S OCIAL R OLE OF C ULTURAL H ERITAGE AND O BJECTIVES OF M ONUMENT S TUDIES

history, and monuments of culture for us depending on the historical or cultural context. This process for the purpose of study, use and improvement is the main subject of monument studies as a scientific discipline, which distinguishes the latter from other scientific disciplines, at the same time establishing a connection with them, which also investigate artifacts of the past (archaeology, source studies, etc.) however, they use the latter mainly for its study.


INTRODUCTION
Archeology uses artifacts to study past historical processes.Monumentology, as it were, complements archaeology, studying the role of the same artifacts in the modern cultural context.The tasks of antiquities are determined by the social role played by its cultural heritage in society.And the latter is connected with a special axiological (value) information characteristic of an authentic artifact -a monument of history and culture, which has an emotional impact on an individual in order to determine the coordinates of his movement in the socio-historical continuum.Only in this way, due to the establishment of social ties both with the present and with the past, that is, his socialization, a person can answer the question "who am I?", perceive himself as an integral part of some whole both in the social and in the historical aspect.As for modernity, it is provided by the entire produced culture, but the past in its materiality reaches us only owing to our cultural heritage -preserved artifacts.Being placed in the modern cultural context, the latter contribute to a kind of 'immersion' of the individual in the past, establishing a personal emotional connection with it.At the same time, authentic artifacts for us play the role of monuments of history and culture.This process for the purpose of its study, use and improvement is the main subject of monument studies as a scientific discipline, which distinguishes the latter from other scientific disciplines (however inextricably linked with them), first of all such as archeology, source studies, etc., which use artifacts of the past mainly for their research.
The purpose of the article is to establish a connection between the tasks of monument studies as a scientific discipline and those special characteristics that are characteristic of objects of cultural heritage as monuments of archaeology, history and culture.
The study of ancient artifacts by means of archeology is mainly aimed at achieving the scientific goals of reproduction taking into account the received scientific information of the relevant periods of history.But these artifacts also perform an important function in the socialization of modern man, where valuable (axiological) information plays the main role.This side of the issue is mainly concerned with such scientific discipline as monument studies.It is due to the fact that archaeological monuments have a special social significance in terms of valuable information.However, archaeologists, paying the main attention to the cognitive role of archaeological artifacts, pay much less attention to their valuable characteristics, the corresponding potential of which is far from being used to the full extent.Therefore, at the level of mass culture, the significant age of archaeological remains most often causes a feeling of surprise, less often admiration and sometimes distrust.
And yet most people ponder when they learn that a man existed for millennia at the place where they live now, and the same effect is produced by the display of remains that are several thousand years old.Due to their age, archeological monuments are also a significant ideological symbol because by their perception an understanding of the duration, complexity of the cultural path of the mankind and the true layering of culture is formed.Such monuments are also of great international importance."Ukraine aspires to become an influential regional state.Our rich historical and cultural heritage and national history that remain part of the global cultural process help to represent the country to the world community"1 .
Ukraine is distinguished by various cultural monuments left in its heritage by tribes and peoples who lived on its territory at certain historical stages.Unfortunately, the archaeological heritage is constantly under threat of destruction as a result of economic activity, looting by treasure hunters and banal flow of time.It is these issues that are engaged in memoranizing both as a scientific discipline and as a field of practical activity.Monumentology examines problems related to material objects of cultural heritage in the modern cultural context.It became a separate science in the last third of the 20 th century.Monument science owes its formations to a significant growth at this time of public interest in the protection and preservation of historical and cultural heritage.It is the development of monument conservation activities that has become the driving force behind the intensification of monuments research, and, consequently, the formation of the basic principles of a new scientific discipline, which sets as its practical goal the identification, research, preservation and use of historical and cultural monuments.
This circumstance is also closely related to the recent intensive development of the museum business.In fact, "museums… were created to help everyone interested to better understand themselves and their place in this world"2 .
