Petroglify Karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Russian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Petrozavodsk
Skandinavija
2006
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Abstract |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV023311129 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20081210 | ||
| 007 | t| | ||
| 008 | 080523s2006 xx a||| |||| 00||| rus d | ||
| 020 | |a 5948040909 |9 5-94804-090-9 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)230233743 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV023311129 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a rus | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-19 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Žulʹnikov, Aleksandr M. |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Petroglify Karelii |b obraz mira i miry obrazov |c A. M. Žulʹnikov |
| 264 | 1 | |a Petrozavodsk |b Skandinavija |c 2006 | |
| 300 | |a 222 S. |b zahlr. Ill. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a In kyrill. Schr., russ. | ||
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Felsbild |0 (DE-588)4016718-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Weißes Meer |z Region |0 (DE-588)4408684-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Onegasee-Gebiet |0 (DE-588)4323757-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Onegasee-Gebiet |0 (DE-588)4323757-5 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Felsbild |0 (DE-588)4016718-5 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 1 | 0 | |a Weißes Meer |z Region |0 (DE-588)4408684-2 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 1 | |a Felsbild |0 (DE-588)4016718-5 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016495397&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 900 |e 22/bsb |g 471 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 900 |e 22/bsb |g 4897 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016495397 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1819603201842741248 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | г
THE WORLD OF ROCK ART
OF KARELIA
etroglyphs of Karelia are samples of ancient
art with unique mythological meaning repre-
1
senting the ideas of the world of those who
created the grandiose rock canvases.
Rich material for reconstruction of the worldviews
of ancient inhabitants of Karelia can be obtained
through semantic analysis of Onego petroglyphs.
In primitive times, the Universe was perceived via
zoomorphic images. Zoomorphic actors of Onego
petroglyphs encode various levels of the world, per¬
form mediator functions, symbolize cosmic realms
and basic elements, correspond to phases in the
daily and annual cycles, act as demiurges and fore¬
fathers.
A feature of the archaic worldview is that the same
dominant symbols reflect nearly the whole complex of
mythological ideas. This is true also for Onego petro¬
glyphs, where images of the moose and waterfowl
correspond to various spheres of existence. They form
semantic chains: «waterfowl
—
upper world
—
summer
season
-
day
-
Orb of the day
-
south» and «moose
-
earth/middle world
-
winter season
-
night
-
Orb of
the winter/night
-
north». Viewed all together, these
zoomorphic symbols reflect images of an integral con¬
tinuum (day, year, etc.).
Furthermore, the moose, being the forefather of
the human race (moose-headed zoo-anthropomor¬
phic characters of Onego petroglyphs), correlates in
a way with the notion of the human community
(image of a boat with a zoomorphic decoration
shaped as a moose head). Waterfowl acts as a medi¬
ator, as a soul-bird, a demiurge. The two-headed bird
¡mage among Onego petroglyphs is apparently a
reflection of the widespread proto-Uralic myth about
two waterfowl that had created the Universe. The
waterfowl image in the Onego sanctuary is quite het¬
erogeneous. Mediator functions, animistic beliefs,
symbols related to the sky, sun or calendar, the idea
of cyclic recurrence are clearly associated with the
image of the swan. Ideas of fecundity are related first
and foremost to the image of the duck, as indicated
by the compound carving depicting duck broods side
by side with copulation and birth giving scenes.
Species identification of birds from coupled images is
somewhat more difficult, but they are probably
swans, too.
Moose and waterfowl (swan) images appear to
have been the dominant symbols for the creators of
Onego petroglyphs. Taken together, these zoomor¬
phic images seem to represent a universal
cosmo¬
logic
scheme where the moose image denotes the
Universe in the horizontal projection (middle world,
the Earth), whereas the swan image is a universal
mediator associated with the whole three-tiered ver¬
tical structure of the world, linking together different
zones of the Cosmos.
This opposition is reflected in the zoomorphic
design of the boat (horizontal movement symbolizes
the Earth
-
the moose ¡mage) and the ritual oar (ver¬
tically oriented item shaped as waterfowl is the mate¬
rial analogue of the World Axis). The boat image
combines the two symbols, which in this context can
be interpreted as parts of one paradigm
-
the vertical
model of the world.
Being a symbolic portrayal of principal semantic
oppositions, moose and swan images acts as the
organizing element in the world view of the petro¬
glyphs authors, thus corresponding in function with
the image of the World Tree.
