34 20 1683 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/a1403ea1d77a8726f0e1f898ddfc9e60.jpg 6d6a9abc8ef704cb891fbe1e34282a8f https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/d0c97569c816bdfa8eb648e43a2a8cae.xml 8aac4aae438bbcece04dd1d8f248a854 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 7 Description An account of the resource <p>The ego is driving to Obdorsk. The ego thinks about his three older brothers, the three Tasinyis, his blind mother who should all be alive; about his four dead brothers, dead dad. Arriving to Obdorsk, he takes his brothers away. He takes them back to the camp. Arriving at the camp, the wives of the brothers say that the mother of the ego has died. The ego accuses the brothers and wives of killing her and other relatives. The three brothers begin to torture the ego.</p> <p>Eventually, a rider comes and frees the ego. He is the son of the ego’s father’s younger brother. The ego leaves with half of the reindeer herd. After three years, the brothers comes to kill the ego again. He is stronger and begins to torture the brothers in the same way they had done to him. He takes the brothers to Obdorsk.</p> Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 7: 5. Page 543 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/a79c7f230429b6372077282f918cd10e.jpg 8a33ae99b4ded1b010ed38e4bc4fa2a1 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/27cce1fd2816b6652372f45014b1687c.xml 6d73195bd6b9eda03d03c8bb2208aab8 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 7 Description An account of the resource <p>The ego is driving to Obdorsk. The ego thinks about his three older brothers, the three Tasinyis, his blind mother who should all be alive; about his four dead brothers, dead dad. Arriving to Obdorsk, he takes his brothers away. He takes them back to the camp. Arriving at the camp, the wives of the brothers say that the mother of the ego has died. The ego accuses the brothers and wives of killing her and other relatives. The three brothers begin to torture the ego.</p> <p>Eventually, a rider comes and frees the ego. He is the son of the ego’s father’s younger brother. The ego leaves with half of the reindeer herd. After three years, the brothers comes to kill the ego again. He is stronger and begins to torture the brothers in the same way they had done to him. He takes the brothers to Obdorsk.</p> Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 7: 6. Page 544 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/6ca1b270c9e50cc24502457510b6b426.jpg 0117d28f9dce4eb84401a31b954c4be1 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/d545215e70a58a2d7c78df820a2899d9.xml 957110083dba979139721b2b1a193673 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 7 Description An account of the resource <p>The ego is driving to Obdorsk. The ego thinks about his three older brothers, the three Tasinyis, his blind mother who should all be alive; about his four dead brothers, dead dad. Arriving to Obdorsk, he takes his brothers away. He takes them back to the camp. Arriving at the camp, the wives of the brothers say that the mother of the ego has died. The ego accuses the brothers and wives of killing her and other relatives. The three brothers begin to torture the ego.</p> <p>Eventually, a rider comes and frees the ego. He is the son of the ego’s father’s younger brother. The ego leaves with half of the reindeer herd. After three years, the brothers comes to kill the ego again. He is stronger and begins to torture the brothers in the same way they had done to him. He takes the brothers to Obdorsk.</p> Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 7: 7. Page 533 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/c1f8cd22fc3bdb67602d46558f57b383.jpg 01b60e572c98091af1a043a105e4ffa4 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/bd047a6e7394396230cd27dd0eec786d.xml d91d73ab078a519b843edf7e505854d5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 7 Description An account of the resource <p>The ego is driving to Obdorsk. The ego thinks about his three older brothers, the three Tasinyis, his blind mother who should all be alive; about his four dead brothers, dead dad. Arriving to Obdorsk, he takes his brothers away. He takes them back to the camp. Arriving at the camp, the wives of the brothers say that the mother of the ego has died. The ego accuses the brothers and wives of killing her and other relatives. The three brothers begin to torture the ego.</p> <p>Eventually, a rider comes and frees the ego. He is the son of the ego’s father’s younger brother. The ego leaves with half of the reindeer herd. After three years, the brothers comes to kill the ego again. He is stronger and begins to torture the brothers in the same way they had done to him. He takes the brothers to Obdorsk.</p> Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 7: 8. Page 534 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/326ceb622e0295903f6e01b2a7eec6cc.jpg e40429de4783eb99d37450ceddb7f6e3 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/1ffa2efcaca5ec59cef9444b8df86e60.xml eda15bfd68a910793d2ec77972da6ff9 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 7 Description An account of the resource <p>The ego is driving to Obdorsk. The ego thinks about his three older brothers, the three Tasinyis, his blind mother who should all be alive; about his four dead brothers, dead dad. Arriving to Obdorsk, he takes his brothers away. He takes them back to the camp. Arriving at the camp, the wives of the brothers say that the mother of the ego has died. The ego accuses the brothers and wives of killing her and other relatives. The three brothers begin to torture the ego.</p> <p>Eventually, a rider comes and frees the ego. He is the son of the ego’s father’s younger brother. The ego leaves with half of the reindeer herd. After three years, the brothers comes to kill the ego again. He is stronger and begins to torture the brothers in the same way they had done to him. He takes the brothers to Obdorsk.</p> Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 7: 9. Page 535 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/b7106d1610e7c9bcac0d1ae4bda8ca7f.jpg a5ee9d8b96dfdd1bcc86662ff9b28b09 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/9acc9fb5874cd84a52df76c88672b0f3.xml f5fc42b59a027354d5a9a1920b31dffa Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 8 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 8. Page 563 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/b5689d80a4e189170b8ddd76e75e48a7.jpg 6a1052906e394810980a70ac26af431b https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/943279ed3fdc38de0e25b99e869acc40.xml 53cde876136e88c1483a72419cf7a417 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 8 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 8. Page 564 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/2e4aef6f43662eaf3a2c9d6e546d0f1e.jpg fe143d9a6457e5c84d73e1b19e52d12c https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/4f0f9d03495b135ec1ed956cfc29cc93.xml 8ee812054312ae4e8c0e006380298125 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 8 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 8. Page 565 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/d359ac77deb34e50b53919f94c7959ea.jpg aa409bfec6298aa8403956a185feed3d https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/25a36df3a3e1e16f091ac0cbb80a9e8a.xml eef24a3d24df326b7d1e0e15e175317d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 8 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 8. Page 566 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/99e5f8c689f8cc20a20b06c06db720e7.jpg d29155392df29810ac4b60f5fcba3f8a https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/0c5ac9e181ba91d0a1708f64339d558f.xml c02d6ac04b5e55aee94ab7a378d7b8ed Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 9 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 9. Page 495 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/fbfa5f928a112860a310c6037f262eb3.jpg 669dbef63b6d431fe4a459a4174b1344 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/040a7585dec1cc1a8f8fc2e6c61c9c0e.xml f5f3d8458eb6aa062ad1a40adfa39531 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 9 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 9. Page 496 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/726b02329d8a64d45cd9c63baecdf962.jpg 2d93c16bc24973e3ee1440e72ad1f712 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/e4ac84b5201d3f1350bb17f4090eab2e.xml 033516dc43cbd39da2c93291b1c6d845 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric Poem 9 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lyric poem 9. Page 497 https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/19a11e6aed83e1cf4ab01c2eb3232e15.pdf 49a868eaf2f84b590dd5e4439f3147f2 PDF Text Text Archaeologica et historica     Castrén 1843; 1858c. Castrén 1844; 1858a. Castrén 1849; 1858b. Castrén 1870a; 1870b. M.A. Castrén’s Araeological and Historical Studies: An Introduion T i m o Sa l m i ne n Castrén’s archaeological and historical publications Matthias Alexander Castrén’s body of work includes three articles published during his lifetime that are considerably historical and archaeological in character. In addition to these, there are two texts that were published posthumously. The article Utdrag ur Solovetska kloster-krönikan [Extract of the Solovetsky Monastery Chronicle] was originally published in the journal Suomi in 1843 and was later published again in the fifth volume of Nordiska resor och forskningar.1 Anmärkningar om Savolotscheskaja Tschud [Notes on Zavoločeskaja čudˈ] was published both in Suomi and NRF V in 1844.2 Hvar låg det Finska folkets vagga? [Where was the Finnish people’s cradle?] appeared in Litterära soiréer i Helsingfors under hösten 1849 and in NRF  V.3 Förslag till en undersökning af de in Finland befintlige grafkumlen [A proposal for an investigation of the grave-mounds in Finland] and Om kurganer eller s. k. Tschud-kummel i den Minusinska kretsen [On kurgans or so-called Chud mounds in Minusinsk district] were not published until after Castrén’s death in NRF VI.4 No other unpublished manuscripts of this type have been found in Castrén’s archives. Because these texts present quite different types of scholarly problems, they do not form a coherent whole and can be compared with each other only to a limited extent. In this introduction, a short summary of their aim is sketched, along with a brief analysis of their context in scholarly and ideological history. Castrén lived during a period when the differentiation and specialization of different disciplines was going on. This is reflected in his writings, wherein elements of history, archaeology, ethnology, geography, and linguistics are in constant dialogue with each other and synergistically interact to form the final conclusions. Castrén approached history and archaeology, as well as linguistics, from ethnological point of view. He used the historical and comparative method that had become established in German and Scandinavian research by early 19th century. He followed international models, 12 �Introduction like that of August Ludwig von Schlözer (1735–1809), and domestic ones, like Anders Johan Sjögren’s (1794–1855), that continued the Völkerkunde/Ethnologie tradition of searching for the origins of different peoples through a comparative methodology. However, Castrén seems to have assumed, like Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803), that peoples are primordial entities, whereas Schlözer considered them merely as taxonomic units. Especially fundamental for Castrén was the idea of a “national spirit” reflected in language and all aspects of culture. More specifically, Castrén was committed to the tradition of Finno-Ugrian research initiated during the previous century.5 Although Castrén’s archaeological activities were launched primarily under the auspices of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, he also had a personal interest in researching prehistoric archaeological remains. The latter can be seen in his travel reports from Lapland and Karelia in the 1830s (see the first volume of travels in this series). On the institutional level, his work belonged to the Russian tradition of collecting information about the remote parts of the empire. This institutional framework was based, in fact, on a German ethnological tradition that was introduced into Russia by several German-born scholars who were hired by the Academy of Sciences to travel in Siberia. The idea of an academy of sciences was also adopted from the German world by Emperor Peter I. Castrén’s own contribution was to add a Finnish national(ist) layer on this German/Russian foundation. In all respects, he was continuing the European tradition of exploration.6 It was merely his emphasis that varied according to this theme. Castrén and the prehistory of Siberia Castrén’s archaeological writings are mainly based on the fieldwork that he carried out during his last expedition in Siberia. All his other excavations and surveys of archaeological sites were marginal and did not result in significant publications, although some were mentioned in his travel descriptions. Om kurganer eller s.  k. Tschud-kummel deals with the kurgans (burial mounds) that Castrén excavated mostly in the upper course of the Yenisei River7 between 1847 and 1848.8 He also draws on information he had collected from administrative officials in Siberia. Castrén wrote this work after returning home from his expedition but it was not published during his lifetime. The kurgans had already been excavated from the 1710s by several travellers and scholars including Philipp Johann Tabbert (von 13     Vermeulen 2015: 1, 5, 306–310, 316, 321–323; Korhonen 1986: 64–66; Branch 1973: 23–32; Nisbet 1999; Ahola – Lukin 2016: 43–46. Vermeulen 2015: 28–29, 47–58; Korhonen 1986: 64–66; Salminen 2003b: 38–40. The Russian (Cyrillic script) names are transliterated according to the scientific transliteration standard of Cyrillic transliteration except for such place-names that already have an established spelling in English like Yenisei or Solovetsky. These excavations are published and analysed in greater detail as a part of Castrén’s travel diaries in a later volume of this series. �Archaeologica et historica     Белокобыльский 1986: 7–54; see also Ahola  – Lukin 2016: 36–37. Above all these include Strahlenberg 1730: 312–317, 336– 337, 356–358, 362–371, 410–412; Gmelin 1999 [1752]: 286–291; Pallas 1773: 608–610; 1776: 357– 362, 384–387; Степановъ 1835; Спасскiй. 1818. In Miller 1999: 503–539 two of G.F. Müller’s archaeological writings from Siberia have been published, but they did not appear in print during his lifetime and Castrén was probably not familiar with them. Trigger 2006: 121–138. Nilsson 1838–1843: 85–93. Strahlenberg, 1676–1747), Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt (1685– 1735), Johann Georg Gmelin (1709–1755), Gerhard Friedrich Müller (1705–1783), and Peter Simon Pallas (1741–1811).9 Castrén’s archaeological work would have hardly been possible without the work of his predecessors, although the literature containing earlier archaeological observations is sparse.10 Gmelin, Müller, and a little later Pallas, gave this work a more scholarly tone that its early pioneers were lacking. Castrén challenges the typologies made by Gmelin, Müller, and Pallas and his conclusion is that the relationship between the burial mounds and the sought-after Finnic ancestors is uncertain, and even improbable. Instead, he connects them with the Kyrgyz people of the region. Compared with the fact that he eagerly lists Finnish-sounding place-names from the upper course of the Yenisei in his article Hvar låg…, he was somewhat unsure of the potential to use the archaeological remains as source material. This uncertainty can be traced to the fact that archaeology itself was only just emerging as an independent discipline and did not yet have an established theoretical and methodological basis.11 The questions that Castrén posed were completely new in the Siberian context. Gmelin and Pallas had attempted to divide the burial mounds into groups by constructing a typology of them on the basis of their location in the topography of the steppe and mountains. Pallas also claimed that kurgans reflected the relative wealth of the population that constructed them as well as the social status of the individuals who were buried therein. This would not have been the case had he assumed that all kurgans from Siberia and European Russia belonged to the same people. Castrén supplemented his own archaeological field observations with folklore he had collected among locals or read in literature. There was no real means to establish a relative, not to speak of absolute, chronology for archaeological remains before the 1860s, which led Castrén to experiment with different methods of dating the graves according to their appearance and other superficial characteristics. In this respect, he followed the general trend of his time such as the Swedish zoologist and ethnologist Sven Nilsson (1787–1883) who attempted to date archaeological remains and finds through a systematic comparison of them, in addition to making stratigraphic and other geological observations. With them he could reach relatively accurate conclusions, e.g., concerning the end of Stone Age in Scandinavia.12 Castrén cites Nilsson, which proves that he was familiar with his work and used it as a model. Castrén’s archaeological fieldwork will be analysed in greater detail in connection with his travel diaries in a future volume of this series, which also contains the archaeological notes he made during his voyages. 