Abstract: The article deals with various aspects of complexity in culture: syncretic and comprehensive complexity; system complexity and specialization complexity; the complexity of elements of a structure/system and the complexity of connections/relationships, which define the relationships of numerous social functions and the order of historical evolution of culture.

Keywords: Culture, complexity, syncreticity, complexity, systematicy, specialization, structure, connections.

[1] Castelliani B., Yafferty F. Sociology and Complexity. A new field inquiry. Berlin: Springer. 2009. P.6.
[2] At first sight this term may seem tautological, especially considering the English word “complexity”. However, I cannot find a more appropriate term.
[3] Khachaturyan V.M. "Second Life" of Antiquity: Archaizing Trends in Civilization Process. Moscow: Academia, 2009.
[4] Russian film audience in this connection will recall chatlan-patsak language spoken by characters in the film “Kin-dza-dza”.
[5] In this connection, I would recall the symmetry of images which precedes the symmetry of signs, according to Paul Ricoeur.
[6] Such chaotic associativity can be observed in the consciousness of modern humans as well, if they are "led astray" from culturally-imposed routine ways of association and meaning formation.
[7] Researchers of myths usually associated it with the images of the ground, groundwaters and the underworld.
[8] Of course, in the Lower Paleolithic cultural forms were even more syncretic, but cultural genesis in that era was still at the stage of bioevolution, and we cannot speak about immanent dialectics of its unfolding. So the protoculture of the Lower Paleolithic is not touched upon herein.  
[9] Nucleation in social systems does not necessarily take the form of political centralization. The system Center of a LCS is a more complex and multifaceted phenomenon than the center of political (state) power, although the latter often acts as a mytho-ideological representation of the first.
[10] It is not by chance that bioevolutionary concept, implying autonomous action of natural selection on separate functional elements, turned out to be unworkable.
[11] For example, the loss of such complicating specializations as a bow and arrows by the aborigines of Australia, or a hypothetical return motion in the social organization from lower to higher egalitarianism could be carried out within the framework of a constant level of system complexity.
[12] Korotaev A.V. Social Evolution. Factors. Regularities. Trends. Moscow: Nauka, Eastern Literature, 2003. P. 53-54.
[13] Korotaev A.V. Ibidem. P. 53.
[14] As for politogenesis, monocentric type of system does not necessarily imply a rigid mono-policy. On the contrary, most of ancient monocentric societies were rather multi-political.
[15] For example, T.D. Skrynnikova suggests that the center of the Mongol Empire was not a state, but a super-complex chiefdom, while state-like structures concentrated on the periphery of this multi-political formation. Skrynnikova T.D. Mongolian Nomadic Society at Empire Period // Alternative Ways to Civilization / Ed. N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotaev, D.M. Bondarenko, V.A. Lynsha. Moscow: Logos. 2000, P. 344-355.
[16] Such accumulation is possible due to an adaptive-specializing dominant in the development of peripheral areas.
[17] The schism in Russian society, however without any correlation with Huntington, was researched by A.S. Akhiezer.
[18] It reminds of Marx’s saying about a human as “the ensemble of social relations”.
[19] For more details see: Pelipenko A.A. Dualistic Revolution and Semiogenesis in History. Moscow: URSS. 2010.
[20] These processes are usually accompanied by sacralization of a desire to get psychologically attached to metaphysically understood ontologism.
[21] Nazaretyan A.P. Vectors of Historical Evolution // Social Studies and Nowadays. N 2. 1999. P. 112-126, and others.