Tamgaly valley as this is where ancestors and other agencies engaged with the wider community of the living.

 

The Andronovo rock art and cemeteries were entangled within a special area situated in the Tamgaly River valley during 14th–10th centuries BCE. The process may have initially began with artists installing petroglyphs which were derived from interactions with other-than-human agencies through performances and dreams. A nestled landscape became established as cist burials were constructed on its fringes. The graves reinforced clan and familial ties to the sacred landscape as they connected the dead with the liminality of an area of natural rocky outcrops tattooed with visionary scenes and living stories. Thus, Tamgaly’s rock art images were entangled in a web of sensual engagements and inter-connecting relationships with living religious practices and experiences among the Andronovo communities of this locality.

 

These rock art scenes continued to percolate their realities in the landscape as they were encountered by people again and again throughout the centuries. In particular, there is a fascinating incident of the inscription of the common Buddhist mantra, om mani padme hum, into a cliff face not far away from the above visionary scene of rock art. This mantra was, perhaps, inscribed during the time of the Zhungarian Empire (1635–1758). The Zhungars were a collection of western Mongol groups who conquered the lands of eastern Kazakhstan stretching from the Ili River to the Syr Dyra River and expanded south into the Tien Shan mountain regions. The Western Mongols had also been recently converted to the Gelugpa (dGe-lugs-pa) branch of Tibetan Buddhism – the Yellow Hats – in the 16th century, and as the Zhungars expanded their territories they brought Buddhism with them.

 

Om mani padme hum is found everywhere in Tibet and is carved on small rocks and stones or in enormous characters along the sides of mountains. The mantra is also inscribed on many rock surfaces accompanying the engravings of Buddhas (thangkas) made by the Zhungars in the early 18th century at the site of Tamgaly-Tas along the Ili River in southeastern Kazakhstan [Note 21]. The mantra is employed for various purposes including purifying the place of ritual and making blessings [Note 22] and, perhaps, the Tamgaly invocation may have been carved to purify as well as neutralise the ancient petroglyphs along the river valley. The Zhungarians encountered the outcrops of rock art percolating from the past and contested their original meanings by carving om mani padme hum amidst them. In turn, this contestation of the older ways was part and parcel of Buddhist conversion processes that also deeply affected Mongol communities since the 16th century as many indigenous religious beliefs and practices were also vigorously challenged by Lamaist missionaries [Note 23].

 

The percolations of the Tamgaly images into the present have become entangled within the folk Islamic practices of the Kazakhs. Since ethno-historical times Tamgaly has been recognised by the Kazakhs as a mazar, a Central Asian sacred site, possessing baraka (Kaz. bereke), spiritual power. Tamgaly is a local place of pilgrimage in the folk Islamic practice of ziyarat, the visitation of holy sites, shrines or saint’s tombs. It is visited in the annual cycle of Ramadan by pilgrims who tie prayer rags to bushes around the vicinity, such as ones growing along the edges of the river. Rags are also tied on other bushes around the year by Kazakhs as personal dedications seeking blessings or cures for various kinds of ailments and illnesses [Note 24]. The practice of prayer rags were first noted in 1957 when archaeologists had discovered the rock art site [Note 25] and demonstrates that the Kazakhs have acknowledged the rock art and the baraka of this place prior to its scientific discovery. Today Kazakh pilgrims have even tied rags to the small scraggy bushes growing directly in front of the famous Tamgaly scene (see Figure 1), while other rags have been tied on small jutting rocks near other petroglyph scenes in other parts of the Tamgaly valley.

 

In addition to rag tying, usually a Central Asian mazar is a place associated with the manifestation of a Muslim saint who instils the space with baraka or it is the dwelling of a local guardian spirit, which occurs in Kyrgyzstan [Note 26]. What is intriguing about Tamgaly is that there is no formal shrine but some locals have spoken of an unidentified saint who was laid to rest within the vicinity. This is in contrast to the rock art site of Terekty Aulie in Central Kazakhstan which is directly associated with a Muslim saint and demonstrates the diversity and idosyncraticity of folk Islamic practices among the Kazakhs.

