92 chapter two
for a re-birth of the classical Turkic sculpture from the sixth–eighth
century.^26
The boundary role of the women who were between two social
worlds-and-behaviors, and their status, in particular, had been typical
only for a well-established and acceptable for all the society’s members
period of time, namely till the end of the wedding ceremony. After
that, it was not allowed for women to cross the boundaries of the ‘male
world’. Women had to follow and obey the socially accepted codes of
behavior, which were ‘sacralized’ by the tradition and in fact marked
their new status. But there were also some exceptions linked mostly
with the aged and not so much with the social status of women. They
signify the women shamaness who, just as it was typical for the war-
rior women, lived on ‘the edge’, on the ‘frontier’; and because of this
fact they had an ambivalent nature. But the shamaness is not totally
‘outside’ the boundary and, therefore, their own group or community
does not mark them as “unclean”, or evil and alike. At the same time,
such women are not included in the main social categories, either,
since they were living—literally and metaphorically speaking—‘on the
edge’. Later in the text, I shall return to this question.
Contrary to the Scythian era, when, in the steppes there were stone
statues of men only, during the Turkic era and mostly in the area of
today Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, and Semirechie there are several stone
statues of women. All of them are indeed female figures holding a
vessel in the right hand at the level of the breast. They wear hats and
their hair is not visible at all, which is in a total opposition to the
male figures. On the latter, hair is always visible, and they wear no
hats. It is believed that these statues were originally colored.^27 It seems
very probable that from the very beginning both sexes existed in the
old-Turkic notion that stayed behind the practice of erecting stone
statues in the steppes. According to Yurii Motov, behind this notion
there stood the specific idea of representing a human being, who
is positioned ‘hieratically’, in front of another person. This concept
has its roots in the remote past, e.g. the idea of the ‘arbor mundi’, or
that about the king and queen, or the connection between Earth and
Heaven, and alike, and it is marked, beyond any doubt, by sacrality.
(^26) See Pletneva 1974, 107, Tab. 70, N 1205—this statue is quite interesting since it
is more than 2.8 m in height and the warrior woman is presented holding a sabre,
quiver, and dagger.
(^27) For a positive opinion see, Rossiiskaia arkheologiia 2004, N 2, p. 187.