Christian Lübke, Ilmira Miftakhova, Wolfram Von Scheliha: Geschichte Der Slavia Asiatica. Quellenkundliche Probleme

Transcript

Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch  (Neue Folge) Vienna Slavic Yearbook (New Series) Vienna Slavic Yearbook New Series Edited by Stefan Michael Newerkla (Vienna) & Fedor B. Poljakov (Vienna) 3 · 2015 Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch Neue Folge Herausgegeben von Stefan Michael Newerkla (Wien) & Fedor B. Poljakov (Wien) 3 · 2015 Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden Herausgebergremium / Editorial Board Stefan Michael Newerkla (Wien), Fedor B. Poljakov (Wien) Juliane Besters-Dilger (Freiburg i. Br.), Michael Düring (Kiel), Lazar Fleishman (Stan­ford CA), Jasmina Grković-Major (Novi Sad), Robert Hodel (Hamburg), Anna Kretsch­mer (Wien), Heinz Miklas (Wien), Aleksandr M. Moldovan (Moskau), Ulrich Schmid (St. Gal­­len), Barbara Sonnenhauser (Zürich), Michael Wachtel (Prince­ton  NJ), Alois Wol­dan (Wien) Beratungsgremium / Advisory Board Anatolij A. Alekseev (St. Petersburg), Konstantin M. Azadovskij (St. Petersburg), Leonard H. Babby (Princeton NJ), Neil H. Bermel (Sheffield), Jan Ivar Bjørnflaten (Oslo), Nikolaj A. Bogomolov (Moskau), Jonathan Bolton (Cambridge MA), František Čermák (Prag), Dagmar S. Divjak (Sheffield), Hana Filip (Düsseldorf), Stanisław Gajda (Opole), Christian Hannick (Würzburg), Urs Heftrich (Heidelberg), Hubertus F. Jahn (Cambridge), Radoslav Katičić (Wien), Anna Sergeeva-Klyatis (Moskau), Gun-Brit Kohler (Oldenburg), Alexander Kulik (Jerusalem), Marek Łaziński (Warschau), Aleksandr V. Lavrov (St. Petersburg), Gail Lenhoff (Los Angeles CA), Aleksandar Loma (Belgrad), John E. Malmstad (Cambridge MA), Roland Marti (Saarbrücken), Marek Nekula (Regensburg), Gerhard Neweklowsky (Wien/Klagenfurt), Aleksandr L. Ospovat (Moskau), Kathleen Parthé (Rochester NY), Angela Richter (Halle a. d. Saale), Galin Tihanov (London), Svetlana M. Tolstaja (Moskau), Vera Tolz-Zilitinkevic (Manchester), Vittorio S. Tomelleri (Macerata), Tomas Venclova (New Haven CT), Josef Vintr (Wien), Ronald Vroon (Los Angeles CA), Andrew B. Wachtel (Chicago IL), Andrei L. Zorin (Oxford) Redaktionelle Mitarbeit / Editorial Assistance Daria Wilke (Wien) Sämtliche Korrespondenz mit der Redaktion und Einsendungen erbeten an / Please send enquiries and contributions to the Editorial Board to the following address: [email protected] http://slawistik.univie.ac.at/wiener-slavistisches-jahrbuch Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. Informationen zum Verlagsprogramm finden Sie unter http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2015 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Verviel­fältigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und für die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier Umschlag: Tatjana Beimler (Flomborn), Satz: Daria Wilke (Wien) Druck und Verarbeitung: Memminger MedienCentrum AG Printed in Germany ISSN 0084-0041 ISBN 978-3-447-10464-7 INHALT / CONTENTS Artikel / Articles ФРАНЧЕСКА РОМОЛИ (ПИЗА) «Trattato contra li astrologi» Джироламо Савонаролы и «Слово противу тщащихся звездозрением предрицати о будущих и о самовластии человеком» Максима Грека: Опыт сопоставительного анализа .................................................................... 1 MARIA GRAZIA BARTOLINI (MILANO) A linguistic analysis of the first and second redactions of H. S. Skovoroda’s dialogue Narkiss: from a local to a supernational perspective ............................ 18 BARBARA SONNENHAUSER (WIEN / ZÜRICH) Functionalising syntactic variance: declarative complementation with kako and če in 17th to 19th century Balkan Slavic ........................................ 41 MICHAŁ KRAJKOWSKI (TORUŃ) Chasing Europe. The diagnosis of backwardness in Polish writings on Galicia during the second half of the 19th century .......................................... 73 АЛЕКСАНДР КУЛИК (ИЕРУСАЛИМ) «Значение светло»: ключ к «Веницейской жизни» Осипа Мандельштама .................................... 103 GUN-BRITT KOHLER (OLDENBURG) Westbelarussische Literatur und belarussisches Literaturfeld (1921–1939). Versuch einer Standortbestimmung ..................................................................... 