SUMMER 2006 49

Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, vol. 45, no. 1 (Summer 2006), pp. 49–64.
© 2006 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1061–1959/2006 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/AAE1061-1959450103

V.E. FLËROVA AND V.S. FLËROV

Antler Reliquary from the Territory

of the Khazar Kaganate
(A Unique Subject with One-Legged Spirits)

In its antiquities catalogue for Friday, 8 June 2001, Christie’s, the well-known
auction house, provided information on a horn reliquary (lot 318) up for auction.
The item comes from a looted burial site located in the region where the Khazar
Kaganate once existed (Flërov 2004).
The aim of this article is to make available to the scholarly community infor-
mation on this item contained in the catalogue, with some commentary. It would
be risky to term this publication preliminary, as it may be the only accessible
one for scholars and researchers. The item’s location and the identity of its
current owner are not known. It is also not known whether the item was sold or
whether it remains in the possession of the person who smuggled it out of Russia
and has information about the precise place and circumstances of the find. At the
auction the relic was presented as an item from a private collection. Given the
lack of information about its provenance we are constrained to refer to it as “the
Christie’s relic.”
The information given in the catalogue about the relic is sparse and full of
errors, although it was prepared by someone with some knowledge of archeology.
It consists of a photograph and a brief description.
Regarding the photograph. The catalogue contains a color photograph, but we
were able to obtain only a photocopy reproduction of it (see Figure 1).1 Unfortu-

English translation © 2006 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text © 2005 Russian
Academy of Sciences, Editorial Board of “Rossiiskaia arkheologiia,” and the authors.
“Rogovoi relikvarii s territorii khazarskogo kaganata (unikal’nyi siuzhet s odnonogimi
dukhami),” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia, 2005, no. 2, pp. 56–65.
V.E. Flërova and V.S. Flërov teach at the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Acad-
emy of Sciences, Moscow.
Translated by Laura Esther Wolfson.

49
50 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

Figure 1. Reliquary from Christie’s auction catalogue.

nately, not all graffiti details are clearly visible in the copy: the lower part of the
item is in shadow and the image is difficult to see. Regrettably, the central part of
the item was damaged, including the main character in the scene depicted.2 The
reason for the damage is clear: it occurred on the side on which the object was
lying in the burial site. The graffiti available to us comes from only one side of the
reliquary and represents approximately one-third of its surface, but is nonetheless
of tremendous interest.
The catalogue also contains a brief description:
Khazaro-Bulgar engraved antler container. Circa 8th–early 9th century A.D.
Perhaps used for dried products, the exterior entirely covered with engraved scenes
of daily life, one side with hunting scenes, with a group of people aiming bows
and arrows at a deer, a herd of boar, a large bird, and a pack of running quadrupeds,a
the other side with a group of men around a partitioned area, one figure dis-
mounted from a saddled horse, one figure much larger in scale than the others,
perhaps a leader, the antler perforated along the edges…
The Khazaro-Bulgars belong to the Saltovo-Mayatskaya culture, a nomadic
peoples [sic] from the Caucasus and Steppes.
For a similar piece see fig. 119 in Pletnyova, Ocherki Khazarskoy Arkheologii.
 SUMMER 2006 51

For an antler “salt cellar” of the same vintage found in Moravia see no. 108 in
Dekan, Moravia Magna, The Great Moravian Empire, Its Art and Times.
Every single phrase of the text calls for commentary.
“Khazaro-Bulgar engraved antler container.” This is a rather transparent allu-
sion to the discovery of the container in the territory where the Khazar Kaganate
existed. Indeed, this is where such finds have been concentrated. The most recent
is from Upper Saltov (Chernigova 1999). Various items are known to have been
found in Poland, in Hungary at Avar and ancient Hungarian monuments, and in
Romania.
“Circa the eighth–early ninth century A.D.” The mention of the eighth century is
probably a reference to the widely accepted date for the beginning of Saltovo-
Maiatsk culture, although our view is that the culture began to emerge earlier than
this. It is not clear why the early ninth century is mentioned. Given the current
capabilities in the field of cultural chronology, such precision is impossible to
achieve. Reliquaries were manufactured until the end of the Saltovo-Maiatsk cul-
ture, through the end of the tenth century and even later. In Khersones, reliquaries
have been found in layers corresponding to the thirteenth through the fourteenth
centuries (Romanchuk 1981, fig. 6). In the late Middle Ages and the modern era
the function of such objects changed. They became vessels for storing gunpowder
(Borsos 1982; Chernetsov 1985), with decorative ornamentation applied to their
surfaces or images relating to their times (e.g., coats of arms, engravings). The
Christie’s reliquary can be dated to the era of the Saltovo-Maiatsk culture, but no
more precisely than that.
“Perhaps used for dried products.” M.I. Artamonov has given a totally unjusti-
fied definition of similar objects: “most probably, the neck of a wineskin”
(Artamonov 1958, p. 40). These objects, both conical ones as well as the type with
three sections, like that of the Christie’s reliquary, are connected with ritual prac-
tices. They were receptacles for amulets or talismans. The graffiti covering these
objects indicates that this is what they were used for (Nakhapetian 1987, pp. 95,
96). Along with the simple designs and ornaments on the reliquaries are also scenes
taken from mythology (Nakhapetian and Shamrai 1990; Nakhapetian 1994; Flërova
2001a, pp. 51, 58, 94; 2001b, pp. 104–6. fig. 53).3
“The exterior entirely covered with engraved scenes of daily life.” This sen-
tence contains a fundamental error. All images on reliquaries, be they depictions
of quadrupeds, birds, snakes, hunting scenes, or two people engaged in a fight, are
always derived from mythology, the calendar cycle, and cosmic or other symbols.
That they are most often cloaked in quotidian and mundane images is a separate
matter altogether. But this is not always the case. On one Avar reliquary, two horned
mythical creatures stand by the tree of life (Kovacheviæ 1977, fig. 122; Nakhapetian
1994, fig. 1, 27). On the cited reliquary from Upper Saltov, either a gryphon or an
anthropoid with the body of a lion is depicted. These images typically have one
foreleg raised or the tail tossed over the back. Items with similar features were
produced in medieval Bulgaria (Doncheva-Petkova 1996, figs. 17, 21, 93). The
52 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

