Suchergebnisse

This article analyses the latest archaeographical research in the field of Lithuanian Tatar written manuscript heritage. The author gives her answer to the question: was the work of fixing, collecting and description of Lithuanian Tatar manuscripts purposeful. The main emphasis is put on the work stage and its specific character. Archaeography has not always fulfilled tasks equally throughout different historical periods starting with Lithuanian Tatar written language presentation to wide academic society (Fleischer 1838, Muchlinskij 1858) and up to nowadays. While catalogization of manuscripts existed (1935, 1961, 1968, 1997, 2000 and 2003), it was not purposeful since "field archaeography" had been omitted. The publication of complete texts was ascribed to episodical (2000, 2001). Urgency of catalogization and description of manuscripts was based on changes of the situation inside society and also outside it. Nowadays manuscripts in Tatar families are rarity. Because the social and political situation has changed, the approach to this treasury is weakly controlled. Purposeful archaeographical research could assist in saving Lithuanian Tatar cultural heritage and also to analyse it from many perspectives.

This article analyses the latest archaeographical research in the field of Lithuanian Tatar written manuscript heritage. The author gives her answer to the question: was the work of fixing, collecting and description of Lithuanian Tatar manuscripts purposeful. The main emphasis is put on the work stage and its specific character. Archaeography has not always fulfilled tasks equally throughout different historical periods starting with Lithuanian Tatar written language presentation to wide academic society (Fleischer 1838, Muchlinskij 1858) and up to nowadays. While catalogization of manuscripts existed (1935, 1961, 1968, 1997, 2000 and 2003), it was not purposeful since "field archaeography" had been omitted. The publication of complete texts was ascribed to episodical (2000, 2001). Urgency of catalogization and description of manuscripts was based on changes of the situation inside society and also outside it. Nowadays manuscripts in Tatar families are rarity. Because the social and political situation has changed, the approach to this treasury is weakly controlled. Purposeful archaeographical research could assist in saving Lithuanian Tatar cultural heritage and also to analyse it from many perspectives.

This article analyses the latest archaeographical research in the field of Lithuanian Tatar written manuscript heritage. The author gives her answer to the question: was the work of fixing, collecting and description of Lithuanian Tatar manuscripts purposeful. The main emphasis is put on the work stage and its specific character. Archaeography has not always fulfilled tasks equally throughout different historical periods starting with Lithuanian Tatar written language presentation to wide academic society (Fleischer 1838, Muchlinskij 1858) and up to nowadays. While catalogization of manuscripts existed (1935, 1961, 1968, 1997, 2000 and 2003), it was not purposeful since "field archaeography" had been omitted. The publication of complete texts was ascribed to episodical (2000, 2001). Urgency of catalogization and description of manuscripts was based on changes of the situation inside society and also outside it. Nowadays manuscripts in Tatar families are rarity. Because the social and political situation has changed, the approach to this treasury is weakly controlled. Purposeful archaeographical research could assist in saving Lithuanian Tatar cultural heritage and also to analyse it from many perspectives.

This article analyses the latest archaeographical research in the field of Lithuanian Tatar written manuscript heritage. The author gives her answer to the question: was the work of fixing, collecting and description of Lithuanian Tatar manuscripts purposeful. The main emphasis is put on the work stage and its specific character. Archaeography has not always fulfilled tasks equally throughout different historical periods starting with Lithuanian Tatar written language presentation to wide academic society (Fleischer 1838, Muchlinskij 1858) and up to nowadays. While catalogization of manuscripts existed (1935, 1961, 1968, 1997, 2000 and 2003), it was not purposeful since "field archaeography" had been omitted. The publication of complete texts was ascribed to episodical (2000, 2001). Urgency of catalogization and description of manuscripts was based on changes of the situation inside society and also outside it. Nowadays manuscripts in Tatar families are rarity. Because the social and political situation has changed, the approach to this treasury is weakly controlled. Purposeful archaeographical research could assist in saving Lithuanian Tatar cultural heritage and also to analyse it from many perspectives.

