Monuments of Caucasian culture Castle "Vovnushki" One of the most mysterious and enigmatic places on the territory of Ingushetia is a medieval castle, which is usually called "Vovnushki", although in the Ingush language it sounds "Vovnushki", which is translated into Russian as "Place

The preservation and transfer of knowledge to new generations is the most important condition for the development of modern society:

“When a biological metamorphosis occurs, for example, a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, an immobile chrysalis is first formed. Inside her hardened cuticle, “terrible” things begin: special cells destroy muscles, the digestive system, the oral apparatus, many legs, etc. In the darkness of the cocoon inside the chrysalis, it seems that there is only some kind of liquid that has dissolved everything. However, not everything dies. The condition for the successful completion of metamorphosis is the preservation of the nervous system. Nerve centers - an accumulation of nerve cells (ganglia) are modified, but preserved, with them the memory of the reflexes and behaviors acquired by the larva is preserved. And then, in this apparent chaos, new organs are formed: jointed limbs, mouthparts to feed on nectar, and not to gnaw leaves, hairy antennae for orientation and beautiful wings are formed. The shell breaks. A beautiful butterfly flies over a flowering meadow in a blue and sunny sky...

A direct analogy is visible: the preservation of the intellectual framework (the nervous system of society) is a condition for the revival and greatness of our country.

"Intellectual frame", "nervous system of society" concepts, perhaps not identical to the term "intelligentsia". Military intellectuals - commanders, fortifiers, naval officers, engineers, agronomists, "archival youths", gatherers folk songs, ministers of "pure science" and enlightened merchants, and people of art, and, of course, teachers, doctors and simply "educated people" - all are necessary for the existence of a powerful, independent state.

The expression "monuments of material culture" is customary. They are studied primarily by archaeologists. This is reminiscent of the study by paleontologists of fossils, fossil remains. According to the material visible weighty evidence of the past, it is possible to restore the appearance and ecology of animals, the way of life, culture, and the degree of technical development of society.

Spiritual monuments are of particular importance for a person. These include, first of all, spoken language. It would seem that this means of communication is completely ephemeral. Words in a conversation, a song disappear without a trace: air tremors, sound waves - that's all. And here they can be more durable than stone buildings!

And the thing is that words express thoughts, feelings, images that arise and remain in the minds of people, being transmitted not only in space - from person to person, but also in time - from generation to generation.

The memory of generations is surprisingly durable. And although the language, like everything in the world, is subject to change, scientists have learned not only to take them into account, but also to learn from them some important information about the past of tribes and peoples, their previous contacts, migrations, and the natural environment around them. The language allows you to find out when and where a particular tribe became isolated or formed.

It's done like this.

First, the degree of kinship of languages ​​​​is determined - according to similar words, grammatical forms, pronunciation features. For example, we are talking about Slavic languages. They belong to the Indo-European group (language family), which includes the Indian, Iranian, Germanic, Italic, Baltic, Albanian, Armenian languages, and of the dead, Latin, Thracian, Hittite (Asia Minor), Tocharian (Western China), etc.

It is unlikely that all of them were branches of the same trunk, came from a single common root. In such anciently populated regions as western and southwestern Asia, the Middle East, Northeast Africa, Central, Western and Southern Europe, any tribes and cultures were in interaction. So for every language Indo-European family some "personal" features are also characteristic. Nevertheless, they all form a certain commonality.

What time period and territory does it belong to? The linguists think about it this way. Some common words are known for this entire group. Let's say birch: Lithuanian berzas, Germanic birke, Old Indian bhuria. The same applies to the concept of "winter"; Lithuanian zieme, Latin hiems, Old Indian "snow" - hima. Consequently, once these peoples were united by one culture, had a single language (or rather, its varieties) and lived in central Europe. When it was?

In the late stone age! Then stone tools, flint axes and knives were in use. The Slavic words “stone”, “flint”, “knife” correspond to German hammer (hammer) and skrama (axe), Lithuanian akmio (stone), Old Prussian nagis (flint).

The territory of the Slavic ancestral home

a - according to Yazhzhevsky, b - according to S. B. Bernshtein

The layout of the Indo-Europeans in antiquity (according to H. Hirt)

Retrospective scheme of the development of Slavic antiquities

Citing these examples, V. V. Mavrodin concludes: “Indo-European languages ​​(or Indo-European proto-language) already existed at a time when tools were made from stone, that is, in Neolithic times. There are no reliable common Indo-European names for metals ... which indicates their relatively late appearance ... Consequently, the Indo-European community, before its collapse, did not go beyond the Neolithic and its entire history falls on the age of "stone". The same is indicated by similar words related to hunting (the names of many animals; such concepts as meat, blood, vein, bone, skin, as well as those associated with the extraction and processing of honey).

And when it ended in Europe stone Age time for hunting and gathering? Archaeologists have established: about 5 thousand years ago. Let's take into account that about 11 millennia ago, the northern half of Europe was freed from the ice cover and, over vast territories, groups of hunters roamed after herds of mammoths, reindeer, wild horses and other large mammals.

It can be assumed that it was then that the formation of a single Indo-European and equally large Finno-Ugric cultures began. Periodic nomadic, moving tribes were supposed to contribute to the linguistic community. Then separate groups, clans, tribes began to move to a settled way of life, to engage in agriculture and cattle breeding, mining and smelting of metals, crafts, and construction. Settling in certain territories, they isolated themselves, acquired originality, developed their more or less independent culture, primarily spiritual, reflecting the world of nature, material values, life and rituals, as well as relationships between people, experiences, beliefs, knowledge, ideas about beauty ...

By the way, one of the oldest words of the Indo-European group means “knowledge”, “knowledge” - “Vedas” (sorcerers, witches - from the same root), as well as “speech” (word). It means that for a long time knowledge and spiritual culture were especially distinguished among these peoples and, apparently, were revered as high values.

So, according to linguistics, it is possible to restore, in particular, the time of separation of certain languages, cultures and, to a lesser extent, tribes and peoples. American scientists G. Treger and X. Smith, for example, substantiated such a scheme for the formation of some Indo-European languages. Approximately 5.5 millennia ago, the Indo-Hittite unity broke up into two branches: Indo-European and Antalya; then the Armenians separated themselves, about 4.3 millennia ago - the Indo-Iranians, and a little later - the Greeks. Approximately 3–3.5 millennia ago, northern Europeans were divided into two large groups: the Germans and the Balto-Slavs, and after another half a millennium, the Baltic and Slavic languages, and hence cultures and tribes, separated.

Many prominent Slavists - M. Vasmer, T. - Ler-Splavinsky, F. P. Filin - came to the conclusion that the Proto-Slavic language was formed in the middle of the first millennium BC. And here is the statement of another major connoisseur of the ancient Slavs, V.V. Sedov: “Based on the considered linguistic data, we can conclude general order. The distant ancestors of the Slavs, that is, the ancient European tribes, who later became the Slavs, in the II millennium BC. e. lived in Central Europe and were in contact primarily with the Proto-Germans and Proto-Italics. Most likely they occupied an eastern position among the European group of Indo-Europeans. In this case, they owned some area that is part of the region that embraces the Vistula basin.

Thus, in search of a tribe of Russ (Rosses), it is possible and necessary to take into account the monuments of spiritual culture.

However, some conflicting data should be taken into account. On the one hand, there are many indications of close ties in ancient times Proto-Slavs and Proto-Balts. However, no less significant information about the contacts of the Slavic and Iranian (Scythian-Sarmatian) tribes. This is indicated by some common (or "related") deities, mythological images, plots.

“The number of Iranian parallels in the language, culture and religion of the Slavs is so significant,” says V.V. Sedov, “that the scientific literature raises the question of the Slavic-Iranian symbiosis that took place in the history of the Slavs. Obviously, the historical phenomenon affected only part of the Slavic world and part of the Iranian tribes. During this period, it must be admitted, the Slavs and Iranians lived on the same territory, mixed with each other, and as a result, the Iranian-speaking population turned out to be assimilated.

It has been suggested that not only the names of the tribes Croat and Sever, but also Rus are of Iranian origin; Indeed, there is an ancient Iranian word aurusa (white). In addition, the well-known historian and Slavist B. A. Rybakov proves the origin of the name "Ross" from the name of the Ros River - the right tributary of the Dnieper south of Kiev. Iranian-speaking tribes have dominated this area since ancient times, even before our era. In addition, one of them (or related to them) was called "Rosomon", which the scientist translates as "people of dew". And one Syrian author of the VI century. wrote about the people "ros", living somewhere north of the land of the Amazons, who, judging by the legends, were in the Azov steppes.

There is no doubt that the middle course of the Dnieper has been a major cultural center since ancient times (4-5 millennia ago). Here, for the first time in Eastern Europe, agriculture and cattle breeding were mastered, the era of metal began. And “at the turn of the V-VI centuries. n. e., - writes B. A. Rybakov, - the fortress of Kiev is founded, which became, as it were, the headquarters of the great settlement of the Slavs that had begun and the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula. A special archaeological culture is being formed around Kiev…”

But here there are serious doubts. Why, in this region of a very ancient culture, does the local population get a new name "Rossy" ("Russy") and create a new culture? Why did the chronicler Nestor name among the "indigenous" Slavic tribes for this region the glades, and even specified that they eventually began to be called Russes? Why do linguists celebrate the era not of the Slavic-Iranian (Slavic-Scythian) unity, but of the Slavic-Baltic one? Why did the Prussian tribe, which apparently lived in the vicinity of the Russians, suddenly find themselves at a distance from them? If the tribe lived in the Middle Dnieper region for a long time and gave the name to the great state of the Middle Ages, then why was nothing heard about it until that time?

And how to explain the double name of the tribe: Ross and Russ? Let's assume that Ross can be withdrawn from Rosomones and Ross. Well, the Russians and Russia - where from? If due to the simple replacement of one letter by another, then why did not one option prevail, but both continued to exist for centuries, as if there was any sense in this?

It can be assumed that in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e., when the Slavs settled in the Middle Dnieper, some local Iranian-speaking tribes adopted a new culture and formed a new community together with the newcomers, which received the name Rossy (Russy) on behalf of the Rosomon. If we take into account, in addition, that the Ukrainians (Little Russians) gravitate toward the Iranian type in appearance and peculiarities of their dialect, then ...

That's when new doubts appear. By all accounts, the division Eastern Slavs occurred relatively late, at the end of the Middle Ages. Where did the Russians come from? And why did this strange tribe constantly gravitate towards the more northern lands, reaching the Baltic coast, politically linking itself with the Varangians, the Rurikovichs? Why in the language of the Eastern Slavs is it the Baltic rather than Iranian connections that predominate?

There is no doubt that more or less solid answers can be found for all (or almost all) questions that arise. But such an operation is too reminiscent of fitting to a previously known answer. From a very weak clue (the name of the Rosomon tribe, information about Slavic-Iranian contacts), a concept is built that requires constant confirmation. And in science, hypotheses are valued that allow discovering new facts, ideas, theories, which are confirmed by independent, sometimes unexpected information.

From this point of view, another hypothesis seems to be more attractive. It connects the Ross (Russ) tribe with the Balts, or, in any case, with the Proto-Balts, who in ancient times, BC, differed little from the Proto-Slavs, constituting a single language group with them.

Monuments of material culture

Archaeologically, the area of ​​interest to us has not yet been studied very thoroughly. For the last quarter of a century, the Belarusian archaeologist M. M. Chernyavsky has been actively working here. Here is what he says about the results of his research in the book "Belarusian Archeology" (Minsk, 1987).

In ancient times, Ponemanye was inhabited by groups of reindeer hunters, whose main weapons were bows and arrows. It was at the very end of the last glaciation of the Russian Plain. Later, tribes of carriers of other cultures penetrated and settled here. In the Late Stone Age in the north-west of Belarus, an original so-called Neman culture developed. Pots with a convex body were typical for ceramic products. wide mouth and sharp bottom. They were carefully decorated. Over time, these products became more complex, made more and more qualitatively, covered with various patterns. This happened under a certain influence of the culture of funnel-shaped cups, the settlements of which were located to the south-west.

