Winter 2014/2015
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Retrospective Methods Network Newsletter Winter 2014/2015 № 9 Edited by Frog Helen F. Leslie-Jacobsen and Joseph S. Hopkins Published by Folklore Studies / Dept. of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies University of Helsinki, Helsinki 1 Ralston, William Ralston Shedden. 1873. Russian Tradition. Ed. Frog, Anna-Leena Siikala & Eila Folk-Tales. London: Smith, Elder and Co. Stepanova. Studia Fennica Folkloristica 20. Rangel, T.F., et al. 2010. “SAM: A Comprehensive Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Pp. 82–119. Application for Spatial Analysis in Macroecology”. Uther, Hans-Jörg. 2004. The Types of International Ecography 33: 46–50. Folktales: A Classification and Bibliography, Richter, Fr von. 1889. “Litauische Marchen: Der Based on the System of Antti Aarne and Stith einaugige Riese”. Zeitschrift fur Volkskunde 1: 87– Thompson: Tales of the Stupid Ogre, Anecdotes and 93. Jokes, and Formula Tables. Helsinki: Suomalainen Rohrich, L. 1976. Sage und Märchen: Erzählforschung Tiedeakatemia. heute. Freiburg: Herder. Venditti, Chris et al. 2006. “Detecting the Nodedensity Ronquist, F., & J.P. Huelsenbeck. 2003. “MRBAYES Artifact in Phylogeny Reconstruction”. Systematic 3: Bayesian Phylogenetic Mixed Models”. biology 55(4): 637–643. Bioinformatics 19: 1572–1574. Vialou, Denis. 1987. L’Art des Cavernes: Les Ross, R.M., et al. 2013. “Population Structure and Sanctuaires de la Préhistoire. Paris: Le Rocher. Cultural Geography of a Folktale in Europe”. Vinson, Julien. 1883. Le folk-lore du pays basque. Les Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological littératures populaires de toutes les nations 15. Sciences 280: 1756. Paris: Maisonneuve. Simms, Stephen Chapman. 1903. “Traditions of the Wagner, Peter J., & Douglas H. Erwin. 1995. Crow”. Field Columbian Museum, Publication 85. “Phylogenetic Patterns as Tests of Speciation Anthropological Series 2.6. Chicago: Field Models”. In New Approaches to Studying Columbian Museum. Pp. 281–324. Speciation in the Fossil Record. Ed. D.H. Erwin & Spence, Lewis. 1914. The Myths of the North American R.L. Anstey. New York: Columbia University Indian. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. Press. Pp. 87–122 won Stephanowissel, Karadschitsch, with W. Tochter. Webster, Andrea J., Robert Payne & Mark Pagel. 2003. 1854. Volksmarchen der Serben. Berlin. “Molecular Phylogenies Link Rates of Evolution von Stier, Gaals Georg. 1857. Ungarische and Speciation”. Science 301: 478. Volksmarchen. Pesth: Heckenast. Webster Wentworth. 1879. Basque Legends: Collected, von Sydow, Carl Wilhelm. 1948 [1965]. “Folktale Chiefly in the Labourland. London: Griffith & Studies and Philology: Some Points of View”. In Farran. The Study of Folklore. Ed. A. Dundes. Englewood Wichmann, S., et al. 2011. “Correlates of Reticulation Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Pp. 219–242. in Linguistic Phylogenies”. Language Dynamics von Sydow, Carl Wilhelm. 1927. “Folksagor- and Change 1: 205–240. forskningen”. Folkminnen och Folktankar 14: 105– Wissler, Clark, & D.C. Duvall. 1908. Mythology of the 137. Blackfoot Indians. Anthropological Papers of the Tehrani Jamshid J. 2013. “The Phylogeny of Little Red American Museum of Natural History 2.1. New Riding Hood”. PLoS ONE 8.11: e78871. York: American Museum of Natural History. Thompson, Stith. 1961. The Types of the Folktale: A Classification and Bibliography: Antti Aarne’s Internet Sites Verzeichnis der Märchentypen Translated and Glottolog. http://glottolog.org/. Enlarged. 2nd rev. edn. FF Communications 3. WALS = World Atlas of Language Structures. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. http://wals.info/. Tolley, Clive. 2012. “On the Trail of Þórr’s Goats”. In Mythic Discourses: Finno-Ugrian Studies in Oral De situ linguarum fennicarum aetatis ferreae, Pars I Frog and Janne Saarikivi, University of Helsinki Abstract: This article is the first part of a series that employs a descendant historical reconstruction methodology to reverse-engineer areas where Finnic languages were spoken especially during the Iron Age (500 BC – AD 1150/1300). This opening article of the series presents a heuristic cartographic model of estimated locations of groups speaking Finnic languages and their neighbours in ca. AD 1000. The aim of this article is to provide the first of Finnic, Proto-Sámi, Proto-Mordvin, etc.). For three maps of the Uralic-speaking peoples in reasons of length, the aim of providing three Northwest Europe in three approximated different maps which involve different periods: ca. AD 1000, AD 1 and a map materials and present different issues has indicating the linguistic Urheimats of required presenting the investigation as a reconstructed intermediate proto-languages series. The present article is only