The World Tree era is commonly believed to have
originated in Europe and Middle East in the Bronze
Age. Images among Onego petroglyphs however
demonstrate traces of an advanced system of
cos¬
mogonic
ideas characteristic of the World Tree era:
presence of a structured model of the world, set of
basic semantic oppositions fixed in zoomorphic and
anthropomorphic ¡mages, symbolic signs.
An indirect indication of the fact that the symbolic
complex could have belonged to the World Tree era
is the presence of tree image itself ( upturned» tree
on Cape
Besov
Nos
-
a symbol of the Netherworld).
It may be that the ¡mage of the World Tree in the
Onego area is the earliest one in rock art of Northern
Europe. «Staves» among Onego petroglyphs are
also related to this image (a staff is the World Axis,
its three-tiered structure symbolizes the three cosmic
realms, and the zoomorphic detail shaped as a
moose head marks the middle world).
Fairly universal coverage is provided also by the
set of images characteristic of taiga cultures (moose,
waterfowl, bear, serpent, otter, beaver, etc.). Birds
encode the upper unit of the world structure, the
moose
-
the middle world, fishes
-
the lower world,
which is quite traditional for archaic worldviews.
Particularly remarkable in the rock art of Karelia is
the image of the serpent, which appears to act as a
mediator between cosmic realms. The stylistic char¬
acteristics of one of the figures on Onego rocks (with
parallels to be found among White Sea petroglyphs)
suggests that it is an image of an arrow-lightning-ser¬
pent, which presence among other celestial symbols
there is quite expectable. Otter and beaver images
are mediators in contacts with the lower part of the
Universe. Hence, the «moose-beaver-human»
sequence in Cape Peri
Nos
III reflects the symbolic
chain «forefathers-ancestors-descendants». The
beaver in this case acts as the zoomorphic symbol of
the late ancestors (zoomorphic code or reincarnation
idea).
204
It ¡s noteworthy that chthonic or aquatic animals in
the petroglyphs are depicted as viewed from above,
reflecting the ideas about the hierarchy of characters
in the world structure, pointing to the centre of the
macrocosm.
The lower structural unit of the Universe is repre¬
sented by images in the western margin of Cape
Besov
Nos,
whereas symbols of the upper world can
be found in the unique composition on Bolshoi Gurij
Island. There is no doubt about its mythological
nature. This fact is evidenced both by its placement
within a lava patch, relatively isolated position among
other petroglyphs, and circular movement around the
centre
-
a solar sign. The composition is made up of
a swan with parallel arches on the body (celestial
symbol) and two moose. The latter may signify the
two mythical upper world moose cows that had given
life to animals and the human race, and the notions
of which are preserved among many nations
descending from the proto-Uralic cultural community.
The fact that ancient inhabitants of Karelia could
have such notions is evidenced by the picture of a rit¬
ual structure with two moose heads looking in differ¬
ent directions on Cape Kochkovnavolok, as well as
by two-headed moose figures and the scene of
opposition of two figures with moose-headed staves
among White Sea petroglyphs and in the rock art of
Fennoscandia. Given this hypothesis, especially
noteworthy is the absence of anthropomorphic fig¬
ures from petroglyphs on Bolshoi Gurij Island,
whereas all other major assemblages in the
Besov
Nos
area have them. All characters of the compound
carving represent the upper world and manifest the
basic notions related to the positive aspect of the
world: light, warmth, good, fertility, life.
It is safe to conclude that the authors of the pet¬
roglyphs maintained a well-developed system of
esoteric ideas based on the model of a multilevel
Universe. It is this complex of world views that later
became the semantic core of shamanism in various
cultural traditions. One can thus assume that an insti¬
tution of special people acting as mediators in con¬
tacts with other realms existed at the time the petro¬
glyphs were created (Neolithic-Eneolithic in Karelia).
The Onego sanctuary contains the following
mythological motifs: the
cosmogonie
myth involving
two demiurge waterfowl, the myth about the cosmic
hunt (celestial moose chased by a personage with
astral symbols on Cape
Besov
Nos),
the mother-
progenitrix myth, the myth of the moose-man
-
the
forefather of the human race, the «holy matrimony»
of the first human pair.
Symbolic zoomorphic ¡mages reflect ideas about
travels of the soul (the compound scene with swans
on Cape
Besov
Nos),
the idea of the luminary s
movement around the sky and of cyclic recurrence
(moose carrying the moon/sun; bird bringing the
sun/spring; moose «devouring» the moon
(?),
etc.). It
is not incontestable, although quite probable, that
these mythologemes simultaneously constitute frag¬
ments of myths.
The mythic hunter and many other characters of
the rock canvases also possess zoomorphic traits.
This fact proves that the authors of the petroglyphs
still perceived animals as a special hypostasis of a
human.