mythical images on the Christie’s reliquary are completely different, about which
more later.
“The antler perforated along the edges.” This refers to the design of the reli-
quary. On the edge of the left protrusion is one aperture (damaged); five are laid
out vertically and another two next to them. To the right on the visible side of the
reliquary are no apertures, but here part of the edge is missing. The apertures are
present on all known examples of reliquaries. They were for tacks, fastening the
ends, or transforming the horn cavity into a closed little box or case. On the upper
protrusion is one aperture, the largest. There should be two opposite each other to
suspend and secure the cover. When it was suspended the graffiti ended up in a
horizontal position, convenient for examining the item. Returning to the problem
of daily use as exemplified in the attribution “neck of a wineskin” (Bagautdinov et
al. 1998, p. 149; Chernigova 1999, p. 160; Matveeva 1997, p. 84), we note that the
construction and use of the object in no way corresponds to its attribution. Such
“wineskin necks” are unknown from narratives or ethnography. We have made it a
point to look into this.
Let us move on to the primary issue, the subject of the graffiti on the visible side
of the reliquary. We have numbered all of the characters (Figure 1). Note that not
one of the humanlike figures is actually a depiction of a human being. They are
one-legged, except for the two in the middle, which are anthropoid creatures with
fingerless hands.
Figure 1, in the middle. This is the main character in the scene. Due to the
surface damage some of the details are hard to view, but overall it is understand-
able. The character is sitting facing front. The outline of the head is intersected
near the top by two horizontal lines. This is typical of all anthropoid graffiti fig-
ures. The eyes and the nose are difficult to see, but the mouth with the downward-
pointing corners stands out.
The arms are spread to the sides toward nos. 2 and 3. The left one ends not with
fingers, but with a cloven hoof with which the figure is “taking” a round object (a
piece of fruit?) proffered by no. 3. The end of the right arm is damaged, but it is
possible to conclude that it is holding a vessel into which something is being poured
from no. 2’s pitcher.
Legs. Unlike the other characters, no. 1 has two legs, and they are crossed in such
a way that it is impossible to see which is on top. Following careful examination
(with the image magnified greatly on a computer screen) we concluded that the legs
are twisted around each other. This was no doubt done deliberately. In the graphic
work of the Khazar Kaganate nothing was produced at random or by inspiration.
Everything depicted was strictly canonized, according to traditional images, and
was supposed to be unmistakably recognizable. The legs end in long feet with nar-
row toes or the tips of shoes turned under. The length of the shins and thighs, judging
from the location of the knees of this figure as well as of the other anthropoidal
figures, does not correspond at all to normal human anatomy. The figure’s garments
are indicated by short, crooked strokes. The neckline is clearly visible.
 SUMMER 2006 53

No. 2, in a sharpened computer image, to the right of no. 1 (left side, from the
viewer’s perspective), is clearly and fully visible, as is no. 3, which is opposite it
and forms a pair with it. The head is sliced off horizontally at the top in the same
way, topped with a “wreath” (cap?) or short-hatched lines representing hair. The
outer corners of the eyes and the corners of the mouth point downward. The arms
end not with fingers, but with cloven hooves. The right one is somewhat removed
from the body, while the left one holds a pitcher that will serve to fill the vessel of
no. 1. We will refer to this character as the “wine steward.” We note that since this
figure lacks fingers it is not really holding the pitcher, but only touching it—the
action is implicitly conveyed.
We can say with certainty that the character is in a seated position. The horizon-
tal line at the base of the torso (similar to the line at the base of no. 6’s torso)
indicates that the single leg is situated horizontally and pointing toward the right
side (toward the left from the vantage point of the viewer). The leg ends in that
same long protuberance.
A single leg! Anthropoids nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 also have just one leg. For
comparison, we note that humans with two legs sit with both legs bent and drawn
up beneath the body. When this is the case, both knees are visible. Such figures
with their knees pointing in opposite directions have been found. The men on the
first- or second-century grivna coin found in the Kobakov burial mound in the
Lower Don region are seated thus (Prokhorova and Guguev 1988, fig. 2) as are
those on the eighth- or ninth-century medallion from Davgas in North Ossetia-
Alania (Tsutsiev 1998). The positions of the drawn-up legs on the early Turkic
sculpted figures from Altyn-Emel’ Semirech’ia (Sher 1966, table XXII) are par-
ticularly expressive, as are those on the side of the stone box from Khul-Askhete I
(Voitov 1996, fig. 67). Compared to these and similar images, the position of the
single stretched-out leg appears especially expressive.
The garments on the figure are shown by hatched lines. The neckline is not indi-
cated. The long protuberance at the end of the leg is the only part of the figure with
no cross-hatching. At first glance the cross-hatching could be a depiction of fur, for
it is found on the figure of the deer, 10, but it is also on the eagle, 7, and on the
pitcher. The hatching is not intended to convey the texture of a specific material but
to make the image stand out on the surface of the reliquary and indicate its volume.
The pitcher is probably metal. Its body is nearly spherical, with a long and
cone-shaped base and a high neck with a pouring spout. (Similar ones are still
used in Dagestan.) The one shown here was probably imported, if such a term can
be applied to a mythological subject.
No. 3 forms a pair with the second figure, seated in a mirror-image position.
The depiction of the head is identical as well. The eyes, nose, and mouth are boldly
executed with short strokes. The corners of the eyes and mouth point downward.
The heads on the other anthropoids are depicted similarly. The left arm is at a
distance and points down. The right one is raised and pointed toward no. 1, pass-
ing the round object (piece of fruit?) already mentioned.
54 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

