In embroideries and weaving on canvas survived
the most numerous and most characteristic
remnants of national Russian artistry.
V. Stasov.
Ornamental prayers of the nationality
can only be properly understood through a thorough
study of the ideas underlying them.
V. Kharuzina.
Smolensk province – this transit center, where the sources of three major rivers of the great Russian plain, the Dnieper, Western Dvina, and Volga converge, has historically been a place of advancement for many tribes and peoples, some of which settled here, or to a lesser extent, contributed something “of their own,” unique. Later, during historical times, the same Smolensk province continually experienced influences from Lithuania and Poland, and through them, the more distant West; the influence of the culture of already established northern Russian regions – Pskov, Novgorod, later Moscow, even Ryazan and Suzdal. The influence of Ukraine was also significant.
All these influences remain most vividly expressed in monuments of language, topographical nomenclature, as well as in visual and monumental art, and in the latter, of course, according to the special structure of ancient Rus, predominantly in ecclesiastical, but partly also in civil architecture.
The influence of the Polovtsians and Tatars, although the least expressed, should still be considered existing, preserved only in local place names (the Polovetskiy tract, the village of Bonokovo, the Kumovaya Yama; several Tatarshtina, Ordyn, Baskakovo, Basurmanovo, Batyievo, Mamaevo, Kasimovo, Murzino, Tilyalyuy, and a few others).
Of course, all these influences, both in later and earlier times, were distributed far from evenly across the entire area of the province: in one part, some predominated, in another – others, which created a peculiar character of the districts, expressed mainly in their division into Belarusian and Great Russian districts, as it is commonly called, but in essence, only those that are closer to Belarus or to Great Russia.
The oldest, prehistoric influences create not only effects like the later ones but are the foundation of the primary culture of Smolensk.
Such a foundation should be considered to include elements: Sarmatian[1], ancient Lithuanian, Finnish, and finally, Slavic, which assimilated and cemented into one conglomerate all the listed nationalities.
To the influences should be attributed: Khazar-Arab and Scandinavian, which we observe among burial mounds, especially in the great Gnezdovo burial ground near Smolensk.
Then – Gothic, slipping into the style of some burial mound items and in the so-called “kubray” language of the Drokobuz merchants, which they still use today, wishing to be misunderstood; finally, the Byzantine influence, which is partly reflected in the things of later burial mounds and grave goods, but especially – in ecclesiastical architecture of the 12th century, samples of which, preserved more or less intact, we have in the city of Smolensk in the form of churches – Svirskaya, Petropavlovskaya, and Ioanno-Bogoslovskaya.
As for the main elements that served as the material for the entire local culture, we find them: in geographical nomenclature, in language, and archaeological objects obtained from settlements, burial grounds, and mounds, and finally in local art, especially in that branch of it which in folk speech is called “ukras,” i.e., decorations or ornaments, which everywhere and always is the most stable form of figurative art, transmitting from generation to generation, across countless centuries, the oldest artistic traditions and only very sparingly absorbing later influences.
“In embroideries and weaving on canvas survived the most numerous, most original, and most characteristic remnants of national Russian artistry,” says V. V. Stasov[2].
Despite the fact that Smolensk province has historically been a forest province, it cannot boast of wooden decorations, at least not in the wealth, diversity, and artistry that we find in the northern provinces, where not only household utensils but churches, huts, and boats were usually covered with carvings.
In our locality, all ornamental folk creativity is expressed precisely in sewn and woven “ukras,” which thus are although the only, but very abundant and characteristic material, the study of which presents enormous interest.
In starting this study, it is first necessary to agree on what ornament actually represents and what its significance and purpose are. Summarizing in a few words the definition of the essence of ornament, it seems that this can be done as follows: “ornament is a rhythmic combination of graphic signs, lines, or figures, however they may be reproduced.”
However, all these definitions relate only to the external existence of the ornament. It is also necessary to clarify its internal essence.
Most scholars are inclined to rightly see in ornamental manifestations of human creativity not only decorations reproduced for the delight of the eye, so to speak, but mainly known symbols, magical signs, as well as stylized reproductions of totemic or sacred objects and representations.
“Ornamental motifs of the nationality,” says V. N. Kharuzina[3], “can only be correctly understood through a thorough study of the ideas underlying them.”
The ornament of the Smolensk region, reproduced in weaving and embroideries, and serving mainly for the decoration of clothing: shirts, shawls, handkerchiefs, capes, headscarves, belts, sashes, towels, whether it is woven, embroidered, sewn, or attached, carries the characteristic local name “ukrasy.”
This word is now gradually being lost and is used only by very old women, which, of course, indicates its archaic nature.
All “ukrasy” should be classified as linear or geometric ornamentation. If among them there is a plant ornament, it is, comparatively, only a later borrowing, apparently penetrating from Ukraine.
