Interpretation and Reconstruction of Traditional Rituals on Semiotic Approach (Shor Rite ‘Shachig’)

The position is substantiated according to which the preservation of the rite as an object of ethnocultural heritage in modern conditions is possible through bringing it into a museum state. It is argued that this process should be based on the fixation of the rite during the period of its existence in the natural socio-cultural environment, the results of which were reflected in the field diaries of ethnographers stored in museum archives. The authors point to the main difference between the “inheri tor of tradition” and the “bearer of tradition”, which is the fragmentation and discreteness  of the information available to the latter, which is insufficient to recreate the complex image of the traditional  rite. The potential of the proposed methodology for  interpreting  and  reconstructing   traditional rituals is revealed on the example of the Shor rite ‘Shachig’. The authors analyze modern national-social variations in the interpretation of ethnographic information  about  the  rite  of the first third of the XX century. It is shown that the superficial processing of the information contained in the sources and the incorrect decoding of the codes leads to the transformation of the descriptions of all elements and the material component of the rite. As a scientifically grounded alternative, reconstruction and interpretation of this rite from the standpoint of a semiotic approach is proposed, based on a comprehensive analysis of all its elements (actional, verbal, objective) and considering temporal and local characteristics.

1. Arutyunov, S. A. (1981). Custom, ritual, tradition. Sovetskaya etnografiya, 2: 97—99. (In Russ.).

2. Balash, A. N. (2013). A Thing in a Museum: Reflections on the Fate of a “Museum Object”. The Problems of Museology, 1 (7): 19—24. (In Russ.).

3. Bayburin, A. K., Levinton, G. A. (1988). Code (s) and rite (s). In: Kodovi slovenskikh kultura, 3: 239—257. (In Russ.).

4. Bayburin, A. K. (2004). Ethnographic Museum: semiotics and ideology. Neprikosnovennyy zapas. Debaty o politike i kulture, 1 (33): 81—86. (In Russ.).

5. Bromley, Yu. V. (1973). Ethnicity and ethnography. Moscow: Nauka. 285 p. (In Russ.).

6. Cassirer, E. (2002). Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga. 3/2. 280 p. (In Russ.).

7. Chistov, K. V. (1981). Tradition, “traditional societies” and the problem of variation. Sovetskaya etnografiya, 2: 105—107. (In Russ.).

8. D’yakonova, V. P. (2001). On the importance of the river and water in the culture of the Turkic-speaking peoples of the Sayano-Altai. In: Historical Yearbook. Special issue. Omsk. Available at: http://www.kunstkamera.ru/files/lib/978-5-02-0252226/978-5-02-025222-6_04.pdf (accessed 11.02.2021). (In Russ.).

9. Eco, U. (1998). La struttura assente. Introduzione alla ricerca semiologica. Moscow: Petropolis. 432 p. (In Russ.).

10. Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. (2009). In: Akademik. Moscow: Kanon+; Reabilitatsiya. Available at: https://clck.ru/VhcoE (accessed 21.04.2021). (In Russ.).

11. Filatova, V. F. (2012). About the semiotic description of magic. Scientific news of the Belgorod state university. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Laws, 8 (127): 75—84. (In Russ.).

12. Gavrilova, T. I. (2016). On the problem of the semiotic aspect in the study and description of family-cycle rites. Proceedings of the Southwest state university. Series: Linguistics and pedagogics, 1 (18): 13—20. (In Russ.).

13. Kimeev, V. M. (2018). Formation of Shor rituals under the influence of neighboring peo ples — Khakass, Altai, Russian Siberians: retrospective and modernity. In: Altai — Western Siberia in the XIX — early XX centuries: population, economy, culture: collection of articles. Gorno-Altaysk: Publisher BNU RA NIIA im. S. S. Surazakova. 207—212. (In Russ.).

14. Kimeeva, T. I. (2019). Semiotic interpretation of museum objects as the basis for the actualization of intangible heritage in the museum. In: World trends and museum practice in Russia: collection of articles of the International Scientific conference. Moscow: Publisher RGGU. 195—202. (In Russ.).

15. Lotman, Yu. M. (1973). Semiotics of Cinema and Problems of Cinema Aesthetics. Tallin: Eesti Raamat. 92 p. (In Russ.).

16. Lotman, Yu. M. (1992). Selected articles. Articles on semiotics and typology of culture. Tallin: Aleksandra. 3/1. 472 p. (In Russ.).

17. Makhlina, S. T. (2013). Semiotics — a modern brand in culture. In: Proceedings of the St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts. 198: 35—36. (In Russ.).

18. Nikishin, N. A. (1989). “Museum language” as a universal modeling system of museum activities. In: Museology. problems of cultural communication in museum activities: collection of articles. Moscow. 7—16. (In Russ.).

19. Okladnikova, E. A. (2006). Semiosis of a museum item. In: Radlov readings — 2006: abstracts. St. Petersburg: MAE RAN. 73—91. (In Russ.).

20. Peirce, Ch. S. (2000). Issues of pragmatism. St. Petersburg: SPbGU; Aleteyya. 318 p. (In Russ.).

21. Saussure, F. de. (1999). Cows de linguistique generate. Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House. 432 p. (In Russ.).

22. Zhigareva, A. A. (2011). Visualization concepts: formation, development and forms of manifestation. Scientific problems of humanitarian research, 7: 273—281.