Of great interest are the monuments of the globular amphora culture discovered here relatively recently. In the late Neolithic, it spread to the territory of Poland, the German Democratic Republic, and northwestern Ukraine. Skeletons of domestic animals, arrowheads, flat-bottomed vessels, and amber were found in the burials. Based on these finds, it was possible to reconstruct in general terms the funeral rite and some features of ancient religious beliefs: belief in the afterlife (immortality of the soul?), in the purifying power of fire; reverence for animals.

The study of flint mines made it possible to understand how the miners of the Stone Age improved their skills over time, improved their tools and mining technology. The flint nodules extracted from the mines were processed in nearby workshops. Mostly standard products were made - stone axes. The need for them seems to have increased significantly due to the widespread

the spread of slash-and-burn agriculture. The greatest scale of mining and the production of stone axes dates back to the middle of the 11th millennium BC. e. (about 3.5 millennia ago).

The oldest monument of the Bronze Age in Ponemanye is a burial in a mine in the Rossi valley, near the village. Krasnoselsky. The remains of burials with cremation were found at the Rusakovo-II site. According to the data received for last years, experts determined that in the early Bronze Age in Ponemanye, the alien population (the Corded Ware culture) peacefully coexisted for a long time with the descendants of the creators of the local Neman culture.

M. M. Chernyavsky comes to the following conclusions: “As a result of the interaction of tribes, cultures of the Bronze Age developed, in which Neolithic elements were retained to varying degrees. Most researchers associate these cultures (Tshciniec with Sosnitskaya, Lusatian, Baltic) with specific ethnic communities - the closest ancestors of the Balts and Slavs ...

In the Bronze Age, clans and tribes gradually emerged that had more livestock or received large quantity grain, or owned other material values. Some surplus products were created, which facilitated the exchange ... In the Bronze Age, there were large cultural communities related to the process of the origin of peoples. Then there was already an Indo-European language family, to which the Slavic branch of languages ​​\u200b\u200bbelongs.

From Ruriks (Ruriks, Ruariks)?

Information about the most ancient Russian history given in the chronicles requires a skeptical analysis. The fact is that the chroniclers used traditions, legends that tell - more or less fantastically - about events at different times, which are extremely difficult to arrange in chronological order. For example, in connection with the so-called calling of the Varangians, some serious questions arise. Why did you have to go somewhere overseas (keep in mind that this does not mean

as if I had to cross the sea; just had to use the sea route)? And how to explain that the choice fell on the Rus tribe? Is it because close ties have long existed with this tribe, and there was also a linguistic community? Foreign-speaking newcomers could not restore order (not by force of arms, but by their authority) and successfully rule or even live together without knowing the local population, its customs, language.

Perhaps the most logical answer to this question is the Soviet historian A. G. Kuzmin. Exploring the ethnic nature of the Varangians, he wrote: “They (Varangians-Celts and Pomeranian Slavs), pressed from the mainland by the Germans, go east as a relatively integral ethnic group, in which Celtic names predominate, and the Slavic language is the means of communication ... By the 9th–10th centuries . - the time of completion of the formation of ancient Russian statehood - the Slavic beginning becomes decisive both in the south of the Baltic and in Eastern Europe. The process of formation of the ancient Russian civilization was very intensive, and its acceleration was facilitated by the possibility of combining the experience of many peoples who had lived on the territory of the new state since ancient times. Apparently, the Celts also made a certain contribution to this civilization, including their last Slavicized wave - the Varangians.

The testimony of the historian Liutprand of Cremona (X century) is consistent with this idea: “This northern people, which the Greeks call Russ by their external quality, and we are Nordmanns by their location ...” The Arab historian of that time, Ibn-Yakub, stated approximately the same: “The main from the tribes of the north they speak Slavonic, because they have mixed with them. So the Slavicized Ryugs or Rugs, who settled on the island of Rügen, could certainly get along on the mainland along with the northern Slavs without much difficulty.

However, all this refers to relatively late times. Is it possible, on these grounds, to draw any, even hypothetical, connections between the Varangians from the time of Rurik and the ancient miners of the Rossi valley? Moreover, A. G. Kuzmin refers, among other things, to numerous Celtic names - Rugia, Ruthenia (Rusinia), Royana, Ruyana - emphasizing: the name Ruthena “was one of the Celtic tribes that formed long before BC. e. in southern France. Such a clarification may seem to destroy the proposed hypothesis: from Southern France to Western Belarus "a huge distance."

And yet, the idea of ​​a connection between the ancient Slavs and the Celts on a “Russian basis” is confirmed by toponymy data. Let's take a look at the map of Europe. The right major tributary of the Meuse (Netherlands) is the Ruhr. The same name at the right tributary of the Rhine. Further east is the city of Ruthen. Further to the east stretch the Ore Mountains of the Czech Republic. Finally, through the Polish Rusinovo, we directly get to the Belarusian Ruzhany, Rudka, Russia ...

The list of such "Russian" names, which stretch from Western Europe to the north-west of the Russian Plain, can be significantly increased. True, it will lack the names of major rivers and cities. But this, apparently, emphasizes the deep antiquity of these names. This is the usual pattern: archaic names are preserved in "dense corners", not subject to decisive and radical transformations, state-political conjuncture. (This is confirmed by the example of our country: the epidemic of renaming has engulfed, first of all, large cities and territories, although the rooting of new orders and a new ideology in agricultural areas has given rise to thousands of the same and equally faceless names here as well.) There is no special need for aliens to rename small objects.

Of course, it is possible to trace the paths of the Russians from Central Europe not only to the north, to the island of Rügen and the Russian Sea (as the Baltic was once called), but also to the south, across the Danube, with its group of corresponding toponyms to another Russian sea (after all, Pontus was also called so Evksinsky, or Cheremnoe, Black Sea), from where it is within easy reach to the Dnieper Ros. And then we will reach the territory where the Roxalans lived from the Raurik tribe that lived in the Raur (Rur) basin, from the Oder tributary, which once bore the name Rurik. More recently, the Ukrainian philologist O. Strizhak suggested that it was in the Middle Dnieper region that tribes from different parts of the world collided and interacted. And so, similar words from Old Norse to Ancient Greek, from Celtic to Old Iranian, came together, forming the names Ros, or Rus, in accordance with the emerging "complex" tribe of Ross, or Russ.

True, linguists categorically deny the possibility of replacing "o" with "y" in the name of the tribe. Thus, the linguist G. A. Khaburgaev proves that the origin of the ethnonym Rus is in no way connected with the Middle Dnieper region: chud, all, perm, yam, etc.), being a Slavic transfer of self-names, and geographically do not go beyond the forest zone ... There is no support for this ethnonym on East Slavic soil and in etymological terms: there are known attempts to connect Russia with the name of the river Ros ( or Rus?) are linguistically untenable - for the Slavic dialects of the period under consideration, the alternations of o / y or even ъ / y are incredible.

For the Middle Dnieper region, ON Trubachev compiled a series of maps showing the distribution of hydronyms of various linguistic affiliations. Judging by these data, the Iranian and Turkic names are characteristic of the regions south of Ros, while the Baltic and Old Slavic names are characteristic of the more northern regions, gravitating towards Polesie. This circumstance also testifies in favor of the fact that in ancient times the Dnieper Ros was, as it were, a boundary separating the predominantly forest tribes from the steppe tribes. True, according to O.N. Trubachev, the word "Rus" comes from the ancient Indian "ruks" (light, shiny).

According to available data, active language contacts between the Slavic and Iranian languages ​​date back to approximately the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. Slavic-Baltic contacts date back to an earlier period. Taking into account such facts and opinions, the northern ancestral home of the Russians, gravitating towards the Baltic, is more likely than the southern one, gravitating towards the Black Sea.

The work was carried out at the State Institution of Higher Professional Education "Volgograd State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering"

Scientific adviser: Doctor of Philosophy, Professor

Navrotsky Boris Alexandrovich

Official opponents: Doctor of Philosophy, Professor

Vasilenko Inna Viktorovna

Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor Shurshin Konstantin Viktorovich

Lead organization: Russian State Pedagogical

University named after A.I. Herzen

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Relevance of the research topic. In modern Russian society, as in other national-state systems, a stable idea of ​​cultural and historical heritage as a social value has developed. But at the same time, in practice, from time to time we deal with peculiar waves of overthrow of previously created monuments. This fact is also characteristic of modern Russia. Is it related to the socio-economic features of development Russian statehood Or is such a process common, typical for the development of any social system, and at all times the "old" is replaced by a more relevant, updated "newly created"? Can we influence this process or can we only state and observe the destruction of the previously created heritage, which will no longer be restored?

The periodic overthrow of monuments and the creation of new ones in their place, whose age may also turn out to be short-lived, is a typical example of people's inability to use their heritage as a tool for creating new cultural forms.Legal nihilism in relation to cultural and historical heritage and the lack of understanding of what is considered a monument and what is not, provokes the destruction of what was previously created, undermines the integrity of the existing system of relationships between people, heritage and the environment.

Monuments are not only information about the past, they carry meanings that are perceived by one or another era as more or less value-significant and their interpretation changes under the influence of sociocultural changes. The monument contains more meanings than the subject can perceive during the period of the creation of the monument. At later stages, the object may be interpreted differently, and there may be several such information layers, in which the realities of another historical era are already refracted. Monuments have manymeanings already because they were created as aesthetic messages with high and even excessive information content, which gives more opportunities for their interpretation and interpretation, allows you to better understand the present and predict the future. Destroying monuments, we deprive ourselves of a whole layer of social and valuable information transmitted from generation to generation.

Often in the practice of our state system, the real value of a monument is determined by its real user, some objects can be restored and be well-known (advertised), others can be destroyed regardless of generally recognized cultural property, and the place of a monument in the hierarchy of cultural space is established by local management practices.

The need for a scientific study of the phenomenon of the monument and the construction of a holistic theoretical concept that can adequately assess the role and significance of the monument in the social context stimulate philosophical reflection on this problem.

The degree of development of the problem. Understanding the role of a monument in the life of society is carried out from the standpoint of various branches of humanitarian knowledge. Thus, there are a number of disciplines that include this concept in their circle of interests, and the interpretation of this concept depends on the scientific approach. There are several such approaches.

Historical approach. Until recently, historical sciences were monopolists in this issue, since the subject of research is the study of material artifacts and texts. D. Collingwood, A. Ya. Gurevich, L. S. Klein), “historical document” (O. P. Korshunov, Yu. N. Stolyarov, A. I. Mikhailov, A. I. Cherny, R. S. Gilyarevsky), “collective memory” (M. Blok, L. Fevre), “historical memory”, “socio-historical memory” (A. M. Panchenko, V. A. Beilis,I. S. Klochkov, A. Ya. Gurevich, P. N. Milyukov, L. N. Gumilev). However, all the concepts used within the framework of historical science expand the cognitive possibilities of past events. Thus, history is limited by the subject of its research, based on specific factual material; metalevel generalization is not the task of this area of ​​scientific knowledge.

cultural approach. In this context, we can meet such concepts as "cultural environment", which has cultural and historical value, "cultural and historical heritage", "material and spiritual values". All these concepts are close in their terminological unity with the concept of "monument". The monument as a cultural phenomenon was considered by A. A. Belyaev, G. B. Bessonov, P V Boyarsky, Yu A Vedenin, A N Dyachkov, I M Grevs, Yu JI Mazurov, A V Rabatkevich, A M Razgon, K. N. Selezneva , S. S. Podyapolsky, T. M. Postnikova, P. M. Shulgin. But all of the above authors used the concept of "monument" in their works devoted to the problem of preserving the cultural and historical heritage, it was not their task to consider "monument" as an independent concept.

