“HORSE-HEADED” STAFFS AND THE CULT OF THE HORSE HEAD IN NORTHWESTERN ASIA IN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM BC

7/25/2019 “HORSE-HEADED” STAFFS AND THE CULT OF THE HORSE HEAD IN NORTHWESTERN ASIA IN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/horse-headed-staffs-and-the-cult-of-the-horse-head-in-northwestern-asia 1/11

ARCHAEOLOGY,

ETHNOLOGY

& ANTHROPOLOGY

OF EURASIA

Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 95–105

E-mail: [email protected]

© 2013, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy

of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2013.04.010

95

Staffs and pommels

Stone staffs with sculptural representations of horse headshave been discovered in the Altai, Eastern Kazakhstan,and the Omsk Province (Fig. 1, 1–4). One more distinctiveobject of this kind was found in the Chelyabinsk Province(Fig. 1, 5). Except for the Shipunovo assemblage, thelocation of such objects does not overlap with the areawhere the staffs with the heads of argali mountain sheep

and the staffs in the form of snakes or sh were found(Kovtun, 2009: 401–403, 407–408).

The staffs under consideration are associated with theartistic traditions of the steppe cultures of NorthwesternAsia and date back to the transition time from the EarlyBronze to the Middle Bronze Age. Arguments in favorof the Seima-Turbino af liation of some of the staffsinclude similarity in the exterior appearance of thehorses represented on the staffs and knives from Seima,Rostovka, Elunino I, and Ust-Muta. Other parallels

I.V. Kovtun Institute of Human Ecology, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences,

Leningradsky Pr. 10, Kemerovo, 650065, Russia

E-mail: [email protected]

“HORSE-HEADED” STAFFS

AND THE CULT OF THE HORSE HEAD IN NORTHWESTERN ASIAIN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM BC

This article analyzes the semantics of staffs with the sculptural representations of horse heads. Such staffs were

discovered in the steppe and forest-steppe Ob-Irtysh region; they date back to the beginning or the rst half of the

2nd millennium BC. Stylistically early and later objects are identi ed. The study provides some parallels with Siberian

ethnographic data and the mythology of the Indo-European peoples. The Indo-Aryan semantic content of the Vedic

mythological tradition is used for interpreting the meaning of the staffs. The article suggests that the semantic range of

the “horse-headed” stone staffs and the Seima-Turbino pommel belongs to the worldview of the carriers of the Indo-

Aryan dialects.

Keywords: Staff, Ob-Irtysh region, Indo-Aryans, Rig Veda, horse-headed, mythology.

include Northern and Central Asian petroglyphs (Fig. 2,6–13), a small sculpture on a pin from the Zardch Khalifasite, and the representation on a Bactrian “ceremonialax” (Kuzmina, 1994: 264) or “battle axe” (Savinov,2000: 180–181, g. 3, 6, 9, 11, 12) (Fig. 2, 2). However,according to its visual aspects and exterior the axe iscomparable only to the representations on the staffs fromthe Omsk Province and from the river of Bukhtarma nearUst-Kamenogorsk (Fig. 1, 3, 4). The common features

of these objects are the “forelocks” hanging over theforehead. Yet, this feature is missing on the staffs fromShipunovo V and Semipalatinsk Province (Fig. 1, 1, 2).The Margiana cylinder seal that was used for decoratinga vessel from Taip Depe-1 (Masimov, 1981: 143–147,fig. 12; Sarianidi, 1986: 41, 43, fig. 8, 14) bears astylistically close representation of a horse with a“forelock” (Fig. 2, 6 ). I.S. Masimov believed that, infact, a lion was depicted there, but that vessel doeshave a representation of lion from another cylinder seal,

THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD



96 I.V. Kovtun / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 95–105

Fig. 1. Stone staffs with representations of horseheads.

1 – Shipunovo V; 2 – Semipalatinsk Province (Samashev,Ermolaeva, Kusch, 2008: 53); 3 – Bukhtarma River (nearUst-Kamenogorsk); 4 – Omsk Province; 5 – KizilskyRegion of the Chelyabinsk Province (Chenchenkova,

2004: 283) (1, 3, 4 – photographs by the author).

12

3

4

5



I.V. Kovtun / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 95–105 97

which is essentially different from the

rst representation(Masimov, 1981: 144–147, g. 10–12; Sarianidi, 1986:43, g. 8, 13, 14). Thus, there is no reason to believe thatthe representation under discussion is that of a lion. The

parallels to the imprints on the vessel from Taip Depe-1 areknown from the materials found at the settlement of TellRimak (Mesopotamia) and are dated to the Middle Assyrian

period – 1300–1000 BC (Masimov, 1981: 149). Therepresentation of the horse with a hanging “forelock” onour vessel should be considered to be close to that time.

Comparison of the equine representations with pronounced “forelocks” on the staffs with petroglyphs

and the metal arts of the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 2, 3– 13) reveals specic historical trends in stylizing therepresentation. The longer, bigger and the more ornatethe “forelocks” are, the more likely the representationwas created at a later time. This is confirmed bychronologically indicative post-Seima daggers from thetown of Shemonaikha and the village of Charyshskoe,which show the sculptures of horses with “forelocks”hanging over their muzzles (Fig. 2, 4, 5). The nal stageof the stylization process is represented by a groupof sculptures on the hilt of an Early Scythian daggerfrom southwestern Tuva (Fig. 2, 14). The elongated

Fig. 2. Representations of horses on Bronze Age artifacts and petroglyphs.1 – Margiana (Sarianidi, 1986: 43, g. 14); 2 – Bactria (Kuzmina, 1994: 264); 3 – Mynshunkur (Kovtun, 2008: 96, g. 1, 1);4 – Charyshskoe village (Kiryushin, Shulga, Grushin, 2006: 51, g. 1, 2); 5 – Shemonaikha (photograph by S.P. Grushin);6 – Baikonur B (Novozhenov, 2002: 69, pl. 2, 5.1); 7 – Sagyr I (Samashev, 1992: 21, g. 11); 8, 10 – Moinak (Ibid.: 40, g. 46;44, 45, g. 51, 52); 9 – Chitykhyssky chaatas (Miklashevich, 2007: 54, g. 2, 6 ); 11 – Saimaly Tash (Miklashevich, 2010: 137, pl. I, 7); 12 – Tsagaan Salaa I (Kubarev, Tseveendorj, Jacobson, 2005: 169, g. 89); 13 – Tsagaan Gol (Jacobson-Tepfer, Kubarev,

Tseveendorj, 2007: 103, g. 1); 14 – southwestern Tuva (Chugunov, 1997: g. 13).

