Suchergebnisse

"Mythic discourses in the present day show how vernacular heritage continues to function and be valuable through emergent interpretations and revaluations. At the same time, continuities in mythic images, motifs, myths and genres reveal the longue durée of mythologies and their transformations. The eighteen articles of Mythic Discourses address the many facets of myth in Uralic cultures, from the Finnish and Karelian world-creation to Nenets shamans, offering multidisciplinary perspectives from twenty eastern and western scholars.

The mythologies of Uralic peoples differ so considerably that mythology is approached here in a broad sense, including myths proper, religious beliefs and associated rituals. Traditions are addressed individually, typologically, and in historical perspective. The range and breadth of the articles, presenting diverse living mythologies, their histories and relationships to traditions of other cultures such as Germanic and Slavic, all come together to offer a far richer and more developed perspective on Uralic traditions than any one article could do alone."

More than 100 million people speak Uralic & Altaic (U & A) languages, but they are dispersed over a vast area stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. Some of them are completely Westernized; others belong to the cultural area of the Far East. Others again, like the Turks, numbering about 58 million, are found from the Balkans, through the Middle East, & far into Siberia. The study of this heterogeneous group poses difficult problems, both on the scholarly & the admin'lve levels. Though the road to a better understanding of parts or the whole of the U & A field leads through the knowledge of at least one of the major U & A languages, U & A studies are basically area-oriented. Specialists trained in this field, by becoming experts in their own area, can render valuable services to various academic disciplines: linguistics, history, & the soc sci's. AA.

Although nobody doubts today that a Ural-Altaic protolanguage is an obsolete idea there still exists some peculiar conformity between Uralic and Altaic that cannot easily be explained by simple borrowings. In this article some similarities between Turkic and Uralic pronouns are to the fore.

More than a hundred million people speak Uralic and Altaic languages, but they are dispersed over a vast area stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. Some of them are completely Westernized—like the Finns or the Hungarians; others—like the Koreans—belong to the cultural area of the Far East. Others again, like the Turks, numbering about 58 million, can be found from the Balkans, through the Middle East, and far into Siberia. The study of this heterogeneous group poses dif ficult problems, both on the scholarly and the administrative levels. Although the road to a better understanding of parts or the whole of the Uralic and Altaic field leads through the knowledge of at least one of the major Uralic and Altaic lan guages, Uralic and Altaic studies are basically area-oriented. Specialists trained in this field, by becoming experts in their own area, can render valuable services to various academic disci plines: linguistics, history, and the social sciences.

The traditional etymology of the PU *waśke 'metal, (? copper)' is of great importance for the reconstruction of Proto-Uralic culture and the time of the disintegration of Proto-Uralic. Continuing some older works and considering the results of the latest research, this etymology is considered as fictitious, breaking up into at least three etymological nests: Finnic-Mordv. *vaśa-kive 'axe-stone' (etymology of T.-R. Viitso, where *vaśa- denotes 'axe, adze', a borrowing from Aryan + PU *kive 'stone'), Proto-Perm. *veś 'non-ferrous metal; metal decoration', Proto-Sam. *wesä 'metal, metal decoration'. The last two words can be independent borrowings from a language close to Tocharian (*wəsa 'gold' < PIE). It is impossible to restore a Proto-Ugric word for metal associated with these etymologies, since Hung. vas 'iron' (s [љ] < *č), Khanty *waχ 'metal; iron' and Mansi *wes in *ǟϑ-wes 'lead' cannot be phonetically related to each other in any way. Mari βaћ 'ore' also cannot be considered a normal reflex of *waśke but is rather a semantic development of Mar. βaћ 'root' (< PFU). The names of silver in the Permian (Perm *özüś > Udm. azveś, Komi eziś) and Hungarian (ezьst) languages have a special history, they are in no way related to other Finno-Ugric names of metals and are loans from Alanian *жzvestж (> Osset. жvzīst 'silver'), which can be dated to the second half of the I millennium BC — the first half of the I millennium AD. The names of tin / lead in the Permian and Mansi languages (Perm *os-veś ~ Mansi *ǟϑ-wes) are also etymologically unrelated to either the fictitious PU *waśke or the Permian-Hungarian name of silver, but represent a common innovation, where the second component is Proto-Perm *veś 'non-ferrous metal; metal decoration', and the first component is a color designation (? 'grey metal' cf. Hung. ősz 'gray-haired'). The composite emerged in the second half of the I millennium BC — I millennium AD, in the region from the middle and lower Kama region in the west to the southern Trans-Uralian taiga forests in the east. Probably, this innovation relates to the development of the Perm and West Siberian "animal style" phenomenon. The article also discusses some features of conducting discussions in modern Finno-Ugric studies.

The study examines the territorial organization of the Ural peoples and languages, reveals the features of the regional interaction and population dynamics, addresses the problems of the ancestral homeland and ethno genesis, the role of Finno-Ugrians in the history of Russia, highlights the acute issues of preserving languages and culture. The research focuses on some features in the development of the Uralic ethnic groups within the framework of the Russian civilization. It is alleged that the ethnic and political consolidation of most Finno-Ugric tribes was born in the bowels of the ancient Russian state and the first sprouts of the future unity of peoples were born, and their role in the powerful national-state construction that unfolded on the huge Eurasian territory of Russia in the period between 16th and 20th century is analyzed. The outcomes confirm that the Finno-Ugric peoples have always been an organic part of the Russian ethno-cultural mosaic. They actively participated in the strengthening of the state, mastered its vast natural wealth, and created the economic power of the country. Due to the fact that in Finno-Ugric, significant attention is paid to the problems of preserving languages and culture among Samoyed peoples, which cannot be called Finno-Ugric, we propose to use the term "Uralistics" more widely. This is a more accurate concept and can be used in the study of cultural processes among the peoples united in the Uralic language family.

Introduction -- The Islamic juridical field of Islamic central Asia (1785-1916) -- Native judges into colonial scapegoats -- The bureaucratization of land tenure -- Annulling charitable endowments -- Fatwas for Muslims, opinions for Russians -- Epilogue : the legacy: opportunities from colonialism