Characteristic features of local “ukrasy” are: 1) absolute “duality,” i.e., not only a certain purity of the reverse side but its complete identity with the front, – a requirement that has even passed to later cross-stitching and is characterized by the name “on both sides.” 2) Every pattern is composed of separate independent “figures,” the repetition, combination, and symmetrical arrangement of which create the ornament itself. 3) Perfect inlay of the pattern, where the “ground” (i.e., background) is meaningfully filled and gives the same independent figures as the pattern itself. All these characteristic features are lost as soon as it gets to outsiders: the pattern remains the same, but inevitably some changes and additions appear, as a result of which the “ground” can no longer provide independent figures and turns into a shapeless background[4]. Table XXIX*, figs. 19, 27.*
Such understanding, or rather, misunderstanding of the pattern should be considered its decline. That is why it is by no means possible to agree with V. V. Stasov[5], who, for some reason, considers Russian ornament borrowed from Finnish tribes. However, it should be assumed just the opposite.
“Do we have the right to assert,” says Stasov, “that the patterns of our embroideries are of purely Russian origin, and that they arose on our native soil? No, we do not have that right, even if we consider only those items on which they are found. Purely Russian clothing does not exist at all,” he declares, and further describes the cut and lists the names of clothing such as: “kaftan,” “zipun,” “armyak,” “sorafan,” “kika,” and releases, however, purely Russian names like “nasovka,” “rubakha,” “zarukavnik,” and many others.
“Moving on to the consideration of the patterns,” continues Stasov, “we immediately notice that there is nothing independent in them, because all the main components exist among known nationalities of Asian origin, which have possessed them for many centuries and, of course, could not have borrowed them from the Russians.”
Here Stasov evidently forgets one of the fundamental laws of culture, that there is no people that has not borrowed something, and sometimes a lot, from others, but the originality of each national art consists precisely in the fact that the gifted people processes all these borrowed forms and creates from them their own, already quite independent.
“Oriental patterns, with which ours have the most affinity, are divided into two main groups: Finnish patterns and Persian patterns,” says Stasov.
Regarding Finnish patterns, or rather, Finnish influence, it has already been mentioned above, and in general, the very influence on Finnish patterns should be derived as much from Russian as from the same eastern source, which is indeed predominant in Russian patterns in general and in the “ukras” of the Smolensk region in particular.
Thus, the closeness of Finnish and Russian patterns is explained by the influence on both of the same primary source, and not by borrowing by the Russians from the Finns. As for the elements that are indeed very strongly expressed in Russian patterns of Iranian origin, they should not be considered something foreign precisely because the Russian people, or rather “Russian Slavs,” from whom they are “Russian” or “eastern,” as they are also called, consist of Slavs who merged with Iranian tribes, mainly Sarmatians and Alans.
In turn, the Belarusians, who make up the predominant ethnic element of Smolensk province, are the purest such mixture, i.e., without subsequent additions of Finnish and Tatar blood, which is very abundant among the Great Russians.
Thus, Tatar influences are completely absent here, and Finnish ones are only weakly expressed, except in the southeastern part of the province, especially in Yukhnovsky district, where not only “ukrasy,” but also clothing bears the imprint of Finnish tribes that once lived there.
All “ukrasy” of the Smolensk region, both sewn and woven, can be reduced to the following main types:
Circular.
Hooked.
Fingered.
Lobed.
Crossed.
The main figure is the “diamond,” invariably bearing the name “circle,” various combinations and modifications of which constitute the vast majority of patterns. In the last four types, transitions from one to another can be observed, but at the same time, all of them have a transition to “circular,” so that graphically they can also be represented in the form of a radiating circle.
The most interesting and essential aspect of studying “ukras” is their elements, i.e., those separate figures from which, as already mentioned, they are composed.
The study of these elements, first of all, leads us to the primary source, secondly, undeniably and visually confirms the position expressed by many scholars that all primary ornaments are symbols of purely religious, or approaching it, meaning – totemic, magical, prophylactic, etc. Only later do they lose their original meaning and become merely decorative patterns.
The primary source of any ornament and, in general, of figurative art, naturalists consider “the play of technique,” i.e., the pleasure experienced when repeating a successful, purely technical action. Such is, for example, the view of physiologist Ferworn[6].
Primitive art he divides into physioplastic and ideoplastic. The former conveys – visible objects, as we now call it naturalistically, in the form they are. Such was the art of the Paleolithic or ancient stone period, which astonishes us with its abundance and certain perfection.
The subsequent Neolithic era, i.e., the new stone age, already gives ideoplastic art, i.e., flowing from human conceptual representations of objects. This process is illustrated by Dr. Ferworn as follows[7]. “Primitive art is all the more physioplastic the stronger the sensual perception, and all the more ideoplastic the brighter the abstracting, theorizing life of representations manifests. The first powerful impetus to the development of the theorizing life of representations was given in prehistoric times by the concept of the idea of the soul. The religious representations flowing from this idea provided, in turn, the general prerequisites for the emergence of ideoplastic art.”