The studied zoomorphic images of the Onego
petroglyphs, which emergence is sometimes
explained in the light of totemism, prove to be relat¬
ed to a different set of ideas. It appears that traces of
totemic
ideas are to be found first of all in Cape Peri
Nos
111, which themes are related to the concept of
tribal unity. An intriguing image among petroglyphs in
the cape is the snipe figure. The image of this bird
has no connections to the main ritual theme of the
sanctuary. Among Onego petroglyphs, the snipe is
the only
(?)
ornithomorphic symbol besides the
waterfowl and the crane (the semantic twin of the
swan, the solar and calendar symbol). The snipe fig¬
ure is carved in a dark lava patch which holds the
«Adam
&
Eve» scene, and its placement close to the
pair of our mythic first parents may point to the
totemic
nature of the character. Drawing no direct
analogies, let us note that in Vepsian beliefs the
snipe is also a «divine» bird, like the swan and the
swallow (a demiurgic character in some versions of
Karelian-Finnish and Izhorian runes). Since we failed
to find any ideas suggesting that the bird belonged to
the group of celestial symbols, one can assume that
the special attitude towards it was due to its
totemic
past.
The site on Bolshoi Gurij Island contains also an
image of a fox
(?).
In the mythologies of many
nations this animal acts as a metaphor, the symbol of
fire. The image is unlikely to have
totemic
roots,
given that the assemblage contains no anthropomor¬
phic figures.
Anthropomorphic images so far remained in the
periphery of the mythological picture of the world, as
indicated by statistical data on the Onego sanctuary.
The personage correlating with the image of the
Great Foremother of every living thing, the «Mistress
of the Crack in the Earth»
-
the Demon figure and its
zoomorphic twin
-
the burbot, has already appeared
among the petroglyphs. The Onego sanctuary holds
evidence of the process of embodying heavenly bod¬
ies in anthropomorphic personages. Particularly
symptomatic is the presence of the ¡mages of myth¬
ic first parents among Onego petroglyphs.
Defloration, copulation and birth giving scenes from
Cape Peri
Nos
III (including rock fragments from the
cape exhibited in the Hermitage museum) apparent¬
ly represent the mythological motif of the «holy mat¬
rimony» of the first human pair
-
the progenitors of
the human race. Images of sacred ancestors (cultur¬
al heroes?) seem to be rendered also through the
205
Ґ
scenes of hunting a bear (a personage pertinent to
the nature of the world beyond in mythologies of
many nations), a beluga whale (a monster of the First
Creation Time?), a mythic fish.
The petroglyph authors employ a fairly universal
set of classifying tools (binary oppositions, world
tree, «triad», etc.) to represent their model of the
world.
The Onego sanctuary is more of a world of unre¬
lated images. Note such features of Onego petro-
glyphs as the lack of composite scenes, great num¬
ber of singular figures, static appearance, sometimes
strict symmetry, tendency for geometrization and
conventional stylization of forms, presence of
abstract symbols.
Many characteristics of the style and composition
of images in archaic art are semantically predeter¬
mined. The style of Lake Onego rock carvings can be
defined as contoured, silhouetted or linear, with
mixed-style variants present, too. Looking at petro-
glyphs in publications one should keep in mind that
graphic representation of an actual petroglyph in a
book is a negative. A newly carved petroglyph
appeared as a light image on dark or reddish rock,
and it was only after a prolonged period of time that
the engravings stopped standing out against the
background. Colour is known to have symbolic
meaning in traditional art. It is therefore semantically
important in some cases whether the contoured or
silhouetted style was used for certain images. Thus,
the upper triangle ( the Heaven ) in the «staff» image
is a solid (light-colour) engraving, whereas the lower
oval ( the Netherworld ) is contoured (dark spot). In
this «colour» opposition, the swan with the solar sign
would appear light, whereas the sun-carrying moose
would look dark. Possibly, it was a method the
authors of the petroglyphs used to emphasize the
opposition of light and dark, day and night, warm and
cold seasons. Paired characters are sometimes
depicted in different ways: one bird is silhouetted, the
other one
-
contoured, probably to symbolize polari¬
ty. Animals in the scene of a bear chasing a moose
(symbolic interpretation of the change of seasons?)
are also portrayed differently. The antithetical nature
of the characters is stylistically stressed also in the
scenes of ritual killing of a bear, where the animal is
outlined and the hunter is silhouetted. Differences in
the method of depicting the characters of two-tiered
compositions sometimes act as an indicator of rela¬
tionships between the characters (binary principle).