14 �Introduction The excavations that Castrén made in Siberia also brought about a research agenda that Castrén submitted to the Imperial Russian Geographical Society in 1851 in order to investigate the grave mounds or, rather, cairns that he knew about in Finland. Förslag till en undersökning af de i Finland befintlige grafkumlen applies the experience that Castrén had gained both in Finland in the late 1830s and Russia and Siberia in the next decade. His assumption was that through comparative study it could be discovered whether the graves in both regions are the remains of the same people (in his interpretations, the Finns). This type of synthetic question would not have been possible without the fieldwork that Castrén had conducted in Siberia. In Finland’s case, there was earlier research about the cairns that has been carried out in the 17th century and collected for the Antiquities Collegium of Sweden. In his travel description of Lapland from 1838, Castrén cites Christfrid Ganander’s (1741–1790) observations from Ostrobothnia, published in 1782 (see later in the volume of Castrén’s travels in this series).13 The research plan was never realized in the form that Castrén had outlined, due to the fact that the development of archaeological methodology made it outdated within a couple of decades. Ethnic questions in themselves remained central to archaeological research until around 1900. A substantive analytical criticism of this methodology arose during the first decades of the 20th century and, finally, it fell out of fashion entirely after the Second World War. Furthermore, because Castrén did not have a means to date the graves, he lacked the necessary chronological basis to realize his own research plan.14 Hvar låg det Finska folkets vagga? is a synthesis of Castrén’s studies in Siberia. It is a lecture in which Castrén continues to explore the question of the whereabouts of the original homeland of the Finnish people. No actual archaeological material evidence is cited, but the lecture is an essential source to understand the conclusions that Castrén makes on the basis of linguistic and folkloric observations. Castrén’s most important predecessors are Julius von Klaproth (1783–1835) and Carl Ritter (1779–1859), whose works on the topic Castrén cites. He mentions, above all, their interpretation of the ancient Turks’ wandering to their present-day areas of habitation after the Great Flood.15 Considering the Finns’ relationship with Turks, Castrén concludes that the origins of the Finns should also be sought in the Altai and Sayan Mountains of southern Siberia. The main message of the lecture can be found on the ideological level: according to Castrén, Finns must achieve a respected name in history for themselves through their own work instead of chasing unrealistic aspirations to find exalted roots or ethnic relatives 15    Nordman 1968: 11–14. Cf. Aspelin 1875: esp. 57–62; Trigger 2006: 211–216, 235–241, 248–261. On the deluge myths, see Dundes 1988. �Archaeologica et historica     On the ideological problems connected to Mongol relatives, see Kilpeläinen 1985: 169, 189; Kemiläinen 1993: 107–110; Sommer 2016: 155. See Korhonen 1986: 60–61. Korhonen 1986: 60; Salminen 2003a; 2003b; 2009. Aspelin 1875; Aspelin 1877. to help them.16 From today’s point of view, the whole lecture can be characterized as a fantasy rather than as a scholarly synthesis17, and Castrén even exceeded the bounds of empirical research in his own time. Building on this synthesis, several later attempts were made to reconstruct a more detailed and analytical picture of the ancient past and original homeland of the Finns, based on linguistics, ethnology, and archaeology. Finnish researchers in the second half of the 19th century were inspired to go to Siberia to search for the assumed prehistoric ancestors of the Finns. Although its basic premises turned out to be false, it had an immense influence in launching a research agenda that had international importance, particularly in research about the Turkic inscriptions of southern Siberia.18 Castrén had not consciously adopted the idea that clues about “national spirit” could be found in artefact material, similar to how he sought them in language and poetry. In Finnish archaeology, this idea was introduced by Johan Reinhold Aspelin (1842–1915) in the 1870s , who built on Scandinavian comparative methods in archaeology.19 Castrén actually formulated it, however, in his proposal of 1851, in which he laid ground for Aspelin’s work to seek by means of archaeology the Finnish wandering from their original home to the west. Early history of Finns in European Russia Another area of interest expressed in Castrén’s archaeological and historical writings is the early history of the Finns in European Russia. Here he directly built upon the work done by A.J. Sjögren in the 1820s and 1830s and also was in dialogue with some other earlier researchers. Anteckningar om Savolotscheskaja Tschud is a synthetic overview, dealing with the early history of a people that Castrén interpreted to be Finnic. Castrén wrote the article after his 1842 travels in the Arxangelˈsk Governorate and it was published in 1844. The concept of zavoločˈe, referred to in the title, means behind the volok, or portage – a path across which boats had to be transported while travelling from one river system to another. The Zavoločeskaja Čudˈ people are originally mentioned in the Russian Primary Chronicle, or so-called Nestor’s Chronicle. Here Castrén analyses the area of northern European Russia, especially focusing on Karelia and the surroundings of Arxangelˈsk. In this research, as in his Siberian research, Castrén combines historical and linguistic material, as well 16 �Introduction as some archaeological observations of his own, to gain an image of what kind of people the Zavoločeskaja Čudˈ were and where they lived. Castrén’s work is linked to a long tradition in both Russian and western research. The Italian author Julius Pomponius Sabinus (Pomponius Laetus, 1428–1498) had discussed the question of the Zavoločeskaja Čudˈ in his commentary on Virgil’s (70–19 BCE) work in the late 15th century, and the mystery of their origins had been discussed by several other scholars too: most notably by Vasilij Nikitič Tatiščev (1686–1750), A.L. von Schlözer in his commentary on the Primary Chronicle, and Aron Christian Lehrberg (1770–1813).20 Later, A.J. Sjögren expressed his thoughts on the issue21 and Castrén concluded that Sjögren’s material allowed him to define the borders of the ancient areas of habitation of the Finnic peoples in northern Russia. If Sjögren’s research had been the most prominent on this topic since the 1820s, Castrén’s research took the leading role after it had been published.22 Today, the Zavoločeskaja Čudˈ are assumed to have been a Baltic-Finnic tribe or group of tribes in the Dvina River basin. Thus, today’s understanding of them is still quite close to the one proposed by the early 19th century scholars.23 In the Russian tradition, the Chuds – both the Finnic and the mythical ones – represented an Otherness that Sjögren and Castrén borrowed to construct a narrative of an assumed Finnic past. Simultaneously they were a rhetorical device for Russians to look at the history of Russia through the eyes of the Other, while for Finns they represented an Other due to their distinctness from today’s Finns, in a way that could be considered a third Otherness.24 Castrén’s essay Utdrag ur Solovetska kloster-krönikan is completely different from the rest. It is not an analysis but rather an overview of material for subsequent, more analytical approaches to 16th and 17th-century history. Published in 1843, the text was written immediately after Castrén’s visit to Solovetsky Monastery in 1842 (see the 1841–1844 journey in a volume of travels in this series). In the 18th century, critical source analysis had gained a considerable international significance in historical research, an approach used by A.L. von Schlözer, Castrén’s model in several respects.25 The main representative of historical studies in Finland in Castrén’s time was Gabriel Rein (1800–1867), who had published a chronology of the history of Finland up to 1523 as two academic dissertations in 183126, and Castrén’s Solovetsky Chronicle forms, to some extent, a regional continuation of it. Castrén’s survey is not, however, a real critical source analysis but occupies a place between source analysis and more explanatory accounts of historical material. Most importantly, Castrén did not use primary archival materials from the 17        Schlözer 1802b: 39–44; Lehrberg 1816: 29, 32–34. Sjögren 1832a: esp. 268–276; Sjögren 1832b: esp. 493–496. Branch 1973: 190–196, 263; Korhonen 1986: 46. Рябинин 1997: 113–148; Saarikivi 2006: 29. On construing Otherness in ethnography and its roots in evolutionism and colonialism, see Fabian 2014: 12–20. Kemiläinen 1983: 50–52; Rytkönen 1983. Rein 1831. �Archaeologica et historica   Jussila 1983: 128–129. Klinge 2012: 118, 146, 217. monastery but only the most recent publication of the history of the monastery, based on its chronicle. Despite Castrén’s shift in source material and methodology, in this essay he was continuing his earlier search for a demarcation line between Finns and Russians. The scope of his research was the areas where the Swedish-Russian border remained vaguely defined in the 16th century. Thus, the article can, in a broad sense, be seen as another part of the construction of the same narrative that had been built around the prehistory of Siberia and northern Russia. Its scope is the 16th and 17th century history of Finnish-Russian relations in the north according to the notes in a published version of the Solovetsky Monastery Chronicle. Castrén as a historical thinker Castrén’s historical thinking was fundamentally based on the Romantic ideology of nations as main actors of history. On a practical level, Castrén was neither a historian nor an archaeologist in the presentday specialized understanding of these words, but he composed his interpretations by drawing from many different fields of study. Such polymathy is reflected especially in his articles on the Zavoločeskaja čudˈ and the original homeland of the Finnic peoples. This tradition had preceded Castrén, especially by such scholars as Schlözer, Ritter, and Sjögren, who, of course, each had their own emphases. Castrén’s relationship to contemporary and earlier Russian historiography was pragmatic. He cited Afanasij Mixajlovič Ščekatov (1753–1814), Nikolaj Mixajlovič Karamzin (1766–1826), and others when necessary, although he himself belonged to another tradition of research. According to Osmo Jussila, Karamzin wrote specifically about the state and Emperor, but not social history, also representing the Russian official nationalist view of history.27 In these respects, Castrén differs radically from him. In Castrén’s scholarly career, historical and archaeological writings belong to the years 1843–1851, i.e. practically the final phase of his career, during which he was attempting to build a coherent synthesis of the Finno-Ugrian past. This synthesis was never completed, however, due to Castrén’s early death in 1852. In a more general sense, constructing a new national(ist) view of the history of Finland and the Finns was fashionable only in the mid to late 19th century.28 Castrén supplied society’s demand, although he did not accept the most radical views of the younger Fennoman circles (see his university texts in this volume). Following the nationalist tradition, Castrén interpreted the past through a dichotomy of “us” and “the Others”, which, along with the idea of progress and the 18 �Introduction idea of a “national spirit”, were the main elements that Castrén’s interpretations of history and prehistory consisted of. The latter two appear above all in his longue durée syntheses of prehistory; in his shorter-term histories they remain marginal. One could assume his understanding of internal cultural development was a natural outgrowth of the concept of “national spirit”. Nevertheless, Castrén also acknowledged diffusion and external contacts as sources of development. In this way, he applied an international model to a specific object of study. However, this is only a superficial layer on his fundamentally nationalist way of thinking which appears in his understanding of grave types and his interpretation of the poetry of the peoples he is dealing with in his essay on the original homeland of the Finns. Castrén’s aim in all of his work was to define the Finns through their history and areas of habitation. His ideological roots in this respect lay in the Romantic philosophy of Johann Gottfried von Herder.29 Thus, his research questions were of an ethnic character. For Castrén, ethnic identity and language formed an inseparable pair, although in several of his writings he acknowledged the possibility that language could change without losing the essence of the original ethnic identity. Searching for a people’s origins meant, above all, seeking its original homeland and tracing its wanderings to the habitation areas where it is located in historical sources. The idea that material culture, language, and genetics are independent of each other and a change in one of them does not necessarily mean a change in another had gradually been established during the 20th century. Thus, no such original homelands can be discovered, as was believed during Castrén’s lifetime.30 Castrén did not found an actual tradition or school of history or archaeology. In the field of archaeology, theoretical and methodological development occurred so rapidly that the approaches of the 1840s became completely outdated within 20 years. Moreover, the theoretical departure points for research on Siberia were redefined by the 1890s.31 On the other hand, Castrén’s, as well as Gabriel Rein’s, attention to eastern sources of the history of Finland endured by showing the way to later researchers, the first of whom was Aspelin, who began his career as a medievalist before turning to prehistoric archaeology.32 Castrén’s significance for historical research and archaeology lies above all in the ideological model he set for later scholars and the questions he raised. This formed the basis of a tradition that continued until the 20th century. Even if the theoretical and methodological approaches and conclusions changed and the question of an original homeland lost its significance, the field research tradition launched by Castrén was carried forward. To some extent it has been even been revived in our own times.33 19      Nisbet 1999. See, e.g., Carpelan 2002: 202– 207. Salminen 2003c. Salminen 2003a. Salminen 2003b; 2003c; 2006; 2007; 2009. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource M.A. Castrén’s Archaeological and Historical Studies: An Introduction (Archaeologica et historica) Subject The topic of the resource <em>Archaeologica et historica</em>; <em>Universitaria</em>. Manuscripta Castreniana, Realia I. 187 p. ISBN 978-952-5667-92-9 (print/hardcover), ISBN 978-952-5667-93-6 (online/pdf). 50 €. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Timo Salminen Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Finno-Ugrian Society Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource © Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura – Société Finno-Ougrienne – Finno-Ugrian Society & the authors https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/b954490374aa4805ad650d30ed2cf98f.pdf 69c5c4af66db80b87cc6a9b47271b1d5 PDF Text Text M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes Ti m o S alm i nen  Castrén writes that he crossed the Arctic Circle on 25 June, but this seems impossible if he was in Övertorneå on 26 June. The lists have been compiled on the basis of Castrén’s travel reports and diaries and letters from 1838–1849 as well as J.R. Bergstadi’s travel diary of 1845–1846 and folk poetry collected by Castrén in the Suomen kansan vanhat runot database, https://skvr.fi. All places are referred to with the t names used in Castrén’s time, giving the present-day name in brackets where different. If the form used by Castrén himself is the only one that is known, it is given in italics. The dates in Finland, Sweden and Norway are given according to the Gregorian calendar (new style, n. st.), and the ones in Russia according to both Julian and Gregorian calendars (old and new styles, o. st., n. st.), as far as can be determined which calendar Castrén used. Dates are given dd. mm. yr. Lapland 1838 Helsinki Pälkäne? Kangasala? Virrat Alavus Kuortane Alajärvi Lappajärvi x x x Tornio Aavasaksa Alkkula Luppio Övertorneå Juoksenki Turtola Pello Kardis 23.06. 24.06. 24.06. 26.06.156 26.06. 27.06. 27.06. 55 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 55 21.8.2019 15:44:57 �Itineraria Kengis Kieksiäisvaara Kolari Kihlanki Muonioniska 27.06. 27.–28.06. 29.06. 29.06. 30.06.–16.07. visit to Olostunturi 02.07. Kittilä: Kyrö (present-day Enontekiö: Yli-Kyrö) Peltovuoma River Peltojoki Lake Seitajärvi Lake Kaakkurijärvi Lake Noukunainen Lake Kouhtajärvi Lake Pitkäjärvi Lake Ahvenjärvi Lake Pahtijärvi Lake Vietkajärvi Vietkajärvenpalo Fell Lake Korsajärvi River Ivalojoki Kyrö (present-day Ivalo) Kourinsaari Island (Juutua) Inari vicarage Lake Isojärvi probably Riutulan Lammassaari River Kaamasjoki Lake Mierasjärvi River Utsjoki Utsjoki vicarage River Utsjoki Lake Mantojärvi Lake Mierasjärvi Lake Isojärvi Inari ur Kyrö (present-day Ivalo) 17.07. 19.07. ca. 29.07.–09.08. 09.08. 09.08. 12.08. 13.–14.08. 56 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 56 21.8.2019 15:44:57 �M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes Raututunturit Fells 15.08. Palopää Urupää Kaunispää Ahopää Palkispää Peselmäpalo Tankavaara Luironpalo Lake Sompiojärvi River Luirojoki Korvanen Lokka Tanhua Sodankylä River Kitinen River Kemijoki Kemijärvi Rovaniemi Kemi x x x Pori Turku Helsinki  It is uncertain whether Castrén also visited the villages of Kiurujärvi and Kelujärvi on this day. 16.08. 18.08. 18.08. 18.08.157 20.08. ca. 17.09. 57 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 57 21.8.2019 15:44:57 �Itineraria Karelia 1839 Helsinki x x x Kuopio Kaavi Liperi Sotkuma Taipale Juuka Nurmes Sotkamo Kajaani Kolvasjärvi Repola Miinoa Lusmanlahti Akonlahti Latvajärvi Tšenanniemi (Keynäsjärvi) Vuokkiniemi main village Vuonninen Jyvöälakši Uhtua Lake Tuoppajärvi Lake Pääjärvi Kuusamo Oulu Kälviä Härmä Kauhava Lapua Tavastia Helsinki May stayed for 11 days September 58 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 58 21.8.2019 15:44:58 �M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes Lapland, Russia and Siberia 1841–1844 Helsinki Koski, Turku Province  It is unsure which calendar Castrén used here. left 25.06.1841 arrived before 24.07.1841, stayed for some time Säkylä Kokemäki Ulvila Karvia Lohtaja x x x Kemi Rovaniemi Kemijärvi Kuolajärvi main village before 14.09.–after 11.11.1841 stayed until the beginning of December 1841 Tanhua Korvanen Suomu tent Akujärvi Inari ur Jorggástat Kárášjohka Inari ur a village in the fells (Castrén alone) Inari ur Nellimö Suõ’nnjel Kola ca. 08.01.–18.1.1842 before 03.02. ca. 03.–ca. 10.02.1842 ca. 10.–after 14.02.1842 beginning of March– after 04.04.1842158 Kildin Kola Mokraja Kitsa Angesvarre Maselga Raznavolok/Rasnjaarg Rikkataival/Rik-Suolo Èkostrov 59 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 59 21.8.2019 15:44:58 �Itineraria  This date established that the previous dates from 27 June are according to old style.  It is not known which calendar Castrén used here.  It is not known which calendar Castrén used here.  It is not known which calendar Castrén used here. Zašeek Kandalakša Kemˈ Solove Arxangelˈsk at Zimnye Gory at Čapoma at Zimnye Gory Kozly Kuja Arxangelˈsk Uemskij Arxangelˈsk ca. 23.04.–19.05.1842 (o. st.?) ca. 20.05–26.05.1842 (o. st.?) 29.05. (o. st.?)– 27.06./09.07.1842 05./17.07.1842 07./19.07.–11./23.07.1842 11./23.–13./25.07.1842 13./25.–14./26.07.1842 15./27.–17./29.07.1842 17./29.07.1842 20.07./01.08.159– end of November 1842 before 07.08.–after 25.08.1842 (o. st.?) Uemskij Xolmogory Ustˈ-Pinega Palenga Uusenga Kuzomenˈ Veškoma Jurola Pinega Kuloj Njemjuga Lampožnja Mezenˈ Sëmža Mezenˈ Sëmža arrived before 05./17.12.1842 left 19.12.1842 (probably o. st.) left in the second half of Dec. 1842 n. st. 11./23.12.1842–19.01.1843160 Nesˈ including a visit to a Samoyed wedding  versts from Nesˈ Timan ur left 01.02.1843161 (present-day Nižnjaja Pëša) Maste Indiga, mouth of the river stayed for ten days Sula Pustozërsk 16.02.1843162 Timan ur (present-day Nižnjaja Pëša) 60 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 60 21.8.2019 15:44:58 �M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes  Chosha Bay Uusje Pjosjits Prisjatinitsa Svojnoj nos Pesjanka Lemtsa Svjatoj nos Pustozërsk Ustˈ-Cilˈma Ižma River Ižma River Pečora River Usa  It is not known which calendar Castrén used here. Castrén’s letter, dated in Obdorsk on 2/14 Nov. makes the calendar definite from the beginning of September until here. beginning of April 1843 middle of April–27.06.1843163 15-day trip via Joma, Krasnobor y p J 28.06., Ustˈ-Ižma, Ščeljajur 29.06.–02.07., Njašabož, Kyčkara, Praskan, Ustˈ-Usa beginning of July– 04./16.09.1843 06./18.09.1843 15./27.09.–13./25.10.1843 19./31.10.1843 19./31.10.–22.10./03.11.1843 22.10./03.11.1843 23.