G.I. Borovka
Scythian Art.
// London: Ernest Benn, Ltd. 1928. 111 pp., 74 pl. (Kai Khosru monographs on Eastern art)
Translated from the German by Professor V.G. Childe.
Contents
Scythian art. — 15
Plates [1-74]. — 113
Preface. ^
Since this book is the first to be devoted exclusively to the subject of Scythian art, I must preface it with a few words of explanation.
The great majority of the objects illustrated on the following plates will not only come as a surprise to the general public, but will offer unexpected novelties to many experts who have not had the opportunity of studying the Russian collections. Scythian antiquities have hitherto received but little attention. Till recent years interest centred in the products of Greek art, and set beside these exquisite, and readily appreciated jewels, bronzes, painted vases and terracottas the native products often found in conjunction with them on Scythian soil appear crude and clumsy, strange and insignificant, in a word barbaric; and they were dismissed. As a consequence the majority of the Scythian antiquities are either not published at all or only (and often very imperfectly) in Russian works, for example in the annual reports of the Archaeological Commission. But such works are only accessible to a few specialists.
It is the great merit of Prof. Rostovtseff, whose pupil I am proud to have been, that he grasped the Scythian culture as such in its integrity in all the many-sidedness of its ingredients, and described it in a masterly way. It was he who opened our eyes and taught us to devote the same sympathetic attention to the native “barbaric” creations of Scythia as to the local advance of Greek culture.
But though we must recognize the panorama of cultural development in Scythia, that Rostovtseff unrolled before our eyes, as in its essential outlines a true picture, an independent and thorough study of the documents still remains necessary. It may often lead to divergent results. Perhaps the most important of such results that I have obtained is the conclusion
(5/6)
that the native element, neither Greek nor Iranian but specifically Scythian, played a far more prominent part in the culture of Scythia, or at least in its art, than had hitherto appeared even in Rostovtseff’s conception. We are in fact dealing with a vast independent and unique cultural province. Scythia only forms a part of it; though one which, owing to its contact with the classical world and especially with Hellenic civilization, attained the utmost importance. My journey to Mongolia in 1924, together with the results of excavations there and a rapidly increasing body of indications from various regions, convinced me that this “Scythian” cultural province extended right to the frontiers of China and was to some extent unitary throughout its whole area.
Such are the views, divergent from all hitherto expressed, that the documents seem to bid me champion. Since I have not as yet had the opportunity of defending my position in technical publications, I have been compelled to insert in the text of this book, the appeal of which is to the general public, some arguments in support of my opinions. Experts will easily be able to pick these out. Of course I had to take care that the readability of the text to the layman, for whom the book is intended, should not be impaired. I have therefore taken pains to speak only of those points that are important for an appreciation of the documents from an artistic as well as from a historical standpoint.
In the first place I have given a survey of the characteristic motives of Scythian art. That will form the best introduction to an understanding of the unique, highly stylized and, to an untrained eye, often enigmatic repertoire of Scythian art. The strangeness and complexity of the fantastically stylized animal forms make it necessary in my opinion to give a brief description,
(6/7)
to explain or, as it were, to decipher each specimen, despite the enlargement of the text entailed thereby.
By this means I hope the opportunity at least will be offered to the reader, especially with the aid of the references to the relevant passages in the text inserted in the list of illustrations, to understand the documents * collected here and orientate himself among them. Any one desirous of familiarizing himself further with the artistic and historical problems implicit in the documents will do best to pick them out for himself by a comparison of the documents, studied in reference to the text. These documents, peculiar and perhaps even astonishing though they seem at first glance, are sure to evoke lively interest in the widest circles. That is, I think, guaranteed by another of their peculiarities: they are “modern.” This markedly decorative quality in Scythian art is so allied to the artistic sentiment of our own day that Scythian art is thoroughly sympathetic to modern taste. I have had occasion to convince myself of this in watching the impression that Scythian monuments make upon quite unprepared spectators. And so I confidently hope that the documents will speak for themselves.