Thus, the source for explaining our “ukras” should be the time of this ideoplastic art, i.e., the new stone age; where we can already trace the beginnings of all those elements that we see in our “ukras” as well as their current flourishing in the last copper-bronze age.
In beginning the study of the elements of our “ukras,” it should be noted that their foundation is the circle, which not only heads but seems to draw in all other elements and, in this case, is not a disk, as we now understand the circle, but a diamond.
Such a transformation of the circle – disk into a circle – diamond occurred, undoubtedly, according to the conditions of technique, due to one of the fundamental laws of culture, that the art and technique of each people are entirely dependent on the material that the people has at given conditions and in a given locality.
The material for “ukras,” in our case, has historically been canvas, which consists, as is known, of intersecting threads at right angles, which, following their direction, allow reproducing only geometric patterns. The oldest method of sewing, as far as can be traced, was proderzhka, i.e., the removal of some threads and the covering of the remaining ones with something, predominantly red color, which is called “povodka.” “The threads are laid red.”
Alongside this, the oldest embroidery consists of passing, sewing colored thread between the white threads of the canvas, finally, even later cross-stitching (without canvas, by counting threads) allows for the depiction of only geometric elements. Thus, the “circle,” i.e., the concept of a certain limited space, became possible to depict in two figures: a square and a diamond. But in our “ukras,” while diamond elements constitute the overwhelming majority, “squares” are extremely rare, almost singular, and bear the name “okoshek.” Table XXVIII, figs. 11, 23[8].
In view of this, the diamond figure in this case should be recognized as equivalent, i.e., equal to the circle-disk, which follows from the very name – “circle.”
The substitution of the disk by nothing other than a diamond can also be indicated in the oldest Caucasian cultures, the Iranian elements of which are particularly close to ours. There, in Ossetian cemeteries in the form of monuments, as well as at crossroads in memory of the deceased or those who perished outside this territory, stone hewn pillars are erected, called “tsyrt-tseveny” Table XXX*, fig. 3*. They are extremely schematic representations of the human figure, the head of which is expressed by a flat disk, attached on a very short neck to the shoulders of the torso, in the form of a flat pillar, buried in the ground.
These board-like heads of tsyrt-tseveny are usually decorated with rosettes or radiating stars, which in the earliest cultures of the East are emblems of the sun god – Shamash among the Babylonians, Ra among the Egyptians, Assur among the Iranians. “In tsyrt-tseveny,” says P. S. Uvarova, “the face of the deceased is replaced by the solar disk”[9].
Alongside this, on a leather pouch found by Uvarova in Komunte, the usually disk-shaped head is replaced by a diamond[10]. Table XXX*, fig. 4. Here we actually have, due to technical conditions, the replacement of the disk of the head by a diamond. The same must have happened concerning the disk – sun.
Due to this, diamond stamps, often found alongside circular ones on the bottoms of burial urns, at least, for example, from the Gnezdovo burial ground (table XXXI*, figs. 4, 6)*, should be regarded alongside circles as symbols of the sun.
We also have information that in the oldest Egyptian graves with burials of curled skeletons, clay boxes were found with plates of schist in the shape of elephants, fish, ostriches, and diamonds.
By analogy and all probabilities, considering these items placed with the deceased as images of “totems,” it can be assumed that here too the diamond was a symbol and most likely of the sun[11].
Based on the above, it follows that the “circle” of our “ukras,” depicted due to technical conditions, in the form of a diamond, is nothing other than a symbol of the god – the Sun.
It should be assumed that the circle, of course in the form of a disk, has been since ancient times, specifically since the era of ideoplastic art, exclusively a symbol of the sun, for in nature, apart from the sun, a person could see nowhere a correctly constructed circle. Even the moon, with its phases, disrupted its unchanging existence, while only the sun, both at zenith, in the halo of its rays, and on the horizon, always invariably maintained the correctly disk-shaped form of the circle. But why did a person, to replace the circle – disk with another geometric figure, depict precisely a diamond and not a square?
We currently have no specific data for an answer, but it seems that a figure limited on four sides with right angles, which is a square and cube in human representation, was something heavy, necessarily resting on one of its flat surfaces on something material, while a diamond, also a square-limited figure, but placed on its corner, gave the impression of something lighter, as if not requiring a material surface for its support, and therefore corresponded more to the symbol of the sun, floating in the boundless ocean of the sky.
Another visual proof that the diamond figure is a fiery symbol is found in the Sumerian ideogram for “fire.”