According to Yu. M. Lotman, from the point of view of semiotics, the space of culture can be defined as the space of some common memory, where "texts" can be stored and updated. D.S. Likhachev defines the monument as a kind of encoded "document of its era." These works give us the key to the methodological substantiation of the concept of "cultural and historical heritage" and the monument as a social phenomenon.

sociological approach. It should be noted that most sociologists introduce the concept of "monument" as an auxiliary tool for explaining other phenomena, not considering it as an independent and diverse phenomenon. In the 1990s, works appeared within the framework of historical sociology, which dealt with problems related to social inheritance, the sociology of memory, and the sociology of the past.(M. N. Guboglo, V. V. Ivanov, B. M. Mironov, V. I. Merkushin, E. I. Pivovar, A. A. Sokolov, Zh. T. Toshchenko, R. A. Khanahu, O M. Tsvetkov).

Sociological approaches to the “monument” phenomenon are centered around its place in the cultural system.In our opinion, the concept of A. Mol is the most significant here. Exploring the phenomenon of culture, A. Mol introduces the concept of "memory of the world", which means a certain "network of knowledge", formed from a variety of cultural materials produced by society.

In Russian sociology, there is such a direction as the “sociology of heritage”, which emerged from studies in the field of sociology of culture (L. I. Bagryantseva, T. M. Dridze, S. P. Ermochenkova, G. S. Lopatin, G. S. Lyalina, M. S. Popova, E. I. Rabinovich, Yu. K. Fomichev, D. S. Khannanov, A. V. Kamenets). This direction includes the study of the attitude of the population to cultural heritage, the dynamics of the ethno-cultural and social composition of the population and, in accordance with this, a change in value orientations, people's attitudes towards the monuments of material culture of past eras and the nature of their use.

philosophical approach. Actually the philosophical approach is represented by the works of V. A. Kolevatov, J. K. Rebane.The concept of "monument" should be considered as part of the "social memory" phenomenon, as "social memory" embodied in artifacts and texts.In addition to the concept of "social memory" in philosophical literature, one can find the terms "historical memory" in the same or similar meaning (E. V. Sokolov, S. E. Krapivensky, V. B. Ustyantsev, Ch. X. Cooley, J. G. Mead, M. Moss, M. Halbwachs) and “socio-historical memory” (A. I. Rakitov).

Thus, the monument is the subject of research in a wide range of humanities and it is quite legitimate to consider it at the interdisciplinary level.

The purpose of the study is the consideration of the monument as a social phenomenon that plays the role of a translator of socially significant information.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Find an invariant of research approaches to the study of the monument within the framework of various schools and directions,

Clarify the definition of the concept of “monument”, taking into account the identification of its socially significant meaning;

Determine the role and place of the monument in the processes of social development,

To reveal the relationship between the state of the social system and the attitude towards monuments,

Consider architectural monuments, determine their significance in the structure of social space.

Thus, the object of research in the work is objectively existing monuments, and the subject of research is the social-informational, evaluative content of the phenomenon, which we call a monument.

Methodological basis of the study. Since the work is interdisciplinary in nature, general scientific methods are used in it - the method of functional analysis, the historical-logical method, the systematic and comparative methods.

The results of this study are concluded in the following main provisions submitted for defense:

1. The various approaches to the study of the monument that exist in the system of social and humanitarian knowledge are limited by the scope of the subject of research. The analysis carried out allowed us to identify the essential characteristics of this phenomenon and define the concept of "monument" as a social phenomenon that ensures continuity in the transmission of socially significant information, encoding it in artifacts and texts.

2. Monuments are an element of the "social" memory of society, through which certain cultural patterns, norms, traditions,rituals, they are the link between civilizations, social structures and generations of people.

3. Monuments have a stabilizing function in society and are the basis for the formation of a historically specific individual consciousness, including a moral, aesthetic and emotional component.

4. Attitude towards monuments largely depends on the nature of the social system and the worldview and ideological attitudes existing within its framework.

5. Architectural monuments are dominant in the structure of social space. They act as a special symbolic way of transmitting socially significant information, in which the past, present and future are recorded, understood, evaluated and experienced.

Scientific novelty of the dissertation determined by the fact that for the first time in domestic social and humanitarian knowledge

A detailed socio-philosophical analysis of the monument phenomenon has been carried out and its essential characteristics have been identified,

The content of the concept of "monument" as a social phenomenon is determined;

The analysis of the role of the monument in the processes of social development was carried out,

The relationship between the state of the social system and the attitude to monuments, p>

Architectural monuments are considered, their significance in the structure of social space is determined.

Theoretical and practical significance of the work is that the results obtained in the course of the study can be used in the development of documents that determine the state policy in relation to historical and cultural monuments and cultural and historical heritage in general. The materials of the dissertation research can be used inpractical work when conducting historical and cultural examinations at objects that have the features of a “monument of history and culture”. In addition, the dissertation materials can be used as a conceptual basis for research in the field of specific historical and cultural knowledge, as separate topics of the course "social philosophy" or in the preparation of special courses.

Approbation of work. The main provisions and conclusions of the dissertation were presented by the author at the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference of the VIB (October 2007), the scientific and practical conference of VolgGASU (April 2008), at the All-Russian Conference in memory of S. E. Krapivensky (April 2008), meetings Department of Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology of the Volgograd University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, as well as in five scientific publications in various publications.

The structure of the dissertation reflects the goals and objectives of the study. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references, including 215 titles. The total volume of the dissertation research is 137 pages.

MAIN CONTENT OF THE WORK

In the Introduction the substantiation of the topic of the dissertation research is given, the degree of elaboration, the relevance of the research is considered, the main goals and objectives that the dissertator sets himself are formulated. The novelty is indicated, the logic of the research is formulated and substantiated, the theses submitted for defense are stated, the theoretical and practical significance of the work is revealed.

In the first chapter - "Methodological foundations for the study of the monument as a social phenomenon" - contains an analysis of existing theoretical approaches to the study of the monument in the system of social and humanitarian knowledge.

In the first paragraph - "The essence of the historical approach in the consideration of the monument" - the features of the study of this phenomenon from the point of view of historical science are revealed. The generally accepted position is that monuments are a combination of material objects and memorable places, constituting a conditionally continuous series, reflecting all aspects of the historical development of human society

The concept of "monument" in the system of historical knowledge is considered in relation to such a concept as "historical source" A historical fact acts as a message from a written source, and historical knowledge is an analysis of texts (written sources) Texts were not always immediately fixed in writing, often for decades and circulate orally for centuries and were only subsequently recorded Such tendentious sources can hardly be called objective Reconstruction of the past on the basis of texts alone is illegal, for a more objective picture it is necessary to involve material artifacts, that is, monuments of history and culture Of course, there are material sources in historical science, but they are used in historical reconstructions only as auxiliary sources of information

For the first time, representatives of the French Annales school, M Blok and L Febvre, spoke about the significance of a monument as a material artifact. Material artifacts, in their opinion, are also not devoid of bias, since they were created for someone gods, descendants, contemporaries, that is, they had a specific addressee. Therefore "message" was deliberately selected and invested in "material evidence"

The most valuable are the conclusions made by M. Blok that historical sources are designed not only to preserve an event, but to glorify (or glorify) it. Thus, an assumption was made about the emotional and value component contained in the historical source. M. Blok emphasized an important, for ourview, the value-emotional aspect of the monument, but this idea was not developed.

Examining the monuments of Old Icelandic writing, A. Ya. Gurevich notes that verbal culture accumulated and passed on social memory from generation to generation. Under the monument, he understands the store of information necessary for the existence and survival of society, as well as for the preservation and strengthening of its values. Traditional society is characterized by the oral transmission of all information available in society. Modern society does not need to transfer all information from generation to generation. The information necessary to maintain the viability of society is coded and adapted to modern conditions. Therefore, the monument has acquired a new function - to store what is a social value.

Speaking about the monument as a source of information about the past, the question arises about its subjectivity and the legitimacy of reconstructions. But the study of the monument is impossible without concrete facts, since without them there are no generalizations of the average level, and without it there are no cultural and socio-philosophical theories. Therefore, the empirical material should be approached carefully. But history is limited by its subject of study, and meta-level generalizations are not a research task here.

The second paragraph - "A monument in the system of categories of cultural knowledge" - devoted to the analysis of the essence of the culturological approach, which considers the monument in the context of a certain cultural model.

In this context, the concept of M. Lotman is the most significant. In his opinion, from the point of view of semiotics, the space of culture can be defined as the space of some common memory, that is, the space in which some common "texts" can be stored and updated. But the memory of culture is internally diverse andthere are a number of particular "memory dialects" corresponding to the internal organization of the collectives that make up the world of a given culture.

Lotman singles out "informative memory" and "creative memory", an example of which are monuments of art. And here the whole thickness of “texts” works, and the thesis “the newest is the most valuable” is clearly inappropriate. The dissertation student, sharing Lotman's point of view, notes that the example of art history most clearly manifests itself as an oscillatory wave-like process, where cultural “forgetting” (deactulization) is replaced by the process of cultural “remembering” (actualization). In this case, we are dealing with all the "texts" accumulated over the centuries, and not over a period equal to several generations. And sometimes, for no apparent reason, some kind of “layer” rises to the surface at a particular period in the development of society. The dissertation concludes that cultural "remembrance" spreads and takes root only if it is consistent with the predilections of public opinion. The monument is a kind of reflection in which the collective consciousness finds its own traits.

Considering the monument in the culturological aspect, it can be noted that throughout the history of culture, “unknown” monuments of the past are constantly being found, dug out from the storerooms. In literary publications, one can encounter titles. "An Unknown Monument of Medieval Poetry" or "Another Forgotten Writer of the 18th Century". Thus, each culture defines its own paradigm of what should be remembered (that is, kept) and what should be forgotten.

Within the framework of the culturological approach, one can single out researchers whose works are devoted to cultural heritage (P. V. Boyarsky, Yu. A. Vedenin, E. A. Baller), which is close in terminological meaning to the concept of “monument”. They define cultural heritage as the totality of the results of the material and spiritual production of past historical epochs, and in a narrower sense, the sum of what mankind inherited from the past.epochs of cultural values ​​subject to critical evaluation and revision, development and use in the context of specific historical tasks of our time. Cultural heritage cannot exist outside the values ​​inherent in a given society, and therefore, the axiological interpretation of heritage, in our opinion, is a higher priority. The inclusion of objects of the living environment (heritage) in the world of the subject is experienced, reflected, his emotional identification with environmental objects takes place, they become significant, valuable, “their own”. The degree of inclusion of individual environmental objects (and heritage objects as their varieties) in the daily life of a person is different, some of them are objects of active environmental perception, others are on its periphery.

Thus, the perception by residents of, for example, cities of their environment depends on the “monuments” that surround them, and urban development programs need a sociocultural substantiation in content. Everyone knows that the preservation of natural heritage is necessary because it is irreplaceable and a necessary condition for human existence. But the appeal to the cultural and historical heritage as a factor that ensures the existence of a social structure is not a generally accepted and undeniable attitude.

The dissertation goes on to say that today there are a number of complex, difficult to solve problems in the field of cultural heritage, the ongoing destruction of historical and cultural monuments, which has become catastrophic in recent years, the violation of natural systems and the intensification of the economic exploitation of many historical and cultural territories, the impoverishment of the spiritual culture of society, which leads to to personal degradation, the destruction of traditional forms of culture, entire layers national culture, the disappearance of traditional forms of economic activity, which leads to the interruption of cultural interaction between generations.

The concept of "cultural heritage" has always been considered within the framework of the problem associated with its protection at the state level. The researchers did not consider the emotional and value component in the interpretation of heritage artifacts and texts. According to the dissertator, it is he who forms the acceptance or rejection by society of the cultural values ​​of the past. Heritage preservation is possible only when it becomes an element of the living environment, remaining outside it, the monument inevitably turns into a material artifact.