Furthermore, the contoured style may symbolize
transparency of the body (status of a mythological
character) or special semantic significance of its ele¬
ments (Demon, burbot, some personages of the First
Creation Time).
Animal figures are shown in side view, legs usual¬
ly joined together (only two legs can be seen
-
one
front and one hind leg). No regularities were found in
the orientation of zoomorphic side-view images
among Onego petroglyphs to the left or to the right.
Details in anthropomorphic images indicate that
the personage belongs to another realm (three digits,
defective figure, individual somatic traits hyper¬
bolized), to a certain category of mythic creatures:
side view/front view (the projection sometimes indi¬
cates the creature s belongingness to the
upper/lower or middle
-
human nature spirits
-
realm), two identical items in the hands of a frontal
figure (upper world deity?), «forelock» and hump
(mythic progenitors). Some poses of anthropomor¬
phic characters also appear to be meaningful: frog-
like pose (idea of fecundity, reincarnation of life);
pose of a «shaman»
-
a mythic mediator (right arm
pointing upward, left arm
-
downward); left arm up,
right arm down (female image); arms spread (ances¬
tors).
Some anthropomorphic figures have accentuated
flesh and sex symbols. Where in the female image
however only the reproductive function is stressed,
the male image is far more multisided and multifunc¬
tional. This fact points indirectly to the high status of
the man in the woridviews of the authors of petro¬
glyphs in Karelia.
Onego petroglyphs include examples of reflection
symmetric, three-tiered compound carvings based
on repetition. Noteworthy are samples of setting
images into the rock
microrelief,
using lava patches
as the natural frame for clearly mythological scenes.
Several regularly occurring types can be distin¬
guished among compound carvings: animal or bird
processions, zoomorphic images associated with a
disc or crescent, paired carvings (copulation scenes,
two-headed images, pairs of birds).
The syntax of compound carved scenes some¬
times sets off some features of the petroglyph
authors world outlook. Thus, the universal motif of
change of the principal phases in the daily and annu¬
al cycles may be portrayed via different composi¬
tions: as utter opposition (fighting scene or image of
a predator devouring its prey) or as gradual
approaching. The motif of eternal moose chase by a
bear or a hunter on Onego rocks represents the lat¬
ter variant, where obvious opposition is attenuated.
Symbolic portrayal of the world polarities in tradition¬
al art also has two basic variants: the antagonism
motif or conjugal union of two demiurge deities with
two alternative representations of fusion/junction.
The two-headed bird image among petroglyphs in
Karelia demonstrates the idea of indissoluble one¬
ness and harmonious wholeness of two equitable
cosmic principles. Both examples generally reflect
the mentality of ancient inhabitants of Karelia, the
dominance of non-violence archetypes.
There are many abstract symbolic signs among
Onego petroglyphs. They include ca.
25
variants of
lunar and solar signs. There is also a unique sign of
206
the firmament (Peri
Nos
VI), which has some paral¬
lels in the primitive art of Eurasia. Some other sym¬
bolic signs are present which meaning still remains
unclear due to their originality.
The imagery and stylistic characteristics of Onego
petroglyphs suggest certain conclusions concerning
the features and time of their functioning. Judging by
some data, individual promontories in the Onego
sanctuary had «specialised» functions. Thus, the
western periphery of
Besov
Nos
contains images of
the underworld, whereas Cape Peri
Nos
111 is clearly
related to the theme of human life cycle, reproduction
of new generations, symbols of the pair of demi¬
urges/creators and ancestors/progenitors. The bay
between capes Peri
Nos
and
Besov
Nos
thus forms
something like an arch connecting «life» and
«death». Between them is Cape Peri
Nos
VI, which
can be called «shamanic». The proportion of sym¬
bolic figures in this cape is
68%,
which is many times
greater than the average for the sanctuary, and there
are certain patterns in their orientation. In ancient
times, knowledge of this kind was esoteric, open only
to those with sacral authority. Cape Peri
Nos
VI also
contains many mythological images (sun-moose, fir¬
mament sign, moose-man, ritual hunt, «shaman» fig¬
ure). Curiously, only Peri
Nos
VI has a unique picture
resembling a conical dwelling of the tent hut type.
Since «domestic realism» is totally absent from the
Onego sanctuary, this image should be interpreted
not as a «dwelling» ideogram, but as a ritual struc¬
ture, which agrees well with the function of a
shaman s tent hut.