I shall only add that in discussing the problems relating to cultural history one point has been too summarily dealt with. The importance of the intimate connections subsisting between the Scythian world and ancient China is enormous. I see quite clearly that my brief and merely incidental treatment o f this problem is incommensurate with its first-class significance. However, I am not a master of the Chinese material and, moreover, the whole question is, in my opinion, not yet ripe for solution. I have therefore thought it best to content myself with a
* ‘Documents’ here, of course, means the works of art themselves, not written information concerning them.
(7/8)
bare indication of the direction in which I believe a solution should be sought. The excavations in Mongolia have furnished much fresh material in that direction, and in studying it I hope to have the opportunity to press deeper into this exceptionally weighty problem.
At the last moment it has become possible to include here three illustrations of the Mongolian material through the courtesy of the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Archaeology and Ethnology, to which the publication of the finds has been entrusted. The description of these specimens has been appended to the list of illustrations.
This book has had to be finished between two journeys to Mongolia, the preparations connected with which have taken up much of my time. This circumstance leads me to fear lest this book may have suffered thereby and exhibit much unevenness. I take this opportunity for thanking all who have assisted me and spared no pains in eliminating such defects as far as possible. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Arthur Waley and my publishers, Messrs. Benn Bros., for their forbearance in face of my excessive delays in completing the work. For the translation of the German text and checking the references in the list of illustrations I am indebted to Mr. Gordon Childe. I wish to express my thanks to my colleagues at the Hermitage, Miss K. Malkina, A. Mantsevich and K. Trever for much assistance both in reading through the German text and list of illustrations and in other directions. I owe an especial debt of gratitude to Prof. A. Zakharov of Moscow for permission to photograph and reproduce in my own book the finds of the Academician Radloff from Katanda in the Altai which he had prepared for publication (Plates 60 B, 61, 62, 63). I am indebted to Prof. Tallgren of Helsingfors for similar friendly services.
(8/9)
Permission to publish illustrations of the objects in so far as they are reproduced from the originals has in each case been most courteously accorded by the authorities of the museum in which the object is preserved. The photographs of objects in the Anthropological and Ethnographical Museum of the Academy of Sciences at Leningrad have been prepared by the Museum and placed at my disposal (Plates 64 D and 68 A & B). Mr. N. Sinelnikov has been so good as to take the photographs of the specimens in the collection of the Anthropological Institute in the University of Moscow (Plates 64 B, C & E, 65 A). For the remainder the prints from photographs belonging to the Academy of Archaeology and Ethnology have been prepared by Mr. J. Chistyakov and those from the Hermitage by Mr. I. Ukhov, both of whom I wish to thank for the trouble they have taken.
The above preface was written after the completion of the manuscript in July 1925. Unfortunately a further delay occurred in the printing of the book and the first proofs did not reach me till the spring of 1927. They contain much which I should now write somewhat differently. But my conception of the whole problem has not materially changed, and I have decided to leave the text as it was, only making some additions to the bibliographical notes, and in a few cases adding remarks that recent research makes indispensable.
G. Borovka,
Keeper of Scythian Antiquities in the Hermitage.
Leningrad,
May, 1927.
(9/10/11)
Bibliographical note. ^
The references in the description of Plates are only designed to enable the reader to find fuller information on the circumstances and context in which each object illustrated came to light. Accordingly they are principally confined to the “Comptes-Rendus” (C.R.) of the Archaeological Commission., Where the Russian periodical can be replaced by the books of Ebert, Minns, or Tolstoi-Kondakov-Reinach the necessary references to these are added. It must be noted that Rostovtseff’s Russian work Scythia and the Bosphorus (Leningrad, 1925), subjects the whole Scythian material to a systematic and critical examination and for this reason has to be constantly cited for scientific purposes.