Thus, despite the valuable ideas of cultural analysis, the concept of "monument" is used only in an instrumental sense, its social context remains unexplored.

In the third paragraph - "The concept of "monument" in socio-philosophical knowledge" - the essence of the philosophical and sociological approaches to the concept of "monument" is revealed. According to the author of the dissertation, a “monument” should be considered as an element of social memory, as a social memory embodied in artifacts and texts.

The concept of "social memory" in modern humanitarian knowledge is quite common. Mentions about the phenomenon denoted by this concept are found in modern studies quite often, but without terminological unity, so you can meet "collective memory", "historical memory", "socio-historical memory".

Interest in this phenomenon appears at the beginning of the 20th century. and begins with the works of Ch. X. Cooley, J. G. Mead, E. Durkheim, M. Moss, but its development is associated with the name of M. Halbwachs, who for the first time introduces the concept of "collective memory" and correlates it with "historical memory" .

Actually the philosophical approach is represented by the works of Ya. K. Rebane and V. A. Kolevatov. But if the first used this concept as an auxiliary philosophical and methodological principle for analyzing the process of cognition, then the second already raises the question of the status of this concept and classifies it as a general scientific one.

Social memory in its structure, if viewed in a vertical projection, is value-cognitive information transmitted through social and cultural means from generation to generation, accumulated in the course of historical and cultural development, reflecting various established fragments of objective and subjective reality. In horizontal terms, social memory is a specific part of socially significant information transmitted in a one-time plane from an individual to a group, ethnic group, society with feedback and mutual influence. It is through social memory that society carries out the process of fixing and transforming the results of collective activity in a generally significant form.

The transmission of social memory occurs with the help of certain sign systems, which we can call monuments. It is the monument that is the link between civilizations, social structures and generations of people directly.

It would be quite legitimate to assume that in sociology there are already developed methods in studying the problem of the relationship of a particular social subject to cultural heritage and a monument of history and culture. In 1996, a special issue of the British Sociological Association's journal Qualitative Sociology was published under the general title Collective Memory, containing works on the sociology of memory and the sociology of the past. In 1998, a rubric dedicated to the problem of historical sociology was established in Sociological Research, where problems related to social inheritance are considered.

Zh. T. Toshchenko notes that this branch of sociology has not yet been adequately developed in our country, although it is represented by the works of a number of scientists - M. N. Guboglo, E. I. Pivovar, A. A. Sokolov, V. V. Ivanov, B. M. Mironov. Today, this tradition is continued in the still few, but serious works of modern sociologists, for example, V. I. Merkushin, R. A. Khanahu, O. M. Tsvetkov.

The most significant, according to the dissertator, is the concept of A. Mol. Exploring the phenomenon of culture, A. Mol introduces the concept of "memory of the world", which means a certain "network of knowledge", formed from a variety of cultural materials produced by society.

Thus, each of the approaches considers the problem from a specific point of view, corresponding to the subject and methods used in this scientific branch of knowledge. Just like there are different names for the phenomenon under consideration, there are various reasons for interest in it in different branches of knowledge. It is impossible not to note the increased bias towards the historical past, which is natural in the conditions of an acute need for worldview guidelines.

In the second chapter - "The monument as a subject of socio-philosophical analysis" - the essence of the monument as a social phenomenon is revealed, architectural monuments and the conditions for their actualization are considered, and their features in the transfer of aesthetic and socially significant values ​​are analyzed.

In the first paragraph - "Monument as a social phenomenon" - the concept of "monument" is analyzed, which includes the spiritual sphere along with the material basis and is considered as a value phenomenon that acts as a translator of socially significant information.

According to the dissertation, the monument provides continuity in the transmission of emotionally significant information and the previous sign system, encoding this information in artifacts and texts.

It is necessary to distinguish between things of material production corresponding to a certain era or community, which for subsequent generations become "monuments" and are part of the historical and cultural heritage of the country, nation, humanity and works of art created to perpetuate a historical event or individual (sculptural group, statue, column, obelisk, etc.).

Works of art, which we call monuments, are focused on contemporaries and values ​​that are significant to them, that is, socially significant information is transmitted in a one-time plane from society or a separate social group to individuals. The same monuments that are part of the cultural heritage are transmitted through social and cultural means from generation to generation.

In the modern world, monuments, among other things, represent national values, so the Hague Convention for the first time introduced the concept of "cultural values" into international relations, specified its content and conditions of application. The Convention refers to cultural property all their types, regardless of origin (national or foreign), form of ownership and position of the owner. Based on this document, the only criterion in determining the value of a monument can only be the degree of significance of this type of cultural heritage for the culture of each nation. This recognizes the national priority in assessing the importance of cultural property as an object of international protection.

According to the author of the dissertation, attention should be paid to the monument as an information potential. But the information embedded in the monument, as a rule, is in a "compressed" form, if necessary, we can restore it. But it should be noted that only socially significant values ​​can be stored in a “compressed” form, otherwise they cannot be deciphered by subsequent generations. That is, there are certain basic values ​​that are passed down from generation to generation, and there are those that make sense only at a certain stage of social development and are adequate to specific social processes.

When we talk about a monument, unlike, for example, from a historical source, reliability is not the main criterion for evaluation, but emotional and aesthetic evaluations come to the fore, which prompt either certain actions or response emotions. Yes, there ismutual influence between the emotional and aesthetic richness of the monument and its longevity. With the death of a separate society, the content of the main stereotypes of behavior and consciousness changes. The concept of "monument" can only remain as a material basis, which preserves in itself the social memory (relationship of society) of the period of existence of this "monument". In a later society, this monument can be analyzed and interpreted in a correct or distorted way. Then he receives new layers of socially significant information and again acquires, in addition to the material, a new spiritual shell, in which the realities of another historical era are refracted.

Since an artifact or text becomes a monument only after its evaluation by the subject, it can be concluded that the emotional and value information contained in the monument is important for the subjects.

It should be recognized that the attitude towards monuments forms society and the interpretation of the information contained in the monument depends directly on public preferences at various levels. Depending on the political system, specific blocks of social memory are “singled out” that are necessary for the formation of a certain ideological model, in which the monument acts as a value guide, a kind of basic stronghold of this model of society. The attitude towards monuments, therefore, also depends on the political order, which ascribes to the monuments a certain ideological meaning, quite often not originally laid down in them.

The dissertation student comes to the conclusion that the monument is a social phenomenon, because, in the course of its existence, it is subjected to social interpretation and evaluation, and more than once.The first interpretation takes place during the creation of the monument and is focused on contemporaries, and sometimes descendants. The next interpretation occurs as necessary, taking into account the specific socio-cultural situation.

In the second paragraph - "Architectural monuments and conditions for their actualization" - the dissertation student considers architectural monuments, since they, in his opinion, are dominant in the structure of social space.

Man lives surrounded by material objects created by people of past generations. We call the totality of these objects material culture, of which architectural objects are also a part. On the one hand, these objects are utilitarian, and when we perceive them, we pay attention to their objective characteristics - technical design, materials used, functionality. On the other hand, they are works of art, therefore they are perceived emotionally and are considered as a value. This combination leads to a dualism of perception and, if in architectural practice the solution of specific functional tasks is a priority, then our task is to pay attention to social meaning architectural monument.

An architectural monument is an important element in the system of social relations, performing philosophical and ideological functions. Spatial objects are symbolic "carriers" of social values ​​and actively influence the consciousness of people of a particular era.

Architectural monuments are an important element in the process of interaction between different socio-cultural systems. There are examples of many civilizations that have ceased to exist, but have left us architectural objects (Egyptian pyramids, ziggurats, etc.), which have already become part of our socio-cultural system. Unlike other material artifacts, architectural monuments are more durable, which is why they preserve the cultural codes of past eras.

An important condition for the preservation of architectural monuments is their aesthetic component, since it issubject to momentary assessments, which in turn allows works of art to be a kind of "conductors" of socially significant information for a long time. There is a direct relationship between the aesthetic component of an architectural object and its ideological and ideological functions.

Objects of architectural space are created as aesthetic messages that are highly informative. According to U. Eco, "aesthetic information" is nothing but a series of possible interpretations that are not captured by any theory of communication. And according to A. Mol, the aesthetic is a fruitful ambiguity, which attracts attention, encourages the effort of interpretation, helping to find the key to understanding, to find a more perfect order in this apparent disorder.

The peculiarity of aesthetic information lies in the fact that the aesthetic essence artwork in terms of internal content, as a rule, exceeds the throughput human perception. An architectural object contains more meanings than the subject of perception can perceive, but for the subject only those objects that are socially in demand at this stage of its development are significant.

Thus, architectural monuments are not neutral, they carry meanings that are perceived by one or another era as more or less value-significant and their interpretation changes under the influence of sociocultural changes. In a later society, this object can be interpreted differently, and there may be several such information layers, in which the realities of another historical era are already refracted.

The redundancy and durability of information embedded in architectural objects confirms the need to preserve the previously created architectural heritage, respect for it, study andpreservation of the completeness of the information contained, regardless of whether the social subject is ready to evaluate it at the moment.

It can be assumed that the content of architectural monuments appears in a "compressed" form through the assessment of the subject, and the mechanism of their perception will be identical to the mechanism of appropriation of values. Thus, architectural monuments, being part of a person's living environment, have a high degree of impact on the perceiving subject, and their exclusivity is manifested in a combination of emotional richness inherent in works of art and social significance for the subjects of their perception. At the level of a specific individual, an architectural monument is a constant source of social information, which is comprehended in a given period of time with greater or lesser clarity.

Conclusion

The study showed that the monument is a social phenomenon that contains many meanings. Monuments not only store information about important people or events of the past, testify to the level of development of a particular historical era, they are certain symbols that involuntarily call to comprehend the present. By evaluating the past and experiencing the present, we are able to explain and, consequently, rationally rebuild the mechanism of social events.

In addition, the "monument" is an element of social memory, social memory embodied in artifacts and texts. Social memory in its structure, if viewed in a vertical projection, is value-cognitive information transmitted through socio-cultural means from generation to generation, accumulated in the course of historical and cultural development, reflecting various established fragments of objective and subjective reality. It is through social memory that society carries out the process of fixing and transforming the results of collective activity in a generally significant form.

In the horizontal plan, social memory is a specific part of socially significant information transmitted in a one-time plane from an individual to a group, ethnic group, society with feedback and mutual influence. ,

If we talk about what constitutes social memory for a particular individual, then this is a kind of building material on the basis of which individual memory is formed. Man assimilates the social memory of the group and society to which he belongs. The individual, as we have already said, seems to be passively immersed in the flow, and social memory is a part of this flow. And most often the individual does not notice the newly acquired value attitudes, "absorbed" from the outside in this way. Therefore, the phenomenon of social memory also consists in its enormous, unconscious influence, both on the individual, and on the group and society as a whole.

An individual, since he is a member of various groups, can, if necessary, "rewrite" certain information stored in society into individual memory. But the individual is not able to keep in memory the legacy of many generations, so the phenomenon of special memory is more clearly manifested in a social group or in society.

The information contained in the monuments, as a rule, is in a "compressed" form, if necessary, we can restore it. But it should be noted that only socially significant values ​​can be stored in a “compressed” form, otherwise they cannot be deciphered by subsequent generations. That is, there are certain basic values ​​that are passed down from generation to generation, and there are those that make sense only at a certain stage of social development and are adequate to specific social processes.

When we consider a monument, unlike, for example, a historical fact or document, reliability is not the main criterion for evaluation, but emotional and aesthetic evaluations come to the fore, which prompt either certain actions or response emotions. So, in our opinion, there is a mutual influence between the emotional and aesthetic saturation of the monument and its longevity. And since an artifact becomes a monument only after being evaluated by its subject; then we can come to the conclusion that the subjects of social memory for survival and consolidation need emotionally rich value information contained in the monument.