Note how the ends of the arms are drawn. Apparent on the raised right hand is
a hoof with a slit where fingers would be. The left one no doubt ended in a hoof as
well, but it is not visible.
The figure is wearing a closed parka-like garment like no. 1, with no collar and
a triangular neck opening. A special feature is vertical (decorative?) stitches at the
sides of the torso. No such stitches adorn the garments of the other similar anthro-
poids. Thus, the only difference with figure no. 2 is in the clothing design.
The first three figures constitute a composition: a drink is being poured for the
main character in the scene and he is offered an unidentified round object—possi-
bly a piece of fruit. A rite is probably being conducted involving a ritual libation.
The participants in the ritual have neither whiskers nor beards, which would
indicate that they are male. For nonhumans such distinctions are not obligatory
(we return to this issue below). The first three characters are not connected directly
to the other main characters in the scene, although they are similar in appearance.
Nos. 4 and 5 are slightly smaller and located far to the side (to the right, from
the viewer’s perspective), distancing them from the others, despite their close [the-
matic] linkage. They are identical; their shoulders are touching, and the hand be-
tween them appears to belong to both of them. It is difficult to say whether this was
done deliberately, or whether the right arm of one and the left arm of the other are
simply superimposed, although there is more than enough space for them to be
placed further apart. Not only the arms are joined, but, further down, their gar-
ments are joined by a line.
The main feature of nos. 4 and 5 is that they are standing, in full frontal posi-
tion. (The figure on the left—to the viewer’s right—has not been fully preserved,
and is pocked.) The hands are lowered and are not engaged in any action or ges-
ture. We must assume that the presence of these characters is important, and that
anyone looking at the object would understand what they symbolized and why
they were necessary to the composition.
A second noteworthy aspect to the fourth and fifth figures is the hands: they
lack not only fingers, but also the hooves on the other anthropomorphic charac-
ters. The tips of the hands are not hidden by sleeves. The sleeves, particularly
apparent on the right hand of no. 4, reach only as far as the belt. But the hands and
sleeves are portrayed differently. The lower part of the one on the right is marked
by a bold line, and the sleeve of the “shared” hand has no such line. Note that the
left hand of neighboring no. 3 is the same, without a hoof and with an uncom-
pleted sleeve.
The heads are drawn as on the other figures—cut off horizontally, with “wreaths”
or short hair. The eyes are represented by dots, and the noses by expressive hooks.
Once again, the corners of the eyes and mouths point downward. There are no
indications as to gender.
The garments, covered by hatched lines, are absolutely identical, long but with-
out detailing. No belt is shown, but we can conclude that the waists are tightly
belted, as it is emphasized on all of the anthropoidal figures.
 SUMMER 2006 55

As nos. 4 and 5 each have one leg with the feet turned in the same direction,
toward the composition’s center, we cautiously suggest that this may show a direc-
tion of movement, toward the main figure, no. 1. Without knowledge of their role
in the mythical story represented it is difficult to make any judgments about this.
The complete similarity of the poses, the joining or touching of the shoulders,
the way the arms “merge,” and the identical size suggest that they are twins. The
cult of twins in ancient and medieval times was quite widespread (Gadzhieva 1991,
p. 64). If our supposition is correct, then these are twin brothers (Ivanov 1987, p.
174). But let us proceed with caution. A reliable interpretation of nos. 4 and 5 (as
well the others) should be ventured only in the context of the reliquary’s entire
mythological narrative.
Nos. 1–5 constitute the first, or “front” row on the visible side of the reliquary,
its lower frieze.
The two anthropoidal characters in the second, higher row, nos. 6/7 and 8, are
more dynamic.
Nos. 6/7—an anthropoid (6) with an eagle (7) on its outstretched arm—are at
the extreme left-hand side of the visible side of the reliquary. No. 6 is a one-legged
anthropoid, a curve in the surface of the reliquary makes it impossible to see the
upper half of the head, but we can be certain that it too is horizontal. The outspread
arms end in cloven hooves. The single leg is turned to the right (the viewer’s left)
and ends in a long protuberance (a foot?). The garment, which does not open in the
front, has a triangular neck opening indicated by hatched lines. It is difficult to deter-
mine whether the hero is seated or is moving. We tend toward the latter possibility.
On the outstretched left arm leading toward the upper edge of the reliquary is
image no. 7, what may be a bird of prey with a round eye and a curved beak—an
eagle (?) seated on the wrist. The final determination can be made only after see-
ing the entire image.
No. 8 is drawn in a similar style as the previous characters. The head has the
same horizontal cutoff. The corners of the eyes point downward, as does the mouth
with particular expressiveness. The left hand, ending in a hoof, is propped against
the thigh. The right arm has no hoof. The single leg is placed the same position as
that of no. 6.
In executing no. 8, the carver seems to have miscalculated: the leg comes up
against the head of no. 2. This is highly interesting for an understanding of the
order of image creation and indicates that the carving process was not preceded by
a “study.” The craftsman clearly began with the depiction of the ritual libation
scene. The garment, covered with hatched lines, has no neck opening. Why do
some of the characters have garments with a slit (nos. 1, 3, and 6) while others do
not? It is unlikely that this is due to absentmindedness on the part of the carver.
One detail distinguishes this character from the others—a pole (perhaps a spear)
rising up behind the right shoulder, whose upper end is out of view. It is also
difficult to decide whether this character is sitting or moving. The hands propped
on the thighs seem to indicate the former.
56 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