There has been an interest in collecting for a long time and one can find specific reasons for it.Psychologically, a person as a personality always consciously or subconsciously feels himself in a certain system of spatial, temporal and social coordinates.Only this gives him the opportunity to determine for himself: who am I? Such a coordinate system at each moment reflects what has developed in this respect in the human brain, in his memory on the basis of external influences throughout his life.However, memory is a limited and unreliable thing.Therefore, there has always been a desire to rely on certain material evidence confirming the validity of the accepted socio-historical coordinates.And each person in one form or another searches for, creates, collects and stores such material evidence, which are, as it were, certain marks of the trajectory of his movement in the space-time and social continua.And above all, it concerns archaeological monuments, especially those related to the pre-literate period of history3 .
The above mentioned is especially significant regarding social space, which has a complex and multidimensional nature, due to the ramification and diversity of social ties.Here it is no longer possible to limit oneself to personal reference points -social memory requires appropriate social institutions, the function of which would be to identify, study, preserve and use such "reference points".The result of this social need was the development of monument conservation in general, and monument studies as its theoretical foundation, in particular, aimed at identifying, preserving and using the historical and cultural heritage for the above purposes.It follows from this that the study of problems related to cultural heritage, as well as, accordingly, the allocation of monument studies as a special scientific discipline should be based on a clear understanding of what culture in general, and historical and cultural heritage in particular.

PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
A man is fundamentally different from an animal in that his central nervous system lacks an initially inherent program of behavior.Such a program is completely formed as a result of individual experience based on information about the properties of the environment, social relations, artificially created material formations, methods and purposes of their use.In general, all this constitutes the culture of societysomething that has replaced the instinctive program of functioning in animals.
Social experience, which forms the basis for human functioning, is interpreted as a historical product of the activities of previous generations, which, together with activities that ensure its exteriorization (objectification in a certain material), preservation, translation in time and space, actually represents culture.That is, culture is social experience and social memory, which captures and preserves it, as well as the activities of people associated with the preservation, replenishment and transmission of this experience4 .In view of this, the culture of the society is unthinkable outside of its embodiment in a certain complex of material formations ('things').The totality of the latter created by man is an integral part of the social organism, the functioning of which is impossible without connection with its given subsystem.But, on the other hand, "things do not have their own independent existence outside of the society and culture".In general, "the functions and roles that things play in people's lives, and make up the content of the existence of the objective world, "second nature"5 .They, as monuments of history and culture, constitute the subject of monument study.We considered a number of issues related to historical and cultural monuments in a previous work 6 .Now we set the task of expanding and deepening their research.
In order for the monuments of history and culture to become an object of scientific research, they must be singled out in one way or another among the variety of existing objects of reality.We will proceed from the fact that any such monument has its real existence in the material world, i.e. is a material formation.And if the monuments of history and culture in their totality really represent some special type (class) of these material formations, then the task is to distinguish them from all others according to certain characteristics.
First of all, any of those formations with which a social person encounters, quite naturally falls into two essentially different groups.The first of them includes those that have arisen as a result of objective natural processes that do not depend on human activity -natural formations.The second one includes those who owe their existence precisely to this activity, which transforms the material provided by nature into consciously created objects -artifacts.This separation is shown in the diagram of fig. 1.The first group consists of natural formations arising as a result of natural processes in accordance with the action of the 'unconscious' forces of nature, i.e. outside of any external 'goal-setting'.But goal-setting in a social person is precisely the condition for any conscious action.
Therefore, the second group should include those formations that arose as a result of a person's conscious intentions to create certain material objects, i.e. they are created for a specific purpose.They are always created as things useful for satisfying certain human needs, and therefore their classification within a given species is closely related to the classification of the corresponding needs.In addition, one should bear in mind production wastes, which also arise as a result of the expedient creation of necessary things, albeit "outside the purpose" of the latter.