One of the reasons why oral works have survived to this day is their constant transformation. The line of existence between the performer of the epic and the audience is peculiar, permeable, mobile, not absolute. The peculiarity of this facet is that the "epic author" is not a monolithic owner of the work, but only one link in the countless chain of tradition stretching in both directions. That is, the author realized himself not as the creator of a new work, but as one of the participants in the translation of an ancient legend, and his task is not just to retell, but to reproduce colorfully, that is, to recreate. And in this author's interpretation, values ​​already inherent in his era appear, while the more ancient values, often not entirely clear, acquire a completely different meaning.

The monument, therefore, is a social phenomenon, since those artifacts and texts that have been preserved and represent historical sources are subject to social interpretation, and more than once. Any text or artifact contains information directed to a specific addressee. The latter accepts the information that he carries, because he owns the "language of the text", i.e. knows those means of information communication, those sign systems that were used by members of this cultural community. The intellectual interpretation of any data, any experience, any object is determined by the nature of our questions and is brought to an end only in the answers. Our questions are based on our principles of analysis, and our answers can express all that these principles can give.

From the point of view of semiotics, the space of culture can be defined as the space of some common memory, i.e. a space in which some common "texts" can be preserved and updated. The memory of culture is internally diverse; “There are a number of particular “memory dialects” corresponding to the internal organization of the collectives that make up the world of a given culture.

Thus, it should be recognized that the attitude towards monuments forms society and the interpretation of the information embedded in the monument depends directly on public preferences at various levels. Depending on the political system, specific blocks of social memory are “singled out” that are necessary for the formation of a certain ideological model, in which the monument acts as a value guide, a kind of basic stronghold of this model of society. The attitude towards monuments, therefore, also depends on the political order, which ascribes to the monuments a certain ideological meaning, quite often not originally laid down in them.

At the level of a specific individual, a monument is a constant source of insight, most often emotionally colored, which is comprehended in a given period with greater or lesser clarity. 4

That is, a monument is a phenomenon that enables a person to find a foothold and not get lost in the space-time continuum. Therefore, any destruction of a monument - whatever it may be and whoever it is dedicated to - is the loss of such a foothold and a factor in strengthening social entropy.

The main provisions of the dissertation research are presented in the following publications:

1. Kravchenko, I. G. Monument as sociocultural phenomenon/ I G Kravchenko // Vestnik VolGU Series 7 2008 No. H7~) - C 60-64

2. Kravchenko, I.G. On the issue of preserving monuments of cultural and historical heritage / IG. Kravchenko // Problems of the theory and practice of the financial and credit system. Materials of the II All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference Volgograd VolgGASU, 2008 - C 41-46.

3. Kravchenko, I. G. The role of the monument in the formation of traditions / IG Kravchenko // Problems of the theory and practice of the financial and credit system Materials of the II All-Russian scientific and practical conference Volgograd VolgG ACS, 2008 - C 58-65

4. Kravchenko, I. G. The role of the monument in the structure of cultural and historical heritage / I G Kravchenko // Federation M. 2008 No. 5 (48) -C 14-17.

5. Kravchenko, I. G. Socio-philosophical aspects of the study of cultural and historical heritage / IG Kravchenko // Man, society, history, methodological innovations and national context [Text] collection of materials of the All-Russian scientific. conf. in memory of S. E. Krapivensky, Volgograd, April 1617. 2008 / RGNF, Administration of the Volgograd region, GOU VPO "VolGU", responsible. ed. A. L. Strizoe - Volgograd Publishing House of VolGU, 2008 - C 137-145.

Table of contents of scientific work author of the thesis - candidate of philosophical sciences Kravchenko, Irina Gennadievna

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. METHODOLOGICAL BASES FOR STUDYING A SITE AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON

1.1. The essence of the historical approach in the consideration of the monument.

1.2. Monument in the system of categories of cultural knowledge.

1.3. The concept of "monument" in socio-philosophical knowledge.

CHAPTER 2. A MONUMENT AS A SUBJECT OF SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS

2.1. Monument as a social phenomenon.

2.2. Architectural monuments and conditions for their actualization.

List of scientific literatureKravchenko, Irina Gennadievna, dissertation on the topic "Social Philosophy"

1. Aki, A. D. The Hague Convention is the first international Document for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention) / A. D. Aki // Heritage Protection Abroad: Experience of the Past and Modern Problems. / M. 1995.-S. 101-106.

2. Avtokratov, V. N. “Documentary monuments” (experience in the analysis of the concept) / V. N. Avtokratov // Soviet archives. M., 1987. - No. 3.

3. Amirkhanov, A. M. Principles and methods of organization, monitoring of biodiversity in specially protected areas / Amirkhanov A. M., Stepanitsky V. B., Blagovidov A. K. M. : Heritage Institute, 2000. 233 p.

4. Andreev, I. JI. Communication of spatio-temporal representations with the genesis of the ownership of power / I. L. Andreev // Questions of Philosophy. 1999.-№4. S.54-77.

5. Artemov, V. A. Social time: problems of study and use / Ed. ed. F.M. Borodkin. Novosibirsk: Science. 1987.- S. 390 p.

6. Afanasiev, V. G. Systemicity and society / V. G. Afanasiev. M.1980. - 464 p.

7. Afanasiev, VG Social information and management of society. M. 1975. -S. 39-44.

8. Afanasiev, V. G. On the essence, types, properties and functions of social information / V. G. Afanasiev, A. D. Ursul // Scientific management of society. Issue 11. M. 1977. S. 163 - 170.

9. Akhiezer, AS Philosophical foundations of socio-cultural theory and methodology. // Questions of Philosophy. 2000. No. 9. S. 29-36.

10. Baller, E. A. Social progress and cultural heritage / E. A. Baller - M.: Nauka, 1987.-282 p.

11. Basalikas, A. B. Complex historical and geographical approach in the study of anthropogenic transformation of landscapes / *A. B. Basalikas // Anthropogenic landscapes and environmental issues. // Ufa, 1984. S. 47.

12. Batishchev, G. S. Culture, nature and pseudo-natural phenomena in the historical process / G. S. Batishchev // Problems of the theory of culture. // M., 1997.-S. 117-125.

13. Bergson A. Matter and memory. M.: Thought. 1992.

14. Blok, M. Apologia of history or the craft of a historian /M. Block. M.-1973.-524 p.

15. Boboedova, N. D. Legal reform and legislation on the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments / N. D. Boboedova // Issues of protection and use of historical and cultural monuments. Sat. scientific works of the Research Institute of Culture. M, 1990. S. 142-158.

16. Boguslavsky, M.M. International protection of cultural values ​​/ M. M. Boguslavsky. M.: International relations, 1979. - 416 p.

17. Boyarsky, P. V. Introduction to monument studies / P. V. Boyarsky M.: NIIK. 1990. - 324 p.

18. Boyarsky, P.V. Classification of monuments of science and technology / P.V. Boyarsky. M.: Publishing house of humanitarian literature, 1991. 224s.

19. Boyarsky, P. V. Theoretical foundations of monument studies / P. V. Boyarsky // Monument studies. Theory, methodology, practice. M., 1986.

20. Buchas, Yu. Yu. The role of historical heritage in rural regional development / Yu. Yu. Buchas. Lithuania. Vilnius, 1988. - 380 p.

21. Vedenin, Yu. A. The need for a new approach to cultural and natural heritage / Yu. A. Vedenin // Actual problems preservation of cultural and natural heritage. Sat. articles. Moscow: Heritage Institute, 1995.-516 p.

22. Vedenin, Yu. A. History and results of Russian-Norwegian cooperation in the preservation of cultural heritage / Yu. A. Vedenin // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 7. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1999. S. 55 - 65.

23. Vedenin, Yu. A. Problems of preservation of cultural and natural heritage in disaster zones / Yu. A. Vedenin // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue. 3. M.: Heritage Institute, 1996. S. 176 -188.

24. Vedenin, Yu. A. Modern legislation on the protection and use of heritage / Yu. A. Vedenin, M. E. Kuleshova // Heritage and modernity.

25. Information collection. Issue 5. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1997." S. 26 44.

26. Vedenin, Yu. A. Cultural and natural heritage of Russia / Yu. A. Vedenin, A. A. Lyuty, A. I. Elchaninov, V. V. Sveshnikov M.: Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1995. - 588s.

27. Vedenin, Yu. A. Ecological monitoring of immovable objects of cultural heritage (documents and commentary). / Yu. A. Vedenin, Yu. L. Mazurov // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue. 8. M.: Heritage Institute. 2000. S. 216 - 222.

28. Vedenin, Yu. A. New approaches to the conservation and use of cultural and natural heritage in Russia / Yu. A. Vedenin, P. M. Shulgin // Izvestiya RAN. Geography Series. 1992.-№3. - S. 90-99.

29. Vedenin, Yu. A. Essays on the geography of art / Yu. A. Vedenin. M. : Sovremennaya kniga, 1997. - 224 p.

30. Vedernikova, N. M. The study of traditional nature management, folk culture, industries, crafts on the example of Kulikovo Field / N.

31. M. Vedernikova // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue. 7. M.: Heritage Institute. 1999. S. 56-72.

32. Veksler, A.G. Information resources for the provision of modern methods of security archaeological research. / A. G. Veksler // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific information collection Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RGB2000. pp. 124-136.

33. Vergunov, A.P., Cultural heritage: the experience of a comprehensive environmental and cultural expertise / A.P. Vergunov, Yu.L. Mazurov // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 6. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 2005. S. 32-46.

34. Veshninsky, Yu. G. Axiological geography of the urban environment of regions

35. Russia. / Yu. G. Veshninsky // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue. No. 8. M.: Heritage Institute. 2000. S.216 - 232.

36. Vishnevskaya, S. S. National parks of Russia. The Red Path from the Black Sea to the White Sea / S. S. Vishnevskaya, V. A. Gorokhov M .: Russian Book, 2004. 16 p.

37. Volkov, I. V. Evolution of estimates of the state of the Golden Horde settlements of the Lower Volga / I. V. Volkov // Monitoring of the archaeological heritage Collection of articles based on the materials of the seminar 2000 2003. M.; Heritage Institute, 2004. P.244 - 268.

38. Issues of protection, restoration and propaganda of monuments of history and culture / ed. N. N. Bobrova, P. S. Glukhova M.: 2002. 568 p.

39. Vostryakov, L. E. About some problems of state historical, architectural and natural activities. museum-reserves (for example

40. Solovetsky) / JI. E. Vostryakov // Rational use of nature, education and upbringing in museums. M. : VINITI, 2003. - S. 136 - 148.

41. Vostryakov, L. E. Heritage management: from the restoration of "point" objects - to the reconstruction of the environment / L. E. Vostryakov // Heritage and modernity. Issue. 3. M.: Heritage Institute, 2001. S. 96 118.

42. World cultural and natural heritage: documents, comments, lists of objects / ed. K. D. Kharlamova, G. N. Vorobieva. M. : Sovremennaya kniga, 2004. - 330 p.

43. Gilyarevsky, R. S. Fundamentals of Informatics / R. S. Gilyarevoky, A. I. Mikhailova, A. I. Cherny. M. 1999. 534 p.

45. State report “On the state of the environment in Russian Federation in 2002 "M.: Center for International Projects, 2002. - 158 p.

46. ​​Gott, V. S. On the conceptual apparatus of modern science / V. S. Gott // Questions of Philosophy. 1982. No. 8. pp. 86-99.

47. Grevs, I. M. Monuments of culture and modernity / I. M. Grevs // Regional Studies. 1929. - No. 6. - S. 315 - 327.

48. Gurevich, A. Ya. Categories medieval culture/ A. Ya. Gurevich. -M. 1972.-644 p.

49. Gurevich, A. Ya. What is a historical fact? // Source study. Theoretical and methodological problems.- M.: Thought. 1969.