No. 9 is in worse condition than the other images. It would be possible to re-
store it only by reference to the original. The lower parts of two legs can be distin-
guished. To the left is a foot, similar in its placement to that of nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8.
To the right a foot is also clearly visible, but standing horizontally. In addition to
the legs, the thighs, a narrow waist, and a triangular torso are also visible. The
overall outline of the lower part of the figure most likely indicates the traditional
image of a kneeling archer aiming, with no. 10 the object of the hunt.
Only the front part of no. 10, a zoomorphic creature, is visible, showing the
front legs running. Horns can be distinguished, pointing upward, with an ear be-
neath them. On the upper edge of the reliquary a rear hoof may be visible. We can
refer to this image as “the deer,” as the vertically pointing horns are most typical of
a roe deer. The structure of the legs, with the main joints bend in different direc-
tions, may also indicate a deer. One leg is flung forward, with the shin raised,
while the second leg bends backward at the knee joint. We use the word “shin” as
the lower legs resemble human legs. The hooves look more like human feet. People
in the kaganate were familiar with the anatomy of ungulates, as indicated by the
dozens of graffiti on stones and bones. This is by no means an image of a real
animal, just as the humanlike characters are nonhumans, which we will discuss
later.
The head of the zoomorphic creature has a line running through it, ending
abruptly. Whether this is a spear or an arrow launched by the archer remains open.
Lunar symbol no. 11 and solar symbol no. 12. Note their positions, crowning
the entire scene on the visible side of the reliquary. Before the time when this item
was made, the image of a crescent moon was not known in the graphic work of the
Khazar Kaganate. T.M. Potemkina, whose specialty is paleoastronomy, believes
that the image of heavenly bodies conveys the moon during the autumnal equinox
and eclipse (no. 12), indicated by the double outline of the circle.
The direct placement of the new moon during the autumnal equinox above nos.
9 and 10 corresponds to their interpretation as scenes from a deer hunt. The au-
tumnal equinox is characterized by the subject of the deer who perishes in close
calendar compositions: other examples of this include a deer-hunting scene on a
dipper from the town of Kotsk and scenes of the torment of a deer on reliquaries
from the Slavic Museum (combined with four solar symbols) and on vessel A2
from Nad-Sent-Miklosha (Flërova 2001a, p. 115).4
All the images constitute one composition in a single style. In regard to the side
of the reliquary that is not visible, the annotation says: “hunting scenes with a
group of people aiming with bow and arrow at a deer, a herd of boar, a large bird,
and a pack of running animals.” We do not know how correctly the author of the
description decoded all the images. But the representation of the little horse, 14,
employs a different style. First let us turn to 13.
No. 13. At the bottom of the visible side is a long narrow strip with the ends
raised. Is this a postament, a raised area, on which the central hero—1, and 3, who
is serving him, are seated?
 SUMMER 2006 57

Horse, 14. To the left, beneath 2, only the back with saddle and the entire head
are visible. The animal is depicted more realistically than the anthropomorphic
figures. The saddle resembles saddles on a statuette from the area of Berdniansk
(Gadlo 1965, p. 43) and a dipper from the town of Kotsk (Flërova 2001a, p. 100).
Did the author of the catalogue text think that 2 was dismounting? But the horse is
clearly part of another composition. A double outline may be represented here,
perhaps signifying the presence not of one horse but a pair: this technique is
typical of early medieval graphics (Flërova 2001b). Without an overview of the
entire composition on the relevant part of the reliquary, the possibility that this
pair belongs to the “twins” on the opposite side of the “throne site” cannot be
ruled out.
No. 15. In the lower right area is an image that is impossible to distinguish,
below 4 and 5.
The depiction on the Christie’s reliquary is unusual for the graphic art of Khazaria
in all respects. There is nothing like it, which is not surprising, given that there no
known reliquaries with such subjects. First of all, the style is different: in the an-
thropoids, (1) the heads and torsos are always facing directly front; (2) the faces
are represented in a standardized way, without individuality. This similarity re-
flects the heroes’ affiliation with a single community. Thus, the faces’ style has
significance, as does the identical facial expressions, with drooped corners of eyes
and mouths; (3) the heads are sliced at the top; (4) the clothing is closed in front.
The identical garments are consistent with the identical faces. The engraving is
executed confidently, with few corrections. We conclude that the engraver was not
producing this composition for the first time, but had done it before, and the sub-
ject and hero were quite familiar. So who are they?
Most important are the anatomical features that are not typical of humans, such
as the hooves on the arms and the characters with one leg. This indicates that these
are mythical creatures, nonhumans. Only the central figures, 1 and 9, have two
legs, but they are in a strange intertwined or twisted position.
Three characters (3–5) have no digits or hooves on an arm.
It is not our purpose to establish the milieu of these images. They could be
Turkic, but we must recall the ethnocultural interaction between the Turkic and
Iranian worlds: they were not homogeneous. Let us refer to one study in which the
human/nonhuman opposition has been examined in detail.
In tracing the mythological anatomy of the human being, L’vova et al. (1989)
point to the symbolism in biological and social nature of wrists and fingers, espe-
cially thumbs, emphasizing that “in epic poetry, the finger is endowed with essen-
tial traits and takes on the role of the quintessence of life” (ibid., p. 61). The human
ability to engage in all kinds of activity resides in the wrist and opposable thumb.
But, “among . . . the traits of inhabitants of the other world, fingerlessness was one
of the most apparent indications of otherness and incompatibility with culture. A
sign of essential human nature, according to folklore traditions, was the hand, with
its full complement of fingers.”
58 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