Like any other living being, a person interacts with the environment.As for animals, they form certain material structures (from a web to a beaver dam) designed to increase in a number of cases the efficiency of such interaction -"prototechnics"7 .At the moment, in humans, these structures have received a very significant development in the form of a complex of relevant material formations -technical devices, which is already a qualitatively different phenomenon.To a large extent, this qualitative difference is determined by the nature of human interaction with the environment.
The point here is, first of all, that, unlike an animal, a person interacts with the environment not as a separate individual, but as an element of a higher-order structure -the society, which itself represents a certain integrity that interacts with the environment precisely in this capacity8 .For the purpose of material interaction with it, the society creates a certain system of material formations called technology.Designed for this, outwardly directed (extraverted) artifacts in the complex form a kind of technosphere located between the society and the environment through which interaction between them takes place.These devices basically constitute an important type of artifacts -monuments of technology .
However, it should also be borne in mind that society as a whole consists of rather complex and relatively independent elements-individuals (as well as private associations of individuals -social subsystems).And the integrity of society can be ensured only through a variety of connections between its individual elements (as well as between the above-mentioned subsystems).Despite their diversity, in principle, there are only two fundamental types of communication between the elements of the system: material (semantic and energy) and informational.And here, in order to increase the efficiency of ties, the mankind uses a system of material agents artificially created by man for this purpose (introverted artifacts).According to the types of communication of such artificially created material formations in this area, there can be two and only two types -those that provide, respectively, material and informational connections within the society: technical devices and signs.In this case, technical devices are directly created for their technological functions.As for the signs, they represent certain material formations, which have been given a certain meaning, which allows them to perform the functions of transmitting information.This is another group of artifacts that form monuments of history and culture.Eminak, 2023, 2 (42)   294

ЕМІНАК
Any such artifact can become a monument of history and culture.But the above, in fact, concerns only 'active' artifacts.In order to turn into monuments of history and culture, material formations of any kind must be removed in a certain way from their utilitarian function (i.e., technological functions related to communication with the environment, movement of material flows or transmission of information within the society).Their ability to reflect the society that gave rise to them comes to the fore.Due to this, this artifact becomes a historical source or a monument of history and culture (for us!).
An artifact that has come down to us from the past is a source of information about this past, allowing us to recreate it.For the period of human history, when writing did not yet exist (i.e., for most of this history), in general, only appropriate material formations can provide the necessary historical information.Nevertheless, obtaining the latter is a complex and contradictory process that requires special knowledge and research techniques.These problems are dealt with by a special auxiliary historical discipline -source studies.The goal of source study as a science is to find a way to get the most complete and reliable historical information 9 from a given artifact as a historical source.This information should supplement the historical thesaurus and, if possible, fill in the white spots in our presentations.It is from this point of view that the exploration of a historical artifact is carried out.This is where the question of the scientific status of the study of monuments arises.After all, if source study provides a scientific approach to the preserved artifacts of the past, making it possible to obtain from them all possible historical information, then what is the role of monument studies in this case?Of course, in addition to actual research, we can talk about identifying such artifacts, preserving them, etc., but all this does not at all justify the existence of some new science about the same objects (artifacts of the past) used for the same purpose of obtaining historical information.Moreover, similar issues are also solved within the framework of other historical disciplines (for example, in archeology).