–25.10./4.–6.11.1843 27.10./8.11.1843 28.10./9.11.1843–Jan. 1844164 2nd half of Jan.1844– after 04.03./16.03.1844 arrived before and left after 12./24.03.1844 Kolva Synja, mouth of the river hut at the River Usa across the River Këčˈ-Pelˈ at the foot of the Ural Mountains over the Ural Mountains River Padjaxa (Sobˈ) River Obˈ Obdorsk (present-day Salexard) Berëzov (present-day Berëzovo) Tobolˈsk Turinsk Verxoturˈe Solikamsk Velikij Ustjug Kargopolˈ Pudož Petrozavodsk Olonec Sortavala Viipuri Helsinki arrived 15.05.1844 61 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 61 21.8.2019 15:44:58 �Itineraria Russia and Siberia 1845–1849 Helsinki Porvoo Hamina Viipuri Rajajoki St Petersburg Jajcevo Novgorod Edrovo Toržok Tverˈ Zavidovo Moscow Bogorodsk Vladimir Slobodišči Nižnij Novgorod Jurtino Kozˈmodemˈjansk Čeboksary Kazanˈ Malmyž District of the Vjatka Governorate Glazov District of the Vjatka Governorate Permˈ Ekaterinburg Tjumenˈ Tobolˈsk Bronnikovo Karbina Demjanskoe Denščikovo Cingaly Samarovo left 27.02.1845 01.03.1845 03.03.1845 05.03.1845 06.03.1845 23.02./07.03.–12./24.03.1845 13./25.03.1845 14./26.03.1845 15./27.03.1845 16./28.03.1845 17./29.03.1845 20.03./01.04.1845 21.03./02.04.1845 22.03./03.04.1845 28.03./09.04.–01./13.05.1845 05.–07./17.–19.05.1845 08.–11./20.–23.05.1845 ca. 13./25.05.1845 16./28.05.–25.05./06.06.1845 arrived before and left after 25.06./06.07.1845 04.–05./16.–17.07.1845 Skripunova (Toropkova) 62 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 62 21.8.2019 15:44:58 �M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes Čebakovo arrived before and left after 25.07./06.08.1845 01./13.08.–12./24.09.1845 Surgut Lokosovo Megion Vampugol Nižnevartovsk Kiselovo Larino Nižne-Lumpokolskoe (present-day Aleksandrovskoe) Tymsk Narym Togur Molčanova Nikolaevsk Kornouxovo Tigildjaevo Eušta Tomsk Ačinsk Krasnojarsk Enisejsk Makovskoe Enisejsk Anciferovo Toroskovo Pjatnica Ustˈ-Pit Gurina Savinova Ostjatskaja Kolmogorovo Ponomarëva Nazimovo Sergeevo Nižnešadrino Serebrjannikovo Jarcevo 25.09./07.10.1845–01./13.12.1845 04./16.12.1845–after 11./23.01.1846 16./28.1.–27.2./11.3.1846 28.2./12.03.1846 01./13.03.1846 02.–06./14.–18.03.1846 09./21.03.–10./22.03.1846 11.–16./23.–28.03.1846 19./31.03.–24.03./01.04.1846 before 08./20.05.–18./30.05.1846 left 20.05./01.06.1846 20.05./01.06.1846 left 23.05./04.06.1846 63 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 63 21.8.2019 15:44:59 �Itineraria Nikulino Tankovo Osinovo Ustˈ-Tunguska (present-day Podkamennaja Tunguska) Sumarokovo Komsa Inzyrevo Mirnoe Baxta Novosëlovo Borodino Iskupskaja Verxneimbatsk Peskino Nižneimbatsk Fatˈjanixa Jamskoe (present-day Vereščagino) Baklanixa (Baklanova) Bajxa Novozalěsskaja (present-day Suxaja Tunguska) Kostino Melˈničnaja Miroedixa Turuxansk (present-day Staroturuxansk) Schorochina Angutixa Gorošixa (Gorostinskoe) Kurejka Denežkino Ermakovo Karasino Suškova Pogorelˈskoe Igarka Nosovo Plaxino Xantajka 24.05./05.06.1846 25.05./06.06.1846 26.05./07.06.1846 28.05./09.06.1846 29.05./10.06.1846 29.05./10.06.1846 30.05./11.06.1846 30.05./11.06.–03./15.06.1846 04./16.06.1846 05./17.06.1846 06./18.06.1846 06./18.06.1846 07./19.06.–18./30.07.1846 19./31.07.1846 21.07./02.08.1846 22.07./03.08.1846 26.07./07.08.1846 27.07./08.08.–12./24.08.1846 12./24.08.–20.08./01.09.1846 64 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 64 21.8.2019 15:44:59 �M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes Dudinka Samylowa Seljakino Tolstyj Nos Dudinka Luzino Xantajka 23.08./04.09.–16./28.11.1846  18./30.11.–24.11./06.12.1846 left 08./20.12.1846 arrived 10./22.12.1846, stayed for three weeks arrived 11./23.01.1847 22.02./06.03.1847 09./21.03.–after 22.03./03.04.1847 one day in March 1847 Turuxansk Nazimovo Enisejsk Ačinsk Užur Oraki New Kizil duma Kostino old Kizil duma, visit to Sulek Kopˈevo Kačinsk steppe: salt lake at the River Belyj Ijus Son(skoe) Bolˈšaja Erba/Kos-Erba Ustˈ-Erba Minusinsk Majdaši Ustˈ-Abakanskoe (present-day Abakan) Ujtag Askiz (Sagajskaja duma) Ustˈ-Esˈ Askiz Uty 29.03./10.04.–30.03./11.04.1847  31.03./12.04.–01./13.04.1847 02./14.04.1847 02./14.04.1847 02.–16./14.–28.04.1847166 April–second day of Whitsuntide 1847 1./13.05.1847 02.–ca. 09./14.–ca. 21.05.1847 ca. 8./20.5.–29.05./09.06.1847   including excursions to the nearby uluses Beja Kaly Šušenskoe Označennaja (present-day Sajanogorsk) Šušenskoe  left 10./24.06.1847168 arrived 10./24.06.1847169– left 17./29.06.1847 “Min färd gick ifrån Ushúr på den beundranswärdt sköna wäg, ſom leder förbi de Himmelska sjöarna till Kisilska domen. Härifrån fortsatte jag resan till Katschinska förposten, for Hwita Ijus uppföre och återwände derpå till Jenisej, efter att hafwa genomströfvat en stor del af de Kisilska och Katschinska stepperna […]” Castrén to Sjögren, 20 April/2 May 1847. See the volume of letters in this series. Dates according to Castrén’s travel reports and diary. He, however, dated a letter to Sjögren in Minusinsk on 20 April/ 2 May 1847, writing there that he had just arrived in Minusinsk, and another letter to Rabbe in Minusinsk on 22 April/ 4 May. These dates are from Castrén’s travel reports. They are, however, difficult to combine with the information from his travel diary, see the next dates. Sic, date according to Castrén’s travel diary, not known which date is correct, 10/22 or 12/24 June. Sic, date according to Castrén’s travel diary, not known which date is correct, 10/22 or 12/24 June. 65 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 65 21.8.2019 15:44:59 �Itineraria Lugavskoe Minusinsk Tesˈ Šošino Karatuzskoe Schadatskoj Petropawlowsk Sergejewsk Tjokur Nikolajewsk left 20.06./01.07.1847 20.06./01.07.–03./15.07.1847 03./15.07.1847 05./17.07.1847 05./17.07.1847 07./19.–08./20.07.1847 10.–12./22.–24.07.1847 excursions to the gold panning bases of Jurˈevsk, Preobražensk and NovoPrijutnoe on the River Kundusuk River Urten-suk at the River Xut (Solˈdžur), China Nikolaevsk Karatuzskoe Kačulka Kuragino Šalobolino Tesˈ Minusinsk 14.–17./26.–29.07.1847 18./30.7.–21.07./02.08.1847 22.07./03.08.1847 24.07./05.08.–02./14.08.1847 03./15.08.1847 arrived ca. 05./17.08.1847 arrived before and left after 05./17.09.1847 06./18.–07./19.08.1847 Ustˈ-Abakanskoe (present-day Abakan) Uluses on Kačinsk Steppe River Ujbat Ustˈ-Abakanskoe via Koybal uluses Lugavskoe on the steppe Lugavskoe Oja Šušenskoe Minusinsk Gorodok Oglaxty Abakansk ferry Kopjon Krasnojarsk 07./19.08.1847 07./19.–09./21.08.1847 09./21.08.1847 09./21.08.1847 09./21.–11./23.08.1847 11./23.08.–21.08./02.09.1847 21.08./02.09.–26.08./07.09.1847 26.08./07.09.–27.08./08.09.1847 27.08./08.09.–05./17.09.1847 05./17.09.1847 05./17.09.1847 ca. 05./17.–14./26.09.1847 15./27.09.1847 21.09/03.10.–26.9./08.10.1847 66 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 66 21.8.2019 15:45:00 �M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes Botoj Rybnoe Anža Bolˈšaja Anža Tyrbysch Mergenjówa Korostelevo Agul Korostelevo Kansk Ustˈjansk Taseevo River Usolka Ustˈjansk Koxa Nižnij Ingaš Pojma (present-day Staraja Pojma) Tinskaja Nižneudinsk 26.09./08.10.1847 26.09./08.10.1847 28.09./10.10.1847 06./18.10.1847 13./25.10.1847 26.10./08.11.1847 left 01./13.12.1847 01./13.12.1847 01./13.12.1847 02./14.–04./16.12.1847 04./16.12.1847 Irkutsk Kultuk Aginsk duma (Torskoe) Irkutsk Baschkowskaja Bolˈšoe Goloustnoe Verxneudinsk (present-day Ulan-Udè) Selenginsk Gusinoe ozero at Njendak Banpylov’s Trojosavsk/Kjaxta Xorinsk Grjadskaja Poperečnaja Pogrominskaja Jarawinskaja Lake Sosnovoe Verschino-Udinskaja before 06./18.01.– 27.01./08.22.1848 01./13.–4./16.02.1848 04./16.–18.02./02.03.1848 20.02./04.03.–01./13.03.1848 01./13.–02./14.03.1848 02./14.03.1848 04./16.03.1848 for 14 days arrived before and left after 22.03./03.04.1848 left 17./29.04.1848 18./30.04.1848 18./30.04.–19.4./01.05.1848 67 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 67 21.8.2019 15:45:00 �Itineraria  Some time before arriving in Konduj Castrén also visited the villages of Boxto and Puri, but it is unclear exactly when.  Stayed for three weeks (ill). Šakša Kljutschewskaja Čita Turinskaja Urulˈga Nerčinsk Oninsk Steppe Nerčinskij zavod Bulduruj Borzja Bura Zargol Curuxajtuj (present-day Priargunsk) Selinda Aleksandrovskij zavod Selinda Manikovo Kaakoj (= Kokuj -j?) Makarjewo Gazimurskij zavod Nerčinskij zavod Dučarskij rudnik Kutomarskij zavod Dono Savvo-Borzja Mulino Konduj Konduj ruins Cagan-Oluj Ijewskaja Xada-Bulak River Cunguruk River Turga tin mine on the River Onon Aginskoe Argalej Žimbira Tura 20.04./02.05.1848 21.04./03.05.–22.04./04.05.1848 22.04./04.05.1848 23.04./05.05.–03./15.05.1848 05./17.05.1848 07./19.–10./22.05.1848 left 12./24.05.1848 12./24.05.1848 13./25.05.1848 left 17./29.05.1848 left 20.05./01.06.1848 21.05./02.06.–29.05./10.06.1848 29.05./10.06.1848 ca. 20.05./01.06.– 19.06./01.07.1848171 19.06./01.07.1848 20.06./02.07.–21.06./03.07.1848 21.06./03.07.–24.06./06.07.1848 68 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 68 21.8.2019 15:45:00 �M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes Čita Xorinsk Verxneudinsk Irkutsk Nižneudinsk Kansk Balaj Krasnojarsk 26.06./08.07.–08./20.07.1848 11./23.07.1848 14./26.07.–18./30.08.1848 stayed for some days before 20.10/01.11.–16.11.1848 (probably o. st.) 20.–25.11.1848 (o. st.?) Tomsk Kolyvan Omsk Petropavlovsk Zlatoust Ufa arrived 02./14.12.1848 arrived before 21.12.1848/01.01.1849 Kazanˈ St Petersburg Viipuri Helsinki 12./24.01.–10./22.02.1849 69 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 69 21.8.2019 15:45:00 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource M.A. Castrén’s Travel Routes (Itineraria) Subject The topic of the resource <i>Itineraria</i>&nbsp;1. Manuscripta Castreniana, Personalia II,1. Pp. 1–691. <br /><i>Itineraria</i>&nbsp;2. Manuscripta Castreniana, Personalia II,2. Pp. 692–1647.<br />ISBN 978-952-7262-12-2 (1–2, print/hardcover), <br />ISBN 978-952-7262-13-9 (1, print/hardcover),&nbsp;<br />ISBN 978-952-7262-14-6 (2, print/hardcover), <br />ISBN 978-952-7262-15-3 (online).<br />80 € (1–2). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Timo Salminen Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Finno-Ugrian Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2019 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource © Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura – Société Finno-Ougrienne – Finno-Ugrian Society & the authors https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/52aeeee35ef91798f755c977376fd215.pdf 95666c8e872f0f2d2313ded11705fca3 PDF Text Text Manuscripta Castreniana: A General Preface to the Series Manuscripta Castreniana: A General Preface to the Series Matthias Alexander Castrén (1813–1852) was by far the most significant Finnish linguist of the 19th century. When he died at the young age of 38, he left behind a huge corpus of field data, collected by himself during prolonged expeditions to Karelia, Lapland, Arctic Russia and Siberia from 1838 to 1849. In the short periods of time he spent in an academic environment, he was largely occupied by university teaching and social activities and had little opportunity to synthesize his collections, a situation aggravated by his rapidly progressing and ultimately fatal illness. Therefore, and in spite of his active production of specialized articles, reviews and travel reports during his lifetime, a major part of his scholarly heritage remained unpublished when he died. Ever since, the fate of this legacy has stood in the focus of Finnish linguistics. In Castrén’s lifetime it was said that he had “written the grammars of fourteen languages”, but the actual number of separate idioms documented by him is much larger, coming close to thirty. Moreover, although his main focus was the Samoyedic branch of Uralic, he also recorded several Finno-Ugrian idioms, including varieties of Finnic, Saamic, Mari, Komi and Khanty, as well as languages and dialects belonging to the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic and Yeniseic families. With most of these languages, he was the first to collect any kind of coherent grammatical information, which, moreover, was complemented by lexical collections of varying sizes. Not surprisingly, he is today regarded as the founder of not only Uralic, but also Altaic and Palaeosiberian linguistics. An important feature of his approach was that he worked in the framework of a consistent linguistic theory, close to what is today known as “basic grammar”. It has to be added, however, that Castrén was not only a linguist, but a multidisciplinary scholar equally versatile in the fields of ethnography, folklore, mythology, archaeology, history and human geography. Although he had both predecessors and successors, he is with good reason honoured as the pioneer and foremost representative of the Finnish school of linguistic anthropology, a tradition that was formed several decades before the international breakthrough of the field. Using a more modern term, his way of looking into languages in their overall extra-linguistic context, would correspond to the concept of “rich grammar”. Considering his work on mythology, especially the study of shamanism, he was also the founding figure of the so-called “Northern Paradigm” of mythological studies, a branch of comparative religion whose significance has only recently been fully understood. 15 �Manuscripta Castreniana: A General Preface to the Series Folklore and mythology were discussed by Castrén in a number of public lectures he gave at the Imperial Alexander University in Helsinki. Linguistic topics were treated by him in a series of academic dissertations, presented between 1839 and 1850. In addition, he authored grammatical sketches with vocabularies on Izhma Komi and Hill Mari, published in Latin in 1844 and 1845, respectively. After his last expedition he started working on a new series of German-language academic grammars to which he gave the general title Nordische Reisen und Forschungen. The series was authorized and financed by the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg, and the first volume, on Khanty, appeared in 1849. In his remaining two years, Castrén managed to complete the manuscript for a second volume, on Samoyedic. With Castrén’s death, however, the future of his grammars was in danger, and the series would have been discontinued had it not been taken up by his colleague Anton Schiefner (1817–1879). From 1852 to 1861, Schiefner rapidly completed the project by editing and publishing, not only the Samoyedic volume, but also five other volumes of Castrén’s linguistic field data, as well as a reissue of the Khanty volume. To these, he added the German editions of five volumes of Castrén’s lectures and earlier publications, including letters and travelogues, which were also being made available in parallel Swedish versions under the name Nordiska resor och forskningar, published between 1852 and 1870. This 12-volume international series immediately consolidated Castrén’s reputation and has been used as a basic tool of reference ever since— even for languages for which more extensive descriptions have subsequently become available. In spite of the extremely valuable contribution made by Schiefner to Castrén’s legacy, it was almost immediately realized that even more needed to be done. For one thing, there remained important parts of Castrén’s materials that were not included in the series published by Schiefner. Moreover, Schiefner, who was not a field linguist, occasionally made mistakes when reading and interpreting Castrén’s handwritten materials, which were not always in an accessible format. The idea of republishing Castrén’s data in a more complete and correct form was first suggested as early as the 19th century, and this became one of the long-term objectives of the Finno-Ugrian Society, which was founded in Helsinki in 1883 with the specific goal of continuing Castrén’s work in the field of Uralic and Altaic linguistics and ethnography. During the almost 140 years of its existence (as of 2021), the FinnoUgrian Society has, indeed, cultivated Castrén’s legacy by both financing new field work by many generations of scholars and by publishing the results of their work. However, the full publication of Castrén’s manuscript materials has not been realized until now. After the idea had once again been mentioned in connection with the 110th anniversary of the 16 �Manuscripta Castreniana: A General Preface to the Series Society in 1993, the plan of opening a new series of publications under the name Manuscripta Castreniana gradually ripened. This series is scheduled to contain a critical edition of all relevant parts of Castrén’s manuscripts, including both linguistic descriptions and non-linguistic materials. The series will consist of both printed volumes and digital materials available on the website of the project. In accordance with the original agreement with the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences, Castrén’s manuscripts were placed in the library of the Imperial Alexander University of Helsinki, where Schiefner sent them after completing his work on them. For unknown reasons, however, a small part of the materials remained in the archives of the Academy in St Petersburg. The academy also received Castrén’s important ethnographic collections from Siberia. The materials kept in Helsinki have been bound into 33 mainly folio-sized volumes, which, over the years, have been preliminarily catalogued and microfilmed. Unfortunately, the work has never been professionally completed, which is why the volumes still offer surprises to those delving into them. For the new series of publications, the Finno-Ugrian Society has mobilized a representative team of experts. The volumes, published in a free order, are divided into three sections: Linguistica, Realia and Personalia. The Linguistica section will contain Castrén’s grammatical and lexical data on all the languages he documented. The Realia section will contain his notes on extralinguistic realities, including ethnography, folklore, mythology, archaeology, history and geography. Finally, the Personalia section will contain his letters and travelogues, as well as a biography with a full bibliography of his works. The contents of all the volumes are annotated on the basis of today’s level of scholarship. In this connection, it may be recalled that large parts of Castrén’s materials, including, in particular, those dealing with subsequently extinct languages, are the only extant documents on the topics they deal with. English was chosen as the language of this series in order to give Castrén’s oeuvre the visibility it deserves among the international and Anglo-Saxon readership for whom English is the first language of scholarly communication. The Swedish and German editions, published in the 19th century, will, of course, retain their historical value, but they are inevitably losing their relevance as sources of primary data. For practical reasons, though perhaps unfortunate for some readers, certain parts of the primary material in our new series are made available only in the original languages, that is, mainly Swedish. This is particularly the case with Castrén’s letters and travelogues. Even so, the present series will provide a basis for the future translation of these materials into other languages, including English. Juha Janhunen 17 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Manuscripta Castreniana: A General Preface to the Series Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Juha Janhunen Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Manuscripta Castreniana: A General Preface to the Series Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Juha Janhunen Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Finno-Ugrian Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017 (updated 2021) Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/9ad8b2687ddf4ac2abea166170701a87.png 3c469ab395937fb3f2ec1f34042a1834 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pictures Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data map Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Map of M. A. Castrén's Journeys Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Anna Kurvinen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource png https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/2a1b25e55e6eceef259ba6df2efce84f.pdf df70cd9966ac7504b65abbbe7268884e PDF Text Text Fennica: Grammatica Fennica  Stipa 1990: 115−116; Nuorteva 1999: 216−217.  