 

Terekty Aulie is also another significant example of a persistent place of rock art in the landscape. It is an area of granite hills covered with numerous petroglyphs that are relatively dated to the Middle to Late Bronze Age of Kazakhstan, c. 1500–1000 BCE [Note 26]. It is important to note that the Kazakh word aulie, derives from Arabic word for Muslim saint, wali, and reflects Terekty Aulie’s contemporary role as the focus of folk Islamic pilgrimage. Local Muslims consider the petroglyphs of Terekty Aulie as a place of baraka bestowed by a visit from the famous wandering Central Asian saint, Ali. Ali is the prophet Muhammad’s cousin and became his son-in-law by wedding the prophet’s daughter, Fatima. In a few locations around the petroglyph laden hills there are a few human footprints and horse-hoof shapes carved into the natural rock that are considered to be a testimony of Ali’s visit to Terekty Aulie accompanied by his loyal horse Duldul [Note 28].

 

In addition to the hoof-prints the hills of Terekty Aulie are covered in numerous carvings of horses. In fact, the repertoire of Terekty Aulie’s petroglyphs is dominated by equid imagery, which make-up about 90% of the known rock art, but there are also a few depictions of bulls, camels, caprids and rare images of humans and feline-like predators [Note 29]. The equids are depicted in side profile and have a head topped with a cropped mane that overhangs the forehead and extends out into a wedge-like fringe (Figure 2). They possibly represent the older equine breed known as the Zhungarian horse or Mongolian takhi, but are more commonly called Przewalski’s horse in the West [Note 30]. These images have heads and manes that stylistically similar to Bronze Age dagger hilts decorated with equine heads found across Kazakhstan and the southern Urals which generally date to the Seimo-Turbino horizon in the Middle to Late Bronze Age [Note 31].

 

Figure 2. Detail of horse petroglyphs at Terekty Aulie (photograph by the author)

 

 

The great density of equine imagery undoubtedly emphasises the importance of horses in the religious experiences of past societies. As we know the horse is important to the indigenous lived religions of peoples across Central and Inner Asia. The Teleuts of the Altai utilised horsehide in the manufacture of the shaman’s drum, while the Sakha (Yakut) of central Siberia regarded the drum as the shaman’s mount which was called Kulan-at, the ‘wild horse’ [Note 32]. In some Altaic shamanic ceremonies a horse was sacrificed and the shaman flew up the tiers of heaven with the horse’s spirit to conduct it into the presence of White Ulgen, who lives in the highest heaven [Note 33]. Ulgen then tells the shaman whether or not the offering is accepted and the shaman can bargain with Ulgen for favours or learn of future events that will affect ordinary people’s lives. Furthermore, some Sakha gods take the form of the horse such as Uordakh-Djesegei, the sky-horse deity [Note 34]. Uordakh-Djesegei manifests as a white stallion who appears in the clouds during the Sakha summer kumis (mare’s milk) festival and the sound of thunder crackling in the sky is his passionate whinny.

 

The great amount of equid images carved among the hillsides of Terekty Aulie may have also been the visions of another time and used to access another realm populated by herds of horse and clans of ancestors. Relevant to this discussion are the peyote pilgrimages of the Huichol, in the highlands of northwestern Mexico , who journey to the desert plateau of San Luis Potosi to where the land of the ancestors, Wirikuta, is found [Note 35]. Wirikuta is more than a geographical location as it is the time before Huichol creation and homeland of the First People, the deity-ancestors. Wirikuta is where the ancestor deities sacrificed themselves and were transformed into features of the landscape [Note 36]. In able to enter into Wirikuta individuals go through the process of the pilgrimage and become transformed into the First People. Dramatic episodes and stories are performed during this journey not only to re-enact the sacred actions of the Huichol gods from the first times, but also consummate with this time and place in the present. Thinking about Wirikuta allows us to consider the horses carved into Terekty Aulie’s hillsides are not only visions but also percolations from ancient ancestral times within the living landscape. The equine petroglyphs create close proximities that enable a crossing or mixing of times. Individuals could of made special journeys to Terekty Aulie in order to consummate with the time of horses, deities and ancestors by passing through the veil of rock art in special spaces around the hillside.

 

There are also some Middle Bronze Age burials (c. 1500 BCE) within the immediate vicinity of Terekty Aulie [Note 37], but there is a lack of demarcation of an enclosed sacred space like that of Tamgaly. These burials belong to the Begazy-Dandybai archaeological culture, a regional variation of the Andronovo found in Central Kazakhstan . Therefore, Terekty Aulie provides a different view of ‘Bronze Age’ communities in contrast to Tamgaly and demonstrates the idosyncraticity and local diversity of these societies which is not generally acknowledged in the monolithic explanations of archaeological cultures. Moreover, there are no anthropomorphs with nimbus heads like those found at Tamgaly as depictions of humans are quite rare at Terekty Aulie and only further highlights the highly problematic universalist assumptions of the solar hypothesis. At Terekty Aulie encounters with the living landscape involved interactions with local peoples and herds of other-than-human-beings in equine form which offer a tantalising glimpse of the complexity of religious phenomena performed within this locality during 1500–1000 BCE.