50. Gurevich, A. Ya. "Edda" and the saga / A. Ya. Gurevich. M.: Enlightenment. - 1979. -, 466 p.

51. Gusev, S. V. The archaeological heritage of Russia: the experience of analyzing the state of monuments in 2000-2004. / SV Gusev // Monitoring of the archaeological heritage and land cadastre. Digest of articles. Moscow: Heritage Institute. - 2004. - 233 p.

52. Gusev, S. L. Using international experience to create a legal framework for the preservation of the archaeological heritage of Russia / S. L. Gusev. M. : Ros.kniga, 2002. - 524 p.

53. Jarvis, D.K. The future of parks. Long-term plan for the national park system / D.K. Jarvis // National parks: the experience of Russia and the USA.-M.: 1999.- 424 p.

54. Dyachkov, A. N. Cultural heritage as a system of cultural values ​​/ A. N. Dyachkov // Cultural and natural heritage of Russia. Issue. 1. M.: Heritage Institute. 1996. S. 76 - 92.

55. Dyachkov, A. N. Monuments in the system of the objective world of culture / A. N. Dyachkov // Questions of development of historical and cultural heritage. - M.: 1999. S. 56-72.

56. Eurasian space: sound and word. Abstracts and materials of the international conference September 3-6, 2000. M. 2000. - S. 206 - 218.

57. Emelyanov, A. A. Automated technology for the formation and maintenance of operations. A. A. Emelyanov // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific -inform.sb. Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. 124 p.

58. Erasov, B. S. Social and cultural traditions and public consciousness in developing countries of Asia and Africa / B. S. Erasov. M. : Nauka, 1982. -426 p.

59. Efimova, G. M. Cultural heritage of Russian regions and environmental risk factors: modern problems and management / G. M. Efimova, S. V. Gusev, Yu. L. Mazurov I Heritage and state policy / M .: GIVTsMKRF, - 1996.-296s.

60. Zhukov, Yu. N. Theoretical and practical significance of the first list of immovable monuments of the RSFSR / Yu. N. Zhukov // Issues of development of historical and cultural heritage. - M. - 1987. - 196 p.

61. Zavadskaya, E. V. East in the West / E. V. Zavadskaya. M.: Progress. - 1972.

62. Zavyalova, N. I. Monitoring of historical and cultural landscapes (on the example of the zones of protection of monuments of history and culture of the Moscow region) / N. I. Zavyalova // Monitoring of the archaeological heritage and land cadastre.

63. Collection of articles based on the materials of the seminar 2000-2001. M .: Heritage Institute, 2001 .-S. 233.

64. Law of the Russian Federation "Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Culture" // Gazette of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation. 1992. - No. 46. - S. 33-89.

65. Law of the RSFSR "On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments". M. - 1978.

66. Foreign legislation in the field of preservation of cultural and natural heritage. Information collection. Moscow: Heritage Institute. -1999.- 96 p.

67. Zlobin, N. S. Man is the subject of the cultural and historical process /

68. N. S. Zlobin // Problems of Philosophy of Culture. Experience historical analysis. M.: Sfera.- 1984.-268.

69. Ivanova, I. G. Muratov P. P. and his contribution to the development of ideas about the cultural landscape / I. G. Ivanova // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 6. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1998. S. 167 - 189.

70. Ignatiev, S. V. Information technologies in the state accounting of immovable monuments of history and culture / S. V. Ignatiev, K. S. Pevtsov, O. K. Melnik // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific inform. Sat. - Issue. 3-M.: Ed. RSL 2000. 124 p.

71. Ikonnikov, A. O. About real and imaginary values ​​/ A. O. Ikonnikov // Our heritage. 1990. - N3. - S. 1-14.

72. Kazmina, S.V. Philosophy of V.S.Soloviev in the cultural heritage of Russia of the XX century S.V. Kazmina //Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 6. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1998. S. 78 - 92.

73. Kamenets, A.V. Attitude of the population of the historical city to the cultural and natural heritage / A.V. Kamenets, S.P. Ermolchenkova // Heritage and State Policy., M. : GIVTs MK RF. 1996. - S." 96.

74. Karimov, A. E. The use of information systems in the protection of the cultural landscape / A. E. Karimov, A. E. Soroksh, D. D. Nikonov // Heritage protection abroad: experience of the past and modern problems. M. : 1995. S. 88-94.

75. Karpov, S. V. An architectural monument as an object of museumification / S. V. Karpov // Actual problems of modern museology. M. : Mosprintdom. - 1999. 298s.

76. Map “Moscow. Spiritual and historical and cultural heritage”. M. - 2002. 96s.

77. Map “Yaroslavl region. Cultural and natural heritage”. M. -2003. 112 p.

78. Klein, L. S. The depth of the archaeological fact and the problem of reconversion / L. S. Klein. M.: Thought. - 1997. - 356 p.

79. Klyuchevsky, V. O. The course of Russian history. 4.1. M.: Thought. 1956.

80. Knyazeva, V.P. Information system for environmental assessment of destructive processes in immovable monuments of history and culture / V.P.

81. Knyazeva, TV Koroleva // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific and information collection. Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2004. 124 p.

82. Kogan, L. N. Eternity: transient and enduring in human life / L. "N. Kogan. Ekaterinburg: Ural State University. - 1994 222 p.

83. Kolevatov, V. A. Social memory and knowledge / V. A. Kolevatov. M. 1984.-484 p.

84. Kolosova, G. N. Natural-geographical analysis of historical territories: the Solovetsky archipelago / G. N. Kolosova. M. - 2003.- 110 s

85. Komarova, I. I. Legislation for the protection of cultural monuments (historical and legal aspect) / I. P. Komarova. M. - 1989.- S. 19.<

86. Comprehensive regional programs for the conservation and use of cultural and natural heritage. M.: Modern book. 2004. 173 p.

87. Kon, IS Philosophical idealism and the crisis of bourgeois historical thought. M.: SOTSEKGIZ. 1959.

89. Kondakov, I. V. To the methodology, interdisciplinary research of cultural and natural heritage / I. V. Kondakov // Actual problems of preserving the cultural and natural heritage. Moscow: Heritage Institute. -1995.-196 p.

90. Kondakov, IV Methodological problems of studying cultural and natural heritage in Russia. // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 6. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1998. S. 92 - 104.

91. Kondrashev, L. V. Monuments of archeology on the territory of Moscow. Typological system of protection methods / L. V. Kondrashev, A. G. Veksler, Yu. A. Likhter // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific and information collection. Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. 124 p.

92. The concept of conservation and use of the historical, cultural and natural heritage of the city of Toropets and the Toropets district of the Tver region // Report of the Heritage Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M. - 1996. 92 p.

93. Krasnitsky, AM Problemy zapovednogo delo. M. 1983.- 88 p.

94. Kuznetsov, O. Yu. To the problem of determining the content of the historical and cultural heritage of the Kulikovo field region and its museumification / O. Yu. Kuznetsov // Heritage and modernity. Information, collection. Issue 7. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 2005.S. 26-33.

95. Kuznetsova, L.P. Information and legal support in the field of protection of immovable monuments of history and culture / L.P. Kuznetsova // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 6. Moscow: Heritage Institute. -1998. pp. 64-78.

96. Kuleshova M.E. Cultural landscapes as an object of study. // Heritage and modernity: ten years of the Heritage Institute. Information collection. Issue. No. 10. M.: Heritage Institute. 2002, pp. 103-115.

97. Kuleshova, M. E. Forms of protection of historical, cultural and natural heritage in the aspect of territorial management / M. E. Kuleshova // Human ecology: the future of culture and science of the North. -Arkhangelsk. 1999. - S. 51 -64.

98. Kuleshova, M. E. Forms of protection of natural and cultural heritage territories in the USA and Russia / M. E. Kuleshova // Heritage protection abroad: past experience and modern problems. M. 1995. - S. 24 - 32.

99. Kuleshova, M. E. Ecological functions as a basis for identifying the value of the territory / M. E. Kuleshova, Yu. L. // Unique territories in the cultural and natural heritage of regions. M.: Ed. RNII cultural and natural heritage. 1994. S. 216 225.

100. Cultural policy of Russia. History and Modernity / Ed. ed. K. E. Razlogov, I. A. Butenko. M. : GIVTs of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, 1996. 116 p.

101. Kuchmaeva, I. K. Cultural heritage: modern problems / I. K. Kuchmaeva M.: Nauka, 2004. - 224 p.

102. Lenin VI Critical notes on the national question. // Lenin V.I. PSS. T. 24.

103. Leonova, N. B. Archaeological monitoring is a necessary condition in the system of protection of monuments / N. B. Leonova // Monitoring of the archaeological heritage and land cadastre. M.: Heritage Institute, 2000. S. 233 246.

104. Likhachev, D.S. Restoration of cultural monuments (problems of restoration) / D.S. Likhachev. M.: Art. - 1981. - 288 p.

105. Likhter Yu.A. Principles of description of archaeological artifacts. \\ Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific and information collection. Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. 124 p.

106. Lotman, Yu. M. Memory in cultural illumination // Articles on semiotics and typology of culture. Tallinn. 1992.

107. Lotman, Yu. M. On two models of communication in the system of culture / Yu. M. Lotman //Works on sign systems. Tartu. 1973. Issue. 6. S.49-58.

108. Lotman, Yu. M. The structure of the literary text / Yu. M. Lotman. M.-1970.416 p.

109. Lukin A. A. Monuments of history and art: an information review / A. A. Lukin. M. - 1998. 128 p.

110. Lukyanenko, VV Information resources and technologies for the protection of monuments. State. Problems. Prospects / V. V. Lukyanenko // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific information collection - Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. 124 p.

111. Fierce, A.A. Maps of cultural and natural heritage of Russian regions / A. A. Lyuty, V. K. Bronnikova, S. V. Bondarchuk // Heritage and Modernity. Issue. 3. M.: Heritage Institute. 2002. S. 74 - 88. h.

112. Mazurov, Yu. L. Protection of natural heritage in environmental and cultural policy / Yu. L. Mazurov // Actual problems of preserving cultural and natural heritage. Sat. articles. Moscow: Heritage Institute. -1995.-S. 44-52.

113. Mazurov, Yu. L. World cultural heritage in the geographical and ecological context / Yu. L. Mazurov // Vestn. Moscow university Ser. 5. Geography. 2001. No. 5.1. pp. 24-36.

114. Mazurov, Yu. L. State cultural policy and environmental problems / Yu. L. Mazurov // Heritage and state policy. -M.: GIVTs MK RF. 1996.- 96 p.

115. Mazurov, Yu. L. Culture and cultural policy. Afterword to the Stockholm Conference on Culture and Development / Yu. L. Mazurov // Heritage and Modernity. Information collection. Issue 7. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1999. - S. 64 - 70.

116. Mazurov, Yu. J1. Cultural heritage and ecological situation in the regions of Russia / Yu. JI. Mazurov // Heritage and Modernity. Information collection. Issue. No. 8. M.: Heritage Institute. 2000. S. 216-224.

117. Mazurov, Yu. L. Unique territories: a conceptual approach to the identification, protection and use / Yu. L. Mazurov. M.: Ed. RNII cultural and natural heritage. 1994. - 216 p.

118. Mazurov, Yu. L. Landscape planning in Germany as a mechanism for environmental regulation / Yu. L. Mazurov, AK Fomchenkov. M. - 2001. - 116 p.

119. Makarov, I. M., Sokolov V. B., Abramov A. P. Targeted comprehensive programs for the protection of cultural and historical heritage. -M.: Sphere, 1998.- 128 p.

120. Maksakovskii, I. V. Experience in the protection of natural heritage sites in Great Britain / I. V. Maksakovskii, P. S. Andreenko. M.: ACT: Astrel, 2002.-216 p.

121. Maksakovskiy, I. V. Experience of conservation of natural and cultural heritage in the system of national parks of Canada / I. V. Maksakovskiy // Heritage and modernity. Issue. 3. M.: Heritage Institute. 2003. S. 64 -77.

122. Maksakovskiy, I. V. Russian World Heritage Sites / Maksakovskiy, I. V \\ World cultural and natural heritage: documents, comments, lists of objects. M.: Heritage Institute, 1999. - 337 p.

