History of Civilizations of Central Asia

Home
Volumes
Réseau de chercheurs
arrowfr_g3.gif (76 octets) description of project
arrowfr_g3.gif (76 octets) International Scientific Committee
arrowfr_g3.gif (76 octets) authors
Online edition
arrowfr_g3.gif (76 octets) online chapter
arrowfr_g3.gif (76 octets) photo gallery

Volume IV - The age of achievement A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century

icon4.gif (76 octets) Part Two:
The achievements

Editors
C.E. Bosworth

Chapter 16 Arts and crafts

Part One Arts and crafts in Tansoxania and Khurasan
A. A. Hakimov

Part Two Turkic and Mongol art
E. Novgorodova

Part Three Hindu and Buddhist arts and crafts: tiles, ceramics and pottery
A. H. Dani

ligne.gif (122 octets)

Sculptures of the Türks of Kazakhstan and Mongolia

The sculptures on the high plateaux of Kazakhstan are distinguished, in particular, by the fact that they depict women. Clearly, this is an example of the cult of the primogenitrix known among the Turkic peoples as Umai. The breasts are emphasized and there is no depiction of a moustache or weapon. The vessel is usually shown held in both hands, as on the Uighur sculptures. The tall hat resembles the national headgear worn by Kazakh women, and the solid pendant-like ornament around the neck is another indication of female gender. A small group of male portraits depict figures with moustaches, occasionally sitting cross-legged in the Turkish fashion. The sculptures of that period are not treated three-dimensionally; yet in spite of the simplicity of the portrayal, the faces are highly individual and expressive. No clothing is shown, not even the flaps of the kaftans that we are accustomed to see on earlier Turkic sculptures. Similarities in the way the vessel is held, in its form, and in the ornaments and headgear worn enable us to date the types of sculpture described to the ninth–tenth century and to make a connection between them and the stone statues from south-eastern Europe, the Polovtsian babas, which date from the twelfth century and are associated with the progress of the Kïpchak from Central Asia to the steppes of southern and eastern Europe.

Transformed in time and space, the rites and cults of the ancient Türks underwent great changes, but the central idea remained the same, as expressed in rites, in the principle of sacrifice and in the erection of idols in honour of ancestors. Sculptures of this sort are also found in Mongolia. For example, stone images of people wearing neither belt nor weapon and sometimes wearing tall headgear are found on the monument to Unget. The rite of ancestor remembrance, described by William of Rubruck on the basis of his observation of the Polovtsians, explains the purpose of the Kïpchak/Cuman sacrificial altar:

‘The Cumans raise a large mound over the deceased and erect a statue to him facing east and holding a bowl in its hands in front of the navel . . . I recently saw a dead man around whom 16 horse hides were hung on tall poles, four at each corner of the world, and they were placed before him for drinking kumiss [fermented mare’s milk] and eating meat, although it was said that he had been christened. I saw other burials facing east, very large areas, paved with stones, some round, others rectangular, and with four long stones raised at the four corners of the world.’(2)

Elements in William of Rubruck’s description may be compared with the ancient Türk monument in the locality of Askhate in Mongolia. An inscription on the eastern part of the funeral complex has been carved above the portrayal in relief of two youths in identical clothing, sitting on either side of their dead father who is shown wearing tall headgear. A clan tamghâ (emblem) is carved above the head of the figure on the right, enabling the monument to be dated to the eighth century. A bird, the symbol of the departed soul of the deceased, is depicted between the tamghâ and the inscription. On the stone images of Semirechye and other areas in the Türk Kaghanate, a bird is frequently carved on the arm of the sculpture (not a bird of prey or a hunting bird). The same representations are also found on the petroglyphs of Central Asia.

Scenes from the life and mythology of the inhabitants of Central Asia carved on rock faces must also be included in the art of the period. The most typical images are outlines of armed horsemen, tamghâ-like signs of ownership, and animals. Already widely known, these petroglyphs are located in western Mongolia, on Mount Khar-khad (‘Black Cliff’) on the eastern spurs of the Mongolian Altai, along the right bank of the River Kobdo. A cliff with carvings can be found not far from the summit of Tsast-ul (alt. 4,213 m), the only mountain with large areas of smooth rock surface. The drawing has been carved out at a height of more than 10 m from the base of the rock and can be clearly seen from a distance.

Showing five horsemen in armour and helmets, this petroglyph is unique. The horsemen are armed with spears and their horses, too, are protected by armour. In the uppermost part of the composition, there is a horse, a deer and, in front of them, two heavily armed horsemen riding away to the right, one after another. Lower down, riding towards them, is an identical rider carrying a spear, and lower still a foot soldier is shown holding a composite bow. Another two horsemen in armour are carved in the lower part of the drawing, riding to the right in close formation. The central figures are shown in outline. The horsemen are depicted standing straight up in their stirrups. All of them have high narrow waists and broad shoulders and all are shown full-face. The horsemen are rendered accurately and in great detail. The coats of mail are shown as long kaftans; their structure is rendered by horizontal lines like that of laminar armour. Saddles are shown with a high rear pommel, which was common in Central Asia from the sixth to the eighth century (for example, in Kudirge, Kokel and elsewhere). These drawings of heavily armoured horsemen must have been executed by individuals belonging to the Turkic peoples rather than by their neighbours. So far as has been discovered, this is the only monument of its type.

2. William of Rubruck, 1911, p. 146; 1990, p. 221.