Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Man and Culture
Reference:

The system of ornamental elements in animal-style images from the Ulandryk I burial ground

Grigoreva Alina

ORCID: 0000-0003-1473-6184

Postgraduate student, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University

127427, Russia, Moscow, Russia, 17k1 Botany Street

grigorieva.1997@mail.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8744.2024.3.70673

EDN:

ZFFOJG

Received:

04-05-2024


Published:

11-05-2024


Abstract: The article is devoted to the analysis of the system of ornamental elements on animal style products from the Ulandryk I. The purpose of the study is to identify and classify ornamental elements in zoomorphic and ornithomorphic images. The subject of the study, therefore, are objects with zoomorphic images from mounds 1-4, 6 and 12 of the Ulandryk I. The group of monuments in the context of one burial was chosen mainly for two reasons. Firstly, objects with zoomorphic images were found only in these burial mounds. Secondly, the study of the data on the dating of the monument by the method of wood-ring analysis showed that these mounds were built within 10 years in 308-298 BC. A short time interval for the creation of mounds allows us to consider the ornamental system presented in their images as a single whole, without separation into individual mounds. The article suggests using the method of formal analysis to clarify the description of ornaments available in the works of V.D. Kubarev to divide them into elements and motifs, as well as to make a classification. This classification makes it possible to identify ornamental elements characteristic of zoomorphic images and clarify the boundaries of the use of various ornamental elements in the art of the Pazyryk culture. The scientific novelty of the study is predetermined by the absence in Russian historiography of works describing the system of ornamental elements in the images of the animal style of the burial ground, as well as the lack of a developed methodology for such a description in relation to the archaeological materials of the Pazyryk culture. The study of the materials of V.D. Kubarev's excavations, presented by him in a 1987 monograph, as well as the latest publications of the materials of the burial ground by G.V. Kubarev, revealed that despite the presence of ornamental elements both in the images of animal style and in objects of weapons, costume, horse equipment, there is no unified system and the described structure of the ornamental system based on the materials of the burial ground. Researchers identify individual motifs and elements on clothing items, but do not correlate them with similar ones in animal-style images. The relevance is due to the interest in studying various aspects of the meanings of zoomorphic images and ornamental elements in the context of the art of the Scythian-Siberian world.


Keywords:

Pazyryk culture, Ulandryk, Altai, animal style, The Scythian-Siberian world, the ornament, element, motive, signs, burials

This article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here.

Ornament in the artistic language of the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world played a fundamental, formative role. Animal style samples are largely ornamental in nature they, being an ornament of an object, are unthinkable without it. In animal-style art, as in ornament, there is no pictorial background. The background is the decorated object itself. The absence of a background implies a second feature common to ornament and animal style they do not require the viewer to be included in their visual space, the world of the image.

The connection between the art of animal style and ornament is noted, for example, by D.S. Rayevsky, highlighting "the direct continuity between pre-Scythian ornamental and Scythian zoomorphic art" [7, p. 413]. The general "geometric" frame" highlighted by Rayevsky in animal-style images and Cimmerian ornaments, according to the researcher's estate, facilitated the replication of images. Such versatility, the absence of unique, "portrait" features for any image, among other things, was the reason for the lack of an "image world" for the viewer.

The ornament also acted as a vivid artistic characteristic, defining the stylistic features of the art of the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world. It is on the basis of ornament as a feature of the art of the Pazyryk culture that many researchers have identified the influence of the "Altai style" on the art of Tagar culture [16, pp. 135-143], Filippovsky mounds [17, p. 232]. Thus, the analysis of ornament plays a key role in the study of the art of this culture.

The relevance of the work is due not only to the marked interest of researchers in the ornament of the Pazyryk culture as a characteristic of its stylistic originality, but also, with such interest, the weak elaboration of the terminology of ornament in the context of Pazyryk art. This study does not aim to comprehensively describe the problems of the methodology of ornament in the art of the Pazyryk culture, however, in the context of the subject of research stated in the title of the work, we will outline some provisions of the methodology of describing ornament presented in the works of S.I. Rudenko, since his studies of the art of Bashadarsky, Tuektinsky and Pazyryk mounds have become fundamental for the formation of methods of analyzing ornaments in art culture. It was S.I. Rudenko who made the first and actually the only attempts to classify the ornament of the Pazyryk culture at the present time [9, pp. 125-133].