Aeschillus Petraeus: Linguae Finnicae brevis institutio 1649; Matthias Martinius: Hodegus Finnicus 1689.  Vihonen 1983: 124.  See e.g. Korhonen 1986: 28−33. Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Finnish Grammar Ka i sa Hä k k i ne n The first attempts to describe the Finnish language through grammatical representations were made for pedagogical and religious purposes. Towards the end of the 16th century, two Finnish students of the Jesuit seminary in Olmütz, Olaus Sundergelteus and Johannes Jussoila, are said to have been given the task of making out a Finnish grammar to aid with the Counter-Reformation.1358 Obviously the attempt failed, as anything resembling a Finnish grammar from that period of time has not been preserved. The first Finnish grammar books1359 were published in the 17th century to help Swedish-born clergymen and civil servants learn the language of the eastern part of the Swedish realm. The early Finnish grammars were strictly bound to the grammatical categories of Latin, and this was probably for practical reasons: at the time, every educated person was well aware of the structure of Latin grammar and could easily find the corresponding categories and expressions in any other grammar constructed in the same way.1360 Latin was understood to be a kind of universal model of an ideal language, and Latin grammars like Donatus’ Ars grammatica had been well-known schoolbooks everywhere in Europe since antiquity. Scientific research into grammar began only later. The Changing Role of the Grammar As Matthias Alexander Castrén started his academic career in the first half of the 19th century, the status of grammars was totally different than it had been in former times. The idea of Finno-Ugric language kinship was launched and accepted gradually over the course of the 18th century.1361 Comparative and historical methods for linguistic research on living and extinct languages were emerging. Whereas earlier only a few “sacred” languages such as Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were considered worthy of academic study and use, now any language could be chosen as the object of scientific study. The languages of Europe and beyond were analyzed and classified on more or less clearly defined linguistic grounds, both genetically and typologically. It became evident that living languages have 672 Fennica.indd 672 17.1.2019 14:55:22 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Finnish Grammar constantly changed over time and those changes have left detectable marks in the structure of the languages. Languages springing from a common source—a parent language—share common features or correspond to each other in a regular way in their phonetical and grammatical properties. One of the central figures of comparative linguistics was the Dane Rasmus Rask1362 who studied both Indo-European and FinnoUgric languages through grammatical comparison. He wrote several grammars following a specific organizational pattern: first a short description of phonology, then extensive descriptions of inflectional categories, followed by word derivation, and then syntax, and possibly a survey of metrics. Thus, he created a kind of a common framework for every grammar of any language under investigation. On the other hand, he strove to describe every language in relation to its kindred languages and their common historical background. Thus, it was important to identify the peculiar characteristics of each language and language group and describe those languages following the same pattern. Rask emphasized the role of core grammar when determining the common origins of tentatively related languages. Previously, word comparisons had been the primary tool of research, but now it was understood that words can be easily loaned from one language to another. Thus, only the core vocabulary was considered stable enough for genetic comparisons. In any case, the grammatical system was of decisive importance. Rask’s work inspired and influenced language studies in Finland in many ways. On his journey to Russia in 1818, Rask stayed some days in Turku, got acquainted with local academics, and gave a speech to rouse public enthusiasm for Finno-Ugric studies. Anders Johan Sjögren, who was a university student at that time, could not attend the occasion, but after hearing about it, he wrote a humble letter to Rask asking for some advice on where to begin his scientific work on Finno-Ugric languages. Rask was kind enough to provide him some useful contacts in St. Petersburg, and two years later Sjögren moved to St. Petersburg to work as a private teacher, and later as the private librarian of Count N.P. Rumjancev, a well-known patron of the sciences, who also supported the Finnish dictionary project1363 of Gustaf Renvall at Rask’s suggestion. It is no wonder that Rask’s name and his theoretical standpoints were often mentioned and quoted in the linguistic literature of Finland throughout the 19th century. Sjögren planned an expedition to study Finno-Ugric languages spoken in Russia, and finally managed to obtain financial support from the Finnish Treasury for his journey.1364 The expedition lasted  Hovdhaugen et al. 2000: 159− 165.  Gustaf Renvall’s Suomalainen Sana-Kirja was published in two parts in 1823 and 1826.  Korhonen 1986: 41−47. 673 Fennica.indd 673 17.1.2019 14:55:22 �Fennica: Grammatica Fennica  E.N. Setälä described and classified the different parties of the struggle in his inaugural lecture in 1893. The lecture was published for the first time in 1894.  The Finnish term murteitten taistelu ”dialect struggle” was launched by Julius Krohn (1897: 179). four years, and after that, he was invited to take up a post of assistantship in the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg. Later he was appointed as an Academician in Linguistics and Ethnography of Finnic and Caucasian Peoples. He was the first Finnish linguist to apply the historical-comparative methods developed by Rasmus Rask, Franz Bopp, and Jacob Grimm and to conduct fieldwork among Finno-Ugric peoples in Russia. In his highly esteemed academic position, he was also able to help younger researchers get started. The most successful of those young men was M.A. Castrén. The New Status of the Finnish Language Until the beginning of the 19th century, Finnish was a minority language of the Swedish realm with no legal rights. It was used as a liturgical language in the Evangelical Lutheran Church as well as the language of religious literature, but otherwise there was hardly any literature to educate or entertain the Finnish-speaking people. Society was not equal but divided into different ranks, and Finnish was the language of the lowest classes, peasants, workers, and other common people. Persons of higher rank spoke Swedish and, to a lesser extent, German or other Indo-European languages. In 1809 Finland became a part of the Russian Empire as an autonomous Grand Duchy. Cautious attempts were made to improve the official status of the Finnish language, but the future of the language itself was thrown into confusion. The Finnish literary language had been created during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century on the basis of the southwestern dialects, and the written form had, practically speaking, stagnated at the level of the first Finnish Bible published in 1642. A thorough reform of the literary language to bring it more in line with the spoken language was badly needed, but there were different opinions on how it should be done exactly.1365 Some radicals like Carl Axel Gottlund promoted full freedom: everyone should be allowed to write the language as they spoke it, whether it be in the Savo dialect or anything else. Some moderate academics like Gustaf Renvall wanted to purify the western dialect by eliminating Swedicisms and other foreign elements. Some reformers like Reinhold von Becker wanted to create a new standardized Finnish on the basis of eastern dialects. Some like Elias Lönnrot took a diplomatic approach and wanted to combine the best parts of western and eastern dialects and thereby come to a reconciliation of the “dialect struggle.”1366 674 Fennica.indd 674 17.1.2019 14:55:22 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Finnish Grammar Grammars constituted a useful weapon in this struggle. As grammars were understood to be models for language learners and users, it was important to bring about an effective model as there was a great demand for it. The first grammars of the new type came out during the first decade of autonomy. In these books, languages other than Latin were used, as they were intended to reach a wider audience. For example, Johann Strahlmann published a Finnish grammar in German and Jacob Judén published one in Swedish. A little later, the Karelian-born Grigorij Okulov published a Finnish grammar in Russian. Reinhold von Becker distinguished himself as the author of a thorough Finnish grammar written in Swedish which was esteemed very highly in academic circles. Elias Lönnrot was the first to describe the grammatical structure of Finnish in Finnish.1367 In 1841, the Finnish school system was reformed and the Finnish language for the first time became an academic subject in the secondary schools of Finland. The problem was that the written form was developing and changing with such speed that the grammar of Becker had become outdated, and besides, it was far too extensive and scientific to be used as a schoolbook. New grammars were published in abundance to meet the demand. In 1846, the Finnish Literature Society announced a prize of 200 silver rubles to the author of a new and complete grammar. More Finnish grammars were published again, all different from each other. None of them was awarded a prize, however. There was no fixed standard for grammatical description yet, and none of these grammars had obtained an authoritative status. In practice, the grammars of Gustaf Erik Eurén1368 turned out to be the most useful for use as schoolbooks, as Eurén was able to present even complicated matters in a simple way. He had carefully read research literature and all reviews and critics concerning the Finnish grammar and made the necessary corrections and improvements.1369 At the University of Helsinki, Latin was still in use as a language of academic writing in the 1840s when Castrén started his academic career. The language of instruction was Swedish, which was practical, as all students had learned it by the secondary school at the latest, if it was not already their mother tongue. There were many among them who were not even able to understand spoken or written Finnish. Yet, along with the rise of National Romanticism and the publication of the Kalevala, the status of Finnish rose rapidly. The langugae was considered as an essential factor in developing Finnish national identity, and this made Finnish an attractive object of study. So it was an exceptionally noteworthy event when M.A. Castrén decided in 1844 to give a series of lectures on Finnish grammar.  See e.g. Häkkinen 1994: 104− 109.  Grunddragen till finsk formlära (1846), Finsk språklära (1849), Finsk språklära i sammandrag (1851), Suomalainen kielioppi suomalaisille (1852).  Stark 1968. 675 Fennica.indd 675 17.1.2019 14:55:22 �Fennica: Grammatica Fennica  The knowledge of Castrén’s teaching activity is scanty. According to Wichmann (1928: 294), only the academic year 1851−52 has been documented in detail in the program of the university.  Helsingfors’ Morgonblad 3th October 1844; Haltsonen 1938: 31−32.  Sjögren 1854: 260.  There is a note written in Keckman’s hand on the first page of the lecture manuscript: “Min första publika föreläsning den 16. Sept. 1829.”  Anttila 1928: 281.  A manuscript of 128 pages, FLS Coll. Keckman MF. 122– 123/1990. There is a closing vignette perfectly identical with the one Castrén used in finishing his lecture manuscript on Finnish grammar. Most of Castrén’s posthumous manuscripts were sent to St. Petersburg to be published by Anton Schiefner, but the materials dealing with Finnish and Lappish were left aside (Sjögren 1854: 282). The manuscript containing Keckman’s lectures was found among the papers of Carl Gustaf Borg who was the editor responsible for Castrén’s posthumous collections in Finland.  Published as a scholarly edition in Manuscripta Castreniana, Realia I: 48−88.  The lecture has been published in NRF (= Nordiska Resor och Forskningar) VI: 98−101, and as a scholarly edition, in the Manuscripta Castreniana, Realia I: 144−148. Lectures on Finnish Grammar It is not known when exactly Castrén introduced his series of the lectures on Finnish grammar.1370 In the beginning of the autumn term of 1844, he was announced to still be on leave. In the summer of 1844, he escorted Peter von Köppen from the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg to different parts of Finland to collect statistical information.1371 By the time of his letter to A.J. Sjögren dated 23 November 1844, Castrén reported to have collected and arranged new material for his grammar lessons and was actively giving lectures.1372 Castrén did not give further information about the material used for lectures, but considering the dedication and thoroughness he dedicated to all his scientific enterprises, he probably used all available materials. In fact, he was not the first scholar to give lectures on Finnish grammar in Helsinki. Just before him, Carl Niclas Keckman, the first lecturer of Finnish at the Alexander University, had started his academic career in 1829 with a course on Finnish grammar based on Reinhold von Becker’s Finsk Grammatik (1824).1373 Later, Keckman gave grammar lectures as a part of his private teaching career.1374 There is a manuscript among Keckman’s posthumous papers headed Ur Lektor Keckmans föreläsningar öfver v. Beckers Finska Grammatik, which was most probably written by Castrén’s hand.1375 Castrén either attended Keckman’s private lessons or he copied the lectures from some other listener’s notes. Anyway, he could not use Keckman’s material as such as the basis of his own lectures. Becker’s grammar did not meet the standard of new grammatical order designed by Rask, and it was not quite up to date with the present development of the Finnish literary language either. Castrén’s lectures consisted of different sections. He opened with an informal introduction which was not documented in any way. After that, he went on reading his article titled Anmärkningar om Savolotscheskaja Tschud.1376 Then he gave a short opening lecture in which he brought out some general aspects of linguistic and philological research and underlined the national significance of his study.1377 Then he proceeded to discuss Finnish grammar, most probably in the same order that Rask had used in his grammatical descriptions. At the end of the autumn term, Castrén closed the series with an impassioned patriotic speech,1378 in which he bade farewell to those present and announced his upcoming expedition. The audience was enthusiastic. The memoirs one of his students, August Schauman, recalls that Castrén’s lectures were the highlight of the whole academic year, even if he himself could hardly understand a word of Finnish.1379 Now he started to study Renvall’s 676 Fennica.indd 676 17.1.2019 14:55:22 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Finnish Grammar grammar,1380 Lönnrot’s articles,1381 and everything he considered to be useful in developing his skills in Finnish. He took private lessons under Zacharias Cajander, an eccentric figure who came across as a genuine boor and taught vernacular Finnish for financial compensation. The very next summer, Schauman and some of his friends decided to travel to the Finnish countryside to learn more about the language and the Finnish people. The highly patriotic atmosphere was the most important aspect of the Finnish lectures, not so much the linguistic details. Many of Castrén’s friends, colleagues, and travel companions attended the lectures, among them Johan Reinhold Bergstadi, Herman Kellgren, and Robert Tengström.1382 Bergstadi even wanted to collect and publish Castrén’s grammar lectures afterwards, but he never found time to put his plan into effect. Fabian Collan, the headmaster of the upper high school (gymnasium) of Kuopio urgently requested Castrén to write a new Finnish grammar on the basis of his lectures, but growing tired of waiting, he asked his friend Herman Kellgren to copy his notes and send them to Kuopio. Castrén was kind enough to let Kellgren reproduce his original lecture material, but it turned out that the manuscript was short and sketchy and definitely not ready for publication. Besides, there were mistakes and slots to suggest that Castrén, in Kellgren’s opinion, had forgotten much of his command of Finnish during his long and arduous travels.1383 Instead of editing Castrén’s material, Collan decided to write a grammar by himself. The book appeared in 1847 and, in the preface, Collan gives an account of the linguistic background of the grammar and expresses his gratitude to Kellgren and Castrén. In the manuscript collection of Castrén, there are several sheets and notebooks containing grammatical manuscript fragments, checklists, and scattered notes.1384 There is also a small leaflet which, judging by its content, might represent the basic material used for the lectures, as it contains material on different aspects of grammar in a concise format. However, this is not certain, as the phonology portion seems to be missing. Nevertheless, Kellgren wrote to his friend Collan that the phonology in particular was the best part of Castrén’s lectures. Anyway, in spite of all his other obligations, Castrén had started to write out a full transcript of his lectures. There is an uncompleted manuscript the title of which is “Föreläsningar i Finsk Grammatik” (Lectures on Finnish grammar).1385 The manuscript contains only the phonological part of the Finnish grammar: letters and sounds,1386 vowels, consonants and consonant clusters, including gradation and other sound alternations, accent, and quantity. It is perfectly possible that Kellgren saw the clean manuscript of  The lecture has been published in NRF VI: 101−108, and as a scholarly edition in 2018 in the series Manuscripta Castreniana, Realia I: 144−155.  Schauman [1892] 1967: 230.  Renvall 1840.  Lönnrot 1841.  G. Castrén 1945: 74−75.  G. Castrén 1945: 75.  KK Coll. 539.2.12.  KK Coll. 539.2.7.  Letters (orthography) and sounds (phonetics) are not always kept apart clearly. 677 Fennica.indd 677 17.1.2019 14:55:22 �Fennica: Grammatica Fennica  De affinitate declinationum in lingua Fennica, Esthonica et Lapponica 1839.  