1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 14




“forelocks” of both horses, merging with their ears, arehypertrophied in a decorative manner. They exhibit a

pronounced degeneration in the manner of depictingelongated and overhanging “forelocks” of the horse.Therefore, the staffs from the Omsk Province and theBukhtarma River, showing the overhanging “forelocks,”

must have been stylistically later than the staffs fromShipunovo V and the Semipalatinsk Province, which donot show such a detail. Describing the specic featuresof the Shipunovo staff, Yu.F. Kiryushin also expressedthe opinion that it looked “clearly older than all theothers” (Kiryushin, 2002: 56, 89).

There are compelling iconographic differences between the Seima-Turbino metal plastic arts and thestaffs with horse heads. The ears on the Seima andRostovka pommels either protrude above the mane orare pressed to the head and are turned away. On the stonestaffs they do not protrude above the mane and are either

perpendicular to the muzzle (Fig. 1, 1, 2) or are facingforward (Fig. 1, 3, 4). The latter feature is combined withthe overhanging “forelocks” and is probably anotherindication of the chronologically late iconographicmethod. In addition, the manes of the equine sculpturesfrom Seima and Rostovka as well as from Elunino I andUst-Muta are nished in transversal relief. The staffs shownothing of the kind, although their production techniquemade it possible to do the same. Obviously, the reason forthe iconographic differences was the dissimilarity in thecontent of the images.

A bronze pommel in the form of a horse’s head,found in the destroyed Seima-Turbino assemblage in thevicinity of Omsk is comparable to the stone staffs underconsideration (Molodin, Neskorov, 2010: 68–69, g. 18,19) (Fig. 3, 1). However, these objects are not the samefrom a conceptual and structural point of view. They key

difference is not their form or material, but the presenceof a socket in the Omsk pommel. As far as this featureis concerned, the Omsk pommel is comparable with thefunctionally and chronologically close “horse-headed”

pommel from Gonur Depe (Fig. 3, 2). Apparently, thesocketed pommels in the form of horse heads have theirown “family tree,” regardless of stone “horse-headed”staffs and stylistic features of bronze objects. Much later,this “family tree” manifested itself in the Tagar antiquities(Fig. 3, 3).

Comparative studies and mythology

In the Bronze Age, the equine subjects in NorthwesternAsia had exclusively Indo-European origins. The Tocharic(or proto-Tocharic) migration, associated with theappearance of the Afanasievo culture can probably claimto be one of the possible explanations for the early layerof such beliefs. However, it is problematic to correlate the“horse-headed” staffs of Northwestern Asia with eitherAfanasievo antiquities or with the eastwards movementof the Tocharians (the proto-Tocharians). This is also

Fig. 3. Socketed pommels in the form of horse heads.1 – vicinity of Omsk (Molodin, Neskorov, 2010: 69, g. 19); 2 – Gonur Depe (Avanesova, 2011: 113, g. I, 8); 3 – Kyzyl-kul,

burial mound 1, excavations by A.V. Adrianov (Chlenova, 1967: pl. 25, 5, 5a).

1

2

3




precluded by the lack of Afanasievo representations ofhorses, since for the bearers of the Afanasievo culturethe drawing and transporting functions of horses were

probably carried out by bulls. It is not possible to connectthe “horse-headed” staffs from the steppe and forest-steppe Ob-Irtysh region with the long Tocharic migration

due to a relatively compact area where the staffs werefound.According to T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov, the

carriers of the “Old European” dialects (Celtic-Italic,Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic) moved along withthe Tocharians, but in the western direction along theeastern path (through Central Asia and the Volga regionto Europe) (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984: 938–939).The Yenisei languages adopted the common Yeniseiannames of mare, and gelding from these dialects: “underthe inuence of the Indo-European cultural traditions,horse sacrice, associated with the cult of the God ofthe Sky, emerges in the ancient time among the Altaic

peoples” (Ibid.: 939). E.E. Kuzmina and J.A Sher also pointed out that the image of the horse and horse-relatedsubjects in Northwestern Asia have exclusively Indo-Aryan origins (Kuzmina, 1977: 36–37; Sher, 1993: 17).Yet, according to the hypothesis of T.V. Gamkrelidze andV.V. Ivanov, the source of such borrowing could only bethe “Old European” dialects. The name of the horse in theMongolian and Tungus-Manchu languages, according toE.E. Kuzmina (1977: 37), goes back to the same Indo-European and, more precisely, “Old European” basis. Thescholars argue for the lexical connections of the westerngroup of the Indo-European languages with the Altaic

languages, from which the Indo-European languages borrowed terms like *mork (h) – “horse” (Gamkrelidze,Ivanov, 1984: 939). O.N. Trubachev suggested a differentetymology, “Celtic-Germanic isogloss of one of the namesof the horse – *markos, *mark , is free from non-Indo-European associations (with the Mongolian languagewhich can be localized in ancient times in the Trans-Baikal region, that is, at an inconceivable distance fromthe Indo-European language, in any case – from the Indo-European languages of Europe). It is more justied tosee here an ancient innovation of the European center ofhorse breeding... Compare the royal name Thia-marcus

among the Agathyrsi, which clearly includes the above-mentioned equine term; also compare, with another suf x,the Old Indian Vedic márya – ‘stallion’” (Trubachev,2003: 159).

The appearance of domesticated horses andmythological subjects involving horses beyond theUrals could only be the result of a historically signicant

process. A large-scale migration ow in NorthwesternAsia, following the Tocharic migration, is associated withthe carriers of the Indo-Aryan and Old Iranian dialects. Yet,

before that, the satem form of the Indo-Iranian name forhorse (Old Indian á va-, Avestan aspa-, Old Persian asa-)

had penetrated the Middle Eastern languages (Sumerian si.si, Akkadian sisû, Ugaritic ssw, Hebrew sûs, etc.) dueto their interaction with the Old Iranian dialect. This factdemonstrates “the exceptional antiquity of the time whenthe Old Indo-Iranian dialect was separated from the Greek-Armenian-Aryan community” (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov,

1984: 872–876, 914), and, indirectly, the Indo-Iranianorigins of horse breeding in the Volga–Ural region andin Northwestern Asia. Thus, it is possible that the circleof the Indo-European languages spoken by the creatorsof the “horse-headed” staffs can be narrowed down tothe carriers of the Indo-Iranian dialects. Consequently,for interpreting the semantic meaning of these staffs itis reasonable to address the sources containing the Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan mythological layer.

