ETHNOGENESIS AND THE CHUVASH LANGUAGE AS PER N. YA. MARR
DOI: 10.23951/2307-6119-2021-2-151-160
In the 19th century, the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) continued the traditions of the study of the history, ethnography, and languages of the peoples living in the country. Ernst-Eduard Kunik, V. V. Radlov, N. Ya. Bichurin, N. I. Ilminsky, and August Ahlqvist were among the RAS members who took active part in this honorable initiative. In the 19th–20th centuries, a person standing out from the rest of them is N. Ya. Marr who was ambiguously assessed in science, from raising to incredible height to bringing down to zero. Marr managed to become one of the scientific leaders of St. Petersburg: V. V. Radlov, V. A. Zhukovsky, S. F. Oldenburg, V. V. Bartold, I. Yu. Krachkovsky and others were his intimate friends and relatives. An attempt to make an objective assessment of the works and identity of Nikolay Yakovlevich Marr. Marr’s works on the ethnogenesis and language of the Chuvash people are specified as the main subjects. Always focused on enrolment of the audience, Marr found a welcome audience among the young people and the government of Chuvashia. He started to work with post-graduates in the philological discipline, he and his employees were invited to take part in expeditions, deliver lectures, and study the museums. His works were published willingly in Cheboksary. Marr quickly managed to assure that the Chuvash were Japhetides which came from Mesopotamia. And his contemporaries promoted the assurance of the master’s ideas and even “extended” the thrown vision. However it is worth emphasizing that Marr never followed out the ethnogenesis ideas. He only dealt with ethnoglottochronology. Nevertheless, his vision is sometimes suggestive. For example, an explanation of the Chuvash ethnonym, the indirect indication of the fact that the historical ancestors came from the Caucasus, and the theory of dialects where unstressed “u” and “o” are pronounced. The negative thing in his works and speeches is the denial of ethnicity, and the illfated theory of four elements in the word semantics search. In many cases one has to agree with those who criticize Marr that he surrounded himself with great numbers of disciples, for the most of whom the Jathetide theory was above all else. Marr’s followers did severe damage to science. They used their positions to strike a blow against their personal enemies: at first they said that the “ethnos” term was difficult to prove and then gave preference to the same. However, this is familiar picture also in today's life.
Keywords: N. Ya. Marr, Chuvash, ethnogenesis, language, disciples
References:
Abayev V. I. N. Ya. Marr (1864-1934): K 25-letiyu so dnya smerti [N. Ya. Marr (1864–1934): To the 25th anniversary of his death] // Voprosy yazykoznaniya. 1960. 1. S. 90–99.
Alpatov V. M. Istoriya odnogo mifa: Marr i marrizm [The history of one myth: Marr and marrism]. M.: URSS, 2004. 288 s.
Arakin V. D. Oshybki v rabotakh N. Ya. Marra po chuvashskomu yazyku [Mistakes in N. Ya. Marr’s works on the Chuvash language] // Zapiski NIIYaLI pri SM ChASSR. Vyp. VIII. Cheboksary: Chuvash. gos. izd-vo, 1953. S. 35–62.
Bertran Frederik. Nauka bez ob‘yekta? Sovetskaya etnografiya 1920–1930-kh gg. i voprosy etnicheskoi kategorizatsii [Science without a subject? Soviet ethnography of 1920–1930s and the issues of ethnic categorization] // Zhurnal sotsiologhii i sotsial‘noi antropologhii. 2003. ¹ 3. S. 90–104.
Bleichsteiner Robert. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der elamischen Sprache // Antropos. XXIII. 1–2. 1928. S. 157–198.
Dimitriyev V. D. Naseleniye Chuvashskogo Povolzh‘ya v sostave Bulgarskogo gosudarstva (X — nachalo XIII vekov) [Population of the Chuvash Volga Region as part of the Bulgar State (the 10th — early 13th centuries)] // Istoriya Chuvashskoi ASSR s drevneishykh vremen do nashykh dnei (kratkiye ocherki). Kn. 1 (dorevolyutsionnyi period). Cheboksary: NIIYaLIE, 1962. S. 23–33.
Fedotov M. R. Etimologhicheskii slovar‘ chuvashskogo yazyka [Etymology dictionary of the Chuvash language]. T. II. Cheboksary: ChGhIGN, 1996. 511 s.
Marr N. Otchet o lingvisticheskoi poyezdke k volkamskim narodam [Report on the linguistic trip to the Volga-Kama peoples] // Izvestiya Akademii nauk SSSR. VI seriya. T. 20, vyp. 18. 1926. P. 1825–1832.
Marr N. Ya. Izbrannyye raboty [Selected texts]. T. 1. M.; L.: GAIMK, 1933. XXXVIII, 399 s.