However, the early works did not strictly define the characteristics of the ornament. In particular, describing the images of roosters on the sarcophagus deck from the First Pazyryk kurgan, Rudenko notes that in the first version of the image, despite all the conventions, "all the typical features" of the wings and tail of birds are transmitted, while in the second version they represent "a completely conventional ornamental motif" [9, p. 45]. At the same time, describing the design of the images of sheep on the sarcophagus deck from the Second Bashadar kurgan, Rudenko does not mention the ornament, but characterizes the motifs filling the bodies of animals as "a system of curls and triangles between them"[9, p. 49]. Describing a similar series of walking deer on a sarcophagus from the Second Tuektin mound, the researcher calls the entire composition an ornament, without focusing on the elements and motifs filling the images [9, p. 111].

The indicated trends the absence of strictly distinguishing elements within zoomorphic images as ornamental, the description of the general nature of ornamental compositions, without sequential division into elements and motifs were also continued by V.D. Kubarev in a 1987 monograph devoted to the burial grounds of Ulandryk.

Currently, this publication is the most complete catalog of finds from these burials. Later, the materials of the Ulandryk I and IV burial grounds were republished by G.V. Kubarev in a series of publications in 2013-2016, since "the vast majority of the archaeological collection from Ulandryk <...> at the time of publication remained not restored, and, therefore, was not fully presented"[2, p. 286]. Since the purpose of the new publications was, first of all, the most complete introduction of the monument into scientific circulation, these articles do not change the methodology originally used by V.D. Kubarev for studying ornaments in burial materials.

In the images of the animal style of Ulandryk, V.D. Kubarev identifies separate ornaments, characteristic, first of all, for the Pazyryk burial ground for example, the motif of the "running wave"[1, p. 34]. The researcher also notes in the art of Ulandryk a tendency to schematization, in which some figures are "perceived as an independent ornament" [1, p. 38], for example, applications depicting a scene of a fish being tormented by a lion[1, p. 89]. However, the researcher does not define the elements in the images of animals as ornamental [1, p. 118], which leads to a lack of a holistic understanding of the repertoire and options for the use of ornamental elements in the materials of this complex.

V.D. Kubarev identifies a special type of ornamented belt buckles, which are available, among other things, in the materials of Ulandryk I. Kubarev's typological division of buckles emphasizes another methodological feature of the study of ornament in the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world it is excluded from the category of animal-style objects. In particular, Kubarev, highlighting the ornamented buckles, notes that there are no buckles "decorated in the animal style" in the burial ground [1, p. 81]. Such an exception is logical textiles and wood products, indeed, may not contain a single zoomorphic image. However, it was precisely this distinction that became one of the reasons for the actual absence of a unified methodology for the study and classification of ornaments in both the Pazyryk culture and the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world as a whole. The researcher, analyzing the ornament on them, does not define its components as elements or motifs, but only formally describes the ornament as "rows of alternating brackets, rows of triangles inscribed in a square, a four-petalled flower inscribed in a rectangular frame"[1, p. 80]. From the description, it can be concluded that Kubarev describes both the elements and the motifs of ornamental compositions. For example, rows of alternating brackets represent the "crescent" element, but a triangle inscribed in a square is a motif consisting of the "triangle" elements and a series of parallel lines.

The description of the elements allows you to identify a strictly limited repertoire and combine ornaments on buckles and other objects with ornaments as part of zoomorphic images into a common system. So, the highlighted elements are "crescent", "triangle", "parallel lines" (in two versions: with corrugation in shape and against shape) are found and are characteristic of images of animals. At the same time, such a combination in one motif of a triangle and fluting in a composition of symmetry of rotation is not peculiar to images of animals, as well as a composition with rows of crescents, where the lower row is mirror-symmetrical relative to the vertical axis relative to the upper one. Such a variety of compositions seems to create a feeling of infinite variability of the Pazyryk ornament, while the analysis shows that the whole variety is created by a combination of a limited repertoire of ornamental elements used in compositions created according to a limited set of symmetry rules. In addition, the identification of individual elements of the ornament allows them to be compared with other categories of images in the art of the Pazyryk people signs on fangs, mirrors, objects of horse equipment [6, pp. 76-91, and 2, pp. 286-306].