Specialists in the field of monumental science have been concerned with this issue since the very beginning of its formation as a separate scientific discipline, and they have in one way or another tried to find an answer to it.So, according to P.V. Boyarskyi, who was the first to try to substantiate monument studies as a separate science: "the subject of research in the field of monument studies is the information contained in the monuments of history and culture.The objectives of the study of monuments are: the development of their own theoretical and methodological principles, allowing to study the degree of adequacy of monuments to historical reality; development of methods for identifying, selecting, studying, assessing the significance and interrelationships of the information contained in them, methods for the purposeful use of information for educational and educational purposes: the development of theoretical foundations for the integrated preservation of the historical, cultural and natural environment" 10 .But after all, everything that has been said applies no less to source studies."What, then, is the difference between the study of monuments and source studies?" -the author asks a question, and answers, "In source studies, the application of the doctrine of information puts forward the requirement of an approach to the historical source as a product of the functioning of the system: object-information-specialist (where the object is understood as one or another primary source of our knowledge about the past).But the monuments are not only of purely scientific value.They carry educational, general educational, aesthetic functions".Therefore, "in order to reveal to the subject (viewer) the historical, aesthetic, scientific information contained in the monument, it is necessary to consider the approach to the monument as a product of a more complex system than is customary in source studies, which can be schematically depicted as follows: object-information-specialist-viewer"11 .
However, one can hardly agree with the proposed 'functional schemes' explaining the differences between source studies and monuments studies.Even the use of a source of historical information, if it is limited to a specialist, cannot be considered complete.Only bringing the information received to the general public (of course, in a substantially processed, 'filmed' form), introducing it into a wide circulation, turning it into one of the factors of the functioning of the society can be considered the fulfillment of the task of history as a science.Only here the final subject of information perception is more likely a 'listener' than a 'viewer'.In other words, when the received historical information is perceived by the general public, in principle, the presence of the primary source itself is not required.Although it is known that in this case, visual information contributes to a better perception of historical information, on the other hand, visual perception of a historical and cultural monument itself does not solve the problem either; it should, as a rule, have a verbal accompaniment.So, with regard to the "functional scheme", the difference between a historical source and a monument of history and culture can hardly be considered significant.
But in the above statements in relation to monuments of history and culture, one more type of information is mentioned that is absent when considering information from an artifact as a historical source -aesthetic information.However, the author does not define what he means by this type of information.But, one way or another, in the end it turns out that a special kind of information that comes from an object to a subject (if the object is a monument of history and culture) just distinguishes this case from receiving information from an object -historical source.
The difference between scientific (semantic) and emotional (aesthetic) information has been paid attention to for a long time 12 .But to determine the special nature of the information we receive from monuments of history and culture, let us first look at what information circulating in the society is in general.First of all, the information transmitted between members of the society with the help of certain systems of signs, ensures the consistency of their actions with the general use of the amount of knowledge necessary for these actions, turning the information obtained by certain individuals into a common property.And if technical devices form the surrounding technosphere for the society, then signs, in their totality as material carriers containing all the information that constitutes the intellectual heritage of the mankind, in interaction with their ideal component create a kind of 'noosphere' within the society.
However, communication between members of the society is not limited to the transmission of pragmatic information.There are two essentially different types of information transmitted in the society.Their presence is determined by the tasks performed by this information.Indeed, if information flows within the society ensure its functioning in the environment as a certain integrity, then they must perform at least two important functions: provide individuals with information about the conditions and goals of activity (a), and create a certain incentive to it (b).In accordance with this, with the development of the society, two specific types of information were formed.The first of them, providing a set of rational-logical information about the properties of objects in the real world and their connections, could be called semantic information.This information supplements our existing information thesaurus, providing the formation of the program of activities.And the second type of information, which could be called axiological information, forms our value attitude to objects.It evokes not only an aesthetic, but also an emotional reaction in general, which ultimately becomes a stimulus for action and determines its direction: "Emotion, wrote I.P. Pavlov, is what guides your activity, your life is an emotion" 13 . .To transmit both types of information, various means and material carriers (signs) are used.
In the latter case, it can be jewelry, objects of art or objects that, even having a certain practical purpose, at the same time are also "a sign of something else (power, holiness, nobility, strength, wealth, wisdom, etc.)" 14 .But in general, "every element of the external environment as a sociocultural phenomenon has a certain meaning for a person.…Moreover, the function of a thing and its meaning are not identical" 15 .Ultimately, almost every material object created (or used) by a person can play two 'social' roles -of a technological agent and a carrier of one or another type of information.