Castrén 1839: 1.  Castrén 1839: 2.  KK Coll. 539.2.10. There is no title page for this grammar manuscript. In the collection catalogue it is headed Annotatio grammaticalia.  KK Coll. 539.2.12. the phonological part and the sketchy notes of the rest of grammar and then came to the natural conclusion that the phonology was the only portion of the lectures which was worthy of later use. This manuscript is now published in a scholarly edition for the first time as a part of the Fennica volume of Manuscripta Castreniana. It has not been published before. The Finnish Grammar Book As described above, an authoritative Finnish grammar was badly needed in the middle of the 19th century. Great expectations fell on Castrén, who had published a groundbreaking thesis on the interrelationship between Finnish, Estonian, and Lappish nominal inflection systems and thus introduced the new comparative method of Rasmus Rask and Franz Bopp to the University of Helsinki.1387 In the beginning of his thesis, Castrén quoted Bopp and thus made clear his own ideas on the importance of grammar: “Eine Grammatik in höherem, wissenschaftlichem Sinne soll eine Geschichte und Naturbeschreibung sein; sie soll, so weit es möglich ist, geschichtlich den Weg ausmitteln, wodurch sie zu ihrer Höhe emporgestiegen oder zu ihre Dürftigkeit herabgesunken ist.”1388 In the introductory part of his thesis Castrén proclaimed: “Grammatica continet leges, ingenium, vel ut ita dicam, linguae cujusque animum, cum e contrario vocabula solam ejus formam efficiunt.” (Grammar contains the laws of the language, the real nature, or in other words, the vital power of each language, whereas words only constitute its form.)1389 For Castrén, grammars were much more than simple learning aids. After his successful lectures on Finnish grammar in 1844, Castrén seems to have started to compose a Finnish grammar book as well. It is possible that he left the lecture manuscript deliberately incomplete and preferred to work on the grammar book project instead, seeing that he only managed to make progress on the grammar manuscript. There is a nearly clean manuscript preserved in the manuscript collection, reaching from the phonology until the end of the inflection of pronouns.1390 In addition, among the grammatical notes1391 there is a draft on verb inflection and a concise survey of other word classes in the form of a plain list without any explanations or comments. Even most titles are missing in this final part. The Finnish grammar book to be published for the first time in this volume of Manuscripta Castreniana has been compiled from those separate pieces of manuscripts mentioned above. It does not exist as an integrated whole in Castrén’s papers. 678 Fennica.indd 678 17.1.2019 14:55:22 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Finnish Grammar Among the posthumous papers of Castrén, there are still some half-done manuscripts to show that the competition in grammar writing combined with the insufficient knowledge of the historical phonology of the Uralic languages caused much trouble and stress in academic circles in the middle of the 19th century, and even Castrén could not avoid involvement in these polemics.1392 A burning question at the time was how to choose and describe the basic form of nominal inflection. Should it be an existing form like nominative singular or might it be a constructed form, a kind of abstract root or “original nominative1393”? The starting points of the debaters were not equal, as Castrén wanted to proceed on the basis of the comparative method and the evidence provided by other Uralic languages, but most of the contemporary Finnish grammar writers had no knowledge of the kindred languages. In this quarrel, Castrén was on his own.1394 In Castrén’s papers, there are two different versions of an article headed Om Nominal-stammen i Finska språket, full of corrections, removed passages and chapters, and half-done sentences. Both versions are incomplete. The same goes for his review of an 1845 study1395 on Finnish phonology written by Matthias Akiander. Castrén started to draft his review1396 in his 1846 interfoliated1397 calendar while in Siberia, but even here he got stuck in the problem of the basic form of nouns. After all the trouble, Castrén never came to a satisfactory solution ready for the printing press. One more time he returned to the themes of his famous grammar lecture series, as he was appointed Professor of the Finnish Language and Literature in 1851. In his inaugural lecture1398 on 5 May 1851, he left linguistic details aside. He spoke about the status of the Finnish language, its relation to Swedish, and the constant need to develop favourable conditions for national culture. A Grammar That Never Came About In his letter of 18 October 1844 to J.V. Snellman,1399 Castrén stated “Grammars are not my main object in life, but without them I cannot attain my goal.” The ultimate goal of Matthias Alexander Castrén was the cultural elevation and development of his own people through their own language. He wanted to show that the Finns were not alone in the world, but were related at least to one-sixth of humankind. In his letter1400 to Wilhelm Schott written in December 1851, Castrén told that so far, he had never had the time or opportunity to devote himself completely to comparative studies. Even now he  Castrén accounts for the positions as follows: “Såsom hufvud-representanter för striden har man att anse: å ena sidan v. Becker och Lönnrot, samt å den andra Rask, Renvall och Akiander. Undertecknad har befunnit sig i midten af de stridande, icke derföre att han älskar den gyllene medel-vägen utan af skäl att han ansett sanningen ligga i midten af de motsatta åsigter.”  Finnish alkuperäinen nominatiivi, the term used by Elias Lönnrot.  Castrén regrets the circumstances in the margin: “Res Förf[attaren] erkänner gerna, att d[e]n[na] lilla uppsatts hade vunnit både i intresse och redighet, ge[nom] en förb[unden?] öppen polemik emot stridiga åsigter, D Ty wärr! är kritiken anl en litterär polemik i wårt land en så ny sak, att en Förf[attare] ge[nom] den lindrigaste kritik ådaga ådrager sig moraliska tilltalelser och af sådan anl[edning] har man här la endast låtit den torra saken tala.”  Försök till utredning af Finska språkets ljudbildning in Suomi 1845.  KK Coll. 539.26.14.  Previously, it was common to add empty pages to all kinds of books in order to make space for one’s own notes.  Published in Joukahainen XIV (1913), and as a scholarly edition in 2018 in the series Manuscripta Castreniana, Realia I: 156−166.  Published by Rein 1928: 398.  Published by Haltsonen 1962. 679 Fennica.indd 679 17.1.2019 14:55:22 �Fennica: Grammatica Fennica  KK Coll. 539.2.7. Castrén gave the original lectures on Finnish grammar during the autumn term of 1844 only on the basis of some sketchy grammatical notes (G. Castrén 1945: 74−75). He also started to elaborate on a full copy of his preliminary manuscript material, but the work remained unfinished. was extremely busy with the duties of his new position as Professor of Finnish Language and Literature. He thought, however, that the situation would be better in a couple of years. He was planning a long journey to Berlin with his young wife Natalia and their baby boy Robert. There he would be free to deepen his knowledge of comparative grammar research and complete his grammar of Samoyedic languages as well as some other unfinished studies. All those plans crashed as Castrén’s health broke down. He died on 7 May 1852. Most of his scientific collections were sent to the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg and published by his friend Anton Schiefner in a twelve-volume series Nordische Reisen und Forschungen von Dr. M.A. Castrén. The series contains several grammars and dictionaries, travel accounts, letters, and some minor studies and lectures, but not the lectures on Finnish grammar or the Finnish grammar book. They have been hidden in the archives, until now. 680 Fennica.indd 680 17.1.2019 14:55:22 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Finnish Grammar (Fennica) Subject The topic of the resource <i>Fennica</i>. Manuscripta Castreniana, Linguistica I. 758 p. ISBN 978-952-7262-07-8 (print/hardcover), ISBN 978-952-7262-08-5 (online/pdf). 50 €. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kaisa Häkkinen Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Finno-Ugrian Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2019 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource © Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura – Société Finno-Ougrienne – Finno-Ugrian Society & the authors https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/f07b8b5ed99a5a10a8a9fd1a15604f0e.pdf 2f1131baccaf2fa002ce9e2f2870fd1a PDF Text Text Fennica: Kalevala     An extended version with 50 songs came out in 1849. The original Kalevala included 32 songs. In this volume, the original version (1835) is called the Old Kalevala, and the extended version of 1849, which is better known and in general use nowadays, is called the New Kalevala. According to C.G. Borg, a younger colleague and friend of Castrén, there were no signs of Castrén’s special interest in Finnish studies or even his outstanding scholarly abilities before the Kalevala (Borg 1853: 14−19). A.J. Sjögren (1854) tells in his obituary of Castrén that at the beginning of his academic career, Castrén had planned to follow his family tradition and become a clergyman. See also Estlander 1928: 20. Estlander quotes Castrén’s own letter to his uncle Abraham Fellman. See further e.g. Söderhjelm 1924: 135 ff. Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Swedish Translation of the Old Kalevala Ka i sa Hä k k i ne n In the history of the Finnish-language culture of Finland, the appearance of the Kalevala, the Finnish national epic compiled by Elias Lönnrot, was a turning point of unmatched importance. As soon as the first part of the first edition was published in 1835, the Kalevala was made the very icon and flagship of the Finnish National Romantic heritage, at least in academic circles.1 It was convincing proof of the capacity of Finland to develop a higher culture. Over the period of the Swedish regime, from the Middle Ages until the dawn of the 19th century, the social status of Finnishspeaking Finns was low. There was a general impression that actual Finns would never be able to develop anything that could be called real culture. The Kalevala proved the opposite. It demonstrated in an undeniable way that the uneducated Finnish peasants were capable of creating high-level poetry based on their ancient and still-living folk traditions. To Matthias Alexander Castrén, a newly qualified candidate of humanities at the Alexander University of Helsinki, the Kalevala and the emerging Fennoman movement around it gave his life a totally new purpose.2 So far, Castrén had mainly studied classical and oriental languages and philosophy to prepare himself to make a modest living as a cleric or teacher.3 Now he decided to devote himself entirely to Finnish studies, including all the languages and cultures related to Finnish. There had been some interest in folk poetry even before the appearance of the Kalevala. In the circles of the Old Academy of Turku, the rise of humanist studies and international Romanticist ideas by the end of 18th century had inspired leading academics, above all Henrik Gabriel Porthan, to collect and study Finnish folk poems and national history. The so called Turku Romanticism in the first decades of 19th century involved cautious attempts to develop the official status of the Finnish language and to collect and publish Finnish folklore. Some young students and collectors like Adolf Ivar Arwidsson, Carl Axel Gottlund, Abraham Poppius, and Anders Johan Sjögren had even made a solemn pledge to speak Finnish to each other and to try to use the vernacular and the Finnish folklore material as a basis for developing a distinctive Finnish culture.4 As 14 Fennica.indd 14 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Swedish Translation of the Old Kalevala some of them were studying at the Uppsala University, they had encouraged and helped the German researcher H.R. Schröter publish a collection of Finnish folk poems in a German translation.5 In Sweden, these efforts were noticed as a sign of an emerging Fennoman movement as early as 1810.6 The role of this cultural and scientific research was essential in raising the national spirit, as there were no possibilities to engage in open political activities. Of the young researchers mentioned above, Sjögren later made a most splendid career. First he was invited to become a correspondent member of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, then appointed to the post of assistant, then promoted to extraordinary academician, and finally he achieved the post of permanent academician for Finno-Ugrian and Caucasian languages and ethnology.7 In 1845 he was granted the rank of Councillor of State. In addition to his own scientific merits, Sjögren became an important organiser of the emerging Finno-Ugrian research tradition. For younger Finnish researchers like Castrén, he was an inspiring role model and an influential supporter. One of the early promoters for the national awakening was Reinhold von Becker, an adjunct in history at the Academy of Turku. Becker set up a Finnish newspaper Turun Wiikko-Sanomat in 1820, published an excellent Finnish grammar in 1824, and encouraged one of his students, Elias Lönnrot, to write his candidate thesis8 on Väinämöinen, the central figure of Finnish folk poetry. Becker even gave Lönnrot his own poetry collections and notes on Finnish mythology to be used as source material.9 When the Academy was moved from Turku to Helsinki in 1828, Lönnrot continued his studies there and graduated as a Doctor of Medicine in 1832. For a long time, he worked as a district physician in Kajaani in eastern Finland, but his main interest continued to be the Finnish folk tradition and development of the Finnish language. He made several journeys to Karelia to collect folk poetry, publishing several minor collections of poems,10 and was one of the founders of the Finnish Literature Society in 1831. An important predecessor and model for Lönnrot was Zachris Topelius the Elder, a district physician in Nykarleby, located on the western coast of Finland. Inspired by Porthan, he started his collecting activity as early as 1803.11 On the basis of his own experience, Topelius knew that the best singers came from the Arkhangel district of Russian Karelia, where the epic poems had been best preserved. Topelius published five booklets containing Finnish folk poems in their original form.12 Up to this time, Zachris Topelius and Elias Lönnrot had published songs as separate items, but in 1833 Lönnrot got the idea of combining a thematic selection of poems into three integrated         Schröter [1819] 1834. The Swedish term fennomani was launched by the Swedish writer and critic Lorenzo Hammarsköld in his journal Lyceum in 1810; SAOB s. v. fennomani. Korhonen 1986: 41−50. De Väinämöine priscorum Fennorum numine 1827. Kaukonen 1979: 24−26. Kantele I−IV 1829−1831. Kaukonen 1979: 18−21. Suomen Kansan Vanhoja Runoja, ynnä myös Nykyisempiä lauluja (1822−1831). 15 Fennica.indd 15 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Fennica: Kalevala          Kaukonen 1979: 38−41. The first sketch entitled Runokokous Väinämöisestä containing 16 songs remained published. Kaukonen 1979: 56−58. Nowadays, 28 February is an officially a day for commemorating the Kalevala and Finnish culture. Kalewala, taikka Vanhoja Karjalan Runoja Suomen kansan muinosista ajoista. Keckman’s letters to Lönnrot on 24 December 1835 and 12 March 1836, published by I. Pääkkönen 1998: 160−162, 163−164. Schauman [1892−1894] 1967: 108−109. The title of the article is misleadingly “The IX song of Kalevala.” This must be the writer’s mistake and not a misprint, as the same number is repeated inside the article. Lönnrot 1835a. wholes with Väinämöinen, Ilmarinen, and Lemminkäinen as central figures.13 In the first stage, he made sketches for three miniature epics, starting with “Lemminkäinen,” but then he decided to combine them all together.14 On his fifth journey in 1834 to White Sea Karelia, Lönnrot met Arhippa Perttunen, a famous singer in the village of Latvajärvi, who provided him with lots of new material and ideas for compiling and completing the planned epic.15 On 28 February 1835, Lönnrot proudly signed the preface of the Old Kalevala.16 In the preface he stated that there had been different possibilities to combine individual songs into a larger entirety, and the way he had chosen was not necessarily the best. However, he was quite satisfied with the result. The Kalevala17 appeared in two volumes: the first (containing songs 1−16) was published just before Christmas in 1835 and the second (songs 17−32) came out in March 1836.18 Why the Kalevala was Translated The Kalevala was not an easy work to read and understand. August Schauman, a Finnish politician, novelist and newspaper manager, recalls in his memoires19 that nobody actually read the Kalevala when it first came out. It was far too difficult to understand, even for those who spoke Finnish as their mother tongue. The language of the Kalevala diverged significantly from the language used in everyday speech and other types of Finnish literature. The vocabulary and the Karelian cultural context of the poems were equally unfamiliar to the enlightened audience, no matter if their own language was Finnish or Swedish. The only way to get acquainted with the celebrated Kalevala was by means of a summary of its contents, or a translation. The first translated portions of the Old Kalevala in Swedish came out even before the epic itself appeared. Elias Lönnrot published the 11th song20 along with some comments and explanations in the newspaper Helsingfors’ Morgonblad in July 1835.21 A translation of the 29th song was published in the same newspaper about half a year later. Earlier, the latter translation had been attributed to Lönnrot on the basis of the publication date: as noted above, the latter part of the Kalevala, including the 29th song, came out no earlier than March 1836. Yet, the correspondence between Lönnrot and Carl Niclas Keckman shows unambiguously that the translator was not Lönnrot but Erik Alexander Ingman, a young medical scientist and active Fennoman of Ostrobothnian origin. Some months later, Ingman also published a translation of the 5th song, this time signed by “Ign.” In fact, he had translated even more of the Kalevala, which can 16 Fennica.indd 16 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Swedish Translation of the Old Kalevala be seen from the copy of the Old Kalevala once possessed by him and then donated to his Hungarian colleague and friend Pál Bugáti.22 This copy contains Swedish translations written in Ingman’s hand alongside the original text. Yet, most of those translations remained unpublished. C.N. Keckman, the Lecturer of Finnish of the University of Helsinki and the Secretary of the Finnish Literature Society, acted as the main assistant to Elias Lönnrot when editing and printing the Old Kalevala. He knew the epic thoroughly and used it as teaching material at the university. He made a Swedish translation word by word23 for his own use and constantly asked Lönnrot for explanations of odd and obscure words and formulations. He also made notes of Finnish neologisms and semantic definitions in the contemporary literature, in order to compile a complete Finnish dictionary, using the Finnish–Latin–German dictionary24 (1826) of Gustaf Renvall as a basis. As the esteemed poet J.L. Runeberg wanted to translate some parts of the Kalevala into Swedish, Keckman made a literal translation for him, and Runeberg then transformed the text into verse form.25 The most renowned writer to translate some passages of the Old Kalevala was Frans Michael Franzén, a poet and bishop from Hernösand, Sweden. He was an elder half-brother of C.N. Keckman. After having made a successful career as a professor at the Old University of Turku, Franzén had moved to Sweden to begin an ecclesiastical career. In his letter to Keckman, Franzén sent two translation fragments including the beginning of the first song and a part of the third song. In addition, Franzén commented on some metric principles and areas of confusion.26 It is possible that Castrén had seen these fragments among the posthumous papers of Keckman while he was preparing his own translation, but even if this were the case, Franzén’s translations left no discernible impression on his work. Viewed side by side, it can be seen that no single line corresponds between Castrén’s and Franzén’s translations. Besides, Franzén’s work shows a significant amount of artistic freedom, which was not typical of Castrén. In 1839, the leading Fennoman activist J.V. Snellman started to publish a literary journal entitled Spanska Flugan, and in the first volume of it, he published an extant review of the Kalevala written by his cousin Henrik Piponius. To illustrate the contents of the epic, there were several song fragments included in a Swedish translation, which had clearly been translated by Piponius himself. Only the fifth song, which was published as an appendix of the review, was a copy of Runeberg’s translation previously published in Helsingfors’ Morgonblad.      