123. Markaryan, E. S. Human society as a special type of organization / E. S. Markaryan // Questions of Philosophy. 1971. No. 10. -S. 10 -18.

124. Meletinsky, E. M. Introduction to the historical poetics of the epic and the novel / E. M. Meletinsky. M.: Thought. - 1986, - 566 p.

125. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Monuments and Sites. // Methodology and practice of conservation of architectural monuments. M.: Stroyizdat, 1974. - 124 p.

126. International Charter for the Protection of Historic Cities.//World Cultural and Natural Heritage: Documents, Comments, Lists of Objects. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1999. - S. 128.

127. Mikhailovsky, E. V. Restoration of architectural monuments / E. V. Mikhailovsky // Restoration of cultural monuments (the problem of restoration). M.: Art. - 1981. - S.21 - 28.

128. Molchanov, S. N. Modern terms and concepts of protection, restoration and use of immovable monuments of history and culture / S. HJ Molchanov // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific information collection - Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. 124 p.

129. Mol, A. Sociodynamics of culture.-M.: Progress. 1973. -564 p.

130. Montaigne, M. Experiments. Book. III, ch. VIII. M.: Enlightenment. - 1983.

131. Dagestan / U. N. Nabieva // Proceedings of the Geographical Society of Dagestan. Issue.

132. XXIII. Makhachkala. 1995. - S. 7 -19.

133. Navrets, JI. A. Modern problems of preserving the national heritage of Russia. / JL A. Navrets.// Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue. 5. M.: Heritage Institute. 1999, pp. 112-119.

134. Nagornov, AS Trends in assessing the significance of cultural monuments. / A. S. Nagornov // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue. 6. M.: Heritage Institute. 2004. S. 138 - 146.

135. Naduglov S. G. Actual problems of preserving the cultural and natural heritage / S. G. Naduglov // Heritage and modernity.

136. Information collection. Issue. 8. M.: Heritage Institute. 2002. S. 216 - 228.

137. Naidenov, OA Ecology of modern culture. / 0. A. Naidenov // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 4 M.: Heritage Institute. 2000.- S. 101-117.

138. Nefedorov, G. E. Temple as an object of museum display: experience in a changing world / G. E. Nefedorov // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 7. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1998. - S. 229 -238.

139. Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development / Per. from English. A. P. Mashets. Moscow: Progress, 1987.

140. About privatization in the Russian Federation of immovable monuments of history and culture of local value. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 26, 1994 No. 2121 // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. M., 1994. No. 32. Art. 3330.

141. Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on culture. Law of the Russian Federation of October 9, 1992 // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. M., 17 November. Art.44.

142. Specially protected natural territories of the Yaroslavl region / Committee for Ecology and natural resources Yaroslavl region. Yaroslavl; Upper-Volzh. book. publishing house, 1993. -129 p.

143. Protection of historical and cultural monuments in Russia, XVIII-early XX centuries. Sat. documents. M., 1978. - 222 p.

144. Nature protection in territorial design / Ed. Yu. L. Mazurova. Moscow: Russian book. - 2005. - 356 p.

145. Pavlov, N. L. Altar. Mortar. Temple. Archaic universe in the architecture of the Indo-Europeans. Moscow: Olma-press. 2001. - 168 p.

146. Monuments in the context of the historical and cultural environment. / Ed. A. L. Ogarkova, V. S. Pleets. - M.: Art. - 1999. - 466 p.

147. Monument studies. Theory, methodology, practice. Sat. "articles. M.: RGGU. - 1997. -364 p.

148. Panfilov, A. N. Privatization of immovable monuments of history and culture / A. N. Panfilov // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 7. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 1999. - S. 44 - 56.

149. List of objects of historical and cultural heritage of federal (all-Russian) significance // Reprint of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. 243 p.

150. Petoyan, E. M. City park as a natural and historical and cultural monument / E. M. Petoyan // Issues of protection and use of historical and cultural monuments. M.: Research Institute of Culture of the Russian Federation. 2001. - 142 p.

151. Plato. Selected Dialogues. M. - 1999.

152. Podyapolsky, S.S. Problems of restoration of architectural monuments / S.S. Podyapolsky, G.B. Bessonov // Heritage and modernity.

153. Information collection. Issue 7. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 2001. - S. 144 -158.

154. Pozdeev, M. M. The concept of cultural landscape and the problem of heritage in foreign geography / M. M. Pozdeev // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 5. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 2002. - S. 16 -29.

155. Poplavsky, B.C. Triumph culture and triumphal arches ancient rome/ V. S. Poplavsky. M.: Science. - 2000 . 366 p.

156. Potapova, N. A. Topical issues of modern information support for the protection of the immovable cultural heritage of N. A. Potapova //

157. Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific information collection - Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RGB2000. 124 p.

158. Nature and culture of the ancient city / Ed. T. V. Vasilyeva and T. K. Churilova M.: Geos, 1998.-228 p.

159. Prikhodko, VF Land cadastre and protection of the archaeological heritage. \\Monitoring of archaeological heritage and land cadastre. Collection of articles based on the materials of the seminar 1998 1999 M:g Heritage Institute. - 2000. - 233 p.

160. Problems of philosophy of culture / ed. A. I. Ovchinnikova, P. S. Lanz - M.: Thought, 2006. 426 p.

161. Rabatkevich, A. V. State policy in the field of protection of historical and cultural monuments in Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries. / A. V. Rabatkevich // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue. No. 8. M.: Heritage Institute. 2000. - 216 p.

162. Acceleration, A. M. Protection of historical monuments in Russia (XVIII century - first half of the XIX century) / A. M. Acceleration // Essays on the history of museum business in Russia. Issue. 7 // Proceedings of the Research Institute of Culture. "M., 1971. S. 294 318.

163. Razmustova T. O. City as a historical and cultural phenomenon // Actual problems of preserving cultural and natural heritage. Sat. articles. Moscow: Heritage Institute. - 1999. - S. 56 - 69.

164. Rakitov, AI Historical knowledge. System-epistemological approach. M.: Progress. 1982.- S. 10-23.

165. Rebane, Ya. K. Information and social memory to the problem of social determination of knowledge. Questions of Philosophy. 1982. N8. pp. 46-58.

166. Rebane, Ya. K. The principle of social memory / Ya. K. Rebane // Philosophical sciences. 1977. No. 5. pp. 94 -105.

167. Reimers, N. F. Shtilmark, F. R. Protected Natural Territories / N. F. Reimers. M.: Art. - 2001. 567 p.

168. Religious life and cultural heritage of Russia. / ed. A. A. Fadeeva, N. G. Vladimirova. M.: Modern book. - 2004. - 496 p.

169. Rostovtsev, S.V., Potapova, N.A., Lukyanenko, V.V. Creation of an insurance fund of documentation for objects of the immovable national heritage of Moscow // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific and information collection. Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. 124 p.

170. Russian culture in legislative and normative acts. // Federal law of 25.07.2002. No. 73-F3 (extract) “On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture). M. 2007 pp.295-324.

171. Rubinshtein, S. L. Fundamentals of general psychology. T. 1. M.: Thought. - 1989.

172. Savinov, K. G. Automated technology for the formation and maintenance of a system of registers of immovable cultural heritage K. G. Savinov, N. K. Golubev. M.: Research Institute of Culture of the Russian Federation. - 1999. - 136 p. *

173. Samdeev, R. K. Monuments to the Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific and information collection. Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. - 124 p.

174. Selezneva, KN On the question of the place of historical heritage in the cultural policy of the state KN Selezneva // Issues of protection and use of monuments of history and culture. M., 1990 (Sb.nauch.tr. Research Institute of Culture) 142 p.

175. Senokosov, Yu. P. Social knowledge and social management / Yu. P. Senokosov, E.G. Yudin // Questions of Philosophy. 1971. N12. pp.17-28.

176. Smirnov, AS On the principles and criteria of archaeological monitoring. / A. S. Smirnov // Monitoring of the archaeological heritage and land cadastre. Moscow: Heritage Institute. 2000. - 233 p.

177. Sokolov, E. V. Culture and Personality / E. V. Sokolov. J1. - 1972. - 588 p.

178. Sonichev, A. Yu. Basic principles and provisions of the complex program for the protection of monuments / A. Yu. Sonichev // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific and information collection. Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. 124 p.

179. Preservation of monuments of church antiquity in Russia in XVIII -beginning XX centuries: Collection of documents / Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation; State Research Institute of Restoration. M., 1997. No. 47.- 156 p. * 1"C

180. Steshenko, JI. A. About monuments of history and culture / L. A. Steshenko, V. D. Tepferov. M.: Legal literature, 1998. - 288 p. - G

spanstyle="font-size:18px"> 181. List of objects of the World cultural and natural heritage of UNESCO // Unique territories in the cultural and natural heritage of the regions. M.: Ed. RNII cultural and natural heritage. 1994. 216 p.

182. List of World Heritage Sites // World Cultural and Natural Heritage: Documents, Comments, Lists of Sites. M.: Heritage Institute, 1999. - 337 p.

183. Comparative analysis of the practice of managing cultural landscapes / ed. A. R. Klenova, A. D. Gordeevich. Moscow: Russian book. - 2004. - 248 p.

184. Stakhanov, P. S. Problems of preservation of monuments of the cultural and historical heritage of Russia / P. S. Stakhanov // Monuments of the Fatherland. 1999 No. 2. pp. 34-45.

185. Stepenev, V. I. Historical heritage of Russia and continuity of objective principles of development / V. I. Stepenev // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 7. M.: Heritage Institute. 1999.-S. 76-89.

186. Stolyarov, V.P. Analysis of the practice of managing a particularly valuable historical territory (the Solovetsky Archipelago) / Stolyarov V.P., Kuleshova M.E. //

187. Heritage and modernity. Issue. 3. M.: Heritage Institute, 2002.- S. 176 186.

188. Stolyarov, VP Some approaches to the analysis of the historical and cultural space of the territory / VP Stolyarov // Panorama of the cultural life of the CIS and Baltic countries. M.: 1996. - S. 224-232.

189. Subbotin, A. V. To the question of the prospects of archaeological monitoring. \\Monitoring of archaeological heritage and land cadastre. Collection of articles based on the materials of the seminar 1998 1999 Moscow: Heritage Institute, 2000. 233 p.

190. Sukhman, T. O. Protection of immovable cultural heritage. / THEN.

191. Sukhman, JI. P. Karpova // Material base of the sphere of culture. Scientific information collection Issue. 3 - M.: Ed. RSL 2000. - 124 p.

192. Toynbee, A. J. Comprehension of history. M.: Progress. 1991.

193. Toshchenko, Zh. T. Historical memory / Zh. T. Toshchenko // Socis. 1998. No. 5

194. Turovsky, R. F. Cultural landscapes of Russia / R. F. Turovsky. - M.: Thought. 2002. - 456 p.

195. Unique territories in the cultural and natural heritage of the regions / Ed. ed. Yu J1. Mazurov. M.: Astrel."- 1999.-326 p.

196. Ursul, AD The problem of information in modern science. Philosophical essays / A. D. Ursul. M.: Thought. - 1975. - S.97 - 105.

197. Philosophical heritage of the peoples of the East and modernity / ed. S. A. Kraevoy. M.: Science. - 1983. - S.Z.

198. Frolov, AI Moscow Archaeological Society and the protection of ancient monuments in pre-revolutionary Russia AI Frolov // Issues of protection and use of monuments of history and culture. Moscow: Heritage Institute. - 1990. - S. 114 - 126.

199. Frolov, AI Study and certification of Russian cultural monuments: experience, trends, problems AI Frolov, VI Pechenegin // From the history of protection and use of cultural heritage in the RSFSR. M., 1987. - S.51 -64.

