2018.4

This article is devoted to the problem of the name of the Qing settlement, commonly referred to as Maymachen. The toponym Maymachen was one of the most well-known geographical names mentioned in various texts dedicated to Russian-Qing relations. It was usually used as the name of the settlement, which had been located on the Russian-Qing border on the opposite side of Russian towns of Kyakhta and Troitskosavsk. In the 18th century this area became the center of Russian-Qing trade and the place, where diplomatic contacts between Russian and Qing governments were conducted. As such, it was repeatedly described in travelogues and reference books, regularly mentioned in dictionaries and diplomatic correspondence; a number of articles and books devoted to local commerce and language contacts were compiled. However, the history of the local Qing settlement has been poorly studied to date and even its name has been incorrectly used in Russian texts, which referred to it as “Maymachen”. The real Chinese name of this place was “Qiaketu”, which also, like the Russian word “Kyakhta”, originated from the Mongolian toponym “Hyagt”. The name “Maymachen” (or maimaichen according to the modern norms of transcription) was used in Chinese for the trade settlements and there were several “maimaichens” in other Mongolian cities. Thus, in the case of Qiaketu, a generic term for a specific part of the town (maimaichen) was used as the name of the whole town. The article considers the circumstances that contributed to the emergence of this peculiar situation, and the resulting errors in the interpretation of the content of geographic and historical materials.

The article is focused on the problems of defining the governmental policy of the Republic of India towards the former princely territories after their integration into newly created independent state, constructing of the image of “princes without princely states”, revealing the reaction of princely community to republican political system versus the ideals of monarchy. The article traces the destinies of princely dynasties in contemporary India and dwells on the problems of incorporation of their representatives into modern Indian society based on democratic traditions. The article shows the process of transformation of the attitude of Indian ruling circles to traditional elites of South Asia and reflects changing repercussions of this problem in national historiography. The article raises the questions whether the princely dynasties of India can be measured in terms of “gone with the wind” traditional groups destined to extinction or they managed to become a part of modern composite ruling stratum and what social and political values prevail in the minds of the common population of the former territories of princely states.

The article, based on Moroccan and Egyptian examples, offers a historical retrospective of political and economic interactions between the ruling circles of the Arab lands and powerful clans of descendants of Prophet Muhammad (sharifs), which resided in the North Africa since the early Middle Ages. The authors demonstrate the causes of friendly relations between the ruling structures and sharifian families. Typical social and economic conditions for usage of charitable endowments (waqfs) and land grants (azibs), provided to the advantage of sharifs, are also reviewed, as well as historical and cultural background for transformation of waqf and azib lands into private property. The authors trace back the etymology of azib and argue that its semantic content was due to existence of semi-nomad camps on the cattle-pass routes. Special attention is paid to the legal status of population living in waqfs and azibs, as well as factors of economic efficiency of these economic units. The study explores the continuity and stability of their evolution on specific examples. Reasons for development of wakfs into azibs, which remained typical in Moroccan (not Egyptian) history, are also outlined.

The article analyses economic and political aspects of Algeria’s development against the background of the so-called Arab Spring, reflects on the role of the country’s president who had been honored as a man who stopped the civil war by a national accord. However, in the author’s perception, the current events resulted in deep social differentiation, the emergence of a new oligarchy, built on a splice of military, bureaucracy and private business. The author portrays some of the Algerian leaders, as well.

The article analyzes the unpublished correspondence between V.V. Bartold and A.E. Krymsky during the period from 1908 till 1913. It contains valuable data which helps us to reconstruct main trends of the academic life at that time and to have a better understanding of the problems which occurred in the field of Oriental studies in Russia in the early 20th century. The correspondence of these distinguished scholars shows that they shared obvious common sympathy and similar professional interests. The letters of V.V. Bartold and A.E. Krymsky confirm that their primary concern was the state of Oriental studies and the system of education.

This publication includes the introduction and the first part of a translation into Russian of the commentary to the sūra “The Opening One” (al-Fātiḥa) and the first five ayats of the sūra “the Cow” (al-Baqara) by the Russian Muslim theologian Musa Jarullah Bigiyev (1874–1949), written in Arabic and published in 1915 in Petrograd under the name “Fiqh al-Qurʼān” (The Understanding of the Qurʼān). The introduction to the translation briefly discusses the contribution of the theologian to Qurʼān studies, his scientific ties with renowned European and Russian Orientalists, as well as his methodology of interpretation. The first part of the translation covers the commentary to the first four (according to another numbering three) ayats of the sūra “The Opening One” (al-Fātiḥa), which reflects the position of M. Bigiev concerning the history of the Qurʼān, its grammar and vocabulary, the differences between the readings (qirāʼat), and his hermeneutic reasoning, which is a synthesis of reformist and mystical approaches.

In what follows we will try to assess the contribution of Lee Keun – the winner of the 2014 Schumpeter Prize and Professor of Seoul National University – to the theory of breakthrough economic development, based on the case of the Republic of Korea (RK).

The monograph titled “From Lenin to Putin. Russia in the Middle and Near East” is presented to the judgment of professionals and a wide range of readers by the Academician A.M. Vasilyev, who is the patriarch of Russian Oriental and African studies. It covers an immense period (what is reflected in the title of the work) that witnessed political and economic relations of both the USSR and Russia with countries extended over the Middle and Near East surviving a lot of controversial events. In the course of that period not only the regimes changed and various military and political conflicts of diverse intensity have taken place, but the breakdown and unification of some of them has been seen, followed by transformation of ideologies, political systems etc. Obviously, the author aimed his efforts at analysing the great majority of these events stressing the role of both the USSR and Russia in them. The fundamental monograph by A.M. Vasilyev is of great interest for professionals and a wide range of readers from the educational and informational points of view.