The authors of the study note the “striking parallel in the Siberian Turkic peoples’
conception of the human and the contemporary representation of the most impor-
tant morphological traits of the species Homo sapiens. These include the hand
with the opposable thumb as a condition and tool for various manipulations (ibid.,
pp. 63, 64). This thesis is in keeping with the most important feature (although it
does not immediately strike the viewer) of the anthromorphic figures on the reli-
quary—they are not holding anything in their hands and are not engaging in any
manipulations. Their hands lack fingers and instead have hooves. The hoof does
not hold a pitcher, but only touches it, and the pole behind 8 is simply behind its
shoulder. There is nothing suspended from their belts.
“One-leggedness, lameness, halfness, or incompleteness are also signs of other
creatures” (ibid., pp. 64, 65), that is, nonhumans. They can only be “spirits” [dukhi].
The literature on shamanism is rife with references to the anatomical pathology
of spirits. B.N. Basilov has noted that one-legged spirits exist in the beliefs of
numerous peoples. The female shamans Nobupti’e (Nganasan) and Savoné (Enets)
inspired fear by evoking one-legged freak-spirits. Savoné’s protector was the one-
handed, one-legged spirit Varuchi (Barochi). Underworld spirits without hands or
legs are depicted on the cape of a Selkup shaman (Basilov 1984, pp. 43, 51, 115).b
Anatomical deviations in nonhumans are typical not only of the depictions of
Siberian peoples; examples abound. In Russian folk belief, an “impure force”
could be identified by absence of one of the paired body parts, such as eyes (one-
eyed), arms (one-armed), or legs (one-legged) (Ivanov and Toporov 1965, pp. 86–88).
In ancient art, a pair of legs in a human silhouette (either facing front or in
profile) was required, from paleolithic painting to Polovtsi sculpture. Even styl-
ized anthropomorphic handles of shamans’ bells ended in two outward-jutting leg-
pieces, as well as hands (Potapov 1991, fig. 3). Two-leggedness is a primary marker
of the distinction between humans and animals. Even if a human is wearing an
animal mask, its nature as a human can be determined by its two legs. The one leg
of the characters on the reliquary is an indication that their nature is different from
that of humans.
Regarding the spirits’ entering into intimate physical relations with the
shamaness, let us recall the well-known ability of spirits to change gender: on
encountering a woman they could transform themselves into a man, and vice versa.
Spirits’ gender is not always clear in folklore. Might this explain why the faces of
the characters on the reliquary have no facial hair? The spirits of the Viliuisk Yakut
(according to A.A. Popov), the rulers of water, are anthropomorphic, but unlike
people they have no hair on their heads, no beards, and no eyebrows (Alekseev
1980, p. 229).c The characters on the Christie’s reliquary have no eyebrows either,
although in the ancient Turkic world mustaches and beards were common
(Vainshtein 1991, p. 193). Possibly the engraver attached no significance to the
depiction of eyebrows, mustaches, and beards, although mythological subjects
leave no room for elements of chance. A distortion of the images would bring
vengeance from the spirits. The absence of brows, mustaches, and beards on the
 SUMMER 2006 59

faces on the reliquary is not in contradiction to their lack of fingers and one-
leggedness.
The issue of hair is more complex, although, as S.I. Vainshtein notes, short hair
was known among the neighboring Chinese (Vainshtein 1991, p. 193). Among the
Tuvans short hair signified that one was in one’s fifties (Sagalaev and Oktiabr’skaia
1990, p. 78). Hair was significant not only in the everyday life of Turkic peoples
but also in their spiritual beliefs.
Thus, depicted on the reliquary are clearly nonhumans. These are one-legged
creatures (monoskels) with fingerless hands ending in hooves (and in one case
hoofless).We shall refer to them for our purposes as “spirits.” We emphasize “for
our purposes” as in the Turkic pantheon, the definition of the essence of those
who resided in worlds contiguous to the human world was highly changeable.
We will not go into what world they belong to, the underworld or loftier regions;
as many as thirty-three spheres are known in shamanism. Shamans were in con-
tact with the inhabitants of all of the worlds and spheres. It was the spirits who
initiated these contacts.d
The images on the reliquary were placed on a cult object, so we can conclude
that they were not greatly feared; perhaps it was hoped that they would provide
aid. It cannot be ruled out that these are éren, good spirits, each with its own
vessel-depiction. Among Tuvans, spirits of deceased ancestors comprised a spe-
cial group of éren, whose vessels served as anthropoidal depictions (Vainshtein
1991, p. 241), possibly seen on the Christie’s reliquary. On the other hand, recall
the warning issued by one Tuvan shaman (Kenin-Lopsan 1987, p. 143):
Behind your village
There is a cave, facing north.
There a party of devils has gathered—
In future they may be dangerous.
It is possible that such a gathering (neither éren nor ancestor spirits) is repro-
duced on the reliquary. The caution “may be dangerous” warns tribespeople to
observe particular norms in their dealings with spirits or “devils.” If they are treated
respectfully and “fed” appropriately, they may be of assistance as well.
We will apply the neutral term “spirits” to the one-legged figures on the reli-
quary. These characters may also be chthonic images, but spirits inhabited the
world of the living as well, dependent on people, whose obligations included feed-
ing them (Kenin-Lopsan 1987, pp. 15–16).
Methodologically speaking, the more we attempt to specify the essence and
thereby the name of a graffiti image (not only of the Christie’s reliquary), espe-
cially those encountered for the first time, the greater the chances of error. An
example is the female figure on the well-known boulder from Kudyrgé, and the
doubt concerning its common interpretation, noted by L.P. Potapov, as [Earth-
Mother] Umaie: “the use of ethnographic material as a historical-ethnographic
source is no simple matter, but one that requires extensive skill and a critical ap-
proach to the selection of facts” (Potapov 1991, pp. 294–98). The graphic depic-
60 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

