26 S TUDIA MYTHOLOGICA SLAVICA 2023
87 – 103 | https://doi.org/10.3986/SMS20232602 | CC BY
Sacred Stones and Stone 
Structures in the Ritual Practice 
of the Turkic Population in the 
Southern Urals: Archaeological 
Evidence and Modernity
Ainur I. Tuzbekov, Albert T. Akhatov Ainur I. Tuzbekov, Albert T. Akhatov
Članek povzema, analizira in strukturira verovanja turškega prebivalstva južnega Urala, 
ki so povezana s kamni, gorami, menhirji, karaski, kamnitimi gomilami, nagrobniki itd.
Na podlagi del ruskih in tujih avtorjev ter terenskega gradiva, zbranega med terenskim 
delom v letih 2011–2023, sta izpostavljeni dve skupini verovanj: kulti, povezani s kamni 
naravnega (božjega) izvora, in verovanja, povezana s kamnom, konstrukcije umetnega 
izvora. Opisane so različne oblike uporabe kamna in kamnitih konstrukcij pri Turkih v 
sodobni obredni praksi. Obravnavani so procesi sakralizacije in desakralizacije na kultnih 
območjih Južnega Urala, ki se dogajajo na današnji stopnji razvoja. Posebej so analizirana 
verovanja, povezana z dragimi kamni, ki so jim ljudje dajali poseben simbolni pomen ter 
jim pripisovali zaščitne, magične in zdravilne lastnosti.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: kult kamna, karaski, aulia kabere, sveti prostori, sakralizacija, 
desakralizacija, etnografija, arheologija, Južni Ural
The article summarises, analyses and structures the beliefs of the Turkic population of 
the Southern Urals that are associated with stones, mountains, menhirs, karaski, stone 
mounds, tombstones, etc.
Based on the works of Russian and foreign authors, as well as on field materials gathered 
during the expedition trips in 2011–2023, two groups of beliefs are singled out: cults asso-
ciated with stones of natural (divine) origin, and beliefs associated with stone constructions 
of man-made origin. Various forms of the use of stone and stone constructions by the Turkic 
people in modern ritual practice are described. The processes of sacralisation and desa-
cralisation at the cult sites of the Southern Urals occurring at the present stage of develop-
ment are considered. Beliefs related to gemstones, to which people gave special symbolic 
meaning, and attributed protective, magic and healing properties, are analysed separately. 
KEYWORDS: stone cult, karaski, aulia kabere, sacred area, sacralisation, 
desacralisation, ethnography, archaeology, Southern Urals
Since ancient times, rituals have been a significant element of any community’s deve-
lopment and have accompanied people from the moment of their birth until their death. 
Originating in ancient times and later undergoing transformations to adapt to the changing 

AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV 88 88 
reality, many rituals have survived to the present day and continue to play an important 
role in the lives of modern people.
1
Researchers single out different types of rituals – calendar, crisis, imitation, and others. 
The magical and religious ones are considered particularly special (Chernykh 2012: 12-14). 
One of the functions of the latter is to regulate relations between the socio-cultural 
and natural environment by including certain elements of nature (mountains, lakes, local 
areas, etc.) in the ritual practices of people when holding prayers and rituals on them.
The beliefs associated with stones and stone constructions common among the Tur-
kic peoples of the Southern Urals may serve as such an example. Although scientists 
do not share a unified opinion on the time of their formation, some researchers believe 
they appeared among ancient peoples while they were living on the African continent 
(from where they moved out to settle elsewhere around 60,000 years ago). Others 
believe that the cult of stone began to form later – in the Early Metal Age (Ilimbetova 
2020: 163–164). 
According to Eliade, the worship of stones originated in the time of prehistoric peo-
ples, as instruments of spiritual action or places of energy were intended to protect the 
people or their dead (Eliade 1999: 209). Later, it gradually developed to integrate both 
archaic elements and elements of monotheistic religions, and transformed into a rather 
complex system of religious beliefs. Nowadays, the beliefs associated with the venera-
tion of mountains, rocks, cobblestones, stone mounds, etc., include not only the objects 
themselves, but also the surrounding territories.
The objective of this work is to analyse and systemise the beliefs connected with stones 
and stone constructions that are present among the Turkic population of the Southern 
Urals, represented by the Bashkir, Tatar, and Chuvash peoples. 
The article is based on scientific works written by Russian and foreign authors, and 
on field materials found during expeditions in the years 2011–2023 to the territory of the 
Republic of Bashkortostan, Chelyabinsk and Orenburg Oblasts within the administrative 
territory of the Southern Urals, as well as on materials found during expeditions to the 
western part of Kurgan Oblast.
The study of beliefs related to stones and stone constructions, including those 
practised by the Turkic population of the Southern Urals, attracts the attention of 
specialists from various scientific areas who pay much attention to certain aspects 
of the problem.
Archaeologists investigate the role of these beliefs in the worldview of people in 
ancient times, and their place in the modern socio-cultural space of the Southern Urals. 
Potemkina (Potemkina 2011: 11–35) and Serikov (Serikov 2018: 80–97) have summarised 
and systematised material from the study of megalithic objects in the Urals in the cult 
practice of the region’s ancient population; Kotov (Kotov 2012: 95–100), Garustovich and 
Ovsyannikov (Garustovich 2011: 401–408; Garustovich, Ovsyannikov 2012: 179–187) 
have analysed the data of Bashkir folklore, ethnography and archaeology related to various 
1
 The research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project No 23-28-01674 The sacralisation 
of archaeological sites as a phenomenon of the modern spiritual life of the Southern Ural population).

SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... 89 89 
manifestations of the veneration of mountains among the Bashkirs; Grigoriev and Minee-
va (Mineeva et al. 2013: 192–195) have observed the state of study and preservation of 
menhirs in the Southern Urals; Aminev, Ovsyannikov and Savelyev (Aminev et al. 2012: 
6–20) have described and classified small cult objects of the Irendyk ridge; Tuzbekov 
has analysed present-day processes of sacralising archaeological objects such as stone 
mounds, menhirs, graves of “saints”, etc. (Tuzbekov 2018a: 39–49; Tuzbekov 2018b: 
78–85). Serikov considered the role and place of precious and semi-precious stones in 
the cult practice of ancient people in the Southern Urals from the Upper Palaeolithic to 
Medieval times (Serikov 2019).
Ethnologists, folklorists and religious scholars who pay more attention to certain types 
of stones and stone constructions, or their mythological and ritual component, have made 
a great contribution to the study and description of beliefs related to stones. Thus, the 
works of Inan (Inan 1998), Velidi (Velidi 1981) and Absalyamova (Absalyamova 2014: 
155–158) investigate the rituals of weather control using magic stones; the works of 
Nagaeva (Nagaeva 1984), Suleymanova (Suleymanova 2005) and Altynbaev (Altynbaev 
2013) study the veneration of mountains and their place in the mythological tradition of 
the Turkic population of the Southern Urals.
The studies focusing on beliefs and rituals related to tombstones, stone constructions, 
and so on, are even more numerous. They have been carried out by Yunusova (Yunusova 
2015: 106–115), Syzranov (Syzranov 2006: 127–143), Absalyamova (Absalyamova 
2008: 207–210), Medvedev (Medvedev 2011: 375–384), Petrov (Petrov 2018: 109–122), 
Idiatullov (Idiatullov 2018: 89–94), etc.
The monograph by Ilimbetova is particularly worth mentioning, as it presents a con-
sistent study of the cult of stone in the traditional culture of the Bashkir population of 
the Southern Urals on the basis of folklore, and mythological and ethnographic materials 
(Ilimbetova 2020).
The most noteworthy foreign studies have been written by Kazakh, Azerbaijani and 
Turkish scientists. They consider the problem of the coexistence of Islam and archaic 
religious beliefs associated with stones and stone constructions. The work by Azhigali 
(Azhigali 2002) stands out for its thoroughness: stone constructions and their use in the 
cult practice of the Turks of Kazakhstan are described and classified in much detail. The 
work by Kuliyeva (Kuliyeva 2007) takes into consideration the problems associated with 
the cult of stones among the Turkic peoples of Azerbaijan.
Another work by the Turkish religious scholar Tanyu (Tanyu 1968) should also be 
noted as it has not only studied the role of stone in ancient and modern religions, but 
also described and systematised the most widely used cult objects made of stone, and the 
related rituals among the Turkic peoples of Turkey and Central Asia.
An analysis of the available literature on the spiritual life and religious beliefs 
of the population of the Southern Urals, and accompanying field materials, indicates 
a large number of stone objects and complexes (holy stones, rocks, mountains, 
menhirs, single mounds, stone arrangements, etc.) used in the ritual practice of the 
Turkic-speaking population of the region in the relatively recent past and the present 
time. A comparison of the sacred representations of the modern Turkic peoples of the 

AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV 90 90 
Southern Urals with various types of hierotopias, the centres of which are stones, has 
made it possible to divide the beliefs associated with stones and stone constructions 
into two large groups:
1. beliefs related to stones of natural (divine) origin,
2. beliefs related to man-made stone constructions.
BELIEFS RELATED TO STONES OF NATURAL (DIVINE) ORIGIN
The first group includes the following:
1. Beliefs related to single stones. These consist mainly of stone sculptures with an 
anthropomorphic or zoomorphic appearance, or stand out due to the presence of small 
indentations resembling footprints or human hands (sledovick stones). The origin of the 
latter is associated with mythological saints or legendary historical figures. In the modern 
ritual practice of the Turkic population, they are used to summon rain, improve health, 
and wish a safe trip. Two examples include Peygamber Tash ( Trail of the Prophet Mu-
hammad in Bashkir) in the village of Kadyrsha in Zilairsky District of the Republic of 
Bashkortostan (Fig. 1), and Mahadi-Tash (Mahdi stone in Bashkir) near the village of 
Ust-Bagaryak, Kunashaksky District, Chelyabinsk Oblast. 
2. Beliefs associated with the accumulation of stones. The stones are located at a 
distance of no more than 50 metres from each other and have no analogues in the mor-
phology of the surrounding landscape. These stones (called rain stones by the locals) 
often differ in size from each other, so worshippers arrange them in a hierarchy, calling 
the larger ones Babai Tash (grandfather stone in Bashkir), and Atay (father). Smaller ones 
are called Abiy tash (grandmother stone), and Inei (mother), etc. The religious practice 
of the Turkic population of the Southern Urals still includes the rain calling ceremony 
known as “Stones of Summer”, which is held in the villages of Zirikovo in Gafuriysky 
District (Fig. 2) and Kuseevo in Baymak District, both in the Republic of Bashkortostan, 
and the “Thunder Stones” ceremony at Assy in Beloretsky District of the Republic of 
Bashkortostan. Local residents perform these rituals in times of drought or when there 
are floods. They wash the boulders, wipe them with oil and pray for good weather.
According to some researchers, the use of these stones is an ancient animistic relic 
of the cult of nature, and also indicates the common ancestral homeland of the Turkic 
peoples (Dorzhieva 2015: 12–16). 
3. Beliefs associated with rocks are divided into beliefs related to:
1) rocks with anthropomorphic outlines. This subgroup includes religious beliefs 
associated with the rocks called Tchertov Palets (Devil’s Finger) on the Yamankaya 
ridge, the Tchertov Palets and Ebey Tash rocks in Abzelilovsky District of the Republic 
of Bashkortostan, the Tchertov Palets on the Belaya River in Burzyansky District of the 
Republic of Bashkortostan;
2) rocks with a cave, such as the Uklykaya rock (Rock with arrows) at Tashasti village 
in Gafuriysky District of the Republic of Bashkortostan (Fig. 3).

SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... 91 91 
Figure 1: A single stone “Peygamber tash”. Zilairsky district, Republic of Bashkortostan (photo by A. 
Tuzbekov, June 2016).
Figure 2: “Stones of Summer” – “Babai Tash” (left) and “Abiy Tash” (right). Gafuriysky district, Republic 
of Bashkortostan (photo by A. Akhatov, July 2014).

AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV 92 92 
The allocation of this subgroup is explained by the existence of a cult of shooting at 
rocks with arrows with warheads dating from the 10
th
 to the beginning of the 13
th
 centuries. 
According to researchers, the presence of a large number of combat arrows on the eastern 
slope of the mountain may indicate that it was a military sanctuary, while the mountain 
itself was an object of veneration (Garustovich, Ovsyannikov 2012: 179–187). Accord-
ing to another version, the shelling of the rock represented the process of fertilization 
(Ozheredov 1999), and was associated with the cult of the goddess Humai.
Evidence of the existence of this cult is also recorded on Kamen Dyrovatyi (Stone 
with Holes) on the Chusovaya River (Serikov, Skochina 2011), and the Tri Sestri sanc-
tuary (Three Sisters) in the Middle Trans-Urals. This cult has not been preserved in the 
modern-day religious practice of the population of the Southern Urals. 
4. Beliefs related to mountains. Such beliefs are mostly associated with the veneration 
of the host spirit of a lonely mountain: Tura-Tau (Kotov 2012: 95), Yuraktau (Garustovich 
2011: 404) of Ishimbai District of the Republic of Bashkortostan (Fig. 4), Kurmantau 
of Gafuriysky District of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Iremel, Yamantau of Beloretsk 
District of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Masim-tau of Burzyansky District of the 
Republic of Bashkortostan; or a mountain with extraordinary phenomena (Yangan-Tau 
mountain of Salavatsky District of the Republic of Bashkortostan). 
Considering the settlement of the Bashkirs, Shirgazin draws attention to the fact that 
each tribal unit had a sacred mountain on its territory (Shirgazin 2010: 169–184).
In the sacred beliefs of the modern Turkic population of the Southern Urals, cults 
associated with natural (divine) stones are losing their former significance. The sites 
mentioned above are being actively desacralized due to economic development, which 
means they are frequently transformed into tourist destinations and turned into places 
for recreation and entertainment. Despite this process, some of the objects from the 
first subgroup (single stones) continue to hold a significant place in the beliefs of the 
modern population (Garustovich 2011: 406). This leads to the realisation that objects of 
sacralisation with a specific centre, which occupy a small space, are more resistant to 
the processes of desacralisation.
BELIEFS RELATED TO MAN-MADE STONE CONSTRUCTIONS
In connection with this, the second group of beliefs associated with stones and man-
made stone constructions with clear boundaries and centres is of undoubted interest for 
further study.
Concerning the typology proposed by Savelyev (Savelyev 2012), these beliefs can 
be divided into four subgroups:
1. Beliefs related to menhirs. These date back to the cults of the Bronze Age popu-
lation and depend directly on their types (single, alley) and location. As a rule, separate 
menhirs are located at the bluff line of above-floodplain terraces, or near the terrace on 
a small hill near the river bank. Most menhir alleys are located topographically much 
higher, on the slopes of hills (Petrov 2007: 74). According to Eliade, such monuments 

SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... 93 93 
Figure 3: Uklykaya (arrowhead) Rock. Gafuriysky district Republic of Bashkortostan (photo by A. 
Akhatov, July 2014).
Figure 4: Mount «Tura-Tau». Ishimbaysky district, Republic of Bashkortostan (photo by A. Akhatov, 
July 2014).

AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV 94 94 
were associated with the cult of the dead and were erected in order to pacify the soul of 
the deceased (Eliade 1999: 209–210).
Archaeological research conducted in the Southern Urals found no evidence of burial 
constructions or traces of memorial actions near most of the menhirs, indicating that these 
monuments were generally not related to funeral rites. A connection may be assumed 
due to the widespread cult of worship of steppe spirits in nomadic cultures, which also 
existed among the Bashkirs (Petrov 2007: 75).
Single menhirs were allegedly used as a border between developed and undeveloped 
areas, as a kind of guardian of homes. The existing tradition of relocating or building a 
new menhir as a guardian, or kut of a dwelling, and as a landmark for the construction of 
a settlement or a new street, recorded by the Bashkirs, may be evidence for the existence 
of this type of cult. As a rule, the menhir alleys stretch to the south of the most prominent 
peak of the district, which may be associated with the veneration of mountain spirits, 
widespread among the Turkic population of the Southern Urals.
In addition to the above-mentioned menhirs on the territory of the Bashkir Trans-Urals 
(Baymak and Abzelilovsky Districts of the Republic of Bashkortostan), other locations 
of menhirs have also been identified that are not linked to settlements and Bronze Age 
burial grounds. Menhirs were placed on the summits and slopes of mountains, as well 
as on river terraces. Indirect and direct data on these objects under study allows us to 
date them to the ethnographic time period (100–200 years) (Saveliev 2012: 128, 144). 
Researchers divide the menhirs into three groups: ritual-memorial complexes (Kyngyr-
tau-18, Ulkan-Seyalyk, Abzakovo), spatial markers (Kynyrtash-7, Cook-teke-1), and 
separate cult objects (Sygyltau-5, Yanzigitovo-2, Talkas-8), which can have a memorial 
function and possibly also mark a burial site (Saveliev 2012: 145).
2. Beliefs associated with stone pyramids (karaski, obo) These are structures con-
structed mainly by the people of the southern part of the Bashkir Trans-Urals on the 
summits of mountains, on mountain passes, and near permanent settlements (Fig. 5). They 
were presumably erected in honour of the spirits of mountains and territories, and were 
constantly enlarged. Whoever climbed the mountain to perform a ritual for the spirits 
of the ancestral area had to take a stone and, having reached the summit, put it into the 
karaski (Bashkir word for guardians) and conducted a sacrificial ceremony in the hope 
of obtaining reliable protection for their ancestral territory (Aminev 2011). 
Some karaski were in the shape of large columns or pyramids. Sometimes stone 
mounds from the early Iron Age served as the fundament, which was then completed 
with new stone arrangements and pyramids. Often there were heaps of brushwood or 
birch branches near the karaski. Some of the piles of stones had poles stuck in them with 
skulls of sheep impaled on the poles (Kotov 2012: 98). The modern Turkic population of 
the Southern Trans-Urals preserves the tradition of building karaski, but in most cases 
does not attach a spiritual meaning to this process, simply constructing them to scare 
away wolves or to pass the time while grazing cattle.
3. Beliefs related to tombstone constructions. Originally, people believed stones were 
the abode of God, or other higher powers, as well as the habitation of human souls (Fraser 
1989: 339–340). That is why, after a person’s death, burial stones or stone constructions 

SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... 95 95 
were built over the grave, or the place where the person died, to “fix” the soul of the 
deceased and provide it with a temporary home near the living people, so it could ensure 
the fertility of their fields by the force of its spiritual nature, and prevent the soul from 
wandering or becoming dangerous (Eliade 1999: 209–210).
The most common tombstone construction among the Turkic population of the 
Southern Urals is a stone stele that evolved from the small stone at the head of the grave 
known as the bash tash (headstone) to the big stele and most common form of Muslim 
tombstone, the syin tash (gravestone). The size and material from which the tombstones 
are made depend on the buried person’s importance. Tombstones on the graves of saints, 
Muslim clergy or dervishes are believed to possess a special supernatural power. For 
example, the residents of Abdrashitovo, a village in Duvansky District of the Republic 
of Bashkortostan, perform rain-calling cults by washing tombstones on the graves of 
saints during a drought. Meanwhile, in the village of Abultaevo, in Safakulevsky District 
of the Kurgan region, there are widespread beliefs associated with tombstones that are 
miraculously growing up from the ground (Fig. 6). 
Sometimes they acquire anthropomorphic features. The residents of the village of 
Meseli in the Aurgazinsky District of the Republic of Bashkortostan believe one of the 
gravestones is the “owner” of the cemetery (Medvedev 2015: 76).
4. Beliefs associated with stone mounds, fences and stone arrangements. These are 
more closely related to the ritual of venerating ancestors’ graves, preserved in the Southern 
Figure 5: Stone pyramid »karasky«. Baymaksky district, Republic of Bashkortostan (photo by A.Tuzbekov, 
June 2016).

AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV 96 96 
Urals, owing to the presence of Sunnism of the Hanafi madhhab, which is sufficiently 
liberal to incorporate pre-Islamic beliefs and nomad rituals (Syizranov 2006:129).
Archaeologists and ethnographers have so far identified more than 100 objects of this 
kind. Most of them are located on the territory of the eastern part of the Uraltau ridge. 
Common cases of inclusion of stone mounds, walls and arrangements in the rituals of 
the local population include (Aminev, Kotov, Ovsyannikov, Savelyev 2012): 1) the 
construction of karaski on the tops of mounds or near them (Olo-tau-2, Baymak District 
of the Republic of Bashkortostan); 2) the construction of stone walls on mounds (Bai-
shevo-12, Baymak district of the Republic of Bashkortostan); 3) chaotic piles of stones 
and stone arrangements on the tops of mounds; 4) putting menhirs, stone arrangements 
and rings on the mounds, and the use of ancient mounds as awliya (Islamic saints); 5) 
the construction of stone walls around the mounds.
It is worth mentioning that the modern-day Turkic population of the Southern Urals 
admits the importance of funeral monuments located on the tops of mountains or hills in 
perpetuating the memory of their ancestors. Visiting the hills where mounds are located 
has become an integral part of most Muslim holidays. Evidence of the transformation 
of beliefs about such objects is of particular interest for researchers. While the idea of 
the sacredness of mounds is clearly fixed among the older generation, representatives 
of the younger generation also sacralise the areas adjacent to the mounds or the entire 
visible territory. The stone mound near the village of Suramanovo, Uchalinsky District 
of the Republic of Bashkortostan, which presumably dates back to the Middle Ages, 
may exemplify that. In the 19
th
 and 20
th
 centuries, the mound was used by local residents 
as a place where diseases of the genitourinary system of domestic animals were healed. 
Recently, the population has begun to call the mountain auliale tau (the mountain with 
the grave of a saint), connecting it with a saint allegedly buried here in ancient times 
(Tuzbekov, Bakhshiev 2022: 190).
5. Beliefs related to precious, semi-precious and ornamental stones
A special place in the ritual practice of the Turkic-speaking population of the Southern 
Urals is reserved for beliefs related to precious, semi-precious and ornamental stones. 
Differing from ordinary stones in their physical properties, rarity, bright colours, etc., 
stones worn in jewellery have acquired a special magic-religious character largely due 
to intermediate hierophany (manifestation of the sacred) or сratophany (manifestation 
of supernatural power), i.e., symbolism that gives them magical or religious significance 
(Eliade 1999: 397). At different times in different parts of the world, various peoples 
told legends about the origin of precious and semi-precious stones (including pearls and 
corals). Numerous superstitions and beliefs were associated with them, and they were 
widely used in magic, medicine, etc. (Eliade 1999: 397–402; Tanyu 1968: 8–9, 28, 51–52, 
100–101, 137). In the past, they had numerous functions – aesthetic, practical, protective, 
ritual, symbolic, etc., some of which have survived to the present day.
Archaeological finds of precious and ornamental stones and minerals dating back 
around 800 thousand years have been discovered at monuments in Eurasia and Africa. 
In the Southern Urals, from the Upper Palaeolithic era to the Middle Ages, rock crystal, 
carnelian, malachite, agate, serpentinite, amber, jasper, etc. were widely used for making 

SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... 97 97 
Figure 6: A “growing” tombstone. Safakulevsky district, Kurgan region (photo by A. Tuzbekov, June 2006).

AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV 98 98 
various objects. The majority of such finds are discovered in treasure troves, burial sites 
and sanctuaries, which suggests that they were endowed with symbolic meaning and 
mainly used by the ancient population in cult practices (Serikov 2019).
Folklore and mythological and ethnographic material shows that in the past different 
peoples, including those living in the Southern Urals, widely wore stones in jewellery 
to protect themselves against “evil forces” and mishaps, to attract longevity, enhance 
the reproductive qualities of people, as well as in folk medicine. The Bashkirs used car-
nelian in this way to treat heart and eye diseases, amber was used against hepatitis and 
to prevent Basedow’s disease. They also believed that diamonds worn in jewellery heal 
human diseases. In order to ensure good health and longevity, new-born babies were 
often given names of noble and precious stones.
In addition, the Bashkirs considered stones in jewellery to be a strong aphrodisiac, 
and believed that wearing jewellery – bracelets, rings, earrings, necklaces, etc. made of 
carnelian and amber (or encrusted with them) protects against the evil eye (Ilimbetova 
2020: 20, 25–26, 33, 67, 105–106, 116, 119–120). Currently, representatives of different 
ethnic groups living in the Southern Urals (including Bashkirs, Tatars and Chuvash) are 
actively interested in the protective and healing properties of stones worn in jewellery, 
including the ones recommended on the basis of their date of birth according to the Eastern 
calendar (Galieva 2016: 125).
CONCLUSIONS
The literature and field materials studied testify that stones and stone constructions are 
an element of the modern-day religious and mythological beliefs (and corresponding cult 
actions) of the Turkic-speaking population of the Southern Urals. They can be nominally 
divided into two large groups. The first includes beliefs associated with stones of natural 
(divine) origin – individual stones and groups of stones, rocks, mountains, which are 
all losing their significance in the sacred beliefs of the modern Turkic population of the 
Southern Urals due to developments in agriculture and recreation. However, the situation 
is different for some sledovick stones (literally footprint stones) and rain stones, on which 
rituals are still carried out to summon rain, healing, etc. The second group includes beliefs 
associated with man-made stone constructions – menhirs, stone pyramids (karaski, obo), 
tombstone constructions, stone mounds, walls and stone arrangements, which are actively 
observed in the modern ritual practice of the Turkic population of the Southern Urals. 
These processes are most widely recorded today in the south-eastern Bashkir Trans-Urals. 
One of the features of such a process in this region is the inculcation of esoterism into the 
public consciousness, the basic conductors of which are marginal religious associations. 
In the ritual practice of the Turkic-speaking population of the Southern Urals, a special 
place is reserved for beliefs related to stones worn in jewellery. Unlike ordinary stones, 
they were believed to have special magical and healing properties designed to defend 
and protect their owner.

SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... 99 99 
Overall, most of the surveyed archaeological sites are characterised by the spontaneity 
of the formation of the sacred area, and the formation of absolutely artificial beliefs, sup-
ported at the same time by some Muslim clergy, and sometimes by government bodies. 
The phenomena under consideration definitely require additional research. The similarity 
of these processes at various sites around the world testifies to the global character of the 
crisis of traditional (established) spiritual values – people looking for spiritual support 
instead turn to new or reviving religious systems, often giving simple and understandable 
solutions to the challenges of the modern world. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Absalyamova, Yuliya, 2008: Auliya zyyaraty: k voprosu o kulte svyatykh u bashkir (na materialakh 
Vostochnogo Orenburzh’ya) [Aulia ziyaraty: on the question of the cult of saints among the 
Bashkirs (based on the materials of the Eastern Orenburg region). In: I. G. Ilishev (Ed.), 
Islamskaya tsivilizatsiya v Volgo-Uralskom regione: materialy III Mezhdunarodnogo sim-
poziuma [Islamic civilization in the Volga-Ural region: material from the III International 
Symposium]. Ufa: IIYaL UNTs RAN. 207–210.
Absalyamova, Yuliya, 2014: Dozhdevye kamni bashkir [Rain stones of Bashkir]. In: A. Y. Braer-
skaya (Ed.), Sbornik materialov I Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa “Prostranstvo etnosa v 
sovremennom mire” 29-31 oktyabrya 2014 goda [Collection of material from the I Inter-
national Congress “The space of the ethnos in the modern world” October 29-31, 2014]. 
Grozny: Izdatelstvo Chechenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 155–158.
Altynbaev, Ranis, 2013: Folklor bashkir-kataytsev (epicheskoe, liricheskoe i obryadovoe tvorchestvo): 
dissertaciya kandidata filologicheskih nauk [Folklore of the Bashkir-Katai people (epic, 
lyrical and ritual creativity): doctoral thesis in philological sciences]. Kazan.
Aminev, Zakiryan; Kotov, Vyacheslav; Ovsyannikov, Vladimir; Savelyev Nikita, 2012: Malye 
kultovye obekty Bashkirskogo Zauralya: k postanovke problemy [Small cult objects in the 
Bashkir Trans-Urals: formulating the problem]. In: V. G. Kotov (Ed.), Ural-Altay: cherez 
veka v budushchee. Materialy V Vserossiyskoy tyurkologicheskoy konferentsii, posvyas-
hchennoy 80-letiyu Uchrezhdeniya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk Instituta istorii, yazyka i 
literatury UNTs RAN [Ural-Altai: through the centuries into the future: material from the V 
All-Russian Turkological conference dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the establishment 
of the Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ufa Federal Research Centre 
of the Russian Academy of Sciences]. Ufa: IIYaL UNTs RAN. 6–20.
Aminev, Zakiryan, 2011: Otgoloski kulta gor u bashkir [Echoes of the mountain cult amongst 
the Bashkirs]. In: V. N. Tuguzhekova (ed.), Respublika Khakasiya kak subekt Rossiyskoy 
Federatsii: materialy Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, posvyashchen-
naya 20-letiyu obrazovaniya Respubliki Khakasiya (23-24 iyunya 2011 g.) [Republic of 
Khakassia as a subject of the Russian Federation: material from the All-Russian scientific 
practical conference dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the formation of the Republic 
of Khakassia (June 23-24, 2011)]. Abakan: Tipografiya OOO «Tekhnopark». 269–277.
Azhigali, Serik, 2002: Arkhitektura kochevnikov – fenomen istorii i k ultury Evrazii: pamyatniki 
Aralo-Kaspiyskogo regiona [Architecture of nomads – a phenomenon of the history and 
culture of Eurasia: monuments of the Aral-Caspian region]. Almaty: Gylym.

AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV 100 100 
Chernykh, Alla, 2012: Ritualy v mediatizirovannom obshchestve [Rituals in a mediatized society]. 
Moskva: Izdatelskiy dom Vysshey shkoly ehkonomiki.
Dorzhieva, Darima, 2015: Obryady vyzyvaniya dozhdya u uygurov [Rain-calling rites among the 
Uighurs]. In: N. V. Cyrempilov (Ed.), Buryatiya na perekrestke k ultur (Shestye Egunovskie 
chteniya): materialy Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, posvyashchen-
noy 20-letiyu Buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Ulan-Ude, 9-10 iyunya 2015 
g.) [Buryatia at the crossroads of cultures (Sixth Egunov Readings): Material from the 
All-Russian scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 20th anniversary of Buryat 
State University]. Ulan-Ude: Izdatelstvo BGU. 12–16.
Eliade, Mircea, 1999: Ocherki sravnitelnogo religiovedeniya [Essays on Comparative Religious 
Studies]. Moskva: Ladomir.
Frezer, Dzheyms, Dzhordzh, 1989: Folklor v Vetkhom zavete [Folklore in the Old Testament]. 
Moskva: Politizdat.
Galieva, Farida, 2016: Oberegi sovremennyh bashkir v kontekste etnokul’turnyh vzaimodejstvij 
[Amulets of modern Bashkirs in the context of ethno-cultural interactions]. Izvestiya 
Ufimskogo nauchnogo centra RAN 4, 122–126.
Garustovich, Gennadiy, 2011: Proyavleniya orolatrii u bashkir v etnograficheskom i arkheologich-
eskom kontekstakh [Manifestations of orolatry among the Bashkirs in ethnographic and 
archaeological contexts]. In: F. G. Hisametdinova (Ed.), Dukhovnaya kultura narodov rossii. 
Materialy zaochnoy Vserossiyskoy nauchnoy konferentsii, priurochennoy 75-letiyu doktora 
filologicheskikh nauk F.A. Nadrshinoy [The spiritual culture of the peoples of Russia: 
material from the All-Russian Scientific conference, dedicated to the 75th anniversary of 
F.A. Nadyrshina]. Ufa: Gilem. 401–408. 
Garustovich, Gennadiy; Ovsyannikov, Vladimir 2012: Srednevekovoe svyatilishche na gore Uk-
lykaya na Yuzhnom Urale [The medieval sanctuary on Mount Uklykaya in the Southern 
Urals]. Problemy istorii, filologii, kultury 1(35), 179–187.
Idiatullov, Azat, 2018: «Svyashchennye» obekty tatar i bashkir srednego Povolzh’ya i Priaralya 
[“Sacred” objects of the Tatars and Bashkirs of the Middle Volga region and the Aral Sea 
region]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriya 52, 89–94.
Ilimbetova, Azaliya, 2020: Simvolika kamnya v fol’klore, obryadakh i obychayakh bashkir [The 
symbolism of stones in the folklore, rituals and customs of the Bashkirs]. Ufa: Mir pechati.
İnan, Abdulkadir, 1998: Makaleler ve İncelemeler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Kotov, Vyacheslav, 2012: Elementy pochitaniya gor na Yuzhnom Urale [Elements of mountain 
veneration in the Southern Urals]. Vestnik Vostochnoy ehkonomiko-yuridicheskoj guman-
itarnoj akademii 6 (62), 95–100.
Kulieva, Rafiga, 1993: Kult kamnya v Azerbaydzhane (arkheologo-etnograficheskoe issledovanie). 
dissertaciya kandidata istoricheskih nauk [The cult of stone in Azerbaijan (archaeological 
and ethnographic research): doctoral thesis in historical sciences]. Baku.
Medvedev, Vladislav, 2011: Kladbishcha i nadmogil’nye sooruzheniya nekreshchenykh chuvashey 
Bashkortostana (po materialam issledovaniya 2010 goda) [Cemeteries and tombstones of 
unbaptized Chuvash in Bashkortostan (based on the materials of a 2010 study)]. Problemy 
istorii, filologii, kultury 2(32), 375–384.
Medvedev, Vladislav, 2015: Traditsionnye vozzreniya chuvashey o kladbishchakh [Traditional 
views of the Chuvash about cemeteries]. In: A. T. Akhatov (Ed.), Etnosy i kultury Ura-
lo-Povolzh’ya: istoriya i sovremennost’: materialy IX Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy 
konferentsii molodykh uchenykh [Ethnoses and cultures of the Ural-Volga region: history 

SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... 101 101 
and modernity: material from the IX All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference of 
Young Scientists]. Ufa: IEI UNTs RAN. 71–77.
Mineeva, Ilyana; Grigoryev, Nikolay, 2013: Drevnie kamennye sooruzheniya Yuzhnogo Urala kak 
ob’’ekty istoriko-k ulturnogo naslediya narodov Rossii: k probleme izucheniya i sokhraneni-
ya [Ancient stone constructions of the Southern Urals as objects of historical and cultural 
heritage of the peoples of Russia: article on the problem of study and preservation]. Vestnik 
Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Istoriya, 2 (22), 192–195.
Nagaeva, Lidiya, 1984: Vesenne-letnie prazdnestva i obryady bashkir [Spring-summer festivities 
and rites of the Bashkirs]. In: R. G. Kuzeev (Ed.), Issledovaniya po istoricheskoj ehtnografii 
Bashkirii [Research on the historical ethnography of Bashkiria]. Ufa: BFAN SSSR. 47–64.
Ozheredov, Yuriy, 1999: Sakralnye strely yuzhnykh selkupov [Ozheredov Sacred arrows of the 
southern Selkups]. In: E. I. Chernyak (Ed.), Priobye glazami arkheologov i etnografov: 
Materialy i issledovaniya k «Entsiklopedii Tomskoy oblasti» [Priobye through the eyes of 
archaeologists and ethnographers]. Tomsk: Izdatelstvo Tomskogo universiteta. 77–119. 
Petrov, Fedor, 2007: Drevnie kultovye pamyatniki pochitaniya stikhijnykh dukhov na territorii 
stepnogo Zauralya [Ancient cult monuments of veneration of elemental spirits on the ter-
ritory of the Trans-Urals steppe]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 
Ser. 10: Vostokovedenie. Evrazijstvo. Geopolitika,Vyp. 7, 23 (101), 71–80.
Petrov, Igor, 2018: K voprosu o tipologii nadmogilnykh pamyatnikov nekreshchenykh chuvashey 
Yuzhnogo Priuralya [On the question of the typology of gravestone monuments of unbap-
tized Chuvash in the Southern Urals (based on the materials of the 2014 expeditions)]. In: 
F. G. Galieva (Ed.), Dokumenty i materialy po istorii i kulture narodov Yuzhnogo Urala 
[Documents and materials on the history and culture of the peoples of the Southern Urals]. 
Ufa: OOO «Pervaya tipografiya». 109–122.
Potemkina, Tamilla, 2011: Megaliticheskie sooruzheniya Urala: struktura sakral’nogo prostranstva 
[Megalithic structures of the Urals: the structure of sacred space]. Vestnik arkheologii, 
antropologii i ehtnografii 2 (15), 11–35. 
Savelyev Nikita 2012: Malye kultovye obekty Yuzhnogo Urala: ot arkheologii k etnograficheskoy 
sovremennosti [Small cult objects of the Southern Urals: from archaeology to ethnographic 
modernity]. In: F. G. Hisametdinova (Ed.), Dokumenty i materialy po istorii Bashkirskogo 
naroda (s drevneyshikh vremen do serediny XVI v.) [Documents and materials on the 
history of the Bashkir people (from ancient times to the middle of the 16
th
 century)]. Ufa: 
IIYaL UNTs RAN. 128–166.
Serikov, Yuriy; Skochina, Svetlana, 2011: Nekotorye aspekty vtorichnogo ispol’zovaniya na-
konechnikov strel s peshchernogo svyatilishcha na Kamne Dyrovatom (r. Chusovaya) 
[Some aspects of the secondary use of arrowheads from a cave sanctuary on a Holey stone 
(Chusovaya River)]. Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i ehtnografii 2 (15), 4–10.
Serikov, Yuriy, 2018: K ultovye kamni i megaliticheskie sooruzheniya Urala [Cult stones and 
megalithic structures of the Urals]. Ezhegodnik finno-ugorskikh issledovaniy 1, 80–97.
Serikov Yuriy, 2019: Ispolzovanie blagorodnyh, cvetnyh i ekzoticheskih mineralov drevnim 
naseleniem Urala [The use of precious, colourful and exotic minerals by ancient popu-
lations of the Urals]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: 
Socialno-gumanitarnye nauki 19 (3), 55–67.
Shirgazin, Askar, 2010: Rasselenie bashkir v predelakh rodovykh arealov [The settlement of Bash-
kirs within the tribal areas]. In: V. G. Kotov (Ed.), Kulturnoe nasledie Yuzhnogo Urala 
kak innovacionnyj resurs [The cultural heritage of the Southern Urals as an innovative 
resource]. Ufa: IIAL UNC RAS. 169–184.

AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV AINUR I. TUZBEKOV, ALBERT T. AKHATOV 102 102 
Suleymanova, Margarita, 2005: Doislamskie verovaniya i obryady bashkir [The pre-Islamic beliefs 
and rituals of the Bashkirs]. Ufa: RIO BashGU.
Syzranov, Andrey, 2006: Kult musul’manskikh svyatykh v Astrakhanskom krae [The cult of Muslim 
saints in the Astrakhan region]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 2, 127–143.
Tanyu, Hikmet, 1968: Türklerde Taşlarla İlgili İnançlar, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
Tuzbekov, Ainur, 2018а: Gorodishche u s. Kara-yakupovo v Bashkirii – novyy obekt sakralizatsii 
arkheologicheskogo pamyatnika [The settlement near the village of Kara-Yakupovo in 
Bashkiria is a new object of sacralisation of an archaeological monument]. Studia mytho-
logica Slavica 21, 39–49. DOI: 10.3986/sms.v21i0.7065
Tuzbekov, Ainur, 2018b: Konstruirovanie novykh sakralnykh prostranstv vokrug arkheologicheskikh 
pamyatnikov na Yuzhnom Urale [Constructing new sacred areas around archaeological sites 
in the Southern Urals]. Istoriko-kulturnoe nasledie narodov Uralo-Povolzhya 2 (5), 78–85.
Tuzbekov, Ainur; Bakhshiev, Ilshat, 2022: O sakralizacii pamyatnikov arheologii (na primere Bash-
kirskogo Zauralya) [On the sacralisation of archaeological monuments (the example of the 
Bashkir Trans-Urals]. In: V. V. Amelin (Ed.), Evrazijskiy perekrestok. Sbornik materialov 
nauchno-prakticheskih meropriyatiy [Eurasian Crossroads. Collection of materials from 
scientific and practical events]. Orenburg: Universitet, 189–192.
Yunusova, Ayslu, 2015: Mobilizovanniy arhaizm: novye tendencii v tradicionnoy religioznoy 
praktike pokloneniya bashkirskih musulman [Mobilized Archaism: new trends in the tra-
ditional religious practice of worship of Bashkir Muslims]. Izvestiya Ufimskogo nauchnogo 
centra RAN 3, 106–115.
САКРАЛЬНЫЕ КАМНИ И КАМЕННЫЕ СООРУЖЕНИЯ В 
РИТУАЛЬНОЙ ПРАКТИКЕ ТЮРКОВ ЮЖНОГО УРАЛА: 
АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВА И СОВРЕМЕННОСТЬ
Айнур И. Тузбеков, АльберТ Т. АхАТов
В статье обобщаются, анализируются и структурируются верования тюркского 
населения Южного Урала, связанные с камнями и каменными культовыми 
комплексами, используемыми людьми в ритуальной практике в относительно 
недавнем прошлом и в настоящее время. 
Имеющаяся литература и полевые материалы, полученные в ходе экс-
педиционных выездов, совершенных в 2011–2023 гг. авторами свидетель-
ствуют, что камень является одним из значимых элементов современных 
религиозно-мифологических представлений (и соответствующих культовых 
действий) людей, благодаря его наделению магическими, чудодейственными, 
сакральными и др. свойствами.
Сопоставление сакральных представлений современных тюркских на-
родов Южного Урала с различными типами иеротопий, центрами которых 
являются камни, позволило разделить верования, связанные с камнями и 
каменными сооружениями, на две большие группы.

SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... SACRED STONES AND STONE STRUCTURES IN THE RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE TURKIC ... 103 103 
Первая включает в себя верования, связанные с камнями природного 
(божественного) происхождения – одиночные камни и группы камней, 
скалы, горы, которые ввиду их хозяйственного и рекреационного освоения 
теряют свое былое значение в сакральных представлениях современного 
тюркского населения Южного Урала. Исключение составляют отдельные 
камни-«следовики» и камни-дождя, на которых до настоящего времени 
проводятся ритуалы для вызова дождя, оздоровления и т.д. 
Вторая группа – это верования, связанные с камнями рукотворного 
происхождения – менгирами, каменными пирамидами (караскы, обо), над-
гробными каменными сооружениями, каменными курганами, оградками и 
выкладками, большая часть которых является объектами археологического 
наследия. Они достаточно активно используются в ритуальной практике 
тюркского населения Южного Урала в наши дни, особенно на юго-востоке 
– в Башкирском Зауралье. 
Одной из особенностей данного процесса в этом регионе является внедре-
ние в общественное сознание эзотерических (иррационально-мистических) 
составляющих, базовым проводником которых выступают маргинальные 
религиозные объединения. В целом, для большинства обследованных ар-
хеологических объектов характерна стихийность формирования сакраль-
ного ареала, конструирование абсолютно искусственных представлений, 
поддерживаемых при этом частью мусульманского духовенства, а иногда 
и властными структурами.
Ainur Tuzbekov. Candidate of Historical Sciences, specialist. Ufa University 
of Science and Technology, Institute of History and Public Administration, 
Zaki Validi st, 32, Ufa, the Republic of Bashkortostan, Russia, 450076. 
aituzbekov@gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0002-5895-9826
Albert Akhatov Candidate of Historical Sciences, research fellow. Ufa 
Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences, R.G. 
Kuzeev Institute for Ethnological Studies, K.Marx st, 6, Ufa, the Republic 
of Bashkortostan, Russia, 450077. bertik@mail.ru
ORCID: 0000-0003-4776-9506