In general however, most capes feature the same
set of images. The most illustrative example is Malyi
Gurij Island, where
16
identifiable carvings were
recorded including
7
images of waterfowl,
2
lunar
and solar symbols,
3
moose figures,
1
anthropomor¬
phic character,
3
boats. Interestingly, all these
images are concentrated in a tiny piece of rock,
whereas the surface area perfectly suited for carv¬
ings is over
100
sq. m. Apparently it was the mini¬
mum of symbolic images sufficient for embodying
major world views and fulfilling the principal tasks of
rites in the Onego sanctuary.
Most remarkable in terms of the presence of
mythological images and the diversity of petroglyph
variants are Capes
Karetskij Nos, Peri
Nos
and
Besov
Nos, as
well as
Gurii
Islands. This is where
functioning of the Onego sanctuary seems to have
commenced. It is in these assemblages that the
basic
cosmogonic
images and motifs, numerous
symbolic ideograms are concentrated. One can
speak of the Golden Age or classic (shamanic?) peri¬
od of the Onego source area of rock art.
Other clusters of Onego petroglyphs show certain
gaps. Thus, the range of images in the Vodla area,
on islands Golets and Moduzh is much narrower,
sometimes limited to one or two motifs (waterfowl,
moose), and mythologemes and astral symbols are
missing. V. Poikalainen s conclusion based on
palimpsest analysis that symbolic figures are the ear¬
liest carvings in the Onego sanctuary also supports
the assumption that petroglyphs in the above clus¬
ters appeared later and lack the peculiar shaman s
creative complex. It is noteworthy that the proportion
of those symbolic figures in capes with high diversity
of mythological images and motifs
-
Karetskii and
Peri VI
-
is remarkably high:
31%
and
68%
of the
total number of identifiable images, respectively, (the
average for the sanctuary being
15%).
One gets an impression that «second wave» pet¬
roglyph assemblages have undergone a reduction in
both the composition of images and the symbolic
meaning of dominant images. Thus, there are no
«striped» swans (image of the upper world) in the
Vodla area. These facts indirectly evidence alter¬
ation, reduction or gradual decline of the myth-creat¬
ing rock art tradition.
Another interpretation is possible: the task of the
first stage in the use of the sanctuary
-
sacral «pri¬
vatization» of the area
-
was to make the area habit¬
ual, «populate» it with known sacred ¡mages. Later
on, only the symbols codifying the main idea of the
rite in the rock sanctuary were of relevance.
Repeated carvings of the same known images
apparently served simply as a traditional part of the
rite. The creative phase in rock art (picture repro¬
duces myth) was superseded by replication of estab¬
lished images (picture reproduces picture).
Differences in the ratio of image types between
the two major areas of Onego petroglyphs reflect the
functional characteristics of the sanctuary. Thus, bird
¡mages account for
45%
in the
Besov
Nos
area and
for
80% -
in the Vodla area, moose images
-
for
11 %
and
10%,
respectively, boat ¡mages
-
for
7%
and
1%,
anthropomorphic images
-
for
11%
and
2%,
the
proportion of astral symbols fell from
20%
to zero.
Another evidence of the younger age of petro¬
glyphs in the Vodla area is that Cape
Kochkovnavolok contains the only
(?)
ritual com¬
pound carving in the Onego sanctuary. Portraying
the rite (participants of the magical act, accessories,
etc.) was so far an exception rather than a rule for
the authors of Onego petroglyphs. Among White Sea
petroglyphs the tendency showed more conspicu¬
ously in the scenes of processions of anthropomor¬
phic figures holding staves with zoomorphic caps
(skulls?), which apparently represented the rite of
animal propagation.
The images and motifs of Onego petroglyphs
reflect
cosmogonie
myths. They point to the situation
of world creation basically reproduced in the yearly
feast. The timing for this rite among the authors of
the carvings was probably the spring festival of
nature s renewal, often related in various ethnic tra¬
ditions to the arrival of migratory waterfowl. One can-
207
•WwüanüJ
not exclude however that the site could be used in
other rites as well, since their common mythological
background permitted application of the same uni¬
versal symbols.
The set of scenes and motifs in White Sea petro-
glyph sites is totally different, proving that the sanc¬
tuaries definitely performed different functions. In
contrast to Onego petroglyphs, the main motif in the
White Sea rock art complex is an event and the main
actor
-
a warrior or hunter who is usually armed
(bow, arrows, spear, harpoon).
Standing out somewhat from the imagery series
of the sanctuary are the southern and northern
Besovy Sledki groups, which show more affinity for
Onego carvings than for most White Sea petroglyph
groups. The distinguishing features of this complex
are the great number of solitary images, large size of
figures (beluga whale, swans), presence of stellar
signs (solar symbols?), the figure of the Demon
—
perhaps the mythic progenitor, guardian spirit of the
territory and the local group. These distinctions
appear to be due to the earlier generation of Besovy
Sledki compared to most other clusters in the White
Sea area (initial sacral assimilation of the territory).