 

The percolation of the images at Terekty Aulie have influenced the Kazakhs since the 18th century as clans had founded a cemetery of domed mausoleums on the flat plain directly beside the main hill of petroglyphs [Note 38]. These mausoleums are made of mud-brick and were built by families from the Kazakh clans of the Bagnaly and Baltaly. Modern mausoleums have been erected in the cemetery and metal fence has been set-up to enclose the area. Contemporary Kazakh pilgrims continue pay homage to the earlier tombs as the departed ancestors, ata-baba, are important to the lives of Kazakhs [Note 39]. These ancestors are not simply Kazakh progenitors but also persons of the past instilled with baraka who must be visited through the process of ziyarat. Additionally, deceased relatives can visit individuals in dreams and impel them to conduct a domestic ceremony for commemorating the ancestors or require them to go on ziyarat to shrines [Note 40]. The ziyarat visit to the mausoleum cemetery of Terekty Aulie is a special family outing where a memorial meal is performed in honour of the ancestors and prayer-rags are offered by tying them to the metal cemetery fence.

 

Rags are also tied to any stray bush which grows out of the cracks in the granite hillside of Terekty Aulie (Figure 3). Terekty Aulie lies amidst a desert steppe which lacks trees and is dominated by grasses and occasional shrubs. Local Kazakhs also come to visit Terekty Aulie for its healing properties that is derived from its saintly connections and baraka emanations. Pilgrims seek to be cured from various ailments as well as the treatment of infertility, such as barrenness in women.

 

Figure 3. Terekty Aulie rag bush with the vast steppe in the background (photograph by the author)

 

Additionally, locals have erected a small shrine upon the highest hill in the area with a commanding view of the Kazakh cemetery below which is placed directly atop two large scenes of petroglyphs composed of ancient horses. The shrine for several years was a small stone slab covered in thick layers of rags which have been constantly tied around it. The stone, however, has been recently replaced by a wooden pole which rags are now tied around [Note 41]. All in all, the petroglyphs of Terekty Aulie play a significant role in the local landscape as this is where the past still actively percolates and entwines with the realities of the present.

 

Permeability of boundaries

 

On the rocky road to religion we need to explore the complexity of peoples’ engagements with the world around them in order to move the archaeology of religion forwards within Central Asian rock art studies. The explanatory power of colonialist notions of antiquated religions, such as solarism, was limited by their implicit and explicit assumptions of how ‘primitive’ and prehistoric peoples behaved. Rock art, however, is a special form of material culture that connects with a much wider range of relationships than conceived under these reified ideals. Their usage also partitions a spectrum of phenomena into disparate parts which can be easily aligned into evolutionary hierarchies. Therefore, looking at religious phenomena connected with rock art requires nuanced perspectives that explore the diversity and idiosyncraticities of people’s daily lives. Additionally, instead of ordering local religions in evolutionary order, we need move to an awareness of the shifting kaleidoscope of religiosity among not only the living peoples in the past but also the present.

 

In the past, the petroglyphs evocatively depict scenes that were the visions of prehistoric societies and their interactions with other worlds. These rock art images distinguished special locations in the landscape where religious practices and experiences were realised. The petroglyphs were also instrumental in bringing about other times where radiant beings, ancestors and horses interacted. The percolation of these images in the present entangles contemporary viewers into the realms of the ancient visions which, in turn, create a chiasm of past and present. Moreover, these visions still affect the present as poignantly seen in the contemporary interactions of Kazakhs with Tamgaly and Terekty Aulie as they are visited by pilgrims who seek to engage with the miraculous baraka associated with the spaces containing petroglyphs.

 

Furthermore, the archaeological evidence from Tamgaly and Terekty Aulie reveal the lived religions of the past had features outside the scope of the hypothetical boundaries of the primitive cults of solarism. We may not be able to enter into prehistoric minds, but if the religious nature of rock art is to be understood we need to explore alternative perspectives in order to broaden our Western vistas. Tamgaly and Terekty Aulie are multi-faceted sacred sites that straddle the boundaries of personal, social and religious realities in the landscape. The rock art images were intricately related to complex values and beliefs embedded in time, place, society and culture. Their spaces are entangled in a nexus of relationships related to the experiences of local community with the landscape and mediated through sensual engagements, visions, dreams and encounters with other times. Thus, in perceiving rock art sites as permeable spaces it allows us to explore the complexity of relationships rather than narrowing them down into a monolithic model of cultural evolution that ultimately seeks singularity to Bronze Age archaeology.