This article analyses the latest archaeographical research in the field of Lithuanian Tatar written manuscript heritage. The author gives her answer to the question: was the work of fixing, collecting and description of Lithuanian Tatar manuscripts purposeful. The main emphasis is put on the work stage and its specific character.Archaeography has not always fulfilled tasks equally throughout different historical periods starting with Lithuanian Tatar written language presentation to wide academic society (Fleischer 1838, Muchlinskij 1858) and up to nowadays. While catalogization of manuscripts existed (1935, 1961, 1968, 1997, 2000 and 2003), it was not purposeful since "field archaeography" had been omitted. The publication of complete texts was ascribed to episodical (2000, 2001).Urgency of catalogization and description of manuscripts was based on changes of the situation inside society and also outside it. Nowadays manuscripts in Tatar families are rarity. Because the social and political situation has changed, the approach to this treasury is weakly controlled. Purposeful archaeographical research could assist in saving Lithuanian Tatar cultural heritage and also to analyse it from many perspectives. ; В статье рассматриваются проблемы археографических исследований в области татаристики. Автор ставит перед собой цель определить этапы и специфику подобных исследований с момента открытия памятников письменной культуры литовских татар.

The article analyzes the basic provisions of the draft federal law "On science, technology and innovation activities in the Russian Federation" related to research and innovation infrastructure. The author presents a comparative analysis of the draft law and the norms of the current federal legislation and other normative acts regulating research and innovation infrastructure. The main methods of the research are comparative, technical, analytical and descriptive. In comparison with the current laws, the draft law gives a fuller description of the research infrastructure, in particular, the definitions of its main objects and components (research equipment, scientific collection, unique scientific installation, core facility, megascience installation, fund to support science, etc.). However, there is still no systematic approach to the issue: the draft law doesn't contain neither the definitions of the research infrastructure and its structural features, nor the precise formulation of the relationship between research and innovation infrastructure. All these gaps don't allow obtaining a single interpretation of the research infrastructure, and is a significant disadvantage of the bill. In its further development, the author also recommends taking into account the foreign experience, especially in regulating scientific collections. For example, it is necessary to consider enshrining scientific collections as bioresource centers to provide an opportunity for their subsequent integration with international databases. The article considers the novel about the core facility as an independent legal entity. In addition, the need for creation of the Registry of core shared research facilities, which is stated in the bill, is questionable, given that the web-portal "Research infrastructure of the Russian Federation" (http://ckp-rf.ru) has been successfully operating since 2011. The latest contains information not only about the core facilities, but also unique scientific installations, as well as the results of their ...

The article is devoted to analysis of new Marxism as a key methodological
trends of political science research. Historical events of the last century and the
ensuing updated the creative legacy of Marx and contributed to its reconsideration,
which was the enrichment of political science, development of methodology in its area
schools and trends, developing ideas known German scientist.

Social support for combat veterans is denoted by the term "social support measures", consequently, it is understood primarily as providing this category with benefits (federal, regional, municipal). Other functional aspects of social support in organizing social rehabilitation of combat veterans, such as meeting social needs, for instance, for information, closeness, protection, reassurance, etc., are not studied enough. This paper presents the results obtained in the study of the level of social support for combat veterans using the "Multidimensional scale of social support perception" methodology.

The article is devoted to a very interesting methodological paradigm, which has
its own history and the high importance in a number of Social Sciences - Institutional,
which is influenced by social changes and needs in their understanding was further
developed in the form of appearance of new institutional paradigm, actively used in
modern political science knowledge.

The paper is devoted to the interaction between science and religion in the theory of famous british philosopher of science Michael Polanyi. There is an analysis of relations between scientific and religious beliefs. According to Polanyi the religious cult provides a man with euristic vision of reality. Polanyi had a great impact into "untraditional" conception of truth.