Moreover, a factual confirmation of the above can be provided by one towel of local (Smolensk) work in the Smolensk State Historical and Ethnographic Museum, where almost three human figures are depicted, apparently solar gods, with the middle head not being round, but rhomboidal, illuminated by hooked rays; while the heads of the other two are completely diamond-shaped and also illuminated by rays, Table XXX*, fig. 1.
In Vyazemsky district, where the collection was predominantly gathered, records were made, and the ancient names of patterns have mostly been lost. It was difficult to restore some of them. It should be noted that all patterns are performed by heart and borrowed by embroiderers or weavers from each other, which is why they are sometimes named after the village from which they were obtained, for example, “pattern from Gorodishchenskaya,” or “pattern from Zhukovshchina,” etc.
The best and most characteristic names have survived in Dukhovshchinsky district, where completely identical patterns are observed, and therefore it is necessary to apply them predominantly. Some individual figures, whose names could not be established, had to be given corresponding new names necessary for their designation.
The most widespread patterns are “circular,” which are divided into “large circles” (table XXVIII*, fig. 13*) and “small circles.” Table XXVIII*, fig. 20. Both, apart from being independent figures, very often serve as outlines for other figures, as if absorbing it, serving as a banner. Table XXVIII, figs. 5, 15, 19.
The same circles, filling the edge gaps, appear in the form of halves, i.e., actually triangles, and this form bears the characteristic name “raskovka,” which often becomes a completely independent pattern, alternating triangles placed on the corner with triangles placed on the edge. Table XXVIII*, figs. 3, 22.
Such a “raskovka,” alongside the diamond, is found on many burial mounds: bracelets, earrings, lobed rings (lobed), pendants (brektyats), even beads.
Moreover, most of all diamond varieties are found in eastern and mainly Persian ornamentation[12].
“Large circles” are usually composed of several, included within each other, all decreasing diamonds. Table XXVIII*, fig. 13. Sometimes diamonds are separated by solid or already composed of “shashki”[13], or “lepeshki”[14] with oblique crosses. U.t., fig. 19.
Sometimes diamonds only touch U.t. fig. 10, sometimes they overlap each other. U.t. figs. 5, 16[15].
“Large circles” are occasionally jagged and stepped. U.t. fig. 19. Moreover, “large circles” very often have “marks” on the outer side, and then they are called “gribenkas.” U.t. fig. 6. With double marks on the outer and inner sides, they are called “double gribenkas,” in Dukhovshchinsky, “kolotovki.” U.t., fig. 21. A special name is given to a circle with a larger or smaller (from one to four) number of external marks, where the end marks, i.e., those at the corners, are connected by triangular overlaps, which gives a link, again of diamond shape. Such figures are called “gorodok.” U.t. figs. 9, 10.
A very close analogy to “gorodok” can be indicated in the ornament of one pendant found by Glazov in Gdov burial mounds[16], which A. A. Spitsin refers to the 11th century. Table XXXI*, fig. 2. Considering it only as an imitation of coins, which were prototypes of round pendants. Probably, this extremely widespread linked “circle” (diamond) with rays – marks was some special symbol, the meaning of which remains unsolved[17].
Among the varieties of “small circles,” it is necessary to mention: 1) “small circles,” having one long mark on each side. They can be called circles with four rays. Table XXIX*, figs. 33, Table* XXVIII fig. 8, Table XXXI*, figs. 9, 12. 2) “Small circles,” having two leaf-like protrusions at each corner, which already brings them closer to lobed patterns. Such circles are called “kucheryavy” in Dukhovshchyna, i.e., curly. Table XXIX, fig. 3.
The varieties of “hooked” patterns are significantly fewer than circular ones.
Among them, the most common are “hooks,” straight and bent in the form of Slavic zelo. U.t. fig. 32. Table XXVIII*, figs. 12, 4* (stylized horse heads). Table XXXI*, fig. 7. This pattern is very often found in the ornamentation of Finnish tribes and generally in the North.
Then come “froglets,” simple and “twisted,” which consist of a combination of a hook and a circle Table XXVIII*, fig. 14.
Sometimes hooks are “gribenchaty,” i.e., with internal and external marks. An interesting figure is “sechki,” usually connected with a circle. They closely resemble those iron pendants of Gnezdovo grivnas, which V. I. Sizov, due to their similarity, calls “Thor’s hammer”[18] Table XXIX*, figs. 31, 7. Table* XXXI*, fig. 10. To hooked patterns also belong “kliny,” or (in Dukhovshchyna) “kolyuki,” “vyuny,” and “kozyulki.” *U.t. fig. 17. The pattern “kolyuki” consists of a series of broken lines, entering one into another. Essentially, this is a half-pattern or “raskovka” of continuous diamonds. Such “muses in three postizha” (i.e., in three stripes) – this is the easiest pattern to execute, which is why precisely on it girls learn “shvivu.” It is mainly found in narrow ends but reaches even very wide. Sometimes simple “kolyuki” are transformed into gribenevy, i.e., with marks, sometimes into hooked, i.e., with bent marks. This pattern is extremely complex, and therefore almost always “pobuntovanny” (with mistakes) during execution.