But the study of sources and monuments perceives historical artifacts mainly as carriers of various kinds of information: a historical source is primarily used to obtain semantic information about the past, while in relation to a historical and cultural monument (even if it is the same subject), axiological information comes to the fore.
Of course, in the latter case, obtaining historically accurate information also plays an important role.But this moment is subordinated to the main goal, which is set for the artifact as a monument of history and culture.And this goal is to 'immerse' the present perceiving subject into the past, thus linking them together (see fig. 2).
It is this connection that gives the subject the opportunity to determine its sociohistorical coordinates.For in any artifact that once performed certain technological functions ('artifact-II'), the past life of the society is also embodied for us, in which this artifact was created for these functions ('artifact-I')."Objectifying itself, it reveals meanings amenable to detection and understanding by another historical being, 13  overcoming its own historical situation"16 .However, in order for this artifact to be not only a material entity, which came to us from the past, but also such a witness, it must be connected with the corresponding historical thesaurus, 'placed' in a certain historical context.It goes without saying, some of the information necessary for this can be obtained from the given artifact itself, however, in general, their sources are still external in relation to it.This is done on the basis of semantic information.
By 'placing' the artifact in this context, or more precisely, by 'supplementing' the context with the artifact, we thereby transform it from a simple material entity into a monument of history and culture.And here it is not so much a matter of 'understanding' as in the formation of a certain value attitude, carried out through emotional impact.This goal is achieved due to the material existence of the artifact as a witness to the past.Its use in this capacity is provided by the axiological information available in it.
This, by the way, is what is in common between a work of art and such an artifact (which some researchers pay attention to) 17 .But here also lies the demarcation between them.The discrepancy lies in the fact that the work of art is specifically designed for such an assessment.Its criterion is the aesthetic quality that characterizes the personality of the creator18 .A monument of history and culture as a material structure was usually created without being designed for such an assessment.It is an objective result of certain social processes in the past, and therefore can be considered as a reliable reflection of them.The criterion of reliability for us is the authenticity of this artifact.
The determination of authenticity is carried out both by the analysis of the given object itself, and its history, social relations, etc.The latter are also essential for determining whether a given material formation is generally a monument of history and culture."Let us assume, for the sake of clarification, that a beautifully made object, whose structure and proportions are pleasant for perception, is accepted by us as the work of some primitive people.But now there is a basis for proving that it is an accidental natural product.As an external thing, it is now exactly as it was before.However, it immediately ceases to be a work of art and becomes a natural 'wonder'.It is now in a natural history museum rather than an art museum.And it should be noted that this discrepancy is not established by the intellect.It is carried out in the process of evaluative perception and directly" 19 .Without ceasing to be the same Fig. 2.An artifact is a link between the past and the present material formation, but not being the result of the materialization of human potencies, this object loses the grounds for perceiving it as a monument of history and culture.
The question arises: is such an emotional 'immersion' necessary?Isn't the knowledge gained from the analysis of scientific information from the object (given and others) as a historical source not enough to establish our connection with the past?It is enough if it is about cognition.But when it comes to the formation of a person as a functioning element of the society -it is not enough (i.e., psychological, through feelings of inclusion in the society, its socialization)20 .For, as K.A. Helvetius rightly pointed out, even "the mind remains inactive until passion sets it in motion"21 .As noted above, in order for a person to function not as an isolated individual, but as an element of the society, there is only little, albeit as complete as desired, set of information about the conditions of this functioning; an incentive to action is also needed.A person should strive to function as an element of a given society.And socialization, in addition to many other things, as one of the most important moments for emotional inclusion in the society, just provides for the individual's emotional perception of his personal socio-historical coordinates.Due to the specificity of emotional (axiological) information, directly related to the problems of its reliability, it cannot be obtained indirectly -but only with the direct perception of the object in its physicality, i.e. in the form of an authentic monument.
