Буддийский институт реинкарнаций как поле для политическийх спекуляций (по письменным и устным источникам монголов XVII - начала ХХ в.)
The article describes how certain peculiarities of the institute of reincarnations were used in Mongolia for political purposes - to elect the "right" person, to remove authoritative Lamas from the historical arena, to establish local lines of rebirth.
Mongolian codifications of 16th–18th centuries are considered to be sources of customary law. But their structure and content prove the opposite as they were results of law-making by rulers and contained different rules on status and credentials of authorities. One of such fields was legal procedure which becomes an object for analysis in this article. The goal of our research is analysis of procedural institutions in Mongolian codifications and their evolutions from the 16th to the 18th century. To achieve this goal, one should analyze procedural rules in these codifications, find their common and specific features, correlate the content of codifications with political situation in Mongolia and, at last, trace the evolution of procedural institutions. The sources for research are late medieval Mongolian legal codifications: the Code of Altan Khan, ruler of Tumet in Southern Mongolia (c. 1588), Eighteen Steppe Laws established at conferences of Khalkha rulers between the 1580s and 1620s, ‘Ik Tsaaz’ (‘The Great Code’) issued at the Congress of Oirat and Mongol princes in 1640 with additional edicts of the Zunghar ruler Galdan Boshugtu Khan in the 1670s and, finally, ‘Khalkha Jirum’ (‘The Code of Khalkha’) issued from 1709 to 1770 by conferences of rulers of the Northern Mongolia. To study this documents a number of research methods were used, namely: source study, structure functional analysis, comparative historical research, formal legal approach, historical legal method and comparative legal analysis.The legal procedure developed irregularly during the examined period. The status and credentials of authorities in the field of justice were substantially changed from the 16th throughout the 18th century, and that was connected with political processes in Mongolia. In particular, with centralization of power in the Zunghar Khanate in the 17th century and adaptation of Khalkha rulers to new political realities under the suzerainty of the Qing Empire since the end of the same century. As for other procedural institutions, such as evidences and their search, those remained, in fact, unchanged. That could be explained by that the procedural institutions were closer connected with customary law, and Mongolian rulers did not pay attention to their adaptation to the current situation. However, the article is no more than a problem setting, and advanced research should include sources which still are not introduced into the scientific circulation: Code of the League of Kuku-Nor (late 17th century), court practice cases in the ‘Ulaan Hatsart’ (‘Red Notebook’, 19th – early 20th centuries). Besides that, another kinds of sources should be kept in mind, e. g., Manchurian law for Mongols (‘Tsaajin Bichig’ of the 17th century and ‘Lifanyuan Tse-li’ – Code of the Qing Ministry of Foreign Affairs, late 18th – early 19th centuries), Kalmyk legislation of the 18th century, Buryat law of 18th–19th centuries. These sources could help understand which procedural institution in the law of Mongolic peoples were kept unchanged and which ones were results of reception from the Russian or Chinese law.
Texts of reports and messages of the International conference "Sociocultural Potential of Interfaith Dialogue in Polietnichny Space of the European East" in which famous domestic and foreign scientists took part are presented in the collection. In reports and messages the most important aspects of development of interfaith dialogue, as important factor of a sustainable development of society in polietnichny space are considered. The book is addressed to scientists and experts in the sphere of cross-cultural interaction in the polyethnoconfessional environment, to employees of the public and religious institutions, and all by that who is interested in problems of the interreligious and state and confessional relations.
This monograph is a first comprehensive and interdisciplinary study of personal conversions in Russian culture of the 19th century in a broad comparative perspective.
This project is an attempt to challenge the canonical gender concept while trying to specify what gender was in the medieval and early modern world. Despite the emphasis on individual, identity and difference that past research claims, much of this history still focuses on hierarchical or dichotomous paring of masculinity and femininity (or male and female). The emphasis on differences has been largely based on the research of such topics as premarital sex, religious deviance, rape and violence; these are topics that were, in the early modern society, criminal or at least easily marginalizing. The central focus of the book is to test, verify and challenge the methodology and use the concept(s) of gender specifically applicable to the period of great change and transition. The volume contains two theoretical sections supplemented by case-studies of gender through specific practices such as mysticism, witchcraft, crime, and legal behaviour. The first section, "Concepts", analyzes certain useful notions, such as patriarchy and morality. The second section, "Identities", seeks to deepen this analysis into the studies of female identities in various situations, cultures and dimensions and to show the fluidity and flexibility of what is called femininity nowadays. The third part, "Practises", seeks to rethink the bigger narratives through the case-studies coming from Northern Europe to see how conventional ideas of gender did not work in this particular region. The case studies also challenge the established narratives in such well-research historiographies as witchcraft and sexual offences and at the same time suggest new insights for the developing fields of study, such as history of homicide.