Possible derivatives of these beliefs, surviving amongthe Indo-European and Siberian peoples, are also of someinterest. Describing the ritual of burial practiced by theArintses and the Tubintses, D.G. Messerschmidt noted aspecic feature of the warrior burial, “His best horse wasslain; its hide with the head was skinned and placed on astick, which was set on the grave.” D.G. Messerschmidtdescribed a similar ritual, practiced by the “Barabintses”(from his diary entries of March 17 and December26, 1721 (see (Titova, 2003)). Among the Yakuts, theKangalass petty prince Mazara used the representation ofthe horse as his banner (Bakhrushin, 1987: 194). Whenthe Yakut shamans addressed the superior evil spirits,they would set a skull of a horse or a representation of amythical winged animal with a horse’s head on a larch oron a stake (Novik, 2004: 26). Some groups of Siberian

Tatars set horse skulls on display as talismans (Ocherki...,1994: 353). The Buryat shamans use the “Horse” – a polewith a horse’s head – in their ecstatic dancing (Eliade,2000: 433). The ritual of “revitalizing” these poles hadto “turn them into living horses” (Prokoeva, 1981: 52)which would carry the shaman to the land of the spirits(Khangalov, 2004: 130, 136). It is possible that this ritualwent back to the tradition of making “horse-headed”staffs with similar mythological and ritual functions.P.P. Slavnin provided examples from the Yakut and theShor ethnography concerning the replacement of theshaman drum by a stick with the head of the horse or its

attributes (1949: 125).These cases are primarily related not to horses, butto horse’s heads. Accordingly, the partial characterof the sculptural representations implied the use ofonly those subjects where the horse’s head appearedas a self-sufficient character and not as a part actingas a representation of the whole. In his analysis of theUkrainian tales about the “mare’s head,” E.M. Meletinskysuggested that it was “an extremely archaic magic fetish,most likely, of totemic origin. The cult of the horse andhorse’s skull, which supposedly embodied a mighty spirit,

played a signicant role in the primeval rituals of various




peoples. At the initial stage, the tale of the mare’s headundoubtedly represented a ‘dedication,’ the acquisitionof a spirit-helper” (Meletinsky, 2005: 167). The magicalabilities of the “mare’s head,” are described in Russianfairy tales and in the Lithuanian legend about the holein the bog, plugged by a large horse’s head. V.F. Müller

compared this plot with the Indian name of the entranceto the underworld, ‘vadavmukha’ or ‘vadavvahtra’ –“mare’s mouth” (1876: 197–198). In the East Slavic fairytale, the “mare’s head” appears to be an ambiguous and

borderline character. The “mare’s head” rst requests thefemale characters to open the door and transfer the headacross the threshold. The disconnecting and connectingmotif of the door/threshold is the key element in theinterpretation of the image. The girl that fullled therequest, received great favor, and the girl who ignoredthe request, was eaten up (Narodnye russkie skazki...,1984: 119–120; Meletinsky, 2005: 167). The functional

character of the “mare’s head” is associated with theimage of the guard of the entrance to the kingdom of thedead (Barag, Novikov, 1984: 462). This image representsthe motif of connection/separation of the real world andthe otherworld.

Traces of the devotion to the horse’s head on the partof the Indo-European peoples can be found in the archaicRoman ritual practice, Roman legends, Greek “feastsof the dead,” or Avar burial rituals; such a devotion hassurvived among the Byelorussians living in Polesie, etc.(Ivanov, 1989: 79, 80, 83, 84). During the “feasts of thedead” – ancient Greek wakes – the feast would take placein front of the horse’s head, which is represented on

funerary reliefs (Sternberg, 1916: 183). At these ancientnekrodipnoses, the deceased appeared to be feasting in themidst of his family and servants; the representations of ahorse’s head and a snake were present there (Freidenberg,1997: 62). E.E. Kuzmina interpreted them as expressingthe notion “of the ability of the horse, especially its head,to revive the person” (Kuzmina, 1977: 42), whereasO.M. Freidenberg believed that “the semantics of thesnake and horse as the underground principles has long

been revealed” (Freidenberg, 1997: 62).In the Roman ritual of Equus October, which

G. Dumézil identied with the Ashvamedha, the head of the

sacricial horse became the center of a ritual competition between two groups, who tried to get hold of it and take itaway either to the R gia – “the king’s house” or to the TurrisMamilia – the “Mamilian Tower” (Ivanov, 1974: 103–04),where the horse’s head was adorned with a garland and wasattached to the wall (Kuzmina, 1977: 38).

Horse skulls and ritual

Three horse’s skulls were discovered in special stone-lined pits, in with pottery fragments at the Beeke I burial

site (the Katun Valley) near the mound of an Afanasievkurgan (Kubarev, 2004: 13). The Late Chalcolithic shrineSavin on the Tobol River with dominating Sosnovy Ostrovand Ayatskoye assemblages, represents another piece ofancient evidence with a special attitude toward horse’sheads or skulls by the peoples of Northwestern Asia. There

are 19 cases of skulls and limbs of sacricial horses foundin the post holes in ditches or trenches (Potemkin, 1995:146; 2001: 175, 220). Ritual and symbolic burials of horseheads (skulls) were discovered among the bearers of theSintashta culture and in the burials of the early Andronovoculture in Northwestern Asia (Gening V.F., Zdanovich,Gening V.V., 1992: 235; Kuzmina, 1994: 166; Kostyukov,Epimakhov, Nelin, 1995: 159, 160, 162, 163, 170; andothers). The nd from Gonur Depe, where the skull of ahorse was discovered near the royal necropolis in structure

No. 149 (excavation unit 9) at a height of 35 cm abovethe oor, is likely to be of the same period (Sarianidi,

Dubova, 2008: 150). At the burial site of Syda V of theOkunev culture, a horse skull was found in a box that didnot contain any other objects; a piece of another skull wasfound in the enclosure of the burial mound 4 (Gryaznov,Komarova, 2006: 56–58, 72). Horse jaw fragments werefound in a grave at Rostovka (Matyushchenko, Sinitsyna,1988: 23). A piece of horse skull was found in a stone

box decorated with painted squares and containing twoskeletons at the Andronovo burial ground Sukhoe Ozero I(Maksimenkov, 1978: 30).