135 MARIOLA MAJNUSZ-STADNIK (OPOLE) – DENNIS SCHELLER-BOLTZ (INNSBRUCK) Polnische Neuphraseme als Spiegel gegenwärtiger Tendenzen in der polnischen Phraseologie – unter Einbeziehung des Deutschen ................. KLÁRA MÓRICZ (AMHERST MA) Don Giovanni’s Eucharist and the Decadent Aesthetics of Arthur Lourié .......... 177 197 WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) VI Inhalt Materialien und Editionen / Materials and Editions MАРИНА СОРОКИНА (МОСКВА) «Ложные равновесия»: из переписки С. Н. Трубецкого и В. И. Вернадского 1901–1905 г. ..................................................................... 229 GERTRAUD MARINELLI-KÖNIG (WIEN) Ein Corpus delicti: Die Urteilsschrift gegen Dr. Karl Kramář (Wien, 8. Juni 1916) .......................... НИКОЛАЙ Я. КУПРЕЯНОВ – ВЛАДИМИР НЕХОТИН (МОСКВА) Кот Бубера Николая Асеева и Николая Купреянова ...................................... ГАЛИНА ПОНОМАРЕВА (ТАЛЛИН) Редактор и издатель Павел Иртель в Эстонии (1921–1939) ........................... 259 262 277 БОРИС РАВДИН (РИГА) Предварительный список русских изданий, выходивших на оккупированных территориях СССР, в Германии и некоторых сопредельных европейских странах в 1941–1945 годах .......... ФЕДОР ПОЛЯКОВ (ВЕНА) Югославянские контакты Алексея Ремизова в 1920-е–1930-е годы ............. 292 348 Rezensionen / Book Reviews HENRYK JANKOWSKI (POZNAŃ) Christian Lübke, Ilmira Miftakhova, Wolfram von Scheliha, Geschichte der Slavia Asiatica. Quellenkundliche Probleme .............................. 363 SERGEI KAN (HANOVER NH) Michael Knüppel, Paraphernalia zu einer Biographie des Sibiristen, Anthropologen und Archäologen Vladimir Il’ič Iochel’son (1855–1937) ........... WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) 368 VII Inhalt CARMEN SIPPL (WIEN) Britta Korkowsky, Selbstverortung ohne Ort. Russisch-jüdische Exilliteratur aus dem Berlin der Zwanziger Jahre Karl Schlögel/Karl-Konrad Tschäpe (Hg.), Die Russische Revolution und das Schicksal der russischen Juden. Eine Debatte in Berlin 1922/23 Teffy alias Nadeshda Lochwizkaja, Champagner aus Teetassen. Meine letzten Tage in Russland ........................................................................... 374 GERTRAUD MARINELLI-KÖNIG (WIEN) Владимир Колязин, Мейерхольд, Таиров и Германия. Пискатор, Брехт и Россия. Очерки истoрии русско-немецких художественных связей .................................................................................... 377 BARBARA SONNENHAUSER (WIEN / ZÜRICH) Kožma Ahačič, The history of linguistic thought and language use in 16th century Slovenia ........................................................... 381 Chronik / Chronicle JAMES E. LAVINE (LEWISBURG, PA) A Tribute to Leonard H. Babby on the occasion of his 75th birthday .................. 386 ОЛЬГА ЛЕБЕДЕВА – АЛЕКСАНДР ЯНУШКЕВИЧ (ТОМСК) Петер Тирген: немецкий русист с русской точки зрения (к 75-летию со дня рождения) ..... 389 ФЕДОР ПОЛЯКОВ (ВЕНА) – ГРИГОРИЙ УТГОФ (ТАЛЛИН) Таллинская конференция о знаках и символах русской диаспоры ........................................................... 400 WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) VIII Inhalt НИНА СЕГАЛ-РУДНИК (ИЕРУСАЛИМ) Иерусалимская конференция памяти И. З. Сермана ....................................... МОНИКА СПИВАК – МИХАИЛ ОДЕССКИЙ (МОСКВА) Памяти Александра Юрьевича Галушкина ...................................................... ADAM BŽOCH (BRATISLAVA) Pavol Winczer in memoriam ................................................................................ WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) 407 409 413 REZENSIONEN / BOOK REVIEWS CHRISTIAN LÜBKE, ILMIR A MIFTAKHOVA, WOLFR AM VON SCHELIHA (eds.), Geschichte der Slavia Asiatica. Quellenkundliche Probleme. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2014. 