Particularly outstanding interest is represented by types of hooked figures already known in the oldest cultures of the East under the name of “swastikas.”
The swastika represents a figure of a cross with bent ends – “crux gammata,” i.e., a glagolitic cross of Christian times.
Swastika is an ancient Indian word and means good wishes. In the “Vedas,” it was used either in the meaning of the noun “bliss” or in the meaning of the adverb “health.” According to some scholars, the form of the sign originated from two pieces of wood laid crosswise, with which sacred fire was obtained through friction. According to others, it is a stylized image of flying birds, then an emblem of spring, and further – an emblem of the sun and fire. Among the ancient Indians, the swastika was considered the emblem of the god of fire – Agni. Images of the swastika have been found on a golden crown found in the sarcophagus of the Egyptian princess Khnumit, belonging to the III or IV dynasty, which ruled at the end of the IV millennium BC[19]. It is also found in the oldest layers of the city of Troy.
An interesting combination of the swastika sign with the image of a flying bird is found among the items of the Mezinskaya Neolithic site, where a carved bird is entirely covered with swastika figures, intertwining with each other and forming an extremely beautiful figurative net[20].
Nevertheless, it should be assumed that initially, the swastika sign was an emblem of fire and specifically of lightning, while the flying bird, in turn, was a symbol of the same lightning, which it reminded of by the swiftness of its flight in the heavenly heights. If the swastika sign depicted only those wooden sticks laid crosswise, from which fire was obtained, then why give them bends? Meanwhile, it is precisely these bends, turned in different directions, that most closely convey the broken line of lightning; when laid crosswise on top of each other, they form, although not a closed, but still a diamond figure, undoubtedly a symbol of fire – the sun.
The swastika in patterns is not very common and mainly in “cutouts,” while in “overlays,” both sewn and woven, it is very rare. It is mainly executed in wide patterns, but it is always inscribed in a diamond: smooth, “gribenchaty” (table XXVII*, figs. 5, 15, 16*), even a special type of “hooked” with swastika-bent marks. U.t. fig. 4. All this, again, directly merges with the circle – the sun.
The sign itself is depicted quite diversely. 1) In the form of a simple cross with bends. U.t. figs. 4, 24. 2) In the form of a cross with double bends, forming a diamond in the middle. U.t. figs. 7-16. (Such a swastika can conveniently be called complex). 3) In the form of a simple cross with double bends and also hooked marks. (u.t. figs. 17, 7-5) and straight marks. Table XXX*, fig. 6. (Such a swastika has to be called complicated). 4) Finally, the swastika is “rakolonny,” where the middle forms a diamond, and the bends remain only at one end of the four crossbars or “fingers,” while each opposite end of the finger has no bend. U.t. figs. 7, -15. This last form suggests that one of the most widespread patterns, not only of “cutouts” but also of “overlays,” called “double oblique cross,” or “baranchik,” is a swastika that has lost its bends.
This thought is further confirmed by the fact that in Dukhovshchyna patterns, largely, apart from the selection of colors, similar to Vyazemsky, “baranchik” appears on knitted headscarves and is called “khrest,” while the broken swastika is called “zavivasty khrest.” Similarly, “baranchik,” relating already to finger patterns, sometimes appears at the top and bottom as “zavivasty,” which also brings it closer to the “rakolonny” swastika. Table XXIX*, figs. 5, B. Sometimes in the intervals between the fingers of “baranchik,” “lepeshki” (tiny diamonds) are placed, which in places merge with the finger of baranchik, resulting in a pattern very close to the rakolonny swastika. This, so to speak, “transitional” pattern gives the right to see in baranchik a modified swastika that has lost its bend. On the other hand, precisely “baranchik,” in the form of two crossbars laid on a cross, most likely symbolizes those sticks that were used to obtain sacred fire.
In addition to the Dukhovshchinsky name “zavivasty cross,” no other for the swastika figure has yet been traced, and its meaning, apparently, as well as the name, has been lost.
Unfortunately, it has also not been possible to determine whether there were any specific patterns or figures accompanying certain ritual actions, for example, at weddings, at funerals, and offerings (ex voto) in chapels and churches – these remnants of pagan offerings to wells, springs, trees, etc. We only know that towels, which were mainly “nabiralis”[21] with sewn and woven “ukras,” were and even to this day are, items of a cult nature and as an undeniable legacy of pre-Christian beliefs, have become a necessary attribute of altars, icons, and generally the “red corner.”
“Fingered” patterns are the least numerous of all. These are “baranchik” simple, twisted, Tula, and curly and “fingers.”
The pattern “fingers” or “in fingers” is again included in a diamond, in the middle of which, parallel to all four sides, stripes of three go, and then it is called in 12 fingers, four in 16 fingers.