 

We also need to recognise how past religious boundaries are permeable by switching our attention away from religion being a self-contained sphere operating outside of society and recognising that there are many kinds of practices and experiences which make-up social and personal realities. Approaching rock art images as such also allows us explore relationships which facilitate further discussions about the complexity of lived local religions. This includes examining the polychronic nature of special places in the landscape as well as their percolations through time that still influence the activities of the present. Thus, we are able to consider the entanglement of rock art in localised religious phenomena by exploring the dynamic connections between time, place and people, while also recognising the remarkable persistence of these special places in the landscape.

 

Notes

 

Note 1. See for example Chernikov 1947; Maksimova 1958; Davis-Kimball & Martynov 1993; Frachetti 2008: 138–39, 160; and Shuptar 2009: 39.

 

Note 2. Kadyrbaev & Mar’yashev 1977: 220.

 

Note 3. See Kuper 1988 for an overview of the construction of the myth of primitive society in the West since Victorian times.

 

Note 3. See Dorson 1955 for a brief history of the 19th century origins of solarism and its famous advocates including Max Müller.

 

Note 4. See Lymer 2006, 2009 for a review of solarism in Central Asian rock art studies.

 

Note 5. See for example Ksica 1969; Mar’yashev 1980: 216–17; and Maksimova et al. 1985 9–10.

 

Note 6. See for example the popular book by Eastep & Kunanbay 2001:61. The recent academic article by Yespembetova et al. 2008: 125 is also an example of how the overriding concern for establishing the existence of solarism involved the misreading of a source material (Rozwadowski 2004: 68–70) that was discussing the epistemological problems of solarism.

 

Note 7. Witmore 2006: 279.

 

Note 8. Kadyrbaev & Mar’yashev 1977: 220.

 

Note 9. See Oliver 2003: 208; Witmore 2006: 280.

 

Note 10. Oliver 2003: 204.

 

Note 11. Witmore 2006: 279–80.

 

Note 12. Witmore 2006: 280.

 

Note 13. Maksimova et al. 1985; Francfort et al. 1995; Rogozhinskii 2004.

 

Note 14. The term ‘Iron Age’ is not used much in Central Asian studies as the time around c. 800–200 BCE is more commonly called the Early Nomadic period.

 

Note 15. See for example Rozwadowski 1999, 2001, 2003; and Lymer 2004a, 2006, 2009.

 

Note 16. See Vastokas’s 1992 discussions on moving beyond the idea of North American Native art as static artefacts and seeing them as part and parcel of performances.

 

Note 17. Vastokas 1992: 27–29.

 

Note 18. Rogozhinskii 1999: 27.

 

Note 19. Rogozhinskii 1999: 21, 24.

 

Note 20. Lymer forthcoming.

 

Note 21. Valikhanov 1961: 408–9; Mar’yashev 1994: 6.

 

Note 22. Peacock 2003: 101–2.

 

Note 23. Lamaists have suppressed indigenous religious practices such as shamanism, animal offerings and communicating with ancestors through effigies (ongons). See Heissig (1953, 1980) for a summary of the history of the Buddhist conversion of the Mongols.

 

Note 24. See Lymer 2004b for a discussion about the role of prayer rags.

 

Note 25. Maksimova 1958: 110.

 

Note 26. See Tyson 1997 for examples of saint shrines in Turkmenistan and Aitpaeva 2007 for mazars inhabited by local guardians in Kyrgyzstan .

 

Note 27. See Samashev et al. 1999, 2000 for brief site reports; and also Lymer 2000.

 

Note 28. Originally al-Duldul was the alternative name of Mohammed’s mule al-Shahba, however, across Central Asia the legend of Ali and Mohammed’s mule transformed into Ali and his faithful horse Duldul.

 

Note 29. Samashev et al. 2000: 6.

 

Note 30. The Zhungarian horse may be the closest living wild relative of modern domesticated horses, but it is currently on the endangered species list.

 

Note 31. Samashev & Zhumabekova 1996.

 

Note 32. Potapov 1976: 340–41.

 

Note 33. Radloff 1884: 20–50; and Harva 1938: 557–58.

 

Note 34. Diachenko 1994: 266.

 

Note 35. See for example Furst 1972 and Myerhoff 1974, 1978.