260 pages This volume, which is the outcome of a research project financed by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), contains the following contributions: an introductory chapter “Die Slavia Asiatica als Forschungsproblem. Einführung” by Wolfram von Scheliha (p. 9–36), Jurij V. Zelenskij’s “Die Beziehungen der Rus’ zu den Kiptchaken” (p. 37–49), Yulia Mikhailova’s “«Christians and Pagans» in the Chronicles of the Pre-Mongolian Rus. Beyond the Dichotomy of «Good Us» and «Bad Them»” (p. 50–79), Pavel V. Lukin’s “Data on Nomads in Old Rus’ian Chronicles (10th–13th centuries)” (p. 80–87), Wolfram von Scheliha’s “Nicht-chronikalische Schriftquellen der Rus’ zur Geschichte der Slavia Asiatica im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert” (p. 88–147), Ilmira Miftakhova’s “Quellen zu den tatarisch-litauischen Beziehungen im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert” (p. 148–162), Sebastian Kolditz’s “Petschenegen – Kiptchaken – Tataren. Beobachtungen zu griechieschen und polnischen Quellenschriften für die Geschichte der Slavia Asiatica” (p. 163–198), Andrej Shabasov’s “Die Erforschung turksprachiger Lehnwörter im Altostslavischen in der postsowjetischen Turkologie” (p. 199–210), Sergej Gizer’s “Die archäologische Erforschung der mittelalterlichen Nomaden im nordwestlichen Schwarzmeergebiet” (p. 211–226), and Nijaz Ch. Chalitov and Nailja N. Chalitova’s “Der doppelköpfige Adler in der islamischen und in der turko-tatarischen Kunst des Mittelalters” (p. 227–237). Zelinskij’s, Gizer’s and the Chalitovs’ papers were translated into German from Russian by Wolfram von Scheliha and Shabasov’s paper by Wolfram von Scheliha and Ilmira Miftakhova. The book also contains a foreword with the note on transliteration and acknowledgements (p. 7), a map showing the area of contacts of the Rus’ with the people of Desht-i Kipchak (p. 238), a list of the contributors to the volume (p. 239–240) and an index (p. 241–260). Most contributions are papers on the history of East Slavic–Turco-Mongolian relations, one on archaeology, one on loanwords, and one on the arts, all being related to the same geographical and cultural area defined as Slavia Asiatica. The book is well edited and its attempt to achieve uniformity in style should be assessed as successful. Despite this I have some general remarks. Firstly, the schematic map does not show archaeological discoveries dealt with in Gizer’s article. Secondly, although transliteration is always a convention, the use of the form Qīpčaq is misleading, since it suggests long /i:/ and not back /ɯ/. The variant Ulus Coči of Ulus J ̌uči is strange, for it applies two symbols of different systems, c for /ʤ/ is a transliteration based on Turkish, while č is a sign employed in the international Turkological and Mongolistic transliteration. By the way, the form Ulus J ̌uči (p. 7) is the modern Russian name which should be transliterated Ulus Džuči, the old Russian name of the post-Ginghisid J u ̌ či’s state being Džučiev ulus, while its own name was Uluġ Orda, Uluġ Ulus or WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) 364 Rezensionen Uluġ Yurt. Lastly, if “Petschenegen” are rendered as “türk. Peçenekler”, “Kiptchaken” should be matched with “türk. Kıpçaklar”, not “türk. Kipçak” (more exactly “Kıpçak”). The first introductory article “Slavia Asiatica as research problem. An introduction” by Wolfram von Scheliha explains the scope and purpose of the book as well as the denotation of Slavia Asiatica as an entity between Europe and Asia which encompasses the old Ruthenia (the Rus’) and East Europe, a zone of intensive contacts between sedentary and nomadic peoples, though he realises that this concept is debatable. The author rejects the outdated opinions of some researchers, for example represented by Spuler, who contrasted these peoples as civilised and uncivilised (p. 10). An important difference between West and East Europe was Slavic–Turkic– Asian context and Christian orthodoxy (p. 12). The article outlines various views of Russian and Ukrainian historians on the nomads, their relationship to Ruthenia and the process of Russian state building. The author stresses that in contrast to earlier Russian historians, who denied any Turko-Mongolian role in the creation of the Russian state, later authors acknowledged the role of the Khazar state in this process. Some opinions on this question were affected by official politics that usually attributed a negative impact to the Khazars. At the