Thus, a brief analysis of the history of the methodology for studying the ornaments of the Ulandryk I burial ground, which also reflects some methods of analyzing ornamental compositions common to the Pazyryk culture, shows the need for a stricter separation of ornamental elements and motifs, clarifying their classification in order to identify specific and non-specific elements for animal-style images.

The method of formal description chosen by V.D. Kubarev seems to be the most optimal, but requires some clarification and greater rigor in definitions. As E. Panofsky notes, at this pre-iconographic level of the monument description, the identification of "pure forms, namely, certain configurations of line and color, takes place.. <...> by identifying their mutual relations..."[5, pp. 45-46]. It is the level of form analysis that makes it possible to distinguish between a motif and an element in an ornament and to highlight the latter in animal-style images.

Although in art studies, in general, "formal analysis <...> is primarily an analysis of motives and combinations of motives (compositions)..."[5, p. 46] in the narrower context of ornament, the concepts of "element" and "motif" must be separated. Accordingly, when describing and systematizing the features of an ornament, it is proposed to use the term "ornamental element" as the smallest indivisible part of any (figurative or non-figurative) composition. The use of the term element avoids the characteristic of repeatability inherent in the concept of "motive", the desire for strict symmetry.

The ornamental element has a stable shape, subject to only minor changes. It does not carry a specific meaning, but it can be associated with other components of the visual world of a given culture specifically within the framework of animal-style art with details of zoomorphic images. This is due to numerous steady repetitions for example, the head of a bird of prey, the claws of a predator. An ornamental element can not only form a "pattern", but also be an integral part of a figurative image. These coincidences allow us to mentally correlate elements with animal images in any context, including in the absence of a figurative image.

The definitions of "ornament element" and "composition element" can be considered synonymous, while "ornamental motif" and "compositional motif" can be perceived in different ways. An "ornamental motif" involves repeating a motif within an ornament, primarily on one object. Rather, a "compositional motif" suggests a motif characteristic of compositions within a given culture or style. Moreover, if an element can be defined as part of a motif, then it is the element that is an atomic unit, refers to the system underlying the art of culture.

In the materials of the Ulandryk I burial complex published by V.D. and G.V. Kubarev, ornamented objects are known in mounds 1-7 and 12. According to the latest chronology of the burial ground, also presented by G.V. Kubarev, the monument was built in 346-298 BC (according to tree-ring analysis)[12. pp. 247-249]. In the context of the subject of the analysis of this article ornamental elements in zoomorphic images, we note that, according to I.Y. Slyusarenko, all burial mounds with animalstyle images (1-4, 6, 12) were built within 10 years - in 308-298 BC [12, p. 249]

The chronological data make it possible to compensate for the fact that the finds of zoomorphic ornamented images in individual mounds are rare. The largest number of images were found in 12 and 6 mounds five and four, respectively. A short time interval for the creation of mounds allows us to consider the ornamental system presented in their images as a single whole, without dividing into separate mounds.

This approach will allow not only to highlight the repertoire of ornamental elements used in the images of the animal style by the creators of this group of monuments, but also to analyze which elements were characteristic within the framework of an integral ornamental system for different categories of animals predators, birds of prey, ungulates, which stand out in the materials of the Ulandryk I. burial ground.

Three types of images belong to the category of birds of prey. The first type is the head of a griffin [1, vol. XIV]. It is characterized by the image of the double element "circle" of the eye, the image of the ear in the shape of a drop, as well as the designation of the spiral beak. The second type is a griffin figure (fixed on a children's costume) [1, Fig. 30]. Of the ornamental elements in the image, only one can be distinguished the development of wings with parallel lines, hereinafter referred to as "longitudinal fluting". This element can be described as a series of parallel stripes located in the direction along the contour of the object/image or its ornamented part. A similar technique is observed on the third type the head, where the beak is transformed into another element a spiral [1, Vol. XXVII].