Molnár 1981. In some sources, it has been claimed that Keckman’s translation was metric, but for most of the translation, this is not so. There are some metric passages now and then, but they are not systematic. The famous introductory words, for instance (Mieleni minun tekevi / Aivoni ajattelevi etc.), have been translated by Keckman as Lust göres mig / Min hjärna tänker / Lust (har jag) att börja (ihop) med runor / Laga mig att sjunga etc. Suomalainen Sana-kirja. See Renvall 1826. Keckman’s letter to Lönnrot dated 15 August 1836. Published by I. Pääkkönen 1998: 167−168. Franzén’s letter including the translations was published later by Grotenfelt 1886. 17 Fennica.indd 17 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Fennica: Kalevala      Lénström 1841: 13−14. There are odd spelling errors in Lénström’s example words (kionto pro luonto, Ridvala Kecka pro Helka) which indicate his full ignorance of the Finnish language. Helsingfors’ Morgonblad 54/1840. Finnische Runen 1819, see Schröter 1834. Ett manuskripts öde; Wiborgs Tidning 16/1869. A Swedish docent of Uppsala University C.J. Lénström, who was a good friend of Snellman, published a concise study of Finnish folk poetry with several text samples in 1841, before Castrén’s translation of the Kalevala appeared in its entirety.27 Lénström was not able to translate songs from Finnish into Swedish,28 but he made use of the existing Swedish translations published earlier in Helsingfors’ Morgonblad. Among those fragments was Castrén’s own translation of the core parts of the 31st song.29 Yet, some other folk poems published earlier in Schröter’s collection30 were translated by Lénström from German into Swedish. Even if reviews, accounts, and fragments of the translations of the Kalevala had been published, a complete version in any major language was still badly needed. In 1836, the Finnish Literature Society offered a prize of 500 rubles for a complete translation of the epic into Swedish or German. Despite of the attractive prize, the task was too challenging, as no candidates showed up. The most unsuccessful of the Swedish translations of the Old Kalevala was that of Abraham Poppius, the former fellow student of A.J. Sjögren and C.A. Gottlund. In his younger years, Poppius had been a promising poet and a reformer of the literary language. Later he pursued a career as a clergyman, first in Sweden and then in eastern Finland. Without informing anyone, he had started to translate the Kalevala into Swedish, but when he completed his work, he discovered that Castrén’s translation had appeared just recently. Poppius assessed Castrén’s work to be superior to his own manuscript and decided not to publish it. Instead, he used the sheets as wallpaper for his own working room and painted them over.31 Castrén Gets to Work on the Kalevala After completing his master’s degree in 1836, Castrén did not have any clear plans for the future. In his undergraduate days, Castrén had lived for two years as a tenant in Runeberg’s home together with Zachris Topelius the Younger, so he was well acquainted with all National Romantic and Fennoman endeavours and achievements of the time. As he was especially interested in languages, he came to read some works of Rasmus Rask, one of the true pioneers of historical-comparative language studies. Rask had developed a new systematic approach to writing grammars, even of languages he did not know himself, which meant he was able to write a grammar of any language and compare these grammars with each other. It was certainly something that Castrén could apply to his own research of Finno-Ugrian languages! 18 Fennica.indd 18 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Swedish Translation of the Old Kalevala As Castrén had now decided to dedicate himself to FinnoUgrian Studies and to follow the pattern of Rask and Sjögren, he was eagerly looking for an opportunity to start his fieldwork career. It was not easy, however. He was only a poor magister who had to make his living by giving private lessons, teaching schoolchildren, and writing newspaper articles.32 Among those articles, there was a description of the magical skills of ancient Finns, which was published in Helsingfors’ Morgonblad in 1837.33 The next year, he read a paper on the mythology and witchcraft of ancient Finns at the term feast of the Ostrobothnian Students’ Union. Castrén found Finnish mythology and folk beliefs absolutely fascinating.34 In the spring of 1838, Castrén was invited—luckily enough for free—to accompany his friend Carl Robert Ehrström, a district physician in Tornio, on a short multidisciplinary expedition to Lapland. Castrén was happy to participate, as he wanted to expand his knowledge of the Saami language, mythology, and ethnography. The results of his expedition were not especially good, as Castrén had not yet developed a clear scientific agenda and only managed to take some scattered notes. Anyway, the burdensome yet eventful journey constituted a useful model for his future expeditions. In May 1838 C.N. Keckman died and after that, his lecturer’s post at the University of Helsinki became vacant. Castrén wanted to apply for the post, but as he was away from home, he asked one of his friends, L.I. Ahlstubbe to tend to the application. Unfortunately, his friend was sluggish and Castrén’s papers arrived too late.35 Instead, C.A. Gottlund, an active collector and publisher of folk poetry who was known for his radical motto “write as you speak,”36 was appointed. In September 1838, Castrén returned to Helsinki. There, he was told that the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg was planning an expedition to Siberia, and A.J. Sjögren, who had been invited to join the expedition but was unable to go, was looking for a suitable Finnish replacement for the expedition. Two young Finnish scholars, M.A. Castrén and G.A. Wallin were recommended to Sjögren. He chose Castrén, as he was well acquainted with arctic conditions and was known to be a good hunter as well, whereas Wallin was born in Sund, Åland. Unfortunately, the expedition was postponed and Castrén had to find some other meaningful way to make a living in the meantime. As Castrén was now interested in further study of Finnish mythology and folk poetry, he applied for a grant from the Finnish Literature Society in order to travel to Karelia where the old folk tradition had been preserved. He managed to obtain the grant, and the next summer he spent four months collecting songs, magical      Borg 1853: 19. In December 1836, Helsingfors’ Morgonblad published an anonymous review article entitled Några ord om Kalevala. This article has been attributed to Castrén in several connections, but as for the contents and style, it is quite obvious that Castrén was not the author (see e.g. Borg 1870: VI; Hautala 1954: 140−142). A closer examination shows that there are several fragments of the 20th song of the Kalevala translated into Swedish which are perfectly identical with Henrik Piponius’ translations published later in Spanska Flugan (1839). Thus, it is quite plausible that it was Piponius, a cousin of J.V. Snellman, who had written the article in Helsingfors’ Morgonblad as well, and not Castrén or E.A. Ingman, as supposed before. The newspaper does not give the name of the author, but there is a footnote stating that the article was based on a speech held at the term feast of the Ostrobothnian Students’ Union. At that time, Piponius was one of the most active members in the union. Castrén’s letter to Sjögren dated 29 September 1838; cited by Setälä 1915: 4−5. Havu 1945: 262. Gottlund’s mother tongue was Swedish, but he learned a kind of Savo dialect in his childhood, as his father Matthias Gottlund became cleric of Juva and the family moved from Strömfors (in eastern Uusimaa/Nyland) to southern Savo. 19 Fennica.indd 19 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Fennica: Kalevala        Castrén 1904; Timonen 2007: 18−19. Kaukonen 1979: 141−143. In 1848, Sjögren also sent his own collections to Lönnrot. After Keckman’s death, the material was gradually handed over to the Finnish Literature Society. See e.g. FLS Minutes dated 17 October 1838, 1 April 1840; Sulkunen 2004: 77−83. See e.g. Collan 1838, 1839. For some recent overviews of the topic, see e.g. Siikala 2008, Ahola 2014. Helsingfors’ Morgonblad 47/1841. FLS Minutes 5 February 1840. Those passages are given in the notes added to the synoptic translation of this volume. Only the diverging lines have been written out. spells, and folk tales in the famous villages of Karelia where the rune singing tradition was still alive such as Latvajärvi, Uhtua, and Vuokkiniemi.37 Later he delivered his collections to Elias Lönnrot, who used them as material for his new edition of the Kalevala.38 One of the purposes of the field expedition was to collect background information about the world of the Kalevala. In his articles and speeches on Finnish mythology, Castrén had used the Kalevala as reference material, and now he wanted to understand it more thoroughly. The posthumous material of Keckman39 was useful in many details, but many important questions remained unanswered. An academic discussion around the basic character of the Kalevala and the central figures of the epic was only about to begin.40 Was there some historical background to the songs of the Kalevala? Were Väinämöinen and Ilmarinen originally gods or heroes? Was it possible to consider the Kalevala a real folk epic, or was it rather the collector’s creation? The only way to get answers to these questions was to go deep into the elements, actors, and processes which had brought about the enigmatic Kalevala. It is not known when exactly Castrén decided to translate the whole epic into Swedish. According to a review article published after the appearance of the translation, the work took about two years.41 In any case, after the journey to Karelia, the translation work was already underway.42 In July 1840, Castrén sent a sample of the Swedish version of the 31st song to be published in Helsingfors’ Morgonblad. As the Finnish Literature Society celebrated its tenth anniversary in March 1841, Castrén announced his forthcoming book available to subscribers. The Swedish translation of the Kalevala came out in June 1841. In the preface of the Kalevala, Castrén quoted Rasmus Rask who had praised the Finnish language for its richness, melodiousness, and grammatical regularity. According to the preface, Castrén had used translated portions published earlier43 as material for his own work. Yet, a detailed comparison suggests that only Runeberg’s translations were good enough for Castrén. All the others, Lönnrot’s translations included, were modified significantly or totally ignored by him. Castrén has used trochaic tetrameter skillfully and his translation gives much of the same rhythmical impression as the original text of the Kalevala. Yet, the rhythm is based only on stress without taking into account syllable length, which makes the work somewhat monotonous. Due to the structural differences of the languages concerned, Castrén could not apply the same metric constraints and preserve all the linguistic features that characterize the Kalevala language. Now and then, there are one-syllable words at the end of the line, and in extreme cases, a whole line may consist solely of 20 Fennica.indd 20 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Swedish Translation of the Old Kalevala one-syllable words. Some stylistic aspects (e.g. alliteration) of the original poems have been mostly abandoned as well. As for the contents, Castrén has managed to convey the meaning of the source text astonishingly well, which proves his full understanding of the cryptic wording of the original poetry. In most cases, the Swedish text is more transparent and easier to understand than the epic in its original form. No doubt Castrén had privileged access to supplementary information from the literal source material in the archives of the Finnish Literature Society, as well as from his colleagues, above all Elias Lönnrot, who was his esteemed friend and long-time collaborator. For the most part, there is a precise correspondence between the original text and Castrén’s translation. Sometimes Castrén has taken a few lines44 from the song variants published by Lönnrot after the very text of the Kalevala in the same volume, and sometimes he has changed the order of the lines.45 The most important alteration made by Castrén is that he simply censored and omitted certain passages of the poems which he considered to be too delicate or impudent, especially for younger readers. Those parts can be found, among other places, at the beginning of the 25th song.      Castrén has indicated those lines with an asterisk. Castrén has indicated those lines with square brackets. De affinitate declinationum in lingua Fennica, Esthonica et Lapponica. See further the Finnish grammar section of this volume. Estlander 1928: 42. Some parts of the lectures have been preserved in the manuscript and were published by C.G. Borg in Nordiska resor och forskningar VI in 1870. Lectures on the Kalevala Along with the Kalevala project, Castrén had prepared his docent thesis on comparative grammar studies, which he published and defended in the autumn of 1839.46 In January 1840, Castrén was appointed Docent in Finnish and old Scandinavian Languages, and after that, he was qualified to lecture at the university. Castrén did not hurry to begin lecturing, however, as at that time, docents were not paid for their work and he had to make his living by giving private lessons instead.47 Yet, in the spring term of 1841, Castrén was ready to start his career as a university teacher by giving a series of lectures on the Kalevala. Castrén’s younger colleague and friend C.G. Borg has described his way of lecturing as being quite free, i.e. Castrén did not read a full text written in advance, but used only some concise notes to support his oral performance.48 Sometimes Castrén read song passages from his own translation and then explained them using his own notes, partly based on the extensive Kalevala material compiled by the late lecturer of Finnish C.N. Keckman. Keckman had assisted both Zachris Topelius the Elder and Elias Lönnrot in editing and publishing folklore material, and for his own lectures, he had collected a large quantity of notes, word lists, and preliminary 21 Fennica.indd 21 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Fennica: Kalevala     Korhonen 1986: 52−53. G. Castrén 1945: 22−23. As the focus of this publication is Castrén’s linguistic activity, discussions of folklore, mythology, and semantic interpretation of the Kalevala fall outside the scope of this work. For a recent overview of Castrén’s mythological considerations, see Ahola−Lukin 2016. Helsingfors’ Morgonblad 47, 48/1841. The author of the anonymous review was apparently Fabian Collan, the editor of the newspaper. translations from different sources to explain the cryptic language of the Kalevala. Keckman’s main source was Lönnrot himself, which can be seen from his correspondence with Lönnrot. Castrén made careful preparations for this own lectures, as he wanted to complete the existing material and arrange it in a new way. He made alphabetical lists of proper names and appellatives which might deserve some speculation and clarification. He went through all the songs line by line and pointed out striking or problematic details, such as morphological peculiarities or strange dialect words. Castrén planned a full commentary and dictionary of the Kalevala to complete his translation, but the work remained halfdone, as new possibilities for field expeditions arose in the autumn of 1841. Elias Lönnrot invited Castrén to join him on a journey to Lapland, and from there, Castrén continued alone to the east, supported financially by the Finnish Treasury.49 All the while, he was waiting for the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg to come to a decision on launching the planned expedition to Siberia. The Reception of the Translation of the Old Kalevala Castrén’s translation was received with praise and gratitude, and it was widely circulated immediately.50 Now the scientific community in its entirety was able to acquaint itself with every detail of the contents of the Kalevala and take part in discussions concerning the epic and the problems of interpretation.51 The translation was regarded by all as trustworthy and accurate.52 The differences between the original and the translation were mostly seen as a consequence of the differences between the languages concerned. An undeniable fact was that Swedish was a language of culture with a long tradition and stabilized means of expression, whereas Finnish was young and naïve, full of capricious novelties and enigmatic surprises. Those properties were not translatable. In any case, Castrén had managed to convey the meaning and the nature of the epic very well. Thanks to the translation of the Kalevala, Castrén’s name became widely known even outside the academic circles of Finland. So far he had been only one talented scholar among many others, but now he was a noteworthy young expert with special skills in Finnish mythology and folk traditions. The translation of the Kalevala inspired an ever-increasing number of nationalist researchers and amateurs to study the Finnish language and culture, to interpret the historical events behind the songs and to search for the actual locations of the heroic deeds, battles, and adventures described in the 22 Fennica.indd 22 17.1.2019 14:54:51 �Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Swedish Translation of the Old Kalevala Kalevala. Some artists inspired by the Kalevala even artistically rendered the episodes of the epic on the basis of Castrén’s translations and interpretations.53 Castrén’s translation was of great help when exporting the Kalevala, especially into the German-language area of Europe. Herman Kellgren, one of the students attending Castrén’s lectures on the Kalevala, was invited to teach Finnish to professor Hermann Brockhaus in Leipzig. There, he used Castrén’s Kalevala and Keckman’s notes as his primary lecture material.54 Brockhaus was a professor of Sanskrit and Persian linguistics, but he was eager to learn the Finnish language as he wanted to translate the Kalevala into German.55 The most renowned user of Castrén’s translation was Jacob Grimm, a German linguist who was one of Castrén’s most appreciated idols. In March 1845, Grimm gave a presentation of the Kalevala to the Berlin Academy of Sciences including some parts of the 19th poem in its German translation. He also published his presentation in Finland, in Fosterländskt Album II, declaring that the German translation was made by him on the basis of Castrén’s Swedish translation.56 In spite of its indisputable usefulness, Castrén’s translation became obsolete already in his own lifetime. After having published a collection of lyrical songs entitled Kanteletar57 in 1840, Lönnrot started to work on an edited and expanded version of the Kalevala. There was a huge number of new songs collected by Lönnrot, his disciples, and other kindred spirits after the appearance of the Old Kalevala, and they constituted a valuable resource for modifying and completing the epic. A new and richly supplemented edition of the Kalevala was published in 1849, and after that, the older edition receded into the background.      