About the simple and “twisted” baranchik has been said in connection with the swastika. V. V. Stasov[22], as usual, derives this figure from eastern Finns. Meanwhile, we can trace it among the Iranians, mainly, and also in all eastern cultures, even to Japan.
“Baranchik” in its modifications very often merges with other patterns, creating transitional forms. For example, “double baranchik” (“Tula” Table XXIX*, figs. 30, 7. Table* XXXI*, figs. 5*), its middle forms a linked diamond with fingers (“otmerami”) and thus approaches the “circular” patterns; sometimes, due to its solid density, it approaches the “flower” (u.t. fig. 13), i.e., gives a transition to “lobed” patterns. About hooked patterns has already been said above. “Baranchik” is always colonized with “circular” and “hooked” patterns.
“Lobed” patterns are called “melnits” (Table XXIX*, fig. 20*) and “goose feet.” U.t. fig. 13. The basis of all their various modifications is the eight-pointed star – one of the favorite motifs of the East, which Stasov[23] considers a stylized flower. This is especially easy to trace in a whole series of “strips.” While some give a typical eight-pointed star (white) with a red “okoshko” (square) in the middle, inscribed in a red diamond with white diamonds at the corners. (These diamonds – circles are divided by a massive oblique cross composed of red windows with a white oblique cross inside). In such an interpretation, this pattern is found most often. Table XXIX, fig. 20. Other strips give the same eight-pointed star, but with less angular lobes, outlined with a red border, which in general gives it a more rounded shape and brings it closer to the “flower.” Table XXIX*, figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.
Furthermore, the eight-pointed star is placed upright, with the angles of the lobes cut off, which also gives a certain roundness, which in other strips already reaches the full illusion of a flower, where the “laid” black centers further emphasize this impression. U.t. fig. 14.
But especially vividly expressed is such a starry flower on a very old “end” (by sewing – the first half of the 19th century), where the lobes of the white-stroked star are so rounded that they completely lose their starry nature. A little isolated in the type of this same pattern are large, very effective four-lobed stars, where each lobe has two full and two half-toothed edges. Inside are inscribed red solid windows, and the star itself is placed in a red diamond, with interlocking angles also filled with colored diamonds. U.t. fig. 18.
An interesting variant of the same pattern is given by strips “laid” with oil, and therefore very ancient: here the starry flower is inscribed in a wide, red diamond with marks on the outer side, which is why the white stripe dividing the diamonds curls around in the form of a city-like angular ribbon. In the red half-patterns filling the void between the diamonds, a large figure resembling a flower with two leaves is inserted – an element completely unusual for our patterns. U.t. fig. 8.
In all “lobed” patterns, the inter-pattern figures that separate starry flowers are very remarkable. Such is, for example, the red figure between the lobes of the fleeing stars, outlined by a thin white stripe, apparently to more clearly highlight this figure. U.t. fig. 10.
In essence, such inter-pattern figures are merely various expressions of the same thought, which is especially vividly expressed in “overlays,” where it is invariably interpreted in the form of a double funnel, which is particularly easy to bring closer to the figure of a Buddhist altar[24], in ancient times intended to ward off the evil eye. U.t. figs. 9, 7, 11, 6, (figure in the center).
From this interesting series of lobed stars (“flowers”), especially noteworthy is the pattern, which with white forks and a separating figure, sewn for distinction with another stitch (stars with stitching, and forks – with twisting), connects together the white main stars with one common weave, so that a white patterned sash is obtained. U.t. fig. 29.
Finally, on one pattern (baranchik), in the wide forks of the separating figure, a resemblance to a heart-shaped petal is inscribed, not everywhere, however, accurately conveyed. U.t. fig. 5.
If we take into account that wings are a symbol of prayer, as Savensko[25] says in his report on ancient monuments of figurative art on the Yenisei, then the winged mills of such a pattern, also separated by figures of altars, are precisely a pattern of “votive” character, i.e., dedicatory, prayerful, perhaps – funerary.
This last message is further confirmed by the angular ribbon, as a symbol of a burial band, as well as the heart-shaped petals, the meaning of which has been so beautifully elucidated by Stasov in his description of the Kerch catacomb, discovered in 1872[26].
V. I. Sizov in his work on the Gnezdovo burial ground[27] also points out that the motifs of borders made of hearts are usually found on the fabrics in which it was customary to wrap the relics, i.e., the remains of deceased ascetics of the Christian cult. We also have confirmation of this in the motifs of frescoes of the small church of the 12th century on Smyadyn, which was supposed to be, according to historical research[28], if not the repository of the bodies of Boris and Gleb, then, in any case, their graves. There, the entire painting of the surviving walls and floor consisted almost exclusively of various combinations of heart-shaped figures, sometimes connected with diamonds. Table XXX*, figs. 9, 10*.