In the Karasuk period, the evidence of the cult of horseheads or skulls can be found in some assemblages ofMongolia and in the Kuznetsk Basin. The “sets” of horse

skulls and hooves were found under almost each of thehundreds of small stone barrows with a common fence atone of the sacricial sites with two deer-stones in WesternMongolia (Novgorodova, 1989: 202). The evidence ofmanipulation with horse heads or skulls was found inthe Irmen burial grounds of Titovo I, Zhuravlevo-4,and Tanai VII in the northwestern periphery of theKuznetsk Basin, containing stone statuary structuresabove male graves. A skull of a horse was found in thecenter of the mound of kurgan 1 at Titovo I at a depth of0.3 m (Savinov, Bobrov, 1978: 50). Stone obelisks withthe heights of 0.8–1.0 m were found at the burial site of

Zhuravlevo-4 under the mound of kurgan 10. Nine horseskulls, oriented toward the southwest (ve) and towardthe northeast (four) were found in a shallow pit next tothe obelisks (Bobrov, Chikisheva, Mikhailov, 1993: 37– 39). It can be suggested that this arrangement personiedthe sunrise in the northeast during the summer solsticeand the sunset in the southwest at the time of the wintersolstice. Such mythical and calendar symbolization

probably goes back to the southwestern orientation ofthe horses (burial grounds of Nurtai, Ashchisu) and,later, the people in the Andronovo burials. Obelisks inthree burials and a pit with ve horse skulls were found




in kurgan 7 of Tanai VII (Bobrov, Goryaev, 1998: 182,g. 1, 4: 184; Mikhailov, 2001: 194). Fifty two (!) horseskulls with broken frontal bones as well as long bones oftwo horses were found in kurgan 14 of the same burialground, in a pit adjacent to an unusual burial (Bobrov,Goryaev, 1998: 183–184). A log was discovered in

the eastern part (Bobrov, Mylnikova, Goryaev, 1997:145), which resembled a sacricial “horse-pole.” Thisis a unique case since any examples of such horsehecatombs are unknown in the Bronze Age cultures of

Northwestern Asia. The scale of the Tanai grand horsesacrice, accompanying a buried representative of theIrmen culture, is comparable to the commemorationritual of the Scythians described by Herodotus. One yearafter the burial of the king, the Scythians would sacrice50 men and 50 horses on his grave (Herodotus, IV. 72).The pit, similar to the orientation of horse skulls at the

burial ground of Zhuravlevo-4, is extended along theline northeast–southwest. It is notable that a sacricialhorse in Ashvamedha is oriented to the northeast, “Theythen set it free towards the northeast, for that – that is,the northeast – is the region of both gods and men”(Satapatha-Brahmana, XIII. 4. 2. 15).

The horse head

and the Indo-Aryan tradition

In the Vedic Ashvamedha, the frontal part of the horse,its head, “is dedicated to the re god, Agni; it is identiedwith the dawn and is correlated with one of the three types

of well-being (tejas ‘spiritual energy’), one of the parts ofthe tripartite space and one of the three queens” (Ivanov,1989: 81). The contents of this allegory are revealed inthe main Upanishad, “Aum! The dawn is the head of thehorse which is t for sacrice, the sun its eye, the windits breath, the mouth the Vaisvânara re” (Upanishads,1884: I. 1). Vaisvânara – ‘omnipresent,’ ‘universal’ – isan epithet of re and of the god of re, Agni. The head isthe most important part of the body, just as the dawn isthe most important part of the day (Syrkin, 1992: 162).Agni himself often takes the form of a horse carrying thesacrice to the gods (Elizarenkova, 1989a: 501).

It is characteristic for the semantics of the “horse-headed” staffs to be likened to the Vedic sacricial horse,tied to the pole, to the World Tree. The name of this polewas a vay pá, which meant ‘equine pole’ or ‘horse-pole’(Ivanov, 1974: 101). Personifying the sacricial horse,the “ritual pole (avay pá-) is functionally identied withthe ‘World Tree’: Old Indian a vatthá literally means ‘thetree of the horse’” (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984: 549) inthe sense of “horse staying point” (Toporov, 2010: 220– 21) or “horse-tree.” This meant the identity of the ritualimages of the sacricial horse and the World Tree (Ivanov,1974: 95, 115). Stylized visual embodiment of such a

worldview as well as the idea of horse sacrice could be represented by the stone “horse-headed” staff. This isindirectly conrmed by the position of such a staff in the

burial at the burial ground Shipunovo V, where the staffstood upright with its pommel down (Kiryushin, Ivanov,2001: 43) resembling a sacricial pole with the lowered

head of the slain horse.The phallic shape of the “horse-headed” staffs relatesto the female participant in the ritual of royal sacrice.The chief queen of the three (or four) queens – the seniorwife of the king – had a special role involving the frontal

part of the sacricial horse, its head. She would anoint andadorn this part of the sacrice, and mark it with a goldenneedle (Ivanov, 1974: 95–96) (cf. (Shomakhmadov,2007: 450)), and then she would lie next to the slainanimal, representing the ritual mating and marriage ofthe queen with the horse (Ivanov, 1974: 98). In this ritualthe horse substituted for the king who acquired royalty asa result of the ritual and the inauguration, included in theritual (Vasilkov, 1988: 109; Shomakhmadov, 2007: 46– 47). Consequently, the phallic shape of the staffs couldsymbolize the ritualistic and role function of the female

participant.The core meaning of the “horse-headed” staffs can

be reduced to the insignia of power and the attribute ofinauguration. This hypothesis corresponds to the narrativesemantics of the objects. An Indo-Aryan story tells usof a legendary ancient Rishi or demigod DadhyanchaAtharvan whom Indra threatened to deprive of his headif he gave away the divine “honey” wisdom. The Avinsreplaced Dadhyancha’s head with the head of a horse,

and the Rishis gave them wisdom. When Indra deprivedthe disobedient Dadhyancha of his horse head, theAvins gave his own head back to him (Müller, 1876:195–215; Macdonell, 1897: 141–142; Ivanov, 1989: 81;Elizarenkova, 1989b: 591; Syrkin, 1992: 184–185).