Stewen 2008. G. Castrén 1945: 23, 195−198. Brockhaus expressed his enthusiasm for the Kalevala and Castrén’s translation of it in a letter he sent to Elias Lönnrot. A Swedish translation of the letter was published in Snellman’s Swedish newspaper Saima in 1845. A little later, a young researcher named Hermann Kellgren was sent to Leipzig to teach him Finnish. Yet, Brockhaus’ translation remained incomplete. ”Jag har vid studium af den Finsk poesin varit i tillfälle att taga till råds af Math. Alex. Castréns förträffliga svenska öfversättning af Kalevala. Castrén har äfven i andra arbeten ådagalagt den grundligaste bekantskap af det finska och därmed bestägtade språk.” Grimm 1845: 64. Kanteletar taikka Suomen Kansan Wanhoja Lauluja ja Wirsiä. Return to the Kalevala In his comments and reviews of the Old Kalevala, Castrén had criticised some aspects of its contents, especially the order of certain episodes. When the new edition came out, he could notice that some of his comments and suggestions had been accepted. The most important change was that Lönnrot had moved the song contest between Väinämöinen and Joukahainen from the final section close to the beginning, after the creation of the earth and the birth of Väinämöinen. Some fragmentary parts, especially the Kullervo cycle and the story of Lemminkäinen, had been completed successfully. On the other hand, Castrén criticised Lönnrot for overused 23 Fennica.indd 23 17.1.2019 14:54:52 �Fennica: Kalevala         Kalevala, Toinen painos. Litteraturblad för allmän medborgerlig bildning 2/1850. Castrén’s wish later came true, as the series Suomen kansan vanhat runot (SKVR) was published in 33 volumes. All the poems can be easily found in the SKVR database hosted by the Finnish Literature Society. De affixis personalibus linguarum Altaicarum. The fragments were published by C.G. Borg in Nordiska resor och forskningar VI in 1870. Castrén does not mention the name of the book, only the abbreviation of the name of the author (Dieff.). Anyway, the page numbers given in Castrén’s manuscript match those in Diefenbach’s 1851 dictionary. Nordische Reisen und Forschungen 3: M. A. Castréns Vorlesungen über die finnische Mythologie. Nordiska resor och forskningar. Föreläsningar i Finsk mytologi. Luentoja suomalaisesta mytologiasta (Castrén 2016). parallelism and the discontinuity of the contents. Castrén wrote a review of the new edition and sent it to be published in Litteraturblad in February 1850.58 He concluded his review with the wish that in the future, it would be possible to publish every runic poem ever collected as separate items to showcase the abundance of material and submit it for critical evaluation.59 After a long and complicated preparation process, a chair in Finnish language at the University of Helsinki was established in 1850. Castrén produced a thesis on personal suffixes of the Uralic and Altaic languages60 for the chair, and he was appointed professor on 14 March 1851 by the Chancellor of the University, Crown Prince Alexander himself. In the autumn term of 1851, Castrén held one course of lectures on the new edition of the Kalevala, and another course on Finnish mythology. As before, the Kalevala course was mostly based on concise notes and examples, only some parts of which were written out in full and published afterwards.61 The manuscript notes show that Castrén had found a new and interesting line of research: etymological comparisons between the Indo-European languages and beyond. Several times he refers to Lorenz Diefenbach’s newly published dictionary Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache62 and presents long series of word comparisons alongside the source. Castrén wrote out his lectures on mythology in full, partly in advance, partly afterwards, as his state of health worsened and he was too sick to continue his lectures in the spring term of 1852. Even then, the Kalevala was his primary reference material and a kind of starting point for wider comparisons. The lectures on mythology were published posthumously in German,63 Swedish,64 and Finnish.65 Castrén died on 7 May 1852. 24 Fennica.indd 24 17.1.2019 14:54:52 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Matthias Alexander Castrén and the Swedish Translation of the Old Kalevala (Fennica) Subject The topic of the resource <i>Fennica</i>. Manuscripta Castreniana, Linguistica I. 758 p. ISBN 978-952-7262-07-8 (print/hardcover), ISBN 978-952-7262-08-5 (online/pdf). 50 €. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kaisa Häkkinen Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Finno-Ugrian Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2019 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource © Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura – Société Finno-Ougrienne – Finno-Ugrian Society & the authors https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/9dac525fb37d91aca9d7f2da82ed0559.pdf d957058bfdca5db3c6907236760551bf PDF Text Text Itineraria      Castrén’s travel descriptions and letters are cited in the comments to his travels in this series. Therefore, they are not listed or referred to with detailed references in this introduction. Das Ausland published among many other travel descriptions a lengthy relation of Middendorff’s journey in April 1844. Das Ausland 94–100/1844. It printed a brief account of the first months of Castrén’s journey on 19 Oct. 1845 according to the journal of the Ministry of Public Education, three of Castrén’s travel reports, and to conclude, a summary of his results on 14 Dec. 1849. Das Ausland 292/1845; 299/1849. (TS) Castrén 1852a; 1852b; 1852c; 1855. Castrén 1853b; 1856. Castrén 1953; 1967. Castrén 1857b, see esp. p. V–VI; in German, Castrén 1857a. Matthias Alexander Castrén as a Travelling Researer Ti m o Sa l m i ne n M.A. Castrén’s travels in literature M.A. Castrén’s travels have been addressed in scholarly, semi-scholarly and popular literature since his lifetime. Already during his journeys Castrén sent letters and descriptions to be published in the press in both St Petersburg and Helsinki. Three of these items printed in German in the Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences also n appeared in the German newspaper Das Ausland.1 Castrén himself d published his travelogues of 1838–1844 as a book in 1852, and travel reports and letters of years 1845–1849 were edited posthumously in 1855.2 German editions of them appeared in 1853 and 18563. An abridged popular book in Finnish was published in 1953, appearing in a second edition in 19674. All of Castrén’s journeys are also more or less directly reflected in all his scholarly publications, most directly perhaps in the ethnological lectures that he gave at the University of Helsinki within a period of a little over three weeks in May 1851.5 In addition to them there have been several shorter descriptions and analyses of Castrén’s journeys in different contexts in both scholarly and popular literature since then. Castrén himself contextualized his expeditions primarily in a Finnish-national framework, i.e. the rise of the national movement and the scholarly disciplines related to it. Both his newspaper articles and the book were meant for the so-called general public, and in this context it was appropriate to highlight only the aspects of the journeys that had the closest connection to the readership. The international scholarly background was regarded as distant, nor was there any identification with Russian aims. Perhaps he preferred the Finnish-national point of view also in other respects, although he must also have been aware of the international roots and significance of his journeys and work. This can be seen in the references that he makes throughout his reports and diaries. It is to be expected that Finnish scholars have described and analysed Castrén’s travels primarily in a Finnish-national context, and it remained so until the 1980s. This perspective however, is not exclusive, and especially the academic context of St Petersburg is 18 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 18 21.8.2019 15:44:47 �Introduction often explained. The very earliest biography of Castrén, written by Anders Johan Sjögren (1794–1855) and published in Russian in 1853 and in Swedish in 1855, is a special case in several respects.6 For Johan Vilhelm Snellman (1806–1881), Castrén’s journeys were practically exclusively a part of the national movement in Finland. The significance of the Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg lay only in the economic support it provided to Sjögren and Castrén. Snellman even acknowledged the whole idea of a Siberian expedition to Sjögren, without mentioning the initiatives of other members of the academy at all.7 Aarne Michaël Tallgren followed almost completely Snellman in his whole description of Castrén, although with more emphasis on personal factors.8 Also Aulis J. Joki’s brief account of Castrén stands in a similar relation of dependence to Snellman.9 Emil Nestor Setälä connected Castrén’s work to national development in Finland, mentioning, however, its international connections but not saying anything about earlier travellers in Russia and Siberia.10 For Carl Axel Nordman, the framework within which he defined the significance of Castrén’s journeys, was the development of Finnish archaeology. The background provided by earlier archaeological studies of Siberia by scholars sent from St Petersburg was not mentioned.11 The international scholarly background from which Castrén’s fieldwork arose was given more prominence in analyses from the 1970s onwards.12 In his history of Oriental studies in Finland, Pentti Aalto connected Castrén’s travels almost exclusively to the aims of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.13 In this respect, his approach differs from that of all other Finnish authors, but it is, of course, determined by his scope, which is international in character. Mikko Korhonen’s emphasis is on the Academy and its interests combined with a Finnish background from the viewpoint of the history of linguistics14, and Günter Johannes Stipa presented a little later also the relevant international roots within linguistics15. Neither of them showed much interest in the general roots of Castrén’s journeys in intellectual history. The author of this introduction has earlier attempted to combine the Finnish and Russian factors behind Castrén’s journeys from an archaeological perspective.16 Castrén’s travels were briefly described also in connection with the general history of Finnish expeditions. Their context in those descriptions and especially the one published in 1989 lies mainly in the Finnish-national disciplines, but it is also mentioned that he extended his fieldwork beyond narrow national borders. The significance of the Imperial Academy of Sciences for his journeys is also presented.17 In the history of Finnish learning and science, published in 2000, Castrén’s travels are mentioned in several contexts but not analysed or explained in any way.18              Шегренъ 1853; Teckning 1855. Snellman 1870: esp. p. XXXIV– XXXVII, XLIV–XLVIII. Tallgren 1913: 25–27, 54–55 75– 82. Joki 1953: 7–9. Setälä 1915: 4–7. Nordman 1968: 15–17. Most recently, see Lehtinen, I., 2017: 99–104; Castrén 2017b in general. Aalto 1971: 32, 83–85. Korhonen, M., 1986: 46–53. Stipa 1990: 292–308. Salminen, Timo, 2003: 36–40. Janhunen 1989: 142–144; Halén 1989: 177–180, 196; Korhonen, M., 1989: 225, 227–236; Tiitta 2009: 45–47. Tommila 2000: 126; Herlin 2000: 42, 152, 154, 163, 169; Karlsson  – Enkvist 2000: 227, 233, 245, 247, 275, 277. 19 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 19 21.8.2019 15:44:47 �Itineraria      Louheranta 2006: esp. p. 84– 86, 119–121, 235, 251–253, 263; 2019. Vermeulen 2015: 44–81, 108– 202 etc.; Ahola  – Lukin 2016: 35–36, 55–59; Dahlmann 2009: 115; Lehtinen, I., 2017: 99–104. Teckning 1855: 238–245; Шегренъ 1853. Karl Fridrixovič/Fedorovič Tiander (1873–1938) was a researcher in St Petersburg/ Leningrad, whose grandfather had been a goldsmith in Loviisa, Finland. Tiander published works on different topics of history, literature, theatre and linguistics in the first decades of the 20th century. WorldCat Identities, http://www.worldcat. org/identities/lccn-nr88-5725 ; Kansallismuseo, Kuukauden esine, Syyskuu 2005, http:// www.kansallismuseo.fi/fi/kansallismuseo/kokoelmat/kuukauden_esine_2005/kaulakoru. Тiандеръ 1904: 14–15, 18–44 (on Hegel on p. 19). Olavi Louheranta discussed Castrén’s travels and fieldwork in connection with his analysis of Kai Donner in the development of cultural anthropology, in particular from a psychological viewpoint.19 Joonas Ahola and Karina Lukin have recently analysed also Castrén’s travels in their introductory article to the new Finnishlanguage edition of his mythology lectures. They base their view on Han F. Vermeulen’s ideas of the emergence of ethnology and ethnography in Siberia during the 18th-century expeditions of the German-born scholars educated in the spirit of the Enlightenment. A similar view has also been proposed by Dittmar Dahlmann, but neither Dahlmann nor Vermeulen has dealt with Castrén because of the chronological limits of their works. Castrén’s ethnographic work has, however, been recently analysed by Ildikó Lehtinen.20 It could be expected that works published in Russia and Soviet Union would connect Castrén’s expeditions above all to the tradition launched by the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Actually, this is not always the case. The first extensive biographical account of Castrén was written by A.J. Sjögren and published in the Вѣстникъ of the Imperial Geographical Society. Castrén had been elected corresponding member (членъ сотрудникъ) of the society in 1850. Sjögren’s biography of Castrén was published in Swedish in 1855, without the author’s name. The Swedish version is cited here. For Sjögren, Castrén was above all the continuator of his own work, and this is also the main context for his journeys. Neither discussion in the Academy of Sciences nor other earlier expeditions are explained. It was indeed Sjögren’s efforts that Castrén could thank for the opportunity to travel to the east, but apparently Sjögren wanted to play down the role of other Academy members in achieving the expeditions. This point of view also explains why Snellman gave this honour so exclusively to Sjögren (see above).21 The second Russian account, published by K.F. Tiander22 in 1904, gives a lengthy account of Castrén’s travels, but because Tiander was dealing with Castrén’s work in the context of research in the Finnish language, he presented his journeys mainly in the Finnish context, of course providing them with a relation of the ideas of the day in academic circles and society and noting Sjögren’s role in the process, but omitting other connections, also the Russian ones, almost completely. Interestingly, Tiander emphasized the significance of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770–1831) philosophy for Castrén during his formative years.23 The whole question of whether it was Finnish, Russian or international factors that determined Castrén’s work was relatively marginal in the multi-disciplinary collection published in Leningrad for the 75th anniversary of Castrén’s death. V.G. Bogoraz mentioned 20 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 20 21.8.2019 15:44:47 �Introduction both Finnish and Russian backgrounds, but he did not go deeper into them and their mutual relationship.24 The Soviet view of the 1920s noted Castrén’s criticism towards circumstances prevalent in Russian society in the 1830s and 1840s.25 Jurij Belokobylˈskij’s survey of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age archaeology in Siberia presented his journeys in the context of archaeological expeditions to Siberia with emphasis on Russian topics.26 Most works dealing with Castrén’s travels have not traced the roots of the interests of the Academy of Sciences further back into history or explained their emergence. Most explicitly this is done in Jurij Belokobylˈskij’s book. Literature published in Western Europe is mostly completely unaware of Castrén. It is typical of all descriptions and analyses of Castrén’s journeys at least until the middle of the 20th century that they construct a hero myth27 of a researcher and national actor defying difficult circumstances, endangering his health and returning home halfdead. In itself, this picture is not false, but both conscious and subconscious selections have been made to strengthen the hero image. Castrén himself already began to construct the hero myth. An especially interesting and even striking comparison with the published travelogue is provided by his preserved diary notes from the summer of 1842. The unlucky sailing voyage from Arxangelˈsk towards the Ter shore is described quite differently in the diary and in the published travel book, and the difference lies precisely in the fact that in the published version Castrén exaggerated the difficulties he suffered especially in the fishermen’s village of Kozly and made them last longer than they actually did.28 Elsewhere in his published description, Castrén often omitted or marginalized his social contacts with the Russian elites of the villages and towns that he visited, possibly to make his travels appear to be more of a solitary effort, independent of Russians. Another and often quite different image is provided by his travelling companion Johan Reinhold Bergstadi’s (1820–1850) diary of 1845–1846, published by J. Oskar I. Rancken29, where we see Castrén also bargaining in markets, singing quartets with other Finns in St Petersburg and enjoying good food and wine in both the Russian capital and other towns and cities.30 Other forms of resoluteness also belong to the Castrénian self-portrait. He is terrifying to his adversaries such as a Russian robber trying to take his reindeer and money in 1843 but at the same time generous to the indigenous inhabitants of the tundra and taiga. Several examples of the latter attitude are given. A specific way of presenting a mythologized Castrén can be found in cases where his significance as a model and forerunner of the later generations of scholars is discussed.31         Богораз 1927: esp. 4, 10, 16, 24–26, and other articles in the collection Памяти М.