In the process of society development, there is a constant change in both its ideas and the complex of material formations embodying them.Previous ideas, like previous subjects, are replaced by new ones, which ensure the functioning of the society at a new stage of development.A new dynamic equilibrium is coming, which will also certainly be disturbed in the process of further development.At the same time, those things that can no longer adequately ensure the functioning of society are withdrawn from circulation; go into the past and their corresponding representations.
However, if the elimination of obsolete objects is undoubtedly a progressive phenomenon, then with the withering away of past ideas, the situation is much more complicated.On the one hand, they should naturally be replaced by new ones adequate to the new level of development.But, firstly, new ideas arise on the basis of old ones, their continuity is necessary; and secondly, the loss of the past would lead to violations of the general idea of the development of society, to irreparable losses of a cultural and historical nature.But this does not happen, since the past ideas are not lost, but 'merge' into the general structure of the 'ideal part' of the culture of the society.
The situation is different with respect to the material component of culture.The change in the elements and the entire system of material constituent parts of the culture of the society occurs naturally, since certain of its objects cease to satisfactorily fulfill the social function for which they were created.New tasks also appear, which are solved by creating new material objects.Such a change in elements is always accompanied by the obligatory elimination (physical removal) of those objects that have ceased to meet social requirements.But, as we have seen, one cannot do without at least some of them as agents of the emotional inclusion of the individual in the society.Which of the material formations of the past should we preserve (and generally perceive) as monuments of history and culture?On the one hand, almost every material object can be perceived as a reflection of the society that created it.On the other hand, there is no physical or economic opportunity to preserve all the artifacts of past eras; there is no need for this either.
In this regard, it is sometimes even believed that the loss of material evidence of the past functioning of society is a positive event.Thus, the modern Ukrainian researcher V. Vecherskyi recalls the point of view of the Lviv antiquarian Andrii Dorosh, expressed in 1982 22 .From this point of view, the loss of cultural and artistic heritage should be recognized as an indispensable prerequisite for the development of humanity, otherwise it will simply 'suffocate' under the mass of accumulated past values.However, this does not mean that the elimination of past values is a positive phenomenon.Replacing past material objects with modern ones, as we have already noted, is a necessary condition for social development.However, everything depends on their historical value.Those that best reflect the historical nature of past social processes and adequately reproduce them as a whole should be preserved for descendants.
However, different people evaluate the monuments of the past in different waysboth from the point of view of the role of these material objects and social processes of their time, and from the point of view of modernity.Moreover, under the influence of new ideological trends, there is a revaluation of monuments that were previously recognized as such.In this regard, the attacks on monuments in November 2018 in Santiago de Chile, the demolition of statues in the United States and England as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, in Mexico, and others are typical 23 .Today, our country is undergoing a radical reassessment of the existing monuments 24 .In general, such processes are inevitable, but they should be treated with special responsibility, since everything from the smallest archaeological object to a great monument originates from culture and reflects it.Accordingly, the imperative to preserve monuments is the imperative to preserve our cultural heritage 25 .