same time, von Scheliha discusses the emergence of Eurasianist trend, popular among the Russian emigration. He says that after dissolution of the Soviet Union the Russian Tatars started openly pronouncing positive aspects of steppe civilisation and the Golden Horde (p. 21). He stresses the negative meaning of the Turkic word orda (we have to note that the usual form was orda, not ordu) ‘khan’s quarters; palace’, which it acquired in the West, being known as horde (p. 24). However, the Russian historiography also showed steppe peoples in a negative picture in spite of the fact that they contributed to the development of Russian culture, as it is evident from many Turkic loanwords in Russian. In his article “The relationship of the Rus’ to the Kipchaks”, Jurij V. Zelenskij discusses the Ruthenian–Kipchak relations starting from the appearance of the Kipchaks in the borderland with Ruthenia in 1055. There is little new in this article. However, since the basis of Zelenskij’s findings are predominantly recent Russian studies, this contribution is informative in this respect and useful for the reader in the West. The author says that while the 11th century is characterised by the Kipchak attacks against the Rus’, the next century evidences the shift of the military initiative towards the Rus’ (p. 41). The Rus’ proved victorious in the campaigns which ceased at the end of the 12th century. Zelenskij stresses that the Kipchaks also participated in the battles between individual Rus’ian princes. As is known, the importance of the Kipchak factor comes to an end with the Mongol victory in 1223. The next paper “«Christians and Pagans» in the Chronicles of the Pre-Mongolian Rus. Beyond the Dichotomy of «Good Us» and «Bad Them»” by Yulia Mikhailova discusses Russian representations of steppe nomads in the Rus’ian chronicles. The author demonstrates that the representations were multifaceted, not always clearly negative. She says that in southern Rus’ian chronicles, composed by the chroniclers who knew the nomads, the dichotomy “good Christians” and “bad pagans” was never used (p. 52), though the Bulgars were depicted more negatively for being Muslims. Moreover, she writes that some Slavic tribes, e.g. Derevlians, were depicted worse than the Cumans (p. 57). Therefore, the southern chroniclers did not attribute to the WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) Rezensionen 365 Cumans features worse than to the others. Neither was nomadic life style deprecated in the chronicles. In contrast, the chronicles written in the north of the Rus’ where the nomads were not directly known depreciated the Cumans more sharply. In his article “Data on Nomads in Old Rus’ian Chronicles (10th–13th centuries)”, Pavel V. Lukin points to some gaps and contradictions in Old Rus’ian chronicles as well as interpretation problems (p. 81). The author reminds the reader that the first Rus’ian chronicles are from the 13th century, but some earlier lost chronicles have been identified in later compilations. This fact raises the question of reliability of some later chronicles which give account of earlier events. Another problem is relating to chronology. As Lukin argues, some chronicles report on events according to different chronologies and different chronologies often occur in chronicles compiled from various earlier sources (p. 85). Some problems of this kind have not been solved yet, for instance the problem of dating events in the Primary Chronicle, particularly important for the study on the Cumans (p. 86). The language of this article is far from being perfect and some sentences are difficult to understand, e.g. “[...] the event should be included into the register under the year 968, and the earlier, incorrect, and by an author of the chronicle fabricated date should be mentioned shortly in the commentary” (p. 84). The abbreviations employed are not resolved, e.g. PSRL (Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej), which is a difficulty for those readers who are not familiar with Russian historiography. Wolfram von Scheliha’s second, long article “Sources on the Rus’ other than chronicles for the history of Slavia Asiatica in the 13th and the 