A later version of the Vedic story about Dadhyancha by the commentator Sayan (14th century) is known. Afterthe death of Rishi, the Asuras invaded the Earth, and Indracould not control them any longer. When Indra found thatDadhyancha was in the Heavens, Indra began to searchfor something remaining from him on the Earth. A horse’sskull was found, with the help of which Dadhyancha gave

the secret of the honey of Tvastar, that is, soma, to theAvins. Using the bones of this skull, Indra defeated theAsuras (Elizarenkova, 1989b: 592). In the Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian mythology in general and in the Vedicmythology in particular, many stories are related to thetheme of the horse. Yet, it is probably only the story ofRig Veda that is centered on the motive of the key role ofthe horse’s head, dramatically affecting the outcome. Themost archaic layer of contents which absorbed the ancienttradition of oral storytelling is more revealing than thelater interpretation. Three hymns mention a trick of theAvins and the actions of Dadhyancha:




That mighty deed of yours, for gain, O Heroes, As thunderheraldeth the rain, I publish, when, by the horse’s head,Atharvan’s offspring Dadhyac made known to you Soma’ssweetness.

(Rig Veda, 1896: I, 116).

Ye brought the horse’s head, Avins, and gave it unto

Dadhyac the offspring of Atharvan. True, he revealed to you,O Wonder-Workers, sweet Soma, Tvastar’s secret, as yourgirdle.

(Rig Veda, 1896: I, 117).

To you in praise of sweetness sang the honey-bee: Auijacalleth you in Soma’s rapturous joy. Ye drew unto yourselvesthe spirit of Dadhyac, and then the horse’s head uttered hiswords to you.

(Rig Veda, 1896: I, 119).

A similar story is contained in the BrihadaranyakaUpanishad:

Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey (the

madhu-vidyâ) to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said:‘O ye two heroes (Asvins), I make manifest that fearfuldeed of yours (which you performed) for the sake of gain, likeas thunder makes manifest the rain. The honey (madhu-vidyâ)which Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed to you through the headof a horse,’…

Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey to the twoAsvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said:

‘O Asvins, you xed a horse’s head on Âtharvana Dadhyak,and he, wishing to be true (to his promise), proclaimed to you thehoney, both that of Tvashtri and that which is to be your secret,O ye strong ones.’

(Upanishads, 1884: II, 5).

Another Vedic hymn reports about the triumphant endof the story,

With bones of Dadhyach for his arms, Indra, resistless inattack, struck nine-and-ninety Vrtras dead. He, searching forthe horse’s head, removed among the mountains, found ataryanvn what he sought.

(Rig Veda, 1986: bk I, ch. 84).

The key plot of all the passages is centered on thehead of the horse, which has unusual power, comparableto divine power. The horse’s head reveals the hiddenknowledge and gives power and prosperity to its

owner. Stone staffs with horse’s heads seem to be theembodiments of these extraordinary qualities of thehorse-headed mythological character. We should alsonote the “literal” semantic correspondence between the

bronze socketed pommel from the vicinity of Omsk andits equivalents (Fig. 3) and the plot of the replacement ofthe head – “similar” to the head of Dadhyancha, since the“horse-headed” pommel could be removed from the shaftand replaced by another pommel, and vice versa.

A similar interpretation of the vajra can be found inthe later version of the myth about producing the weaponof Indra out of the bones of Dadhichi-Dadhyancha’s

skeleton (Neveleva, 1975: 64; Mify..., 1994: 347).The gods receive the bones of Dadhichi who willinglysacriced himself. For killing Vritra, Tvashtri made vajra out of Dadhichi’s bones (Mahabharata, 1987: ch. 98).The narrative correspondence between this myth andthe Vedic references to Indra, killing his enemies by the

bones of Dadhyancha, and the search for the horse’s headof the sage (Rig Veda, 1896: I, 84) is obvious. This is amotif of the same nature, involving the bones, skull, or

bones of the skull of Dadhyancha as the instrument for thedestruction of the enemies of Indra and as a material forthe vajra – the instrument of the creator of the universeand the universal weapon of the deity. Thus, the harmonyof the mythopoetic meanings and the visual embodimentof the idea of the “horse-headed” receptacle of the hiddenwisdom and world-creating power make it possible to seethe prototype and the symbolic substitute of vajra in the“horse-headed” staffs.

The early Vedic motifs include the relationship ofDadhyancha and Dadhikra – the mythical victorious

battle horse and the horse of the king of the Puru tribeTrasadasyu, the victor over the dasyus (Mify..., 1994:347), who was born as a result of horse sacrice to theseven Rishis – the Big Dipper (Rig Veda 1896: IV, 42;Elizarenkova, 1989b: 748–749). The Puru tribe was one ofthe two most ancient Indo-Aryan tribes, the rst migrants,

praised and highly respected in the epic (Lelekov, 1982:152). The Vedic Puru lived on the banks of the Saraswati(Erman, 1980: 45), the prototype of which is the Volga(see, e.g., (Redei, 1997: 150, 153; Chlenova, 1984: 96)).Therefore, the legendary horse belonging to their king and

the associated unusual horse’s head of the sage go backto the archaic layer of the Indo-Aryan mythology. Thesculptural embodiment of the image of the miraculous

battle horse on an attribute belonging to a social leaderand proving his high status and extraordinary strength isalso quite natural. Apparently, the semantics of the “horse-headed” staffs included the symbolization of the archaic

beliefs, going back to the prototypes of both Dadhyanchaand Dadhikra.

As a weapon of the thunder-bearer, vajra is oftenlikened to lightning (Eliade, 1999: 90); already in the19th century, vajra was correlated to the image of

Dadhyancha-Dadhichi (Müller, 1876: 212–215; Macdonell,1897: 141–142; Mify..., 1994: 347; and others). The evidenceof this correlation can be found in the Mahabharata:

The fire that covereth the whole world riseth from thewaters. The thunder that slayeth the Danavas was made of a bone of (a mortal named) Dadhichi.