There are three types of predators in the category. The first type is the wolf's head [1, vol. XIV]. The teeth are depicted in rows of triangles. The ear in one image is represented in the form of two spirals, in the other in the form of a triangle. The eye is transferred by a drop.

The second type is a feline predator [1, vol. XXVIII]. This is the most rich in ornamental elements of the image. The ear is transmitted by a double drop, the teeth by a scaly ornament (each tooth is one "scale"). The wing and body are longitudinally and transversely grooved, triangle elements on the paws and spirals on the tail are also used. The "transverse fluting" element is also used to depict claws. The principle of its selection corresponds to the selection of the "longitudinal" a series of parallel lines located diagonally / transversely with respect to the contour of the object / image or its ornamented part.

The third type is the head of a predator in the scene of tormenting a camel [1, Vol. IV]. Longitudinal fluting and triangles are used as ornamental elements in the image of a camel. A schematically opened mouth is shown behind the image of a camel. It is difficult to identify the image as a cat or dog type of image, however, it should be noted that the eyes and nostrils are schematically rendered by the ornamental elements of a triangle and a drop. At the same time, the shape of the elements is not strictly observed, but it obeys the general contour of the object and image.

There are four types of images in the herbivore category. The first is the heads of horned ungulates. The type includes two connected heads a goat and a ram on the rump of a deer [1, vol. XIV]. The horns of ungulates are represented by a scaly ornament. The second type is the lying deer [1, vol. XXVII]. His horns are conventionally transferred by a number of "flame-shaped curl" elements, although strict symmetry and transfer of the shape of the element in the image are not observed. The third type is the standing deer [1, vol. XXVIII]. On his croup, the thigh and shoulder blade are marked with spirals. Each spiral rotates 180, forming an S-shaped shape. The fourth type is probably a deer (horns are missing, but there are holes for them), whose legs are decorated with triangles [1, Vol. IX].

Table 1. Repertoire of ornamental elements in the images of the animal style of the Ulandryk I burial ground

Thus, the Ulandryk I burial ground presents three categories and ten types of ornamented animal images. Note that predatory images (bird of prey, feline predator, wolf, predator) in total have the richest ornamentation of the seven elements. The set of elements for herbivores is four (Table 1). The elements "drop", "circle", "transverse corrugation" are specific for predators, and "flameshaped curl" for ungulates. It is significant that in the image of a camel, "fluting in shape" and "triangle" are used, which are more characteristic of predatory images.

The identification and analysis of ornamental elements in the images of the animal style in the art of the burial ground allows us to show that their repertoire is limited, but specific to each category of zoomorphic images. The description of the elements also revealed the absence of the "cross" element in the images of animals, highlighted by G..In Kubarev, for example, for diamond-shaped wooden plaques [2, p. 299]. This observation is important in the context of the signs also noted by V.D. Kubarev in the form of straight and oblique crosses on canine pendants [2, p. 303]. The presence of crosses on fangs and plaques, but their absence on the images of the animal style suggests that semantically the meaning of the cross both as an ornamental element and as a sign did not correspond to the system of meanings embedded in the animal style.

In conclusion, we note that the results obtained allow us to lay some foundations for the methodology of identifying and classifying ornamental elements in the art of not only the Ulandryk I burial ground, but also the Pazyryk culture as a whole. The presented methods of working with ornamental composition in animal-style images, tested on the material of the mounds of one burial ground, can also be used to analyze zoomorphic images in other cultural complexes. In particular, to clarify the system of ornamental elements in the images of the Bashadar and Tuektin mounds. Identifying the specifics of the Pazyryk ornament and clarifying its repertoire will make it possible to more accurately determine the similarities and differences between it and the ornaments of other cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world, for example, the Uyuk. The introduction of a unified and strictly justified terminology for the description of ornamental elements may also contribute to the "formation of a single "language" in the description of the works of zoomorphic art of the nomads of the Eurasian steppes"[18, p. 12], one of the urgent tasks of modern science.