tions are imprecise, for even those who believed in spirits had only a vague under-
standing of them. At the same time, the depiction in profile of the kneeling figure
on the Kudyrgé boulder (Gavrilova 1965, table IV) gives no basis for concluding
that they are one-legged. These are ordinary people. The entire scene is exceed-
ingly realistic, unlike the one we are examining.
We cannot yet analyze the image of the deer. One problem is that half of this
graffito is not visible. But we know the most important thing about this creature:
its anatomy is unearthly, like that of the “spirits” surrounding it.
The images on the Christie’s reliquary have provided fundamentally new infor-
mation about Khazar beliefs, information that cannot be provided by other archeo-
logical sources. There had been no reason to doubt the existence of “spirits” in
the kaganate’s pantheon of the supernatural, but their “real” appearance was
unknown. Now not only is there confirmation of a belief in them, but we know
what some were believed to look like. No source is comparable to the reliquary
in this sense.
As to the meaning contained in the subject,5 the composition is not unsystem-
atic. Each image occupies a particular place, and all of them together are in a
single space, fitting into the general “upper/lower” orientation on the plane of the
reliquary. Unfortunately, without seeing the composition on the reverse side we
cannot be sure whether the supposition about the engraving’s connection with the
calendar cycle, indicated by 9 and 10 under the solar and lunar symbols, is correct.
This seems central, more important than 1; there is nothing like it in the art of the
early medieval nomads of the European steppes. Compared to the layout of sub-
jects we know (Flërova 2001a, p. 115, table 1), we can conclude that the composi-
tion with 1 as its central figure represents the winter period following the autumnal
equinox (night—the lower world). This means it is the image of a ruler of the
underworld attended by five one-legged characters.
The composition features seven anthropomorphic figures, while an eagle and a
deer are subordinated to the object’s three-sided outline. On metal vessels, the
depictions of calendar cycles and the opposition of visible/invisible and light/dark
in the hunt scenes and scenes with various animals are cyclical: the characters
move in a circle in groups coming toward each other (at Kipsk, Kotsk, Podgornensk:
Flërova 2001a, figs. 20, 21, 24c, pp. 83–116). Are not the images similarly repre-
sented on the Christie’s reliquary? We can attempt to decode the composition’s
meaning by looking at the characters’ placement around the circle, considering the
unseen reverse side.
The images presented and the composition as a whole have not been seen pre-
viously in Khazarian graffiti, and this provides new opportunities for research.
This means that the repertoire of mythological characters populating the kaganate
has not been exhausted. Thus we may expect that others as yet unknown will
come to light.
Regarding the opposite side of the reliquary containing “hunting scenes with a
group of people aiming with bow and arrows at a deer, a herd of boar, a large bird,
 SUMMER 2006 61

and a pack of running animals,” the description seems clear enough. The scene as
described is known from graffiti not only from Khazaria, but also from the First
Bulgarian Kingdom (Asparukhov 1984, fig. VI, b— hunting with bow and arrow;
Ovcharov 1982, table XLIV—boars; table LXXI—group of animals).
It is tempting to continue the comparison with known calendar subjects and
define the reverse side as the “face” or “forward” side of the object, with scenes
indicating the vernal equinox and the summer solstice (Flërova 2001a, table 1), to
which the “large bird” could belong (if this is an eagle with its catch—the vernal
equinox), a grazing herd of boars and some unknown variety of hooved animal
(summer solstice). The impression of clarity is deceptive. A number of questions
arises. Did the author correctly describe the characters we cannot see? Many fig-
ures are on the other side (whether group, herd, or flock), and so the graphic de-
tails must be quite small. Have they all been correctly understood? Which aspects
should be understood as fundamental in determining the identity of the boars? A
flock of what kind? Does the “hunter” have a human anatomy? Is his appearance
different from the familiar one-legged figures?
The second set of questions has to do with the compositional arrangement.
Does everything depicted on the reliquary form a single picture with a single sub-
ject or does each side have its own characters and subject? How are the characters
who are mentioned laid out? Are the style and manner of depiction on the unseen
side the same as that of the little horse? The description provides no reliable knowl-
edge about what is depicted. The only possible conclusion is that the description
of the unseen side of the reliquary cannot be used, for its depiction of the original
is dubious.
Nor is our understanding of the unseen or even the visible side of the reliquary
aided by the statement, “For similar items, see fig. 119 in S.A. Pletneva’s Ocherki
khazarskoi arkheologii. Regarding the ‘saltcellar’ made of deer’s horn in the same
style, found in Moravia, see no. 108 in Dekan’s Velikaia Moraviia, Velikaiia
Moravskaia imperiia, ee iskusstvo i vremia.” Such references are worthwhile only
as confirmation of the existence of graffiti art in Khazaria and Central Europe and
nothing more. In the drawing referred to, Pletneva reproduces flat items or plates
from the Shilovskii submound burial from the Volga Region (Bagautdinov et al.
1998, p. 107, fig. 21). Their style and character are completely different (Flërova
2001b [c?—Ed.]). As for the item from the Danube Region called a “saltcellar,”
(which it is not), the only thing it has in common with the Christie’s reliquary is
the material from which it is made (deer horn) and the shape. It is covered with
ornamental designs; no such depictions occur (Dekan 1976, fig. 108). We have
considered sixty publications on reliquaries, but in none did the depictions re-
semble the figures on the Christie’s reliquary.
Let us draw some overall conclusions about the Christie’s reliquary as a source.
It is extremely incomplete due to the circumstances. As for the published image, it
cannot be called a source, but rather a surrogate source. The reverse side of the
object remains unknown, its description unreliable.
62 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