 

Note 36. Shelton 1992: 231–34.

 

Note 37. Samashev et al. 1999.

 

Note 38. Samashev et al. 1999, 2000.

 

Note 39. Lymer 2004b: 162.

 

Note 40. Privratsky 2001: 186–87.

 

Note 41. Shuptar 2009: 39.

 

 

References

 

Aitpaeva, G. (ed.) 2007. Mazar worship in Kyrgyzstan: rituals and practitioners in Talas. Bishkek: Aigine Research Center .

Chernikov, S.S. 1947. Naskal’nye izobrazhenia verknovii Irtysha. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya No. 9, 251–82.

Davis-Kimball, J. and A. I. Martynov 1993. Solar rock art and cultures of Central Asia . In M. Singh (ed) The Sun in Myth and Art, 207–21. London : Thames and Hudson .

Diachenko, V. 1994. The horse in Yakut shamanism. In G. Seaman & J.S. Day (eds) Ancient traditions – shamanism in Central Asia and the Americas , 265–71. Denver , Colorado : University Press of Colorado and Denver Museum of Natural History.

Dorson, R. M. 1955. The Eclipse of Solar Mythology. Journal of American Folklore 68: 393–416.

Eastep, W. & Kunanbay, A. 2001. The Soul of Kazakhstan . New York , NY ; Easten Press.

Frachetti, M.D. 2008. Pastoralist landscapes and social interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia. Berkeley : University of California Press.

Francfort, H-P.; Soleilnavoup, F.; Bozellec, J-P.; Vidal, P.; D’Errico, F.; Sacchi, D.; Samashev, Z and Rogozhinskii, A. 1995. Les pétroglyphes de Tamgaly. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 9: 167–207.

Furst, P.T. 1972. To find our life: Peyote among the Huichol Indians of Mexico. In P.T. Furst (ed.) Flesh of the Gods, 136–84. New York : Praeger.

Harva, U. 1938. Die religiösen vortellungen der altaischen volker. Helsinki : Suomalainen Tiedakatemia.

Heissig, W. 1953. A Mongolian source to the Lamaist suppression of shamanism in the seventeenth century. Anthropos 48: 1–29, 493–536.

Heissig, W. 1980. The Religions of Mongolia . Translated by Geoffrey Samuel. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kadyrbaev, M.K. & Mar’yashev, A.N. 1977. Naskal’nye izobrazheniya khreta Karatau. Alma-Ata : Nauka Kazakhskoi SSR.

Kuper, A. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society – Transformation of an illusion. London : Routledge.

Ksica, M. 1969. Gravures rupestres et culte du soleil dans le défilé de Tamgaly. Archeologia 28: 6–11.

Lymer, K. 2000. Petroglyphs and sacred spaces at Terekty Aulie, Central Kazakstan . In J. Davis-Kimball, E.M. Murphy, L. Koryakova & L.T. Yablonsky (eds) Kurgans, ritual sites and settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age, 311–21. BAR International series 890. Oxford : British Archaeological Reports.

Lymer, K. 2004a. Shimmering visions – shamanistic rock art images from the Republic of Kazakhstan . Expedition 46: 16–21.

Lymer, K. 2004b. Rags and rock art: the landscapes of holy site pilgrimage in the Republic of Kazakhstan . World Archaeology 36.1: 158–172.

Lymer, K. 2006. The Light Fantastick: rock art, visions and the myth of solarism in Central Asia . Cosmos 22: 47–63.

Lymer, K. 2009. Rock art, radiant visions and dreamscapes in Central Asia . Quaderni di Studi Indo-Mediterranei 2: 41–69.

Lymer, K. forthcoming. Installing Rock Art: Moving beyond the boundaries of art in the later Bronze Age of southeastern Kazakhstan . Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2.

Maksimova, A.G. 1958. Naskal’nye izobrazhenya ushchelya Tamgaly. Vestnik Akademii Nauk Kazakhskoi SSR (1958) No. 9: 108–10.

Maksimova, A.; Ermolaeva, A. & Mar’yashev, A. 1985. Naskal’nye izobrazheniya urochishcha Tamgaly. Alma-Ata : Oner.

Mar’yashev, A.N. 1980. Petroglify Semirech’ya. In R.S. Vasil’evskii (ed.) Zveri v kamne, 211–29. Novosibirsk: ‘Nauka’ Sibirskoe Otdelenie.

Mar’yashev, A.N. 1994. Petroglyphs of South Kazakstan and Semirechye. Almaty: Institute of Archaeology .