Marr N. Ya. Izbrannyye raboty [Selected texts]. T. V. M.; L.: Gos. sots.-ekon. izd-vo, 1935. XXI, 668 s.
Menges Karl H. Nikolaj Nikolajevič Poppe: 8.VIII.1897 — 8.VI.1991 // Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. Internationale Zeit-schrift für uralische und altaische Forschung. N. S. T. 12. Wiesbaden, 1993. S. 5–16.
Németh Gyula. A honfoglalό magyarság kialakulása. Közzéteszi Berta Árpád. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadό, 1991. 399 p.
Passek T. S. Krug chuvashskikh prazdnikov [Circle of Chuvash festivals] //Akademiya nauk SSSR: XLV. Akademiku N.Ya. Marru. M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1935: 527–541.
Passek T. S., Latynin B. A. Analiz chuvashskogo mifa o proiskhozhdenii Keremeti [Analysis of the Chuvash myth on the origin of Keremet] // Yafeticheskii sbornik. VI. L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1930a. S. 46–50.
Passek T. S., Latynin B. A. Zametki po Privolzh‘yu [Notes on the Volga Region] // Yafeticheskii sbornik. VI. L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1930. S. 13–17.
Passek Tatiana et Latynine B. A. Sur la question des „Kamennye baby“ (Les “Yoba” Tchovaches) // Eurasia septentrionalis antiqua: Journal for East European and Noth-Asiatic archeology and ethnography. IV. Helsinki, 1929. P. 290–311.
Poppe Nicholas. Introduction to Altaic linguistics. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1965. XIV, 212 p.
Ptolemaei Claudii Geographia. T. I. Lipsiae: Simptibus et typis Caroli Tauchnitii, 1843. XXIV, 284 p.
Salmin A. K. Saviry, bulgary i tyurko-mongoly v istorii chuvashei [Savirs, Bulgars and Turko-Mongols in the history of the Chuvash]. SPb.: Nestor-Istoriya, 2019. 296 s.
Serebrennikov B. A. Proiskhozhdeniye chuvash po dannym yazyka [Origin of the Chuvash according to the language data] // O proiskhozhdenii chuvashskogo naroda. Cheboksary: Chuvashghiz, 1957. S. 28–47.
Serio Patrik. Naskol‘ko revolyutsionnym bylo “Novoye ucheniye o yazyke” N. Ya. Marra? [How revolutionary was N. Ya Marr’s “New theory of language”?] // Russkaya intellektual‘naya revolyutsiya 1910–1930-kh godov. M.: Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye, 2016. S. 140–147.
Sidorchuk Ilya. Paper Tiger — Hidden Dragon: N. Ya. Marr, Marrism and Pseudoscience for politicak Doctrine // 18th PCSF — Professional Culture of the Specialist of the Future. 03–04 December 2018. Edited by Prof. Valeria Chernyavskaya, Prof. Holger Kufie. Published by the Future Academy (UK), 2018: 180–190.
SPbF ARAN. F. 77. Op. 3. D. 24: 22 — Radlov V. V. Vypiski iz zasedanii Istoriko-filologhicheskogo otdeleniya Akademii nauk i ofitsial‘nyye pis‘ma po voprosam, svyazannym s yego deyatel‘nost‘yu v muzeye [Extracts from the meetings of the Historical and Philological Department of the Academy of Sciences and official letters on issues related to its activities in the museum]. 1885–1917 gg. 61 l.
Uyama Tomokhiko. Ot "bulgarizma" cherez "marrizm" k natsional‘nym mifam: diskursy o tatarskom, chuvashskom i bashkirskom etnogheneze [From “bulgarism” through “marrism” to national myths: discourses on Tatar, Chuvash, and Bashkir ethnogenesis] // Novaya volna v izuchenii etnopoliticheskoi istorii Volgo-Ural‘skogo reghiona. Sapporo: Tsentr slavyanskikh issledovanii, 2003. S. 16–51.
Yegorov V. G. Protiv izvrashchenii N. Ya. Marra v oblasti izucheniya chuvashskogo yazyka [Against N. Ya. Marr’s distortions in the sphere of the study of the Chuvash language] // Zapiski NIIYaLI pri SM ChASSR. Vyp. VIII. Cheboksary: Chuvash. gos. izd-vo, 1953. S. 63–80.
Zveghintsev V. A. Kritika semanticheskikh zakonov N. Ya. Marra [Criticism of N. Ya. Marr’s semantic laws] // Protiv vul‘garizatsii i izvrashcheniya marksizma v yazykoznanii. Ch. I. M.: AN SSSR, 1951. S. 151–169.
( 896.47 kB ) 
( 826.57 kB )
Issue: 2, 2021
Series of issue: Выпуск № 2
Rubric: ANTHROPOLOGY
Pages: 151 — 160
Downloads: 504