200. Haze, G. Goals and objectives of the geographical study of landscapes / G. Haze // Rational use of natural resources and protection environment. Issue. 3, M.: Progress, 1998. S. 178

201. Khanpira, E. I. On the relationship between the terms "documentary information" and "non-documentary information" // Scientific and technical terminology: Scientific and technical. ref. Sat. 1986. No. 9. - S. 5.

202. Charter of architectural heritage // Restorer. 2000. - No. 2. S. 48 -54.

203. Huizinga, I. Philosophical assessments of culture. M.: 1988. - S. 78.

204. Chairkin, S. E. Database management system “Archaeological monuments of the Sverdlovsk region” / S. E. Chairkin, D. V. Dvoinikov, N. R. Tikhonova // Material base of the sphere of culture. - Issue 3 - M.: RSL Publishing House 2000. 124 p.

205. Chernyshev, A. V. The main directions in solving the problem of protecting the native heritage / A. V. Chernyshev. Moscow: Heritage Institute. - 2000.- 233 p.

206. Schweitz, JI. P. Social memory in the system of culture // culture and aesthetic consciousness. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodsk University. 1984. -136 p.

207. Shreider, Yu. A. Systems and models / Yu. A. Shreider, A. A. Sharov. Moscow: Russian book. 1982. - S. 120 -128.

208. Shulgin, P. M. Revival and development of monuments of history, culture and nature on the principles of a unique historical territory / P. M. Shulgin // Museum business and protection of monuments. Express information. - Issue. 2. M.-2001.-S. 20-32.1371. H^

209. Shulgin, P. M. World heritage: ideas and implementation / P. M. Shulgin, N. A. Pimenov, V. O. Ryabov // World cultural and natural heritage: documents, comments, lists of objects. Moscow: Heritage Institute, 1999.-337 p.

210. Shulgin, P. M. Modern approaches to the formation of programs in the field of culture and heritage // Heritage and modernity. Information collection. Issue 4. M. 2001. - S. 123 - 137.

211. Shulgin, P. M. Unique territories in regional policy / P. M. Shulgin // Unique territories in the cultural and natural heritage of regions. M.: Ed. RNII cultural and natural heritage. 1998. S.216 -229.

212. Ecological problems of preservation of historical and cultural heritage / Otv. ed. Yu. A. Vedenin /. M.: Thought. - 2000. - 398 p.

213. Ecological monitoring of cultural and natural heritage: analysis and documents / ed. P. N. Yurkevich, V. A. Lartsman. M.: Heritage Institute: - 1999. - 161 p.

214. Jung, K. Archetype and symbol / K. Jung, M. Thought. -1991.

215. Yanushkina, Yu. A. The structure of spatial connections in the architecture of Stalingrad as a model of Soviet culture in the 1940s and 1950s. / Yu. A. Yanushkina. -M.: Progress. - 1973. - 224 p.

216. Jaspers, K. The meaning and purpose of history. M.: Thought. - 1991. 468 p.

When the people of Israel crossed the Jordan to enter the promised land, God gave Joshua the following command: "Take 12 people from the people ... to spend the night this night" (Joshua 4:2-3). These stones were to become a symbol or a sign (sign) for the people of Israel. Joshua further explained, "When they ask you in the time to come ... a monument forever" (Joshua 4:6-7).

These stones were supposed to remind of those great things that God did with His people. There are many other cases where people built altars or gathered together stones to commemorate important encounters with God.

Choose ONE of the characters below.

Make a mark to the left of his name. Read about the meeting of your chosen hero with God. Then answer the following questions:

䀁 NOAH - Gen. 6-8

Exp. MOSES - Ex. 17:8-16 or 24:1-11

─ ABRAM - Gen. 12:1-8 or 13:1-18

䀁 JESUS ​​NAVIN - Joshua Nav. 3:5-4:9

䀁 ISAAC - Gen. 26:17-25

䀁 GIDEON - Judgment. 6:11-24

䀁 JACOB - Gen. 28:10-22 and 35:1-7

Expected SAMUEL - 1 Samuel. 7:1-13

1. Briefly describe this person's encounter with God. What was God doing?

2. Why do you think the hero erected an altar or gathered stones for a memorial?

3. What special name is given to God or the altar (monument) in this case?

People of the Old Testament often erected altars or piled stones in memory of their encounter with God. Places like Bethel ("the house of God") have become memorials of God's great deeds among His people. Moses called the altar "The Lord is my banner," and Samuel called the stone "Aben Ezer," saying "Unto this place the Lord has helped us" (1 Sam. 7:12). These stones became material signs of great spiritual encounters with God. They were to help people tell their children about what God had done for His people.

SEE WITH THE EYES OF GOD

God consistently works to accomplish His holy purposes. Everything that was done in the past was done with the goals of the Kingdom of Heaven in mind. Everything that is done in the present is connected with the past and is done taking into account the same goals of the kingdom of heaven.

Every action of God is built on His past actions and with a purpose for the future.

God, turning to Abraham, began to create a people for Himself (Genesis 12). Isaac saw God's point of view when God spoke to him and reminded him of the relationship He had with Abraham, his father (Gen. 26:24). God introduced himself to Jacob as the God of Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 28:1-30). When God came to Moses, He showed him His perspective on how He acted throughout history. He introduced himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ex. 3:6-10). For each new step in the fulfillment of His divine plan, God called man. In order for this person to see through the eyes of God what He is doing, God often during the first fellowship reminded him of His actions in the past.

In Deuteronomy, Moses remembers all that God did to Israel. God was preparing a people for the migration to the promised land.

He wanted the people, before taking the next step, to see what had already happened in the past. In 29 ch. Deuteronomy Moses briefly retells the history of the people. At this point in the renewal of the covenant, Moses wanted to remind the people that they must be faithful to God. There was a preparation of the people for the change of leader (Jesus Nun to the place of Moses) and for the entrance to the promised land. The people needed to see this new step through the eyes of God. People needed to see that this step

corresponds to all that God has already done.

In the diagram on page 3 of the cover, God's purposes and intentions are depicted with an arrow at the top of the drawing.

Look at the perspective God showed Moses when he spoke to him at the burning bush in Exodus 3. In this exercise:

Write PAST where God talks about what he did with the people in the past.

Write the PRESENT before those paragraphs where God speaks of His activity at the moment of His

Appeal to Moses.

Write FUTURE where God says what He intends to do in the future.

1. "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (verse 6).

2. "I saw the suffering of my people in Egypt, and heard their cry from their ministers" (verse 7).

3. "I know his troubles, and I go to deliver him out of the hand of the Egyptians" (verses 7-8).

4. "So, go. I will send you to Pharaoh; and bring out of Egypt My people, the children of Israel" (verse 10).

5. "I will be with you, and this is a sign for you that I have sent you: when

you will bring the people out of Egypt, you will minister on this mountain" (verse 12).

6. "I will bring you out of the oppression of Egypt... into a land flowing with milk and honey" (verse 17).

7. "And I will give this people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, and when you go, you will not go empty-handed ... and you will rob the Egyptians (verses 21-22).

Now do you see what God did to Moses? He helped Moses see his calling from His perspective.

God worked with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Moses' father to create a new people for Himself.

God promised Abraham that He would bring the people out of slavery and give them the promised land.

God watched over them in Egypt.

Now He is ready to answer their cries.

God chose Moses to draw him to fulfill His divine purposes for Israel. He wanted to use Moses to free the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and at the same time plunder Egypt.

If Moses is obedient, God will bring him to the same place to worship. This worship was to be a sign to Moses that God had sent him.

Items 1 - 2 and 6 - past. Items 3 and 4 - the present. Items 5 and 7 - future.

God wants to draw you to fulfill His purposes. God is at work throughout the world (John 5:17). He has been working in your life since the day you were born. By His design, He worked even before you were born. God said through the prophet Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you...

(Jer. 1:5). When God has prepared for you a new step or a new direction in your life, it is related to what He has done in your life so far. He does not have sudden diversions or meaningless "detours" He always has His divine purposes in front of Him when He molds your character in a certain way.

SPIRITUAL MONUMENTS

I was convinced how useful it is to establish "spiritual monuments" in life. After each meeting with God, when He called me or changed the direction of my life, I mentally built a spiritual monument on this place. Spiritual monuments reminded me of a time of change, of making decisions, of changing direction, when I clearly knew that God was leading me. As time passed, I could look back at these monuments to see again how God has consistently directed my life in accordance with His divine plans.

I turn to these spiritual monuments when I need to make a decision about choosing the right direction indicated by God. Before I take the next step, I reflect on how it logically relates to all of God's activities in my life. It helps me see my past and future through the eyes of God. After that, I consider all possible options for action. Looking to determine which one is a continuation of what God has already created in my life. Very often such an option is found. If none of the options seemed to me related to what God is currently doing around me, I continue to pray and wait for God's guidance. When circumstances don't agree with what God says through the Bible and prayer, I conclude that God's appointed time has not yet come. Then I wait for God to tell His time.

Give your definition of "spiritual monuments". Using the previous paragraph, describe in your own words how spiritual memorials can help determine God's directions at the time of decision making.

Do you see any benefit in "spiritual monuments"? What is their use for you?

Once I was offered to go to the Directorate of Local Missions to work in the field of prayer and spiritual awakening. I have never done anything like this. Only God alone could reveal to me whether this matter is part of His divine intentions or not. Then I turned to my spiritual monuments to make a decision, looking at it with God's eyes.

I come from England, where some members of my family were graduating from Spurgeon College at the time Spurgeon was preaching in England. I myself grew up in Canada, in a town where there were no evangelicals. My father served as a freelance pastor, helping to establish a mission in that city. Also in

As a teenager, I began to feel a growing concern about towns across Canada that did not have evangelical churches. In 1958, while I was still in seminary, God gave me confidence that He loved my people and that He was ready to bring about a great spiritual revival throughout the country. When I

accepted the call of God to go to pastor in Saskatoon, God used a plan for spiritual awakening to confirm my calling. You will read about this in section 11; the spiritual awakening that began in this area then spread throughout Canada in the early seventies.

In 1988, I got a call from Bob Gamblin of the Directorate of Local Missions. He said, "Henry, we've been praying for a long time that God would send someone to lead the prayer ministry for spiritual revival. We've been looking for someone for this position for over two years. Would you like to come and lead the Southern Baptist Convention in spiritual matters?" awakening?"

When I began to analyze how God works in my life (I began to look at my spiritual monuments), I noticed that spiritual awakening is an important element that accompanies my ministry. I replied to Bob: "You could ask me for anything, but I would never even pray for the cause for which I must leave Canada, except for one thing - a spiritual awakening. I feel that a spiritual awakening, like a deep stream, has fascinated me all my life since I was a teenager, and especially since 1958." After long prayers, confirmed by the Word and the opinion of other believers, I accepted a position in the Direction of Local Missions. God did not change the direction of my life, He only directed me to what He had been doing throughout it.

Find spiritual signs in your life. Define your spiritual monuments. They may be related to your origin, it may be the time of your repentance, the time of making important decisions regarding your future, etc. Recall when your life was changing, decisions or directions were made and you clearly felt that God was leading you. Take a separate piece of paper or a notebook and start making a list. Start today, but do not think that you have to give an exhaustive answer in one day. Add to this list as you pray and reflect on God's actions in your life. This week you will have the opportunity to share some of your spiritual monuments with your group.

Review today's lesson. Ask God to reveal to you one or more truths that you must understand, study and put into practice. Then answer the following questions:

What was the most important truth (or scripture) you read today?

Paraphrase a truth or scripture into an answering prayer to God.

How should you respond to what you have learned today?

KEY TRUTH LESSON

Often during decision making, the difficulty is not in choosing between good and bad, but in choosing between good and best.

Two words from the Christian vocabulary should never stand side by side: No, Lord.

God always works consistently in accomplishing His holy purposes.

When God leads me to a new step or shows me a new direction in His activities, they are always related to what He has done in my life so far.

Spiritual monuments mean a time of change, decision making, change, when I am sure that God is leading me.