Heart-shaped ornament is found on burial shawls of Coptic tombs[29]; it also decorates the pedestal of the statue of Samaladavi, the wife of Yama (Table XXX*, fig. 7) – the ancient Indian goddess of the underworld[30]. As for the wings, they still symbolize prayer in the consciousness of the people, which is confirmed by the question of a praying woman who addressed I. I. Orlovsky in the Smolensk Ascension Monastery, upon seeing a tombstone with cherubs: “What is that, father, behind the children – the gospel,” i.e., meaning prayer.
To “lobed” patterns should also be attributed the rosette, for which a folk name could not be established.
This pattern is not too common, takes the form of a directly placed wide-ended cross and seems to constitute a transition from “lobed” patterns to “crossed” ones. Stasov quite reasonably identifies such a pattern with an eastern rosette, i.e., again with a stylized flower of Persian ornamentation. Table XXIX*, figs. 28, 26*.
The crosses of the “rosette” are mostly white with a red, more or less wide outline. The middle occupies a diamond (circle) with a “lepeshka” or four “shashki” inside; occasionally, a “linked cross” consisting of four diamonds is inscribed.
Patterns of the “crossed” type are very numerous and often found, but predominantly in combination with others.
They can be divided into the following types: 1) straight crosses, 2) oblique crosses, 3) linked and lobed crosses.
Smooth straight crosses, mostly are inscribed in city-like or stepped diamonds. Table XXVIII*, fig. 19. Sometimes their ends have crossbars, which gives a twelve-pointed cross. Table XXXI*, fig. 8. Table* XXVIII*, fig. 9 (small). A very rare pattern gives a flourishing cross with antennae at the ends, inscribed in a “rosette.” Table XXIX*, fig. 26. A pattern in the form of a straight equilateral cross, enclosed in touching double circles (diamonds) stands completely apart. “Poduzorniki” are filled with such half-crosses. U.t. fig. 21. This image strikingly coincides with pendants, as indicated by A. Spitsin[31], found everywhere in burial mounds of the 12th century.
Especially identical is the pendant depicted on table XXXI*, fig. 3*, which astonishingly repeats this image[32].
Lobed crosses usually consist of 5 touching at the corners “lepeshki” (solid diamonds). The central diamond, around which the other four are arranged, is sometimes larger, sometimes equal, sometimes smaller. U.t. fig. 25.
Lobed crosses are less frequently found in burial pendants, but they are very common in bottles, breast buckles, which Spitsin calls exclusively Russian antiquities and refers to the 11th-12th centuries[33]. The openwork pendant of Gdov burial mounds[34], attributed to the 14th century, is an extraordinarily close prototype of lobed crosses.
Thus, in lobed crosses, we have grounds to see an element that is purely Russian.
Linked crosses are composed of the same 5 touching at the corners diamonds, but not solid, but having the appearance of a link. U.t. figs. 24, Table XXVII*, figs. 7, 6. Linked cross elements are especially common in pendants found in burial mounds: Ostyak, Kamskaya Chud[35]; in the mounds of Leningrad province[36] (table XXXI, fig. 1), in the excavations of Bulichev by the river Ugra[37], in short, where Finnish elements prevail, but alongside them and among Alan enamels[38].
Oblique crosses, executed in white, red, sometimes motley, are predominantly placed in diamonds. Table XXIX*, figs. 32, 33, 35. Large oblique crosses with crossbars at the ends are called “kurya paws.” U.t. fig. 24.
Oblique crosses made of four touching at sharp angles hooks are also found. U.t. fig. 29.
An interesting pattern consists of a combination of a small white “dirkastoy” oblique cross, divided and surrounded by red figures consisting of two links laid crosswise. This is the so-called sign or symbol of “snake-urrea,” very often found in the ancient Egyptian culture and almost in all countries of the Asian East. Table XXX*, fig. 8. Linked crosses are generally a very widespread pattern. All these cross elements have absolutely nothing to do with the Christian symbol of the cross, as they are abundantly found among almost all Muslim and pagan peoples, among whom they often serve as a schematic representation of the human figure. Thus, the analysis of our folk “ukras” is quite predominant, but by no means gives the right to attribute them to the Finns, as V. V. Stasov does, for the Finns themselves borrowed, and then distorted similar elements from eastern Aryans.
Clear evidence that the characteristic curls (spirals, antennae) of Finnish patterns are completely not Russian ornament, but that precisely “diamonds” (circles) are the original Russian ornament, is clearly given by the descriptions of Ostyak embroideries made by V. N. Kharuzina[39]. Curls and other decorations are sometimes applied so abundantly that they overshadow the main motif.
“Ruth-hanch” – Russian embroidery consists of a series of small squares touching at the ends – diagonally, hence what we call circular patterns.