Still objectively, for various reasons, only a part of the artifacts, which are the material realization (objectification) of the public consciousness of that time, has been preserved from the past.They can be disobjectified by descendants and included in the general context of their ideas about a given era.Thanks to these material objects, a real cultural and historical connection of times is provided.Therefore, it is desirable that they represent some 'nodal points' of the overall system, providing the ability to establish logical connections that create a complete picture.It is these objects that represent an important part of our common cultural and historical heritage, it is customary to call the monuments of history and culture.And since the actual function of material monuments is to establish also the 22 Вечерський В. Виникнення і розвиток міжнародної охорони культурних цінностей.Праці Центру памяткознавства. 2004. Вип. 6. С. 225-238. 23 Pérez-Ramos Y., Ramiro-Esteban D. Monumentos confrontados: nuevos roles para el patrimonio ante los desencuentros sociales.Ciudad Resignificada.2020.Vol.38, 58 (Julio).Р. 44-61. 24Набок С.В.Пам'ятник як маркер: особливості функціонування в публічному просторі в контексті політики декомунізації в Україні.Наукові записки Інституту політичних і етнонаціональних досліджень ім.І.Ф.Кураса НАН України.2018.№ 3-4.С. 193-214. 25Cloonan M.V.The moral imperative to preserve.Library Trends.2007.Vol.55 (3).Р. 746-755.emotional ties of the individual with the past, and therefore also with society as a whole in its historical development, then it is the corporality, the material embodiment of the object as a guarantee of reliability only gives the monument the opportunity to fulfill this most important the social function is to assist in the socialization of the individual, the subconscious determination by him of his sociohistorical coordinates.
Thus, in this process, a monument of history and culture plays the role of a kind of 'reference point' of reference in a multi-coordinate social system in which a person exists.Moreover, such 'points' to create an integral 'scale' should not be single, they should be enough to form a certain system.This system should, on the one hand, be ramified in time and other socio-historical dimensions, and on the other, 'rooted' through logical, genetic and other types of connection between monuments and available historical information.
Therefore, each monument, like any other object, cannot be considered as something isolated, but only in connection with other objects.In principle, there can be two types of these relationships.One type of relationship specifically embodies the principle of universal relationship in nature and the society (coordination relationship), and the second implements the causative-consecutive nature of any processes (subordination relationship).
Both types of ties are realized simultaneously, but put the same monument in a different position.Both types of links between sites are shown in fig. 3. Let us consider these cases.
A specific monument аn is located in a certain row A, which characterizes its place in a certain logical sequence, reflecting the patterns of movement of a particular direction of development of a given cultural phenomenon, embodied in a sequential series of material objects that are in a certain causal relationship.Of course, the simplest one-line diagram is presented here.In fact, this chain is complex and branched, but the principle of its structure remains the same.In the given series, this particular material structure acts as a cultural monument.
But simultaneously with this logical sequence, there are many other sequences that reflect the patterns of development of other cultural phenomena (b, c, d,…), located in other series of cause-and-effect relationships (B, C, D,…).It is quite understandable that very often these phenomena are interconnected in one way or another and only in their totality and interaction constitute culture as an integral phenomenon.Some phenomenon of the sequence B, let's say bn, may in one way or another be associated with the synchronous phenomena of аn, cn, dn sequences A, C, D, and so on.The connection between these phenomena, which creates the whole integrity, in the end also has a natural and causative-consecutive character.However, the specific connection between specific phenomena of different causeand-effect sequences is already quite random.And a specific monument (in this case аn) may (or may not) be a monument in relation to one or another phenomenon in the sequence B, in particular, the phenomenon bn.However, due to the non-binding nature, this relation already has an optional, random character.And it is clear that this monument, even if a corresponding connection exists, cannot be regarded as characterizing precisely the cultural process of the sequence C, although it certainly concerns the historical process in which the latter is concretely realized (i.e, taking into account the specific nature of the interaction of different phenomena)… In this case, the allocated monument should be considered as a historical monument.
No matter whether we are talking about a cultural monument or a historical monument, it should be borne in mind that it never enters into the above relations in its bodily reality.It enters into them through it in its specific functions, which are the result of interconnection with other objects or phenomena.If, for example, we mean a monument of technology, then, being created and used in specific historical conditions, it, of course, is a monument of history.However, it is also a monument to a certain development of material culture, subject to its own internal laws.In addition, it should be borne in mind that technology in itself is a very complex phenomenon, and its development occurs in many interacting channels in one way or another.And in general, its development is carried out in a historical context, providing for the interaction of technology with other social phenomena, the evidence of which may also have the form of a technical object.Therefore, the primary division into cultural monuments and historical monuments also makes sense here.It is not for nothing that the Paris Convention mentions not of historical monuments and cultural monuments as such, but of a specific (historical or cultural) point of view on a given object of cultural heritage26 .