Theft of an item from an archeological setting has deprived us of knowledge

about where it was found and the nature of the monument [site] of origin. Such
knowledge might have enabled us to establish the ethnicity of the engraver, neces-
sary for an organized search for folklore and ethnographic parallels. The appear-
ance of the anthropoidal figures has no particular ethnic or anthropological
indications. Our discourse on Turkic demonology should not pose an obstacle to
the study of other areas, specifically Iranian mythology. Belief in anthropomor-
phic spirits is a phased phenomenon with no particular geographical or chrono-
logical boundaries.
It was necessary to publish the information we do have due to the object’s rare
scholarly value. There is no certainty that the original article will ever be acces-
sible for thorough study; it may vanish into the chaos of private collections.6

Notes

1. Leonid Andreevich Beliaev, editor-in-chief of Rossiiskaia arkheologiia, made this

photocopy in the United States and gave it to the authors, for which we are extremely
grateful.
2. Deep gratitude goes to Nadezhda Sergeevna Safronova, who was able to bring out
unclear images using a computer, although some of the graffiti could not be restored. As a
matter of principle, we did not do any reconstruction or imagine what we could not see.
3. For additional details on interpreting these items as reliquaries, their arrangement in
burial sites, and the connection between the scenes depicted on them and their functional
purpose, see Flërova 1997, pp. 59–66, as well as various chapters of Flërova 2001a. On the
finds in Sarkele, see Flërova 2001b, pp. 104–6.
4. Determining the time according to the position of the moon during the autumnal
equinox confirms our view of how the images on vessel A2 are to be read, which diverge
from the viewpoint of Zh. Aladzhov, who believes that the scene of the deer’s torment is
related to the vernal equinox (Aladzov [Aladzhov] 1985, pp. 80–82).
5. Our profound gratitude goes to Mikhail Fedorovich Kosarev for his consultation on
this matter.
6. We appeal to the current owner of the reliquary, the author of the annotation, and
everyone who knows where it was found and the circumstances of its discovery to provide
any information (even anonymously) to the editorial offices of Rossiiskaia arkheologiia or
to the authors of this article.

Editor’s notes

a. The correct term for a group of boar is a “sounder” of boar. However, the original
Christie’s catalogue cited here, as well as the Russian translation, does not use this biologi-
cally correct term.
b. While the word “pathology” hardly seems fair when discussing spirit forms, the ref-
erence point is clearly human anatomy. For access in English to the work of the late, re-
nowned shamanist Vladimir Basilov, see “Chosen by the Spirits,” in Shamanic Worlds:
Rituals and Lore of Siberia and Central Asia, ed. Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer (Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1997), pp. 3–48.
c. On the powerful uses of gender ambiguity in shamanism, see also Marjorie Mandelstam
Balzer, “Shamans, Bear Festivals, and Hermaphrodites: Gender Transformation in Siberia,”
 SUMMER 2006 63

in Gender Reversals and Gender Cultures, ed. Sabrina Ramet (London: Routledge, 1996),
pp. 164–82. For access in English to the work of Sakha scholar Nikolai Alekseev, see
“Shamans and Their Religious Practices from Shamanism Among the Turkic Peoples,” in
Shamanic Worlds, pp. 49–109.
d. This is confirmed in the literature on indigenous peoples throughout Siberia, and is
why Vladimir Basilov chose the title “Chosen by the Spirits” for his most general book on
shamanism. (See note b.) Fascinatingly, it contrasts somewhat with the “spirit quests” of
Native American tradition.
e. Umai is an Earth-Mother Goddess common among Turkic peoples. For more on Umai,
see Platon Sleptsov, Traditsionnaia sem’ia i obriadnost’ u Iakutov (Yakutsk: Iakutskii
Nauchnyi Tsentr, 1989). The excellent point made here (citing Leonid Potapov) is that
projecting Turkic names back onto petroglyphs is a dangerous (though tempting) analytic
practice, since ethnic groups currently resident in regions where petroglyphs are found may
not be those whose ancestors created the depictions. Even if they are descendants of the
original artists, conceptions of deities may have changed.