14th centuries” is a masterpiece of an in-depth historical analysis, relevant for Slavia Asiatica. According to the author, the earliest sources of this kind stem from the 13th–14th centuries, though many of them survived in later copies. Von Scheliha concentrates on three groups of sources: (1) the instructions of Bishop Serapion of Vladimir, the earliest dating to 1258, (2) documents related to the argument over the borders of the eparchy in Sarai, and (3) document no 3 from an archaeological site in Moscow on birch bark. Analysing Serapion’s instructions, von Scheliha reconstructs Serapion’s view on the Mongols and the policy adopted towards them. As for the details of the dispute over the borders of the Sarai eparchy with Riazan’, we learn that it concerned the territory of Chervlenyi Yar and Velikaia Vorona, two regions not fully yet identified (p. 110). The author who painstakingly studied the local events comes to a conclusion that at least in some territories the Rus’ and the Turko-Mongolian population coexisted peacefully (p. 125). The third document was discovered in the Taynitskii Garden of the Moscow Kremlin in 2007. It is a list of goods and belongings of Turabey (p. 128), i.e. a Tatar, which mentions four other Tatar men, Bayram, Ahmed, Ontaš and Ǧalayïr as well as a witness called Elbuga (p. 134). The author demonstrates the existence of a few place names called Turabeiovo in North Russia, which evidences close Tatar–Russian contacts in this part of Russia. Furthermore, von Scheliha refers to the debate on a possible existence of a Tatar quarter within the Moscow Kremlin. The next article by Ilmira Miftakhova “Sources for the study on Tatar–Lithuanian relations in the 14th and 15th centuries” presents extant sources available or known for research. My general remark to Miftakhova’s article is that she ignores most impor- WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) 366 Rezensionen tant, recent studies on this topic, first of all Kołodziejczyk’s monograph.1 She discusses five yarlyks sent by Crimean khans to Lithuanian dukes and Polish kings of 1461, 1466, 1472, 1507 and 1514. She says that the yarlyks of 1461 and 1472 were edited by Gołębiowski in his book of 1848, but does not refer to other editions, e.g. Barvins’kyi in the Ukraine. The yarlyq of 1466 (in fact 1467) was published by Sokołowski and Szujski in 1876, and all five were critically edited by Kołodziejczyk (2011: 529–623). We should add that only one of them was preserved in the original version. The first and the third documents are available in Polish translations, the second in Latin, while the fourth survived in three copies in Ruthenian and Polish transcriptions. As for the fifth yarlyk of 1515, we see from Kołodziejczyk (2011: 612–623) that there are in fact two documents, one dated 29 October 1514, the original missing, preserved in a Ruthenian copy, the other dated 29 November 1514 in Italian (for more details see Zajcev 2009: 18–19), being the only preserved document of those discussed above. Another remark concerns Tokhtamysh’s famous yarlyk of 1393 which the author says was written “auf Türkisch” (p. 150). The language of this document is not Turkish, but 14th-century Turkic used in the Golden Horde. In addition to this kind of documents, Miftakhova quotes interesting details from Peçevi’s history and Risale-i Tatar-ı Leh ‘the treatise on the Polish Tatars’ (1558), edited by Muchliński.2 At this point, one statement should be corrected. The author, quoting from the treatise, claims that the Tatars were “vor allem Händler und Handwerker gewesen” (p. 160–161), while Muchliński writes “kupiectwem zaś czyli przedażą towarów nikt się nie bawi” i.e. ‘nobody deals with commerce or selling goods’. Muchliński in his translation of the 1558 document only said that the Tatars had dealt with horse selling and coaching” (Muchliński 1858: 263 (23)). Lastly, one should expect a comment on the number of 200,000 Tatars, provided in the treatise as allegedly living in Poland-Lithuania (p. 161). The researchers agree that this number is exaggerated (e.g. Kryczyński 1938: 23).3 Miftakhova’s observation on the relationship of the Crimean khans to