Rostovtseff’s other book written in English, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford, 1922), gives a brilliant historical sketch of Scythian civilization and the problems connected therewith. Scientifically of the highest value, this popularly written book at the same time makes fascinating reading for anyone who has been inspired by the documents illustrated here with the desire to learn more of the peculiar and mysterious Scythian world. Minns’ work is an admirable collation of the whole scientific material and as such is of the highest value. Ebert’s book gives a handy and easily understood but far from exhaustive summary of the same material as is treated by Minns. It cannot compare with the latter but has the advantage, for those who read German, of being easily accessible and cheap. The account of Scythian antiquities designed for the general public in the work of Tolstoi-Kondakov-Reinach is quite out of date. Lately appeared a masterly though summarized account of the whole Scythic problem. I refer to the introduction in the second edition of O.M. Dalton’s The Treasure of the Oxus (London, 1926). It is for me a great joy that this scholar, who
(11/12)
had the opportunity to make himself acquainted with the manuscript of my book, to which he refers repeatedly, now evidently is inclined to treat the whole question from a point of view very near to that from which the main lines of evolution of Scythian art are seen by my own.
A brief summary of the principal works on the several cultural provinces and a list of abbreviations are here added to the list of illustrations by way of preface.
Principal Works.
Scythia:
M. Rostovtseff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford, 1922).
— Scythia and the Bosphorus (Leningrad, 1925. Russian).
Ellis H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge, 1913).
Max Ebert, Südrussland im Altertum (Bonn and Leipzig, 1921).
J. Tolstoi, N. Kondakov and S. Reinach, Antiquités de la Russie Méridionale (Paris, 1891).
O.M. Dalton, The Treasure of the Oxus, 2nd edition (London 1926), p. xlvi seq.
Siberia:
A.M. Tallgren, Collection Tovostine des antiquités préhistoriques de Minoussinsk conservées chez le Dr. Karl Hedman à Vasa (Helsingfors, 1917).
W. Radloff, Siberian Antiquities (Russian) — vols. III , V, XV, XXVII.
T.R. Martin, L’age du bronze au musée de Minoussinsk (Stockholm, 1893).
J.V. Merhart, Bronzezeit am Jenissei (Wien, 1926).
Siberian Goldwork:
Minns, p. 271 ff. Dalton, l.c. LVIII ff.
(12/13)
East Russia:
A.M. Tallgren, L’époque dite d’Ananino dans la Russie Orientale (SMYA, XXXI — Helsingfors, 1919).
China:
M. Rostovtseff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford, 1922). Chap. VIII.
— “L’art gréco-sarmate et l’art chinois de l’époque des Han” (Aréthuse, April, 1924).
The literature on the connections between Scytho-Siberia and Ancient China is rapidly growing. A summary will be found in the bibliographies to Chapter III of Rostovtseff’s Iranians and Greeks and to the Burlington Magazine Monograph Chinese Art. Cf. also my articles in Comptes rendus des expéditions pour l’exploration du nord de la Mongolie (Russian), Leningrad, 1925, p. 23 sqq. [Áîðîâêà 1925], and Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1926, Die Funde der Expedition Koslow.
Abbreviations.
A.B.C. Antiquités du Bosphore Cimmérien (St. Petersburg, 1854).
B.C.A. Bulletin de la Commission archéologique. Èçâåñòèÿ Àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîé Êîììèññèè (St. Petersburg).
Chinese Art. Burlington Magazine Monograph, Chinese Art (London, 1925).
C.R. Comte-Rendu de la Commission Archéologique. Îò÷åòú Àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîé Êîììèññèè (St. Petersburg).
Ebert. M. Ebert, Südrussland im Altertum (Bonn and Leipzig, 1921).
M.A.R. Materials for the Archäologe of Russia. Ìàòåðèàëû ïî Àðõåîëîãèè Ðîññèè (St. Petersburg).
Minns. Ellis H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge, 1913).
(13/14)
Rostovtseff. M. Rostovtseff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford, 1922).
Smirnoff. M.[Ia.I.] Smirnoff, Argenterie orientale (St. Petersburg, 1909).
SMYA. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja (Journal of the Finnish Antiquarian Society, Helsingfors).
T.K.R. J. Tolstoi, N. Kondakov and S. Reinach, Antiquités de la Russie Méridionale (Paris, 1891).
Khanenko. B. Khanenko, Antiquités de la région du Dniepre Äðåâíîñòè Ïðèäíåïðîâèÿ (Kiev, 1899-1900, Russian).
J.R.A.I. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (London).
G. Borovka. Der Skythische Tierstil. // Archäologischer Angeizer. 1926.
íàâåðõ
|