(Mahabharata: ch. 139)

Dadhyancha personied lightning due to its role asIndra’s weapon. The name of the horse-headed Rishi aswell as his legendary horse Dadhikra was also derivedfrom dádhi – “curdled milk” – and was associated with




the belief about the inuence of a thunderstorm on thecurdling or souring of milk (Macdonell, 1897: 142;Mify..., 1994: 347). This idea was rst put forward byA.E. Macdonnell or shortly before him, “The assumptionthat Dadhyancha originally represented re in the formof lightning, does not seem implausible. The horse’s

head may mean his speed, his voice when he speaks –the thunder, his bones – the lightning... The name alsorefers to the effect of curdling of milk by a thunderstorm”(1897: 142). V.F. Müller denied likening the head ofDadhyancha to lightning, thinking that the horse’s headcould be identied with the moon, and the “milky” nameof Dadhyancha was a reference to its connection withthe Milky Way (1876: 204–213). However, this idea hasnot received any confirmation or support. Therefore,in the above semantics, the wonderful horse’s head ofDadhyancha can be reasonably likened to lightning – thevajra of Indra, the prototype of which can be seen in thestone “horse-headed” staffs.

Conclusions

The semantic meanings of vajra which we listed above preceded its conceptualization as an instrument andweapon of the supreme deity – an axe, mace, or hammer.The identication of vajra with these instruments hasmore to do with the Indo-Iranian substrate of the proto-Aryan community. V.I. Abaev correlated the term ‘vajra’only with the proto-Iranian borrowings in the Finno-Ugriclanguages: Finnish wasara, Estonian vasar – ‘hammer,’

Mordovian usr – ‘axe,’ corresponding to the Avestanvazra – ‘mace’ (Abaev, 1981: 86). T.V. Gamkrelidzeand V.V. Ivanov also pointed out that this notion was

borrowed by the Finno-Ugric languages from the earlyIranian (1984: 928). K. Redei considered the Finnishvasara to be a Finno-Permian borrowing (waara – ‘axe,’‘hammer’) from the proto-Iranian or, together withV.I. Abaev, from the proto-Iranian va ra ; he alsomentioned the Old Indian vájrah (Redei, 1997: 147, 154)(see also (Burrow, 1976: 28)).

The Rig Veda has preserved the stable residue of the previous, more archaic semantic meaning of vajra. The

Indo-Aryan concept of vajra goes back to the “horse-headed” insignia of the social and sacred leader similarto the magic attribute functionally comparable to thetambourines or “horse” canes (among the Buryats) of theshamans. It is possible that the idea of the involvement ofthe horse’s head in the seat of supernatural knowledge andin implementation of the divine providence was formed atthis stage. A “horse-headed” vajra in the hands of a personwith high social status, not only clothed with authorityof the leader, but also with the priestly prerogatives wasthe personication and substitution of such qualities of asupreme deity. B.L. Ogibenin concluded that “the position

of the vajra is easily comparable to the position of thesacricial pole; sacrices are also offered to the vajra”(1968: 63) (see also (Rig Veda, 1896: VIII, 100)). Thesemantic plane of the vajra as the image of the World Tree =a sacricial pole with a fastened horse = a slain horse as asacrice to it unfolds around a similar identication. The

artistic rendering of these meanings could be embodiedin the “horse-headed” staffs, symbolizing the cosmogonicaspect of this idea and the associated ritual scenario.

References

Abaev V.I. 1981

Doistoriya indoirantsev v svete ario-uralskikh kontaktov.In Etnicheskie problemy istorii Tsentralnoi Azii v drevnosti

(II tys. do n. e.). Moscow: Nauka, pp. 84–89.Avanesova N.A. 2011

Animalisticheskie nakhodki epokhi bronzy Zeravshanskoidoliny.In Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri, iss. 25. Kemerovo:Kemerov. Gos. Univ., pp. 111–120.

Bakhrushin S.V. 1987

Khozyaistvo i obshchestvennyi stroi yakutov v XVII– XVIII vv. In S.V. Bakhrushin. Trudy po istochnikovedeniyu,

istoriografii i istorii Rossii epokhi feodalizma: Nauchnoe

nasledie. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 177–196.Barag L.G., Novikov N.V. 1984

Primechaniya [Notes]. In Narod nye russkie skazki

A.N. Afanasieva, vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 432–505.Bobrov V.V., Chikisheva T.A., Mikhailov Yu.I. 1993

Mogilnik epokhi pozdnei bronzy Zhuravlyovo-4. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Bobrov V.V., Goryaev V.S. 1998

Loshad v pogrebalnom obryade irmenskoi kultury.In Problemy arkheologii , etnografii , antropologii Sibiri i

sopredelnykh territorii: Materialy VI Godovoi itogovoi sessii

Instituta arkheologii i etnogra i SO RAN. Dekabr 1998 g .,vol. 4. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 182–186.

Bobrov V.V., Mylnikova L.N., Goryaev V.S. 1997

Novye issledovaniya na mogilnike Tanai-7. In Problemy

arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh

territorii: Materialy VI Godovoi itogovoi sessii Instituta

arkheologii i etnografii SO RAN. Dekabr 1998 g ., vol. 3. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 144–149.

Burrow T. 1976

Sanskrit. Moscow: Progress.Chenchenkova O.P. 2004

Kamennaya skulptura lesostepnoi Azii epokhi paleometallaIII–I tysyacheletiya do nashei ery. Yekaterinburg: Tezis.Chlenova N.L. 1967

Proiskhozhdenie i rannyaya istoriya plemen tagarskoikultury. Moscow: Nauka.

Chlenova N.L. 1984

Arkheologicheskie materialy k voprosu ob irantsakhdoskifskoi epokhi i indoirantsakh. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 88–103.

Chugunov K.V. 1997

Nakhodka kinzhala ranneskifskoi epokhi iz Yugo-ZapadnoiTuvy. In Novye iss ledovaniya arkheologov Rossii i SNG.St. Petersburg: IIMK RAN, pp. 81–86.




Eliade M. 1999

Ocherki sravnitelnogo religiovedeniya. Moscow: Ladomir.Eliade M. 2000

Shamanizm: Arkhaicheskie tekhniki ekstaza. Kiev: Soya.Elizarenkova T.Ya. 1989a

“Rig-Veda” – velikoe nachalo indiiskoi literatury i kultury.In Rig-Veda: Mandaly I–IV . Moscow: Nauka, pp. 426–543.