Let us draw special attention to the compound scene
in the Older Zalavruga site, which includes an
anthropomorphic personage, a symbolic sign and a
serpent. It may possibly symbolize the model of the
world, the unity of the microcosm (anthropomorph)
and macrocosm (abstract figure), whereas the ser¬
pent acts as the mediator between the cosmic zones.
The main plots in other petroglyph groups in the
White Sea area are scenes of land and sea hunting,
ritual processions, lines of warriors and skiers.
Hunting scenes always portray the culmination
-
successful killing of the prey, sometimes showing
only the trophy itself. Of the rich variety of hunting
and fishing methods only those are depicted that cel¬
ebrate hitting accuracy, deftness and courage of the
hunter. Among all game, only selected animals and
birds were shown
-
apparently those regarded
«masters of hunting grounds», on which the harvest
and reproduction of all animals depended.
A unique plot among compound carvings in the
White Sea area is confrontation of two anthropomor¬
phic figures either with or without staves resembling
moose-headed ones. Analysis of the scenes with
moose-headed staves in Fennoscandian rock art has
shown that this item is clearly related to productive
magic. It probably acts as an imitation of the first cre¬
ation tool, a magic article symbolizing the universe or
the substitute of the deity with a zoomorphic appear¬
ance (concepts of two celestial moose cows).
Whichever the case, the opposition of two anthropo¬
morphic characters is a symbol of world polarities.
This motif apparently descends from dualist myths, no
matter whether the appearance of the two supreme
deities was anthropomorphic or zoomorphic.
Note that the traditional two-tiered reflection
symmetric carving in the White Sea area has no
obvious signs of antagonism (the motif of a duel
between two mythic characters reflecting the idea
of struggle between light and dark, which was typi¬
cal of later periods). Apparently, ancient inhabitants
of the land did not tend to perceive cosmic polarities
via the ethic categories of good and evil. We have
already mentioned the tendency reflected in rock
art of Karelia to allay situations of obvious opposi¬
tion. It shows most vividly in the portrayal of battle
scenes, where neither the heroic image of the war¬
rior nor the combat itself is present, and the phe¬
nomenon of the war cult is missing. The situation of
a military conflict (social harmony disturbed) must
have been perceived as unnatural. On the other
hand, hunting scenes fit very well into the behav¬
ioural model of hunters and fishermen, whose
worldviews are based on the image of «death for
the sake of life» and whose principal value is the
ability to live without disturbing the natural ecologi¬
cal balance.
White Sea petroglyphs are generally noted for
compound carvings involving several figures, variety
of motifs and figure arrangements, absence of
stereotypes. Images are usually silhouetted, shown
in side view, with near natural proportions.
Anthropomorphic figures were portrayed more
implicitly than zoomorphic ones. In some cases cer¬
tain regularities were detected in the spatial arrange¬
ment of figures relative to each other, rock relief and
natural features (shore, rock ledges).
The carvings are made in a realistic manner, rich
in details, figures are shown so as to render move¬
ment and interactions. There are hardly any anthro¬
pomorphic personages with statue-like posture,
shown in front view
-
features indicating the status of
a spirit or deity. Human images predominantly
embody function and action. Zoomorphic person¬
ages lack symbolic implications.
Weapons, means of transportation, elements of
apparel (headgear), the nature of multi-figure images
clearly indicate the subject matter of the picture. The
implicit nature and improbability of some details of
the images suggest that some compound carvings
employed character representation resembling prim¬
itive pictography. The set of such informative graph¬
ic tools was apparently quite limited, determined by
tradition. They were used first of all for numbering, as
well as to indicate details such as time of the event,
sex of the actor.
Talking about the role of the White Sea sanctuary
in the ritual practices of ancient inhabitants of the
land one should note the fact that rock canvases
show first of all scenes of hunting, war and ritual pro¬
cessions. The motifs can be interpreted as narrative;
they reflect the phenomena that were essential for
the life of the primitive community. One can assume
208
that multi-figure carvings involving anthropomorphic
personages were memorial in nature.
To all appearance, narrative scenes in the White
Sea rock art depicted episodes of a heroic epic which
personages must have been legendary ancestors of
significance for the specific primitive community. It
was probably their martial victories and hunting
deeds that constituted the core of the heroic epic.
The assumption about the mythic nature of the
heroes of rock canvases in the White Sea area is
supported by some graphic characteristics (three-
digit hands, geometric stylization of the bodies).