So, as an object of cultural heritage, this object can be viewed from two sides.On the one hand, as a functioning object, which is a consequence of its certain evolution in a number of similar objects, in its main, auxiliary and accompanying functions.And on the other hand, as a certain material formation, an object of the material culture of its time, which has characteristic general structural characteristics (type, shape, size, material, etc.), as well as a certain set of characteristic elements organized in a certain way into a single whole.As a historical monument, it can be associated with a certain event, acting either as its acting factor, or as a witness (contemporary).Another point is the connection with certain personalities, either by the nature of their activity (invention, manufacture, use in the main sphere), or simply as a certain fact of the biography of a particular person (gift, collection item, favorite thing, etc.).
It should be noted that in all the cases considered, we took any monument as a certain integrity with a certain external function.However, each of them has its own internal structure, and its functions can also be differentiated in a certain way.The complete functional structure of the object of historical and cultural heritage is shown in the diagram (fig.4).By the way, in connection with this circumstance, for a more complete coverage of objects that are of interest to monument studies, it would be necessary to introduce, as shown in the diagram, another division where to include objects that, in fact, do not even have a relatively independent significance with regard to historical and cultural processes of the past and should be considered only as elements of a certain integral formation, precisely in its integrity and being an object of cultural heritage, and further perceived already in this capacity, i.e. as a single monument of history and culture.
Accordingly, in a museum, one or another object, depending on the context, can be used in different ways, carrying different information to the visitor, as well as having different semantic and axiological loads.And consequently, each of the above points can become decisive for the inclusion of this object in museum expositions that are different in meaning and focus.In other words, an object that recreates a certain stage in the development of material culture with its bodily existence is its monument.At the same time, whether we consider a given object a historical monument or a cultural monument depends not so much on the object itself as on the context in which we are considering it.Consequently, this monument of the past as a whole should be defined as a phenomenon of history and culture, and it should be appropriately used in the modern cultural context, which is the task of the of monument studies.

Conclusions
Summing up the above stated, we note once again: as for the monument of archaeology, history and culture, then only an object created by a public person for certain purposes, that is, an authentic artifact, can act in this capacity in its material embodiment.In order for a given material object to become a historical source or monument of history and culture, it must in a certain way be removed from its utilitarian function (that is, direct technological functions of interacting with the environment, the movement of material flows or the transfer of information between elements of the society for which the latter was intended).In this case, its ability to reflect the society that gave birth to it comes to the fore, which gives this object the status of an information mediator between the past and the present.Or, in other words, in this way it becomes a historical source or a monument of history and culture -performing, respectively, a different function in connection of the past with the present, and in the first case it belongs to the archaeology, source studies, and in the second case -to the monument studies.
Accordingly, the main task of the monument studies is the study of processes and the development of methods for introducing historical and cultural monuments into the modern cultural context.Therefore, here, to the task of obtaining semantic information about the past, the most important task of participating in the socialization of contemporaries, in determining their socio-historical coordinates, is added as paramount, which confirms them as constituent elements of the social whole.In no other way, except for authentic artifacts-carriers of axiological information, which appear before us in their material reality, this task cannot be fully accomplished.Unfortunately, it cannot yet be said that the specified specific task has gained quite wide recognition today, and it is not always possible to highlight the specific type of information involved in the research of archaeological artifacts, monuments of history and culture.Still, it is only due to it that a sense of personal involvement in the past is created in us nowadays, an emotional perception of it as the genetic root of modernity, a desire to accept it as the sources of our current social and individual existence, which is the most important social function of cultural heritage.Consequently, it is precisely this last information in its material expression, its study and use that is also a specific subject of monument studies, actually constituting its scientific status.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.Monument of history and culture as a material object