References

Aladzov, Z. “Die Religion der heidnischen Protobulgaren im Lichte einiger

arhaeologicher Denkmaler.” Prähistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 60, no. 1. Berlin, 1985.
Alekseev, N.A. Rannie formy religii tiurkoiazychnykh narodov Sibiri. Novosibirsk, 1980.
Artamonov, M.I. “Sarkel-Belaia Vezha.” Tr. Volgo-Donskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii,
Materialy i isledovaniia po arkheologii, no. 62, 1958.
Asparukhov, M. “Srednovekovni grafiti ot severzapadnata B’’lgariia.” Interdistsiplinarni
izsledvaniia. Vols. 11–12. Sofiia, 1984.
Bagautdinov, R.S.; Bogachov, A.V.; Zubov, S.E. Prabolgary na srednei Volge. Samara, 1998.
Basilov, V.N. Izbranniki dukhov. Moscow, 1984.
Borsos, B. Staghorn Powder-flasks. Budapest, 1982.
Chernetsov, A.V. Rets. [Review]: “B. Borsos. Staghorn Powder-flasks. Budapest 1982.”
Sovetskaia arkheologiia, no. 1, 1985.
Chernigova, N.V. “Doslidzhennia Verkhn’osaltivs’kogo gorodishcha u 1999r.”
Arkheologichni vidkrittia v Ukraini 1998–99 rr. Kyiv, 1999.
Dekan, I. Velka Morava. Doba a umenie. Bratislava, 1976.
Doncheva-Petkova, L. Mitologichni izobrazheniia ot b’’lgarskoto srednovekovie. Sophia
1996.
Flërov, V.S. “Naideno na auktsione ‘Christie’s.’ Rol’ eksperta v torgovle drevnostiami.”
Rossiiskaia arkheologiia, no. 2, 2004.
Flërova, V.E. Graffiti Khazarii. Moscow 1997.
———. Obrazy i siuzhety mifologii Khazarii. Jerusalem/Moscow, 2001a.
———. Reznaia kost’ iugo-vostoka Evropy IX–XII veka. Po materialam Sarkela-Beloi
Vezhi iz kollektsii Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha. St. Petersburg, 2001b.
———. “Sogdiiskoe remeslo i kochevniki VII–VIII vv.: o proiskhozhdenii nakladok
sedla iz Shilovskogo kurgana.” Srednevekovye drevnosti evraziiskikh stepei. Ser.
Arkheologiia vostochnoevropeiskoi stepi, no. 15. Voronezh, 2001c.
———. See also Nakhapetion (Flërova), V.
Gadlo, A.V. “Glinianaia statuetka v sobranii Novocherkasskogo muzeia.” Kratkie
soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii, no. 104, 1965.
Gadzhieva, G.A. Doislamskie verovaniia i obriady narodov Nagornogo Dagestana.
Moscow, 1991.
64 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

Gavrilova, A.A. Mogil’nik Kudyrgé kak istochnik po istorii altaiskikh plemen. Moscow/
Leningrad, 1965.
Ivanov, V.V. “Bliznechnye mify.” Mify narodov mira. Entsiklopediia. Vol. 1. Moscow,
1987.
Ivanov, V.V., and Toporov, V.N. Slavianskie iazykovye modeliruiushchie semioticheskie
sistemy. Moscow, 1965.
Kenin-Lopsan, M.B. Obriadovaia praktika i fol’klor tuvinskogo shamanstva.
Novosibirsk, 1987.
Kovacheviæ, I. Avarski kaganat. Belgrade, 1977.
L’vova, E.L.; Oktiabr’skaia, I.V.; Sagalaev, A.M.; and Usmanova, M.S. Traditsionnoe
mirovozzrenie tiurkov Iuzhnoi Sibiri. Chelovek. Obshchestvo. Novosibirsk, 1989.
Matveeva, G.I. Mogil’niki rannikh bolgar na Samarskoi Luke. Samara, 1977.
Nakhapetian (Flërova), V.E. “Ob izobrazheniiakh na kostianykh izdeliiakh saltovo-
maiatskoi kul’tury.” In Problemy okhrany i ispol’zovaniia pamiatnikov arkheologii v
Donbasse. Dissertation abstract. Donetsk, 1987.
———. “Obraz mira v izobrazitel’nom iskusstve Khazarii.” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia,
no. 4, 1994.
Nakhapetian (Flërova), V., and Shamrai, A. “Mitologichen siuzhet v’’rkhu
rannob’’lgarskogo izdelie ot Podonieto.” In Arkheologiia. Vol. 2. Sophia, 1990.
Ovcharov, D. B’’lgarski srednovekovni risunki-grafiti. Sophia, 1982.
Potapov, L.P. Altaiskii shamanizm. Leningrad, 1991.
Prokhorova, T., and Guguev, V. “Bogatoe sarmatskoe pogrebenie v kurgane na
vostochnoi okraine g. Rostova-na-Donu.” Izvestiia Rostovskogo oblastnogo museia
kraevedeniia, no. 5. Rostov-on-Don, 1988.
Romanchuk, A.I. “Izdeliia iz kosti v srednevekovom Khersonese.” Antichnyi i
srednevekovyi gorod. Ser. Antichnaiia drevnost’ i srednie veka. Sverdlovsk, 1981.
Sagalaev, A.M., and Oktiabrskaiia, I.V. Traditsionnoe mirovozzrenie tiurkov. Znak i
ritual. Novosibirsk, 1990.
Sher, Ia.A. Kamennye izvaianiia Semirech’ia. Moscow/Leningrad, 1966.
Tsutsiev, A.A. “Ob odnom alanskom antropomorfnom izobrazhenii.” Antichnaia
tsivilizatsiia i varvarskii mir. Pt. 1. Krasnodar, 1998.
Vainshtein, S.I. Mir kochevnikov tsentra Azii. Moscow, 1991.
Voitov, V.E. Drevnetiurkskii panteon i model’ mirozdaniia v kul’tovo-pominal’nykh
pamiatnikakh Mongolii VI–VIII vv. Moscow, 1996.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.