Rock pictures serve as a reminder of past events,
whether real or legendary, transferring the memories
from one generation to another. The sanctuary thus
performs the information and communication func¬
tions. In the sites, the true history and sacred history
(mythology) are hardly divisible (mythologized leg¬
end), and the White Sea sanctuary itself is in a way
a monument of primitive historiography ( historical»
chronicles).
One can presume that the White Sea sanctuary
served also educational purposes. The heroic biog¬
raphy of great ancestors clearly correlated with the
cycle of transition rites. In primitive societies, transi¬
tion from one age cohort to another was related to
the calendar cycle. The initiation rite in this region
was apparently performed when the tribe, after stay¬
ing in small isolated groups in winter, came back
together for seasonal sea hunting. Thus, both initia¬
tion-related rites and
calendario
rites preceding the
beginning of seasonal hunting could take place in the
White Sea sanctuary. At certain points in the com¬
munity life, martial rites could also be performed
there.
Petroglyphs in the Lake Onego and White Sea
areas were produced at about the same time and
appear to belong predominantly to the same pit-
comb and rhomb-pit ceramic culture. The uniform
style used in pottery production evidences strong
conjugal relations between inhabitants of the
regions. Significant differences in the plots and styles
of the two rock art complexes however suggest that
petroglyphs in Karelia belonged to the world of male
culture. The author cannot claim definitely that only
men were involved in the rites performed at the pet-
roglyph sanctuaries. It is known however that wives
in hunters and fishermen societies originated from
other clans, and were therefore considered
«strangers». In this situation, only men could be the
keepers of tribal traditions and rites.
The two petroglyph complexes represent different
sides of the worldview of ancient people of Karelia.
Onego rock art is noted for a holistic world outlook,
certain «cosmism». White Sea petroglyphs are more
«down to earth», their main actor is a human, one s
daily concerns and thoughts. Onego petroglyphs
reflect
cosmogonie
myths and plots involving cultural
heroes of the first creation time, whereas carvings in
the White Sea area first of all illustrate the mytholo¬
gized «historical» tale ( Stone Bible» and «Stone
Chronicles ?).
The composition of carvings is about the same in
both sanctuaries (moose, waterfowl, beluga whale,
boats, anthropomorphic figures). The same picture
however may demonstrate a range of meanings from
a specific denotative image in the White Sea sites
(e.g. a tree as an element of the landscape) to the
level of universal categories on rocks in the Onego
area (World Tree).
The symbol in each specific case may have a par¬
ticular meaning, whereas all other connotations are
more of an implication. It is these various meanings
of the same sign that dictate how it would be com¬
bined with other signs. Hence, being quite appropri¬
ate among White Sea petroglyphs the «waterfowl-
hunter» chain is unthinkable for Onego petroglyphs,
where the bird is a symbol of the sun, skies, upper
world. Even when the same bond is present in both
regions
-
e.g. moose and hunter
-
the motifs should
be interpreted differently: ungulate hunting vs. the
cosmic chase myth.
The dissimilarity of White Sea and Onego petro¬
glyphs appears to be due first and foremost to the
different functions of the sanctuaries, features of
their ritual utilization.
There are however some graphic analogies
between the two concentrations of rock art in Karelia:
presence of astral symbols in both sanctuaries
(although they differ strongly), the two-headed bird
image, compound carvings depicting processions of
ungulates, etc. Both clusters contain scenes of sea
hunting, indicating that solid relations had existed
between inhabitants of the two regions.
Especially demonstrative are the identical mean¬
ing and sometimes a common stylistic representa¬
tion of the serpent image (arrow-like figures in Cape
Peri
Nos II
and Older Zalavruga). Such semantic
echoing suggests that these complexes of signs
belonged to the same
semiotic
system. It therefore
becomes feasible to interpret some singular images
of the White Sea sanctuary (e.g. the swan image in
Besovy Sledki) relying on the semantic analysis of
Onego petroglyphs.
The scheme of the step-wise process of forming
the petroglyph complex was the same for both sanc¬
tuaries. At the first stage, the principal mythic char¬
acters of the pantheon, astral symbols and major
symbolic pictures were made. The second stage, on
the contrary, represents the specialization of the
main rite performed in the sanctuary (cycle start rite
-
nature s revival and beginning of seasonal sea
hunting with the initiation rite probably timed to it).
Comparison of data from the art complexes with
primitive art of Northern Eurasia, with the mythologi¬
cal heritage of the nations genetically related to the
209
ľ
Palaeo-European
and proto-Uralic cultural continu¬
um has shown that petroglyphs of Karelia reflect the
universais
of archaic mind.
