The „primitive” art of Slavs

Zbruch Idol

Known widely as Sviatovid the sculpture is the most identifiable symbol of the Slavic religion, although its meaning, origin and even age remain controversial among the scientists.

The typical arguments questioning the authenticity of the Idol are:

-          The material of which the sculpture is made;

Most of the Slavic sacral art was carved out of wood, but Sviatovid is made out of limestone.

-          The fact that Sviatovid is well preserved;

Most of the IX-X century artefacts of Slavic culture were clearly damaged by time, but not Sviatovid.

-          The quality of the carving on the sculpture, which is believed to be above the skills of IX-X century Slavs;

Most of the artefacts of Slavic culture from the IX-X century were made using techniques much simpler than those used to carve Sviatovid.

-          Lack of archaeological findings similar to Sviatovid;

According to sources known to modern scientists Slavic temples in the IX-X century were build “for one deity”, while Sviatovid itself portraits four different Gods.

-          Lack of evidence supporting the theory that Sviatovid was buried a long time in the mud/under water.

Sviatovid was excavated out of the bottom of the river Zbruch, where, allegedly it was buried during the Christianization of Kievan Rus' in X-XI century.

As you can see most of the arguments against the authenticity of Sviatovid are derived from comparison to other IX-X century artefacts that survived to modern times.

Let’s have a look at those artefacts:

Stone sculpture discovered on East Slavic sites: 1, 2 – Ivankivci, 3 – Kreminna, 4 – Šklov, 5 – Jarivka, 6 – Murovani Kurylivci, 7 – posąg ze Zbrucza, 8 – Sebež, 9 – Šeksna, 10 – Słonim, 11 – Akulinino, 12 – Jurkivci.
from: Oleksij Komar, Natalia Chamajko, Idol ze Zbrucza:zabytek z epoki romantyzmu?

The illustration above shows stone carving created at the same time when Sviatovid was (supposed to be) created (hehehe! It looks like Slavs didn’t use only wood for their art). Those sculptures are obviously damaged by time. Due to erosion of the stone the details of the carvings cannot be clearly seen. How then can we be so sure, that those examples of Slavic sacral art were not as decorated as Sviatovid is? To be honest – I really do not know. Is it possible to establish the presence (or lack of thereof) of elements destroyed by time? I am not an archaeologist,  but if I wanted to use my common sense I’d say – no.

If that’s the case, why is Slavic art considered “primitive”?

Again -  I do not know. Maybe it’s easier this way, maybe it’s just one of the things that we accept without questioning? The problem lies in the fact that the newest archaeological discoveries suggests that Slavs were much more technologically advanced than it was believed before. It is even suspected that Slavs began to write 2000 years earlier than ancient Sumers and Egyptians (you can read here about the clay tablets from Riben.

Let’s not forget – due to the damp climate of the land of Slavs, ruthless destruction of Slavic culture during the Christianization of those lands as well as the later damage through wars (and there were a few of them on the land of Slavs), vast majority of the works of Slavic art were completely destroyed. We really have no idea what we have lost. It is not impossible that the “bits” that survived utill modern times were the smallest, the least appreciated/valued and everything else was either turned into churches, or annihilated by missionaries, wars and time.

Additionally we cannot rule out that Slavic culture – like, for example, many African cultures – was based on spoken (songs or tales passed on by generations) not written tradition, that it was focused on spiritual, immaterial goods and values, instead of building monuments or conquering the word through military prowess – like is the case with the Mediterranean (Greek, Roman) cultures.

Sviatovid, the celebration of Harvest, art by Goria

The real Idol

However we look at it, we come to one conclusion – the only thing that makes Sviatovid different from other early Medieval Slavic artefacts is the level of wear due to time. Does it rule out its authenticity? I don’t think so. Both the lack of wear and lack of evidence of prolonged exposure to mud/water indicates only that Sviatovid did not spend a lot of time on the bottom of the river. According to my knowledge nobody is able to say for sure how and when the Idol ended up in the mud. Maybe it happened just before its discovery in 1848, and before that the Idol was kept somewhere else? It could be hidden/covered from elements in a cave, a castle or even inside of a kurgan, which could later had been washed off by the everchanging flow of Zbruch. We might wonder how it could happen that nobody knew about a limestone sculpture of Sviatovid size being hidden somewhere in the vicinity of the river Zbruch, but on the same note we might as well wonder how it could have happened that nobody, not a single villager, not a single servant or even a local priests did not notice that Sviatovid was being carved, transported and then dumped on the river bank - as it is suggested by some researchers who are claiming that Sviatovid was created in the 1920ies and then hidden in the river for the sole purpose of … I don’t know… being found?

But it is as well possible that Sviatovid was buried in the mud for centuries, protected by the power of Gods. After all, if the God of Christians can preserve the bodies of saints, I see no reason why Slavic Gods couldn’t have the same power.

Slava!

*"Sviatovid" is the name of the sculpture – thus its usage in the text. The actual name of the Slavic God from island of Rügen was Svetovid, Svantovit or Sventovit.