References
1. Kubarev, V.D. (1987). Mounds of Ulandryk. Novosibirsk: «Nauka».
2. Kubarev, G.V. (2016). Pozdnyakov D.V. Slyusarenko I.Yu. Materials from Pazyryk mounds 1 and 3 of the Ulandryk I burial ground [Altai in the circle of Eurasian antiquities], 286-305.
3. Kubarev, G.V., & Issledovanie, V.D. (2016). Research by V.D.Kubarev mounds of the Scythian era of Altai [Tr.branch of the Institute of Archeology named after A.Kh.Margulan in Astana] Astana: Izd. gruppa FIA im. A.X. Margulana.
4. Kubarev, G.V., & Pozdnyakov, D.V. (2013). Reconstruction of a horse harness from mound 2 of the Ulandryk IV burial ground (from the excavations of V.D. Kubarev),Problems of archeology, ethnography, anthropology of Siberia and adjacent territories. (pp. 9-96) Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SO RAN, Vol. XIX.
5. Panofskij, E. (1999). The meaning and interpretation of fine art.Articles on the history of art. Sankt-Peterburg: «Akademicheskij proekt».
6. Poltoraczkaya, V.N. (1984). Signs on objects from burial mounds of the era of early nomads in the Altai Mountains. [ASGE], 5, 76-91.
7. Raevskij, D.S. (2006). The world of Scythian culture. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskix kultur.
8. Raevskij, D.S. Kullanda, S.V., & Pogrebova M.N. (1016). Visual folklore. Moscow: IV RAN.
9. Rudenko, S.I. (1960). Culture of the population of Central Altai in Scythian times. Moscow: Izd-vo Akad. Nauk.
10. Rudenko, S.I. (1953). Culture of the population of Gorny Altai in Scythian times. Moscow: Akademiya nauk.
11. Savinov, D.G. (2017). Nuclear art of animal style. [Brief communications of the Institute of Archeology], 247, 28-49.
12. Slyusarenko, I.Yu. (2011). Dating of Scythian antiquities of Eurasia. Terra Skythika. (pp. 239-251) Novosibirsk.
13. Evgalevskij, A.V. (ed.) (2002). Structural-semiotic studies in archaeology. In-t arxeologii NAN Ukrainy; Doneczkij nacz. Un-t. T.1.Doneczk: DonNU.
14. Cheremisin, D.V. (2008). The art of animal style in the funeral complexes of the ordinary population of the Pazyryk culture: the semantics of animal images in the context of the funeral rite. Novosibirsk: izd-vo In-ta arxeologii i etnografii SO RAN.
15. Fursikova, E.G.(2001). Symmetry in the art of the Scythian-Siberian animal style: Dis…kand. Iskusstvovedeniya. Sankt-Peterburg.
16. Chlenova, N.L. (1967). Origin and early history of the tribes of the Tagar culture. Moscow:«Nauka».
17. Yablonskij, L.T. Rukavishnikova, I.V., & Shemaxanskaya, M.S. «Golden» sword from the royal mound 4 of the Filippovka burial ground. Bulletin of Ancient History, 4(279), 219-250.
18. Kantorovich, A. R., Devlet, E. G., & Rukavishnikova, I. V. Origins and results of the Animal Style Seminar. Brief communications of the Institute of Archeology, 247, 7-15.
19. Cunliffe, B. (2019). The Scythians. Nomad warriors of the steppe. New York: Oxford University Press.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The author indicated the subject of the research presented for publication in the journal "Man and Culture" in the title: it is "A system of ornamental elements in animal-style images from the Ulandryk I burial ground". Accordingly, as an object of research, the author considers a set of artifacts of the material culture of the Ulandryk I burial ground, described and attributed by V. D. Kubarev, in which, in the author's opinion, the ornamental elements of animal-style images are distinguished. Thus, the author questions V. D. Kubarev's statement that "there are no buckles [the comma is missing in the author's text] "decorated in animal style" in the burial ground." The unambiguity of this statement, according to the author, became "one of the reasons for the actual absence ... of a unified methodology for the study and classification of ornaments both in the Pazyryk culture and in the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world as a whole." Accordingly, the author sets himself the goal of a more detailed analysis of ornamental elements in animal-style images from the Ulandryk I burial ground for their general systematization, placing their unified methodology for the study and classification of ornaments of the Pazyryk culture in the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world. The author proceeds from the fair premise that "an ornamental element can form not only a "pattern", but also be an integral part of a figurative image." This, in his opinion, allows for a detailed analysis to identify the coincidence of individual elements of the ornament with elements of figurative animal images, correlate them with each other and observe elements of animal style "in any context, including in the absence of a figurative image." Quite reasonably, the author points out the identity of such elements of analysis as the "element of ornament" and the "element of composition": in the author's methodology of deciphering the elements of ornament, they "can be considered synonyms." But such categories as "ornamental motif" and "compositional motif", according to the author, can and should be distinguished. In general, the author's approach can be considered quite acceptable, revealing further prospects for improving the typology and