Myerhoff, B.G. 1974. The Peyote Hunt. Ithaca : Cornell University Press.

Myerhoff, B.G. 1978. Return to Wirikuta: ritual reversal and symbolic continuity on the peyote hunt of the Huichol Indians. In B.A. Babcock (ed.) The Reversible World – Symbolic inversion in art and society, 225–239. Ithaca : Cornell University Press.

Oliver, L. 2003. The past of the present: Archaeological memory and time. Archaeological Dialogues 10.2: 204–13.

Peacock, J. 2003. The Tibetan way of life, death and rebirth. London : Duncan Baird.

Potapov, L. 1976. Certain aspects of the study of Siberian Shamanism. In A. Bharati (ed.), The Realm of the Extra-human: Agents and audiences, 335–44. The Hague : Mouton Publishers.

Privratsky, B.G. 2001. Muslim Turkistan : Kazak religion and collective memory. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.

Radloff, W. 1884. Aus Siberien, Volume 2. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel.

Rozwadowski, A. 1999. Znikając w skale: szamanistuszne aspekty tradusji idnoirańskiej jako kontekst dla interpretacji petroglifów Azji Środkowej. In A. Rozwadowski, M.M. Kośko and T. A. Dowson (eds) Sztuka naskalna i szamanizm Azji Środkowej, 101–34. Warsaw : Dialog.

Rozwadowski, A. 2001. Sun gods or shamans? Interpreting the ‘solar-headed’ petroglyphs of Central Asia . In N. Price (ed.) The Archaeology of Shamanism, 65–86. London : Routledge.

Rozwadowski, A. 2003. Indoirańszycy – sztuka i mitologia. Poznań: Wudawnistwo Naukowe UAM.

Rozwadowski, A. 2004. Symbols through Time. Poznań : Institute of Eastern Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University .

Rogozhinskii, A.E. 1999. Mogil’niki epoki bronzy urochishcha Tamgaly. In A.N. Mar’yashev, Yu.A. Motov, A.E. Rogozhinskii and A.A. Goryachev (eds), Istoriya i Arkheologiya Semirech’ya, 7–43. Almaty.

Rogozhinskii, A.E. 2004. Tamgaly (Chu-Iliiskie gory). In A.E. Rogozhinskii (ed.) Pamyathniki naskol’nogo iskusstva Tsentral’noi Azii: obshchestvennoe uchastie, menedzhment, konservatsiya, dokumentatsiya, 45–60. Almaty.

Samashev, Z.; Kurmankulov, Zh.; Zhetybaev, Zh. & Lymer, K. 1999. New archaeological research at the petroglyph site of Terekty Aulie in central Kazakstan. Newsletter of the Circle of Inner Asia Art 10: 3–5.

Samashev, Z.; Kurmankulov, Zh.; Zhetybaev, Zh. & Lymer, K. 2000. Les gravures rupestre de Terekty Aulie, Kazakstan Central. Lettre Internationale d’information sur l’Art Rupestre 25: 4–8.

Samashev, Z. & Zhumabekova, G. 1996. Spätbronzezeitliche Waffen aus Kazachstan. Eurasia Antiqua 2: 229–39.

Shelton , A. 1992. Predicates of aesthetic judgement: ontology and value in Huichol material representations. In J. Coote & A. Shelton (eds) Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics, 209–44. Oxford : Clarendon Press.

Shuptar, V. 2009. V teni velikikh gor. Dnevnik Puteshestvennika 14: 34–39.

Tyson, D. 1997. Shrine pilgrimage in Turkmenistan as a means to understand Islam among the Turkmen. Central Asia Monitor 1: 15–32.

Valikhanov, Ch.Ch. 1961. Sobranie sochinenii v pyati tomakh. Volume 1. A.Kh. Margulan (ed.). Alma-Ata : Akademii Nauk Kazakhskoi SSR.

Vastokas, J.M. 1992. Beyond the Artifact: Native art as performance. North York , Ontario : Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, University of York .

Wimore, C.L. 2006. Vision, media, noise and the percolation of time: Symmetrical approaches to the mediation of the material world. Journal of Material Culture 11.3: 267–92.

Yespembetova, A.; Rickly, J.M. & Braverman, L.C. 2008. Tourism as a reconnection to the Neolithic past: The Tamgaly rock paintings of Kazakhstan . In D.C. Knudsen, M.M. Metro-Roland, A.K. Soper & C.E. Greer (eds) Landscape, Tourism and Meaning, 121–29. Aldershot : Ashgate Publishing.