Very conspicuous is the presence of the same
¡mages portrayed using the same stylistic manner
among Onego petroglyphs and
mobiliáry
art of
Northern Europe. The iconography of some images
( forelocked» figures, two-headed bird, «striped»
swans, moose-man, moose-headed staves, etc.) is
highly invariable, proving incontestably that people
living in the area had a clear canon of depicting the
¡mages and similar mythological ideas. The fact that
the images were repeatedly reproduced using differ¬
ent materials evidences their high significance in the
world perception of ancient people. One can assume
that these images reflect the set of specific key sym¬
bols of the world outlook in the culture of ancient
inhabitants of Northern Europe (first man/progenitor
figure; unity and harmony of world polarities and,
perhaps, the image of the two demiurge birds, etc.).
Noteworthy is the emergence of the image of the
two-headed bird, which has numerous parallels and
modifications in later art monuments (including those
of Finno-Ugrian cultures). It may be that Onego pet¬
roglyphs demonstrate the establishment of this sym¬
bolic ¡mage.
Some of the images and symbols considered in
the study (e.g. astral and other abstract symbols,
«staves» from the Onego sites) have no direct ana¬
logues in other rock art monuments, rendering inter¬
regional independence to the «art school» of
Karelian petroglyphs.
Generally speaking, the rock art of Karelia has
reflected the worldviews of Stone Age people, the
ritual sphere of their life, mythological concepts,
value orientations, aesthetic «standards» and, par¬
tially, the mentality of ancient inhabitants of the land.
Viewed in combination, Karelia s two petroglyph
sanctuaries, which were used at approximately the
same time but represented different aspects of the
spiritual life of primitive people, produce an effect of
certain cultural unity.
210
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Žulʹnikov, Aleksandr M. |
| author_facet | Žulʹnikov, Aleksandr M. |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Žulʹnikov, Aleksandr M. |
| author_variant | a m ž am amž |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV023311129 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)230233743 (DE-599)BVBBV023311129 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01579nam a2200433 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023311129</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20081210 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t|</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">080523s2006 xx a||| |||| 00||| rus d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5948040909</subfield><subfield code="9">5-94804-090-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)230233743</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV023311129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">rus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-19</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Žulʹnikov, Aleksandr M.</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Petroglify Karelii</subfield><subfield code="b">obraz mira i miry obrazov</subfield><subfield code="c">A. M. Žulʹnikov</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Petrozavodsk</subfield><subfield code="b">Skandinavija</subfield><subfield code="c">2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">222 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">zahlr. Ill.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In kyrill. Schr., russ.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Felsbild</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4016718-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Weißes Meer</subfield><subfield code="z">Region</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4408684-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Onegasee-Gebiet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4323757-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Onegasee-Gebiet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4323757-5</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Felsbild</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4016718-5</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Weißes Meer</subfield><subfield code="z">Region</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4408684-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Felsbild</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4016718-5</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016495397&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">900</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">471</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">900</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">4897</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016495397</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Weißes Meer Region (DE-588)4408684-2 gnd Onegasee-Gebiet (DE-588)4323757-5 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Weißes Meer Region Onegasee-Gebiet |
| id | DE-604.BV023311129 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-12-23T21:00:44Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 5948040909 |
| language | Russian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016495397 |
| oclc_num | 230233743 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-19 DE-BY-UBM |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-19 DE-BY-UBM |
| physical | 222 S. zahlr. Ill. |
| publishDate | 2006 |
| publishDateSearch | 2006 |
| publishDateSort | 2006 |
| publisher | Skandinavija |
| record_format | marc |
| spellingShingle | Žulʹnikov, Aleksandr M. Petroglify Karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov Felsbild (DE-588)4016718-5 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4016718-5 (DE-588)4408684-2 (DE-588)4323757-5 |
| title | Petroglify Karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov |
| title_auth | Petroglify Karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov |
| title_exact_search | Petroglify Karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov |
| title_full | Petroglify Karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov A. M. Žulʹnikov |
| title_fullStr | Petroglify Karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov A. M. Žulʹnikov |
| title_full_unstemmed | Petroglify Karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov A. M. Žulʹnikov |
| title_short | Petroglify Karelii |
| title_sort | petroglify karelii obraz mira i miry obrazov |
| title_sub | obraz mira i miry obrazov |
| topic | Felsbild (DE-588)4016718-5 gnd |
| topic_facet | Felsbild Weißes Meer Region Onegasee-Gebiet |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016495397&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zulʹnikovaleksandrm petroglifykareliiobrazmiraimiryobrazov |