At the same time, although the close affinity of our “ukras” with the East is undeniable, nevertheless, purely Russian “ukras” reveal a quite definite processing, which makes them completely original, both in the general technique – duality and meaningful filling of the “ground” (background), and in the interpretation of their main element – the “circle,” which in eastern cultures is predominantly elongated, while in our “ukras” it is invariably square.
As for the ideoplasticity of our “ukras,” we must conclude that they, by their essence, are by no means merely ornament, but undoubtedly express certain abstract ancient pagan religious concepts, and finally, that these concepts mainly relate to the cult of the heavenly sun and its earthly representative fire, which they symbolize, both in most of their individual figures and in their combinations. These symbols, in their images, repeated by hundreds of generations, tell us that the Russian people, formed from the merging of Slavs and Sarmatians, and especially in the face of its purest representatives, the Belarusians, invariably carried the symbol and revered themselves as grandchildren of Veles – this synonym of the Greek Helios, and children of Dazhdbog – Khors, the bright radiant Sun.
Kletnova E.N. Symbolism of Folk Ornaments of the Smolensk Region // Proceedings of the Smolensk State Museums. Issue 1. Smolensk. 1924, pp. 111-131.
[1] Acad. A. I. Sobolevsky. The Earliest Inhabitants of the Upper Volga. Published by the Tver Scientific Archive Commission. Tver 1912.
[2] Stasov V. V. Russian Folk Ornament. Collected Works. St. Petersburg. 1984. Vol. II, p. 187.
[3] Kharuzina V. N. Ethnography. Moscow. 1909. Vol. I, p. 283.
[4] See Album of Ancient Embroidery in Russia, collected by Shakhovskaya. Moscow. 1885.
[5] Stasov V. u. s. Vol. I – p. 198.
[6] Ferworn. Article and speeches. On the psychology of primitive art. Moscow. 1910.
[7] Ferworn. u. s. p. 198.
[8] The count of drawings in the tables goes from top to bottom in columns from the left hand to the right.
[9] Materials on the Archaeology of the Caucasus, Moscow. 1900. p. 21.
[10] Ibid., p. 316, figs. 243-9.
[11] Turaev B. Ancient Egypt. St. Petersburg. 1922, published by “Ogni,” p. 32.
[12] Stasov V. u. s. Drawings.
[13] “Shashka” refers to a small square.
[14] “Lepeshka” refers to a small diamond.
[15] Stasov V. u. s. p. 203. See the ornament from old Ryazan. Table XXX fig. a.
[16] Materials on the Archaeology of Russia, published by the Archaeological Commission. No. 29, Vol. XXII-II. St. Petersburg. 1903.
[17] Patterns are found where a smaller city is inscribed within a larger one.
[18] Sizov V. I. Gnezdovo Burial Ground p. 50. Materials on the Archaeology of Russia “28. St. Petersburg. 1909.
[19] Gorodtsov V. A. Household Archaeology. Moscow. 1910. p. 126.
[20] The same combination of swastikas is found on a rhyton (drinking horn) from the graves of the Caucasus. Materials on the Archaeology of the Caucasus Vol. VIII. p. 349.
[21] “Nabirat” a towel means to make a patterned “end” from a series of sewn strips mixed with strips of colored fabrics, sometimes, with a border and final lace or “bukhra” (bakhra).
[22] Stasov u. s. p. 199.
[23] Ibid. p. 202.
[24] Proceedings of the XIV Archaeological Congress. Vol. I, p. 156.
[25] Proceedings of the XIV Archaeological Congress. Vol. I, p. 156.
[26] Materials on the Archaeology of Russia. No. 19 St. Petersburg. 1896. p. 36.
[27] Sizov u. s. p. 62.
[28] I. I. Orlovsky. Monuments of Smolensk.
[29] V. G. Bok. Coptic patterned fabrics. Proceedings of the VIII Archaeological Congress, Vol. III, pp. 240, 243.
[30] L’Inde Française. Published by the Paris Scientific Society.
[31] Materials on the Archaeology of Russia No. 18. St. Petersburg. 1895. Table VII, fig. 12.
[32] The same No. 20 St. Petersburg. 1896. Table II, fig. 5.
[33] Materials on the Archaeology of Russia No. 20, p. 24, table VIII, figs. 12-13.
[34] The same No. 29, table XXIV, fig. 17.
[35] The same No. 26, table XX, fig. 19, table XXXII, p. 24.
[36] The same No. 20, table XII, p. 26, No. 29, table XXII, fig. 11.
[37] Bulichev N. A. Mounds and settlements. Moscow. 1903, table XXIV, fig. 8. His, Excavations by the river Ugra. Moscow. 1913, table V, fig. 7.
[38] Spitsin A. A. Notes of the Russian Archaeological Society. Vol. V.
[39] Kharuzina V. u. s. Vol. II. Moscow. 1912, p. 280.