PolandLithuania as an alliance against their rivals in the Horde and the Rus’ is naturally correct (p. 157), what was corroborated by many analysts. In his paper “Pechenegs – Kipchaks – Tatars. Observations on Greek and Polish sources for the history of Slavia Asiatica”, Sebastian Kolditz makes some interesting notes on the character and contents of Byzantine and Polish sources. For instance, he says that in addition to Moravcsik’s “Byzantinoturcica” now we have Bibikov’s “Byzantinorossica” with such historians as Leon Diakonos and Ioannes Skylitses. In 1 Dariusz Kołodziejczyk, The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania. International diplomacy on the European periphery (15th–18th century). A study of peace treaties followed by annotated documents. Leiden-Boston 2011. Another helpful study, especially the chapter “Kanceljarskie tradicii” (p. 18–22) is I. V. Zajcev, 2011. Krymskaja istoriografičeskaja tradicija XV–XIX vekov. Puti razvitija. Rukopisi, teksty i istočniki. Moskva 2009, while for a good outline of the documents issued by the chancery of the Golden Horde, one can look up Vásáry István, Az Arany Horda kancelláriája. Budapest 1987. 2 Antoni Muchliński, Zdanie sprawy o Tatarach litewskich, Teka Wileńska 4, 1858, 241–272; 5, 121–179; 6, 139–183. 3 Stanisław Kryczyński, Tatarzy litewscy. Próba monografii historyczno-etnograficznej, Rocznik Tatarski 3 (1938), XVI + 1–318. WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) Rezensionen 367 his view these two groups of sources have some similarities, such as antiquing anachronisms, factual irrelevance and problems with dating (p. 165). Naturally the opinions of Byzantine authors differed from the Rus’ian ones because of different political interest. For example, while the latter regarded the Pechenegs as their sworn foes, the former tried to employ them for their purposes (p. 171). In the second part of the article the author examines Polish sources. He carefully studies the chronicle by Gallus Anonymus that gives account of Bolesław Chrobry’s campaign against Kiev in 1018. Then he looks for Kipchak traces in mediaeval Poland, e.g. the supposed participation of Kipchak soldiers in Bolesław Krzywousty’s campaign against Heinrich V, King of Germany and Holy German Emperor in 1109 (p. 185). Kolditz stresses that the accounts of later events from the 13th century on the Polish relations with the invading Tatars are more exact and detailed. The author says in conclusion that the Byzantine and Polish chronicles only complement the annual Rus’ian registers at some points, but in this way they add new information and are important. Kolditz’s article is written with erudition, exactness and provides serious analysis. In the subsequent article “The study on Turkic loanwords in Old East Slavic in post-Soviet Turkology”, Andrej Shabasov argues that the examination of Turkic loanwords in Russian was a matter of ideological controversy between the adherents of Eurasianist school and the Westerners. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the study in the new post-Soviet independent states such as the Ukraine and Kazakhstan gained a new dimension. Along with positive aspects like bringing a wide perspective to research, there appeared negative signs like ideologization (p. 201). Another negative aspect is lack of information what is going on in other countries and lack of access to publications printed in many centres, but not distributed properly. According to the author, even within one country, e.g. the Ukraine, the centres such as those in Kiev and Odessa do not inform each other and do not coordinate research (p. 202). In the further part of the article, the author focuses on the study on The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, but he mostly refers to Russian and Ukrainian publications and ignores Western studies, e.g. Menges’s original English publication The oriental elements in the vocabulary of the oldest Russian epos, the Igor’ Tale and Pritsak’s English publications. Sergej Gizer’s article “Archaeological discoveries on the mediaeval nomads in the north-western coast of the Black Sea” examines archaeological excavations in this area of the