Elizarenkova T.Ya. 1989bPrimechaniya. In Rig-Veda: Mandaly I–IV . Moscow: Nauka,

pp. 544–757.Erman V.G. 1980

Ocherk istorii vediiskoi literatury. Moscow: Nauka.Freidenberg O.M. 1997

Poetika syuzheta i zhanra. Moscow: Labirint.Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov V.V. 1984

Indoevropeiskii yazyk i indoevropeitsy: Rekonstruktsiya iistoriko-tipologicheskii analiz prayazyka i protokultury. Tbilisi:Izd. Tbilis. Gos. Univ.

Gening V.F., Zdanovich G.B., Gening V.V. 1992

Sintashta: Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki ariiskikh plemenUralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Yuzhno-Uralsk.

kniz. izd.Gerodot. 1999

Istoriya, G.A. Stratanovsky (trans.). Moscow: Ladomir, Ast.Gryaznov M.P., Komarova M.N. 2006

Syda V – mogilnik okunevskoi kultury. In Okunevskii

sbornik 2: Kultura i ee okruzhenie. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb Gos.Univ., pp. 53–72.

Ivanov Vyach.V. 1974

Opyt istolkovaniya ritualnykh i mifologicheskikh terminov,obrazovannykh ot ava – kon’ (zhertvoprinoshenie konya iderevo avattha v drevnei Indii). In Problemy istorii yazykov i

kultury narodov Indii. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 75–138.Ivanov Vyach.V. 1989

Ritualnoe sozhzhenie konskogo cherepa i kolesa v Polesiei ego indoevropeiskie paralleli. In Slavyanskii i balkanskii

folklor. Rekonstruktsiya drevnei slavyanskoi dukhovnoi kultury:

Istochniki i metody. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 79–87.Jacobson-Tepfer E., Kubarev V., Tseveendorj D. 2006

Mongolie du nord-ouest, haut Tsagaan Gol. Paris: De Boccard.(Répertoire des pétroglyphes d’Asie Centrale; Fasc. 7).

Khangalov M.N. 2004

O telomytii shamana. In M.N. Khangal ov. Sobranie

sochinenii [Works], vol. 2. Ulan-Ude: Respublikanskaya tip., pp. 126–143.

Kiryushin Yu.F. 2002

Eneolit i rannyaya bronza yuga Zapadnoi Sibiri. Barnaul:Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ.

Kiryushin Yu.F., Ivanov G.E. 2001 Novyi seiminsko-turbinskii mogilnik Shipunovo V na Altae.In Istoriko-kulturnoe nasledie Severnoi Azii. Barnaul: Izd. Altai.Gos. Univ., pp. 43–52.

Kiryushin Yu.F., Shulga P.I., Grushin S.P. 2006

Sluchainye nakhodki bronzovykh predmetov v severo-zapadnykh predgoryakh Altaya. In Altai v sisteme metallurgi-

cheskikh provintsii bronzovogo veka. Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos.Univ., pp. 45–53.

Kostyukov V.P., Epimakhov A.V., Nelin D.V. 1995

Novyi pamyatnik srednei bronzy v Yuzhnom Zauralie.In Drevnie indoiranskie kultury v Volgo-Uralie (II tys. do n.e.).Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Univ., pp. 156–207.

Kovtun I.V. 2008

Nonfigurativnost andronovskogo iskusstva: idei , fakty,interpretatsii. Izvestiya Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo univer-

siteta, No. 4/4 (61): 95–101.Kovtun I.V. 2009

Kamennye zhezly s gurnym zoomorfnym navershiem epo-khi bronzy Severo-Zapadnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii. In Homo Eurasicus

u vrat iskusstva. St. Petersburg: Asterion, pp. 401–412.Kubarev V.D. 2004

Loshadi i kolesnitsy v petroglifakh Mongolskogo Altaya. Drevnosti Altaya (Gorno-Altaisk), No. 12: 12–27.

Kubarev V.D., Tseveendorzh D., Jacobson E. 2005

Petroglify Tsagaan-Salaa i Baga-Oigura (Mongolskii Altai). Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN.

Kuzmina E.E. 1977

Rasprostranenie konevodstva i kulta konya u iranoyazych-nykh plemen Srednei Azii i drugikh narodov Starogo Sveta.In Srednyaya Aziya v drevnosti i srednevekovie (istoriya i

kultura). Moscow: Nauka, pp. 28–52.Kuzmina E.E. 1994

Otkuda prishli indoarii? Materialnaya kultura plemen

andronovskoi obshchnosti i proiskhozhdenie indoirantsev.Moscow: Rossiiskii institut kulturologii RAN i MK RF.

Lelekov L.A. 1982

Termin “ar’ya” v drevneindiiskoi i drevneiranskoitraditsiyakh. In Drevnyaya Indiya: Istoriko-kulturnye svyazi.Moscow: Nauka, pp. 149–163.

Macdonell A.A. 1897

Vedic Mythology. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.Mahabharata. 1883–1896

Th e Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa,K.M. Ganguli (trans.). URL: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm. Accessed 11.12.2012.

Maksimenkov G.A. 1978

Andronovskaya kultura na Enisee. Leningrad: Nauka.Masimov I.S. 1981

Novye nakhodki pechatei epokhi bronzy s nizovii Murgaba.Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2: 132–150.

Matyushchenko V.I., Sinitsyna G.V. 1988

Mogilnik u derevni Rostovka vblizi Omska. Tomsk: Izd.Tomsk. Gos. Univ.

Meletinsky E.M. 2005

Geroi volshebnoi skazki: Proiskhozhdenie obraza. Moscow,St. Petersburg: Akademiya issledovanii kultury, Traditsiya.

Mify narodov mira: Entsiklopediya. 1994

Vol. 1. Moscow: Rossiiskaya entsiklopediya.Mikhailov Yu.I. 2001

Mirovozzrenie drevnikh obshchestv yuga Zapadnoi Sibiri

(epokha bronzy). Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat.Miklashevich E.A. 2007

Iz “istorii zhizni” odnogo izvayaniya. In Kamennaya

skulptura i melkaya plastika drevnikh i srednevekovykh narodov

Evrazii. Barnaul: Azbuka, pp. 51–55.Miklashevich E.A. 2010

Vliyanie torevtiki na formirovanie stilei naskalnogoiskusstva Yuzhnoi Sibiri, Srednei i Tsentralnoi Azii. In Torevtika

v drevnikh i srednevekovykh kulturakh Evrazii. Barnaul: Azbuka, pp. 135–144.

