Класифікація пам’яток як один з перших кроків у їх дослідженні (на прикладі половецьких статуй)
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2014
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Publishing House of Lviv Polytechnic National University
Abstract
Порушено проблему дослідження масових пам’яток та проблематичності їх класифікації. Розглянуто на прикладі різних класифікацій половецької скульптури, як одночасно існували та продовжують існувати різні класифікації не заперечуючи одна одну. Вказано на основні концептуальні підходи існуючих класифікацій та
виявлено такі їх якості, як взаємодоповнювальність і персоніфікованість.
One of the main museum activities at the level of exposition and educative function there are their research component. Important role in the study of any of numerous monuments are their classification and typological analysis. In this article we have tried to illustrate the different classifications Polovets sculptures simultaneously existed and continue to
exist different classifications and do not exclude each other. Existing classification Polovets sculptures are subjective, what we have tried to demonstrate.
The first attempt to classify stone sculpture Polovets tribes was done by Alexey S. Uvarov in the late 19th century. Autor has selected next types of sculpture: standing, sitting, half-sitting and such as stella. Evolution of these sculptures Uvarov has seen as a development from the stella to roughly treated and well detailed sculpted figures.
The following classification appeared only in the second half of the 20th century. Herman A. Fedorov-Davydov had used for his classification just two iconographic features: posture and sex. He divided poses of sculpture into three types: standing, sitting, stella. Evolution of stone sculpture in the Eastern plains Fedorov-Davydov represented as the evolution of standing figures, followed by the simultaneous evolution and coexistence of stella and sitting figures. Svetlana A. Pletneva taking into account the classification Fedorov-Davidova has created its own – more detailed, but less accessible. In turn, her and previous classifications was subjected to serious analysis and critique of Lyubov
S. Geraskova. As for chronological dating, researchers usually try to tie it to their classifications but indicate that we need consider all available information.
After analyzing the existing classifications, we concluded that different classification can be supplementing nature and do not claim to be exhaustive. This is due to the complexity analysis of mass sources.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Підкович А. Я. Класифікація пам’яток як один з перших кроків у їх дослідженні (на прикладі половецьких статуй) / А. Я. Підкович // Historical and Cultural Studies. – 2014. – Volume 1, number 1. – P. 57–61. – Бібліографія: 6 назв.