Spontaneous Hierotopia in Modern Myth-Making: The Case of Arkaim

The phenomenon of spontaneous hierotopia is considered as a process of spontaneous sacralization of places, which, according to the participants of this activity, have supernatural properties. Its development is conditioned, on the one hand, by the effect of the image of the sacred rooted in the cultural consciousness, on the other hand, by modern socio-cultural problems, in relation to which spontaneous hierotopia acts as a compensating factor. This phenomenon has insufficiently reflected positive potential embodied in a set of vital functions. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze the peculiarities of spontaneous hierotopia, which expresses the real needs of the subjects involved in this activity, who act outside the institutional systems, including confessional ones. Therefore, their cultural creation is characterized by eclecticism and bricolage way of creating sacred artefacts, which is typical for spontaneous myth — making in general.

The autonomy and uncontrollability of this phenomenon to the generally accepted institutional systems generates a sharply critical reaction from secular (scientific) and religious (traditional-confessional) authorities. The analysis shows the lack of objectivity of such criticism: claims to the unscientific nature of spontaneous hierotopia are unfounded due to the fact that it is based on mythological imagination; the inconsistency with canonical attitudes is an irreversible consequence of personal and creative situational construction of sacred objects.

Concretization of the peculiarities of spontaneous hierotopia, made on the example of the archeological monument Arkaim, allowed to reveal the main regularities of the process of spontaneous sacralization and to establish the urgency of the problems reflected in it. Specific features of the formation of sacralized loci are analyzed. The special atmosphere of tolerance, peacefulness and positive interaction inherent in such places due to the totality of their subjective and objective properties is characterized.

1. Cusack C.M. Invented Religions: Imagination, Fiction and Faith. Surrey, England, Ashgate Publ., 2010, 179 p.

2. Kupriyanova E.V. Arkaim Reserve and Problems of the Popularization of Archeology in Southern Ural, Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriya [Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. History], 2014, no. 12 (341), issue 60, pp. 22—29 (in Russ.).

3. Lidov A.M. Ierotopiya. Prostranstvennye ikony i obrazy-paradigmy v vizantiiskoi kul’ture [Hierotopy. Spatial Icons and Image-Paradigms in Byzantine Culture]. Moscow, Dizain. Informatsiya. Kartografiya Publ., 2009, 352 p. (in Russ.).

4. Eliade M. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Moscow, Izd-vo MGU, 1994, 144 p. (in Russ.).

5. Crosbie M.J., Bermudez J. Searching for New Sacred Space, Faith & Form: The Interfaith Journal on Religion, Art, and Architecture, 2016, vol. 49, issue 2, Available at: https://faithandform.com/feature/searching-new-sacred-space/ (accessed 24.11.2023).

6. Straughn I.B. The Aptitude for Sacred Space, Locating the Sacred: Theoretical Approaches to the Emplacement of Religion. Oxford, Oxbow Books Publ., 2014, pp. 165—180. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvh1dqff.12.

7. Shnirelman V.A. Arkaim and Stonehenge Between the Past and the Future, Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie, 2014, no. 5, pp. 19—40 (in Russ.).

8. Sozina E.K. Arkaim Phenomenon in a Mythological Field of Contemporary Culture, Labirint: Zhurnal sotsial’no-gumanitarnykh issledovanii [Labyrinth: Journal of Social and Humanitarian Studies], 2015, no. 1, pp. 80—90. Available at: http://www.intelros.ru/readroom/labirint/l1-2015/27407-fenomen-arkaima-v-mifologicheskom-pole-sovremennoy-kultury.html (accessed 24.11.2023) (in Russ.).

9. Holloway J. Make-Believe: Spiritual Practice, Embodiment, and Sacred Space, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2003, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1961—1974. DOI: 10.1068/a3586.

10. Wang P.-F., Ho M.-Ch. Constructing a Preliminary Model for Designing Sacred Space, Bulletin of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, 2011, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 31—40. DOI: 10.11247/jssdj.58.31_3.

11. Balakleets N.A. “No Man’s Land” as a Source of Dynamics of Social Space, Tvorchestvo i kul’tura v svete filosofskoi refleksii. Tvorchestvo kul’tury i kul’tura tvorchestva: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov VI Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-teoreticheskoi konferentsii (16—17 fevralya 2018 g.) [Creativity and Culture in the Light of Philosophical Reflection. Creativity of Culture and Culture of Creativity: Proceedings of the 6th International Scientific and Theoretical Conference (February 16—17, 2018)]. Ulyanovsk, UlGTU Publ., 2018, pp. 56—64 (in Russ.).