Molodin V.I., Neskorov A.V. 2010

Private collection of Seima-Turbino bronzes from theIrtysh: The tragedy of a unique site destroyed by unauthorized




excavations. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of

Eurasia, vol. 38, No. 3: 58–71.Müller V. 1876

Ocherki ariiskoi mifologii v svyazi s drevneishei kulturoi.Vol. 1: Asviny-Dioskury. Moscow: [Tip. F.B. Müllera].

Narodnye russkie skazki A.N. Afanasieva. 1984

Vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka.

Neveleva S.L. 1975Mifologiya drevneindiiskogo eposa (panteon). Moscow:

Nauka.Novgorodova E.A. 1989

Drevnyaya Mongoliya: Nekotorye problemy khronologii ietnokulturnoi istorii. Moscow: Nauka.

Novik E.S. 2004

Obryad i folklor v sibirskom shamanizme: Opyt sopo-stavleniya struktur. Moscow: Vostochana literatura.

Novozhenov V.A. 2002

Petroglify Sary-Arki. Almaty: IA MON RK.Ocherki kulturogeneza narodov Zapadnoi Sibiri. 1994

Vol. 2: Mir realnyi i mir potustoronnii. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk.Gos. Univ.

Ogibenin B.L. 1968

Struktura mifologicheskikh tekstov “Rigvedy”: Vediiskayakosmogoniya. Moscow: Nauka.

Potemkina T.M. 1995

O faktorakh, predshestvuyushchikh slozheniyu pamyatnikovtipa Arkaim v uralo-zapadnosibirskom regione. In Rossiya i

Vostok: Problemy vzaimodeistviya, pt. 5, bk. 1. Chelyabinsk:Chelyabinsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 144–154.

Potemkina T.M. 2001

Eneoliticheskie krugloplanovye svyatilishcha Zauraliyav sisteme kultur i modelei stepnoi Evrazii. In Mirovozzrenie

drevnego naseleniya Evrazii. Moscow: IA RAN, pp. 166–256.Prokoeva E.D. 1981

Materialy po shamanstvu selkupov. In Problemy istori iobshchestvennogo soznaniya aborigenov Sibiri (po materialam

vtoroi poloviny XIX – nachala XX v.). Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 42–68.

Redei K. 1997

Drevneishie indoevropeiskie zaimstvovaniya v uralskikhyazykakh. In Balto-slavyanskie issledovaniya 1988–1996 gg .Moscow: Indrik, pp. 141–155.

Rig Veda 1896

The Hymns of the Rig Veda, R.T.H. Grif th (trans.). Kotagiri(Nilgiri). URL: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm. Accessed 11.12.2012.

Samashev Z.S. 1992

Naskalnye izobrazheniya Verkhnego Priir tyshya. Alma-

Ata: Gylym.Samashev Z., Ermolaeva A., Kusch G. 2008

Drevnie sokrovishcha Kazakhskogo Altaya. Almaty: ner.Sarianidi V.I. 1986

Mesopotamiya i Baktriya vo II tysyacheletii do nashei ery.Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2: 34–46.

Sarianidi V.I., Dubova N.A. 2008

Rol ekvid i drugikh zhivotnykh v zhizni zemledelcheskogonaseleniya yuga Turkmenistana (na primere pamyatnika kontsa

III tysyacheletiya do nashei ery Gonur-Depe). In Drevnie i

srednevekovye kochevniki Tsentralnoi Azii. Barnaul: Azbuka, pp. 149–152.

Satapatha-Brâhmana. 1900

The Satapatha-Brâhmana: According to the Text of theMâdhyandina School, pt. 5, bks 11–14, J. Eggeling (trans.).Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Savinov D.G. 2000Realisticheskie izobrazheniya loshadei skifskogo vremeni i

seiminskaya izobrazitelnaya traditsiya. Istoricheskii ezhegodnik (Omsk), Special fasc.: 179–187.

Savinov D.G., Bobrov V.V. 1978

Titovskii mogilnik: K voprosu o pamyatnikakh epokhi pozdnei bronzy na yuge Zapadnoi Sibiri. In Drevnie kultury

Altaya i Zapadnoi Sibiri. Novosibirsk: Nauka, pp. 47–62.Sher J.A. 1993

“Gospodin konei” na beregu Eniseya. Peterburgski i

arkheologicheskii vestnik , No. 6: 17–22.Shomakhmadov S.Kh. 2007

Uchenie o tsarskoi vlasti: Teorii imperskogo pravleniya v buddizme. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie.

Slavnin P.P. 1949

Kamennyi zhezl s golovoi konya. KSIIMK , No. 25: 125– 126.

Sternberg L.Ya. 1916

Antichnyi kult bliznetsov pri svete etnograi. Sbornik MAE , No. 3: 133–189.

Syrkin A.Ya. 1992

Kommentarii [Notes]. In Upanishady. Bk. 1: BrihadaranyakaUpanishada. Moscow: Nauka, Ladomir, pp. 161–226.

Titova Z.D. 2003

Puteshestvie po ukazu Petra I: Iz dnevnika D.G. Messer-shmidta – issledovatelya narodov Sibiri 1721–1725 gg. Istoricheskii arkhiv, No. 2: 21–40.

Toporov V.N. 2010“Mirovoe derevo”: Opyt semioticheskoi interpretatsii.In V.N. Toporov. Mirovoe derevo: Universalnye znakovye

kompleksy, vol. 1. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamyatniki DrevneiRusi, pp. 210–262.

Trubachev O.N. 2003

Etnogenez i kultura drevneishikh slavyan: Lingvisticheskieissledovaniya. Moscow: Nauka.

Upanishads. 1884

Brihadâranyaka Upanishad. The Upanishads, pt. II, F. MaxMüller (trans). (Sacred Books of the East 15). URL: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/index.htm. Accessed 11.12.2012.

Vasilkov Yu.V. 1988

Drevneindiiskii variant syuzheta o “bezobraznoi neveste”

i ego ritualnye svyazi. In Arkhaicheskii ritual v folklornykh iranneliteraturnykh pamyatnikakh. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 83–127.

Received April 18, 2012,

Documents

“HORSE-HEADED” STAFFS AND THE CULT OF THE HORSE HEAD IN NORTHWESTERN ASIA IN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM BC