classification of archaeological cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world. The subject of the study, accordingly, was considered at a sufficient level for publication in a reputable scientific journal. The research methodology is based on elements of a semiotic analysis of the symbolic image of animals, in the system of ornamental elements of animal-style images of artifacts of the Ulandryk I. burial ground. The reviewer notes that this kind of systematization of archaeological finds contributes to the improvement of methods of attribution not only of material artifacts as such, but also of the meanings of ornamental symbols contained on them. And this already reveals the cultural and anthropological perspectives of observing the development of ways of abstract thinking (from image to symbol and sign) and the well-founded characteristics of the intangible culture of bygone eras. The author does not pay special attention to the relevance of his chosen topic, obviously believing that the theoretical value of the results of his research sufficiently explains to the reader the necessity and timeliness of the planned publication. However, the reviewer draws attention to the fact that, firstly, an explanation of relevance is one of the editorial requirements for published articles, and secondly, the theoretical value is not always identical to the relevance of the work done. Therefore, it is advisable, when finalizing the article, to explain to the reader why it is extremely important today to develop ways to systematize archaeological finds, including, and above all, ornamental elements of animal-style images of artifacts from the Ulandryk I burial ground. The scientific novelty of the article, which is the author's approach to the systematization and typology of ornamental elements of animal-style images of artifacts of the Ulandryk I burial ground, deserves theoretical attention. The style of the text is generally scientific. However, the reviewer considers it unacceptable to repeat the same thesis verbatim three times without any theoretical necessity ("Kubarev's typological division of buckles emphasizes another methodological feature of the study of ornament in the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world - it is excluded from the category of animalstyle objects. In particular, Kubarev, highlighting the ornamented buckles, notes that there are no buckles "decorated in the animal style" in the burial ground [1, p. 81]. Such an exception is logical textiles and wood products, indeed, may not contain a single zoomorphic image. However, it was precisely this distinction that became one of the reasons for the actual absence of a unified methodology for the study and classification of ornaments in both the Pazyryk culture and the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world as a whole"): twice in a row in the text of the article, and then also in the note. This incident indicates a thoughtless compilation of the text of the article from previously published materials and casts doubt on the originality of the planned publication. In addition, the text should be additionally subtracted for punctuation errors and improper merging of words and individual characters. The structure of the article generally corresponds to the logic of a brief (abstract) presentation of the research results. The content of the sections should be strengthened: there is practically no introduction, where it would be appropriate to give a brief assessment of the relevance of the topic and the degree of its scientific development, and a conclusion, where it is appropriate to focus the reader's attention on the scientific novelty of the result achieved by the author and the further prospects of research of the topic opening due to new circumstances. The bibliography, given the author's reliance on the analysis of empirical material, can be considered sufficient, although the reviewer is always surprised why authors claiming to make a significant contribution to science in one way or another (namely, this is the basis for a scientific article) are they so negligently neglecting the opportunity to place their achievements in a broader front of theoretical discussions, emphasizing that they develop not only provincial science, but also world research practice (there is no foreign scientific literature in the bibliography for the last 3-5 years)? The appeal to the opponents in the article is logical and correct. Thus, the article is of some interest to the readership of the magazine "Man and Culture", but needs to be finalized.