Black Sea coast dated to the time of the Golden Horde. Gizer discusses discoveries in some graveyards (p. 214–215), showing the problems of their ethnic attribution, especially if one has in mind only historical facts. As he argues by referring to some earlier studies, nomadic people who migrated in that area often changed place and were composed of multi-ethnic groups, which makes exact attribution to the ethnic group difficult. The author highly evaluates Fedorov-Davydov’s views (p. 218) who established four ethnic groups. However, Gizer’s etymology of the Tyligul’s’kyi and the Kujal’nyc’kyi (p. 212) are doubtful. The amending of the former hydronym to Deli Göl, a Turkish name in this region, is hardly acceptable. The last article by Nijaz Ch. Chalitov and Nailja N. Chalitova “Two headed eagle in the Islamic and Turkic art in the Middle Ages” explores the representations of the two headed eagle in the Turkic world in both the context of Islam and pre-Islamic WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015) 368 Rezensionen time. The authors admit that fantastic creatures are commonplace in the art. The Chalitovs are naturally aware that the two headed eagle can be found not only on Turkic artefacts, but in many other cultures as well, to start with the land of Hittites from where it spread throughout the whole Ancient Near East. The Turkic representation is in the view of the authors also quite old and goes back to Danube Bulgar art, Buddhist Central Asia, but is also present among the Pechengs and especially the Seljuks (p. 228). This symbol spread as far as the Volga region to the north, being adopted by Finno-Ugric peoples and later by the Volga Tatars, but it is also wellknown on the 14th-century coins in the Golden Horde. The authors distinguish four types of the two headed eagle according to the degree of stylisation. In conclusion I may say that the volume reviewed here is a very useful reading for everyone interested in the relations between the Eastern Slavs in East Europe and the Turkic peoples and the Mongols who came to this part of Europe from Asia. The level of contributions is differentiated what I tried to show above. A difference between the colleagues from Germany and the contributors from Russia is also evident on their shelves: while the former employ both Western and Eastern sources and studies, the latter principally limit themselves to the publications from Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia, using rather few publications from the West. 4 Poznań Henryk Jankowski MICHAEL KNÜPPEL, Paraphernalia zu einer Biographie des Sibiristen, Anthropologen und Archäologen Vladimir Il’ič Iochel’son (1855–1937). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013 (Tunguso-Sibirica, Band 35). 149 pp. The author of the book under review has quite accurately entitled it “Materials Towards a Biography of Vladimir Il’ič Iochel’son”. His publication does indeed contain a great deal of useful information on the life and especially academic work of the third member of the famous “troika" of Russian ethnographers, which also included Vladimir Germanovič Bogoraz (1865–1936) and Lev Iakovlevič Shternberg (1861– 1927). The three of them had a lot in common. All were Russian Jews born roughly about the same time, with Iochel’son being older than Shternberg and especially Bogoraz. All three received religious education but chose to leave their communities of birth to pursue secular Russian education; all of them also became involved in radical anti-government activities as members of the revolutionary populist People’s Will (Народная Воля) party. Having been arrested in the late 1880s and exiled to Eastern Siberia (in the case of Iochel’son and Bogoraz) and the island of Sakhalin in 4 There are also some important publications in Russian that have not been used and which could be useful for some articles, e.g. Mirkasym Usmanov and Rafaėl Hakimov (eds), Istoria tatar s drevnih vremen v semi tomah. Tom III. Ulus Džuči (Zolotaja Orda). XIII – seredina XV vv. Kazan’: Institut istorii im. Š. Mardžani 2009, e.g. the chapter “Vojny na zapade. Pol ’ša i Litva” (p. 518–529) by Iskander Izmajlov. WSlJb N.F. 3 (2015)