12. Flier A.Ya. Myth as a Universal Context of Culture Interpretation, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2017, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 724—729. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2017-14-6-724-729 (in Russ.).

13. Levi-Strauss C. Totemism Today. Moscow, Akademicheskii Proekt Publ., 2008, 528 p. (in Russ.).

14. Puppo L.D., Schmoller J. Introduction: Sacred Geographies and Identity Claims: The Revival of Sacred Sites in the Post-Soviet Space, Journal of Ethnology and Folkloristics, 2019, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 124—127. DOI: 10.2478/jef-2019-0017.

15. Silina V.E. Sacralization of Archaeological Sites of the Southern Urals on the Example of the Arkaim Nature Reserve, Vera Island, the Zyuratkul National Park, Ehtnicheskie vzaimodeistviya na Yuzhnom Urale: materialy VI Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Ethnic Interactions in the Southern Urals: Proceedings of the 6th All-Russian Scientific Conference]. Chelyabinsk, 2015, pp. 433—437 (in Russ.).

16. Yashin V.B. The Hierotopian Motives and Cults of the Saints Places in New Religious Movements, Omskii nauchnyi vestnik. Seriya: Obshchestvo. Istoriya. Sovremennost’ [Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series: Society. History. Modernity], 2012, no. 3 (109), pp. 95—99 (in Russ.).

17. Ulchitskiy O.A. The Typology of South Ural Fortified Settlements Bronze Age, Akademicheskij Vestnik UralNIIproekt RAASN, 2022, no. 3 (54), pp. 15—20. DOI: 10.25628/UNIIP.2022.54.3.003 (in Russ.).

18. Sokovikov S.S., Kaminskaya E.A. Three “Arkaim” Ballets: The Legendary Past of the Southern Urals in Contemporary Musical Culture, Problemy muzykal’noi nauki / Music Scholarship, 2021, no. 2, pp. 67—77. DOI: 10.33779/2587-6341.2021.2.067-077 (in Russ.).

19. Ivakhiv A. Power Trips: Making Sacred Space Through New Age Pilgrimage, Handbook of New Age. Series: Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion: Vol. 1. Leiden, Brill Publ., 2007, pp. 263—286. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004153554.i-484.91.

20. Gukova I.V., Saveleva T.V. Russian Neopaganizm and Its Sources. “Places of Force” of South Ural, Gorizonty tsivilizatsii [Horizons of Civilization], 2017, no. 8, pp. 16—37. Available at: https://library.csu.ru/ru/rboks2/view2?code=vch/horizoncivil/008/002 (accessed 24.11.2023) (in Russ.).

21. Golovanov I.A. To the Question About Dynamics of Folklore Consciousness (Based on the Material of Records of Non-Fairytale Prose of the Urals), Mif — fol’klor — literatura: problemy izucheniya: Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Myth — Folklore — Literature: Problems of Study: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference]. Ufa, Izd-vo BGU, 2016, pp. 43—52 (in Russ.).

22. Sarbova A. The Labyrinth and the Contemporary Sacred Space, Megalithic Monuments and Cult Practices: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Blagoevgrad, Neofit Rilski Univesity Press Publ., 2020, pp. 383—394.

23. Alt P.L. Sacred Space and the Healing Journey, Annals of Palliative Medicine, 2017, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 284—296. DOI: 10.21037/apm.2017.06.09.

24. Perriam G. Sacred Spaces, Healing Places: Therapeutic Landscapes of Spiritual Significance, Journal of Medical Humanities, 2015, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 19—33. doi: 10.1007/s10912-014-9318-0.

25. Yashin V.B. Re-Actualization of Archaic Myth and Ritual Practices in Modern Russia on the Example of Kuatovka’s Hierotopia (Sociological and Religious Aspects), Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya [Modern Problems of Science and Education], 2014, no. 5, p. 691. Available at: https://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=14593 (accessed 24.11.2023) (in Russ.).

26. Shnirelman V.A. Archaeological Heritage in the Context of Regional and Ethnic Identity, Sibirskie istoricheskie issledovaniya [Siberian Historical Research], 2015, no. 2, pp. 53—65. DOI: 10.17223/2312461X/8/4 (in Russ.).

27. Hassner R.E. “To Halve and to Hold”: Conflicts over Sacred Space and the Problem of Indivisibility, Security Studies, 2003, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1—33. DOI: 10.1080/09636410390447617.