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The author presented his article "The system of ornamental elements in animal-style images from the Ulandryk I burial ground" to the magazine "Man and Culture", which describes the visual elements characteristic of the monuments of the Pazyryk culture. The author proceeds in the study of this issue from the fact that ornament in the artistic language of the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world played a fundamental, formative role. Animal style patterns are largely ornamental in nature they, being an ornament of an object, are unthinkable without it. The ornament also acts as a vivid artistic characteristic that defines the stylistic features of the art of the cultures of the Scythian-Siberian world. It is on the basis of ornament as a feature of the art of the Pazyryk culture that many researchers identify the influence of the "Altai style" on the art of Tagar culture, Filippov mounds. The relevance of this study is determined not only by the interest of researchers in the ornament of the Pazyryk culture as a characteristic of its stylistic originality, but also, with such interest, by the weak elaboration of the terminology of ornament in the context of Pazyryk art. The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that the presented methods of working with ornamental composition in animal-style images, tested on the material of burial mounds of one burial ground, can also be used to analyze zoomorphic images in other cultural complexes. The purpose of this study is to identify some provisions of the methodology for describing the ornament. The methodological basis of the research consists of such general scientific methods, description, analysis, synthesis, classification, as well as historical analysis. The author defines the research of the art of Bashadarsky, Tuektinsky and Pazyryk mounds by S.I. Rudenko as the theoretical basis for his research, since they became fundamental for the formation of methods of analyzing ornaments in the art of culture, as well as the works of V.D. Kubarev devoted to the burial grounds of Ulandryk. An analysis of the history of the methodology for studying the ornaments of the Ulandryk I burial ground, which also reflects some methods of analyzing ornamental compositions common to the Pazyryk culture, led the author to conclude that there is a need for a stricter separation of ornamental elements and motifs, clarifying their classification in order to identify specific and non-specific elements for animal-style images. As the author notes, the method of formal description chosen by V.D. Kubarev seems to be the most optimal, but requires some clarification and greater rigor in definitions. The author notes the clarifications in the definitions of "element of ornament" and "element of composition", which can be considered synonymous, while "ornamental motif" and "compositional motif" can be perceived differently. An "ornamental motif" involves repeating a motif within an ornament, primarily on one object. Rather, a "compositional motif" suggests a motif characteristic of compositions within a given culture or style. Moreover, if an element can be defined as part of a motif, then it is the element that is an atomic unit, refers to the system underlying the art of culture. The chronological approach allowed the author not only to identify the repertoire of ornamental elements used in the images of the animal style by the creators of this group of monuments, but also to analyze which elements were characteristic within the framework of an integral ornamental system for different categories of animals predators, birds of prey, ungulates, which stand out in the materials of the Ulandryk I. burial ground. As a result of the classification, the author revealed that three categories and ten types of ornamented animal images are represented in the Ulandryk I burial ground. Predatory images (bird of prey, feline predator, wolf, predator) in total have the richest ornamentation of the seven elements. The set of elements for herbivores is four. The elements "drop", "circle", "transverse fluting" are specific for predators, and "flameshaped curl" for ungulates. It is significant that in the image of a camel, "fluting in shape" and "triangle" are used, which are more characteristic of predatory images. In conclusion, the author presents a conclusion on the conducted research, which contains all the key provisions of the presented material. It seems that the author in his material touched upon relevant and interesting issues for modern socio-humanitarian knowledge, choosing a topic for analysis, consideration of which in scientific research discourse will entail certain changes in the established approaches and directions of analysis of the problem addressed in the presented article. The results obtained allow us to assert that the development of a methodology that allows us to identify and systematize the features of the unique culture of a certain people, its material and spiritual cultural heritage is of undoubted theoretical and practical cultural interest and can serve as a source of further research. The material presented in the work has a clear, logically structured structure that contributes to a more complete assimilation of the material. An adequate choice of methodological base also contributes to this. However, the bibliographic list of the study consists of 19 sources, which seems sufficient for generalization and analysis of scientific discourse on the studied problem. The author fulfilled his goal, received certain scientific results that allowed him to summarize the material. It should be noted that the article may be of interest to readers and deserves to be published in a reputable scientific publication.