the first part within the Uralic language family (Proto- 64 of this work and it focuses on the first map for the status quo in current research and for the the period ca. AD 1000. purposes of future discussion. Articles of the The goal of presenting maps for these three present series are especially important owing periods developed as a satellite of the Viking to fundamental changes in understanding of Age in Finland (VAF) project. The VAF set the history of West Uralic languages across out to examine cultures and historical changes roughly the past decade. during the Viking Age in territories of Finland This investigation employs the methodology and Karelia1 as well as the discourse of descendant historical reconstruction. Focus surrounding them as viewed from the here is on the spread of languages as an inter- perspectives of different disciplines (see generationally transmitted dynamic and Ahola et al. 2014b). Written sources with evolving social and historical phenomenon, detailed information about groups inhabiting not on the specific features of lexicon or these areas in general significantly post-date linguistic structures. Modelling language the Viking Age. Each discipline is thus distribution and change across the Iron Age heavily reliant on findings of other disciplines has highlighted the need for a developed when developing a perspective on culture discussion and presentation of the formations in that period, and they generally methodology applied here. As the issues of frame the Viking Age in relation to preceding methodology are dependent on the empirical and subsequent periods. In the VAF project, it evidence as a frame of reference for rapidly became clear that maps could provide discussion, it was decided that the outcomes a significant tool in negotiating the of the study should be presented first. perspectives of different disciplines, Therefore the methodological framework will especially when seeking to relate data in the only be briefly outlined here along with archaeological record, which can be introductions to relevant terms and concepts pinpointed in cartographic space on an with a concentrated presentation discussed in absolute chronology, with intangible cultural relation to the model of all three maps to phenomena such as language, folklore and follow in a later issue of this journal. cultural semiotics, of which a chronology and The presentation offered here opens with geographical spread can only be reconstructed some general remarks about language and through later evidence. Suitable maps were culture along with an outline of lacking and the present work has set out to fill methodological points and issues. The body that need, especially for Finnic language areas of the article introduces the groups indicated during the Iron Age. on Map 2 (e.g. F13: Satakunta) with The multidisciplinary impetus and comments on sources, points about language methodological concerns led the authors to and other distinctive details, and also remarks combine a wide range of information so that on etymologies of names in those cases where the first map presented here concentrates on these are possible to establish with a cultural areas of speech communities and their reasonable degree of certainty. In organizing networks rather than seeking to outline dialect this information, it was decided to present areas per se. This map concentrates on first those groups and cultures neighbouring historically attested groups that can be the Finnic peoples to reduce repetition. identified with Finnic speakers as well as Introductions to Germanic and Slavic groups neighbouring groups relevant to contextual- in particular provide frames of reference for izing them. The resulting image offers an subsequent groups. Additional probable impression of the language situation in Uralic groups speaking non-Finnic languages Northeast Europe in roughly the Viking Age will be presented following the Finnic groups. in the light of scarce evidence that is often Ethnonyms and toponyms from Old Norse difficult and problematic to interpret. and Old Russian sources are given in Needless to say, the image developed in this standardized forms for orthographic article remains hypothetical and heuristic. convenience and consistency (with exceptions Nevertheless, this does not diminish the value noted). In the case of Old Norse, this means of such a model as a frame of reference for that forms are Icelandic/West Norse, although 65 even these are not necessarily unproblematic,2 involving a large-scale cultural shift without and the term ‘Norse’ is used here as generally an actual language shift taking place. In this inclusive of all Scandinavian dialects (which type of process, changes in a language reflect were mutually intelligible in AD 1000) unless a cultural change, but the inter-generational otherwise specified.