А. Кастрена. Богораз 1927: 10–11, 17–19, 34. Белокобыльский 1986: 54–56. On myth as signified speech, Barthes 1994: 173–179; on applications of hero myths in early Finnish archaeology also involving Castrén, see Salminen, Timo, 2003: 176–178. Cf. Blunt – Stearn 1971: 68–69, an account of Carl Linnaeus’s (von Linné’s) conscious exaggerations of the obstacles he had met and even visits to nonexistent places. Rancken 1884. Quoted in the commentary notes to the 1845–1849 journey in this volume. See, e. g. Lehtisalo 1959: 6, 112, 115; Donner, K., 1933: 5, 71, on archaeologists, Salminen, Timo, 2003: 73, 78. 21 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 21 21.8.2019 15:44:47 �Itineraria     All the maps of Castrén’s journeys published until now contain errors. In some cases, they can be explained by the fact that no detailed description of Castrén’s travel routes has been published until now, but for some others there is no reasonable explanation. The most correct map before this edition is Tallgren 1913: appendix and the most erroneous mistakes can be found in Tiitta 2009: 45. Castrén’s letter to A.J. Sjögren on 27 Sept. 1838, see the volume of letters in this series. When citing letters by Castrén in this article, I refer the reader to the volume of Castrén’s letters in this series. The references to the original sources in archives can be found there. Korhonen, M., 1986: 40–41; Stipa 1990: 292–298; Setälä 1915: 6. Branch 1973: 93–100; Sjögren 1955: 119–121. In addition to the works cited here, Castrén’s travels have been mentioned in a large number of articles and other short works since his death, and practically all the different ways of considering their context have been applied previously in the literature. Therefore, this introduction concentrates on the one hand on the practical side of the journeys and on the other hand on the way Castrén saw the different phenomena that he encountered. What is new in whole of this publication of his travels is the possibility to make Castrén’s field research process visible by commenting on his diaries and notebooks, published here for the first time. Castrén’s travels: where and why?32 Lapland 1838 and Karelia 1839 Matthias Alexander Castrén made his first, still quite tentative, journey to Lapland in the summer of 1838. His main aim during this short journey was to become acquainted with the Saami language and folklore, because he had decided to devote himself to studies of the Kalevala and Finno-Ugric languages instead of the Oriental (Sea mitic) languages which he had originally considered to be his main interest.33 The inspiration for this came from both the publication of the Kalevala in 1835 and by the language and folklore studies by fora eign scholars such as Rasmus Rask (1787–1832) in the first decades of the 19th century.34 Castrén travelled at the cost of his friend Carl Robert Ehrström (1803–1881), district physician of Tornio, who could follow his companions only to Peltovuoma village in Kittilä before returning to his duties. His other companions were the naturalist Jakob Fredrik Blank (1808–1860) and Pastor Josef Vilhelm Durchman (1806–1891) on his way to become the chaplain in Inari. They visited Aavasaksa Fell on Midsummer Eve, continued to Peltovuoma village and crossed the fells from there to Inari and further on to Utsjoki. A Saami catechumen called Isaksson from Norway was Muonio at the same time to learn Finnish, and he and Castrén could teach each other their respective languages. On the way from Tornio to Peltovuoma, the friends made short visits also to the Swedish side of the border, for example the Kengis ironworks. After Blank took another way back, Castrén and Durchman, who did not remain in Inari yet, wandered with their local guides through Sodankylä and Kemijärvi to Kemi in August. Castrén used the material he had collected in his works on both the Saami languages and Finno-Ugric mythology. Also A.J. Sjögren had visited the area between Utsjoki and Sodankylä in 1826.35 22 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 22 21.8.2019 15:44:47 �Introduction Two published descriptions and a field notebook survive from this journey. The first report was printed in Helsingfors Morgonblad in 1839 (No. 2 in this volume) and the second, more extensive, one in Nordiska resor och forskningar in 1852 (No. 1 in this volume). The r notebook, in extremely worn condition and therefore partly illegible (No. 4), complements the published reports especially concerning the route that was travelled and some descriptive details. Also the article Ett Postscriptum (No. 3) can be connected to this journey, dem spite the date given to it by Carl Gustaf Borg in NRF.36 Also the text known as Utdrag ur ett bref dateradt Kuolajärvi den 3 December 1841 was written in its original form in Muonio in 1838 (see p. 584). While Castrén was travelling in Lapland, an expedition to Siberia was being prepared at the Imperial Academy of Sciences. The general plan was accepted on 18 May 1838. The idea for the expedition had been launched by the academician Karl Ernst von Baer (1792–1876) in 1837 and its main emphasis was scientific, but also a linguist-ethnographer was sought for it. A.J. Sjögren was proposed for the task, but he declined because of problems of health and he began to search for another scholar in Finland. Sjögren came to Helsinki at the beginning of August and asked Ivar Ulrik Wallenius (1793–1874) and Johan Gabriel Geitlin (1804–1871), but neither of them was willing to participate. Sjögren met at least Wallenius personally; there is no mention in his diary that he would have met Geitlin. Sjögren tells in his biography of Castrén that Wallenius and Geitlin suggested Georg August Wallin (1811–1852), later well-known as a scholar of the Arabic language, and Matthias Alexander Castrén to him. It was Sjögren’s choice to prefer Castrén, because he thought that a person born in northern Finland would endure the difficulties of travelling better.37 However, no final decision was made yet at the Academy. Sjögren explained the delay to Castrén with reference to the economic difficulties caused by the Russian military campaign in Bukhara and Khiva, but the actual reason was that K.E. von Baer had sent a programme of scientific questions to the Governor General of Western Siberia, Prince Pëtr Dmitrievič Gorčakov (1789–1868), and the answers did not arrive until early 1841. Sjögren informed Castrén about the delay, writing that he could organize his studies as he wanted in the meantime.38 Therefore, Castrén’s second journey, to Finnish and Russian Karelia in 1839, was a kind of substitute for the Siberian expedition. The Finnish Literature Society awarded him a grant for collecting folklore in Finnish and Russian Karelia, which he did in the summer of 1839. His aim was to collect additional material for his a Swedish translation of Kalevala epic. The Finnish version had been published by Elias Lönnrot (1802–1884) in 1835. According to Irma    For references and other notes, see the commentary to the texts in this volume. Sjögren met Wallin in 1840 when the latter applied to study at the Oriental Institute in St Petersburg in order to begin a career in diplomacy but was not accepted. He went on to attend lectures at the University of St Petersburg in 1840–1842. Öhrnberg 2010: 28–35. Sjögren 1855: 241–242; Branch 1968: 337–340; Korhonen, M., 1986: 47, 50–51. See also KK Coll. 209.75: Eph. 8 Aug. 1838; Sjögren 1955: 208, 210–212. 23 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 23 21.8.2019 15:44:47 �Itineraria       Sulkunen 2004: 62–63; Karkama 2001: 273; Laaksonen 2008: 284; Siikala 2008. Sulkunen 2004: 77–81, 83. Castrén was paid 500 [silver?] roubles for his translation. SKSA B1611–1612, minutes of the Finnish Literature Society, 3 March 1841, 16 March 1842. Anttila 1931: appendix map. Branch 1973: 62–71, 93–100. Haavio 1952: 36. Teckning 1855: 243 claims erroneously that Castrén would also have been in Lapland in 1839. Sulkunen, of all of Lönnrot’s contemporaries Castrén was the one most excited by the Kalevala, but on the other hand he did not accept the idea of it as describing real history. Instead, he represented the mythological tradition of interpretation. He also believed it to be an original folk epic as a whole, only being compiled by Lönnrot.39 Sulkunen has connected Castrén’s Karelian journey to a hegemony project within the Finnish Literature Society, where Lönnrot and Castrén together aimed at pushing aside the literary heritage of the late Carl Niclas Keckman (1793–1838). Keckman had bequeathed to the society, among other things, an unfinished Swedish translation of the Kalevala, but Lönnrot and Castrén exploited the material for their personal career purposes and deliberately assigned Keckman to oblivion. Sulkunen suggests that this was precisely the reason why the society supported Castrén’s journey to Karelia, and Castrén, in turn, was inclined to construct the myth of Lönnrot as national hero who had discovered the Finnish national epic and reassembled it.40 Castrén and his two young companions, Johan Martin Jakob af Tengström (1821–1890) and Johan Robert Tengström (1823–1847), began their journey in northern Savonia and Finnish Karelia, visiting places where also Elias Lönnrot and A.J. Sjögren had been in the previous years. Lönnrot had crisscrossed in the region in 1828, 1832, 1834 and 1837, most probably also in 1838, and would return there in 1842.41 Several points of the whole southern part of Castrén’s route south of Kajaani coincided with the route taken by Sjögren in 1824– 1825 and the northern part as far Kuusamo with Sjögren’s journey in late 1825.42 Having left Finnish Karelia, Castrén with his companions visited Lönnrot in Kajaani to get his accordance to his plans and continued from there to the Russian side of the border. Folk poetry was collected in several villages, most importantly in Vuokkiniemi. Castrén was quite selective, leaving aside material that he considered too similar to what had already been published in the Kalevala in 1835, or being too lyrical in character. Martti Haavio has noted how Castrén’s report displays his lack of experience as poetry collector at that time.43 Castrén’s Swedish translation of the Kalevala was indeed completed in 1841. The travellers returned via Kuusamo, Oulu, Ostrobothnia and Tavastia to Helsinki. Two different versions of the travel report survive, the one Castrén delivered to the Finnish Literature Society in the autumn of 1839 (No. 6), and the one he published in NRF in 1852 (No. 5). There is also a fragmentary notebook, consisting mainly of word lists and short folklore notes (No. 7). The folklore (folk poetry) material that Castrén collected will be dealt with in another volume of this series by another editor.44 24 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 24 21.8.2019 15:44:47 �Introduction Castrén seems to have made a journey to Northern Ostrobothnia in summer 1840, but nothing is known about it except a sole mention of a trip of this kind in his report to the Imperial Academy of Sciences in 1852, also published in this volume.  Lapland, Russia and Siberia 1841–1844 Still without any information on whether the Imperial Academy could arrange the Siberian journey, Castrén travelled to Lapland together with Elias Lönnrot in late 1841, partly at Lönnrot’s cost but also with a small grant from the Finnish Literature Society.45 They had originally planned to travel via Muonioniska to Alta to meet Pastor Niels Joachim Christian Vibe Stockfleth (1787–1866), famous for his work on the Saami languages, but because they were not sure whether Stockfleth really was to be found in Alta at the moment, they changed their plans.46 The actual trip began at the church of Kemi, reaching Kuolajärvi in November, from where they planned to proceed to A’kkel. The Saami living there were famous for their shamanistic skills, and Castrén wanted to collect their folklore. Because of the high price asked by the local people for providing transport, they travelled to Inari instead, where they heard that Stockfleth was in Kárášjohka, much closer to Inari than Alta would have been, and they continued there. After the return to Inari, Castrén alone visited a village further away in the fells between 3 and 10 February. Lönnrot did not accompany him, probably because of a dispute that had arisen between them on the way to Inari before Christmas.47 The Siberian expedition was discussed at the Academy of Sciences in the autumn of 1841, and three important decisions were made. Firstly, it was decided in its historical-philological section on 10/22 September upon Sjögren’s proposal that the linguistic-ethnographic expedition would be independent of the scientific one. Then it was decided on 24 September/6 October that the scientific expedition would be carried out under the direction of Alexander Theodor von Middendorff (1815–1894), a Baltic-German scholar. The costs would be 10,000 silver roubles. A linguistic-ethnographic expedition was also wished, which would cause 3,000 roubles additional costs.48 On 26 November/8 December 1841, the actual decision was made to carry out the humanistic expedition led by Sjögren.49 Relatively little, however, was clear at the practical level by now. Sjögren himself had decided that at least Castrén would travel, but if they travelled together, the 3,000 roubles would not be enough, and he started to seek additional funding at the Academy. On 17/29 December, he could note in his diary a discussion in which it was stated that     The grant of the society is mentioned in Teckning 1855: 244, but it cannot be verified from the minutes of the society. The society, however, was expecting to get reports from the travellers. Lönnrot wrote both from Kemi(nmaa) and Arxangelˈsk and also Castrén from the latter town. SKSA B1611–1612, esp. minutes 1 Dec. 1841, 16 March, 8 June 1842. Castrén had applied for a larger travel grant from the Alexander University but it was given to G.A. Wallin. Öhrnberg 2010: 32–33 citing the minutes of the University Senate on 4 Dec. 1841. Castrén’s letters to C.R. Ehrström, 14 June 1841, Felix von Willebrand, 11 Nov. 1841, as well as to Lönnrot 14 Sept. and 12. Oct. 1841, see the volume of letters in this series. See, e.g., Castrén’s letters to Willebrand, 3 Feb., Alexander Blomqvist, 12 Feb. and F.J. Rabbe 13 Feb. 1842. Lönnrot’s diary note on 23 Dec. 1841, quoted in Anttila 1931: 366. KK Coll. 209: Eph. 22 Sept. 1841; Baer 1842; Branch 1968: 340– 341; Sjögren 1955: 217–219. KK Coll. 209: Eph. 8 Dec. 1841; Branch 1968: 341. Sjögren noted in his diary that he is going to write to Castrén immediately, but no such letter has been preserved. Possibly he still postponed writing it, waiting for more detailed decisions. 25 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 25 21.8.2019 15:44:47 �Itineraria        KK Coll. 209: Eph. 29 Dec. 1841; Branch 1968: 341–342. Castrén’s letter to Sjögren, 14 Feb. 1842. Branch 1973: 95–98. Lönnrot’s letter to Rabbe, 2 May 1842, published in Elias Lönnrotin kirjeet, http://lonnrot. finlit.fi/omeka/items/show/658. Anttila 1931: 367–368. HYKA KoA University Senate minutes 15 June 1842 § 4. Snellman 1870: XLVI, XLVIII; Branch 1968: 342–343. Branch 1973: 124–129, 141–148. an additional 5,000 silver roubles could be found, but on the other hand, the overall opinion was that an official application for funding should be made. This did not suit Baer who replied immediately that if more funding was applied for Sjögren, also Middendorff would be entitled to an additional application. In this state of affairs, Sjögren wrote to Castrén on 28 December 1841/9 January 1842 and explained his plans. He proposed that they would start the journey together, but Castrén alone would continue to the eastern- and northernmost regions after getting used to the circumstances and learning Russian. However, editing his Ossetian grammar for publication made it impossible for Sjögren to travel before 1844. Therefore, the issue was neither discussed at the Academy before late 1843.50 Following Sjögren’s advice, Castrén and Lönnrot continued from Inari to the Kola Peninsula and via Kemˈ and Soloveck to Arxangelˈsk. Castrén actually had the idea of going from Kola to Varanger and of travelling from there to Arxangelˈsk not before August 1842, but this was not realized.51 They followed Sjögren’s footsteps of winter 1826 again from Kola to Soloveck.52 Both in Inari and on the Kola Peninsula Castrén acquainted himself with the local Saami languages, folklore and material culture, although, according to Lönnrot, his health was quite poor.53 From Arxangelˈsk he also attempted to make a trip to the Ter Shore, but because of unfavourable winds and poor health he had to turn back. Lönnrot had left Arxangelˈsk for Karelia just before Castrén’s departure, because he had stated that he would have no use for Samoyedic studies for Finnish, as he had originally thought.54 After returning from his unlucky adventure on the sea Castrén continued his work in the surroundings of the town. He was financed by the Alexander University of Helsinki with 1,000 silver roubles for the second half of the year 1842 and first half of 1843. In his application, Castrén explained as his goal the collection material on the dialects of the Finnish tribes in Russia in order to write a complete Finnish dictionary.55 During the autumn Castrén travelled via Pinega, Mezenˈ and Sëmža to Nes,ˈ arriving there at the end of the year mainly to collect material on the Tundra Nenets language. He reached Pustozërsk in February 1843. May and June 1843 were spent in Ižma to study the Komi language and culture. Castrén was travelling in the same regions that Sjögren had visited some 15 years earlier. Sjögren had been in the Arxangelˈsk region in 1827 – and even planned a trip to the Ter shore – and continued further to Ustˈ-Sysolˈsk (present-day Syktyvkar). From there he had turned south.56 From July until the middle of September 1843 Castrén was in Kolva, from where he travelled along the River Usa to the Urals and crossed the mountains in late October to get to Obdorsk (present-day 26 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 26 21.8.2019 15:44:48 �Introduction Salexard) at the beginning of November. In the meantime, funding from the Academy of Sciences for his further journey became unsure. Academicians K.E. von Baer and Peter von Köppen (1793–1864) namely preferred the Hungarian researcher Antal Reguly (1819– 1858) for the scholarship, because Reguly was in St Petersburg doing research on Finno-Ugric themes in 1841–1843 and had become acquainted with several members of the Academy. He travelled in Siberia in 1843–1846. Sjögren expected Castrén to send a short dissertation to the Academy to show his competence and asked him to do so several times, but finally decided to make the official proposal without it. Prior to this, on 17/29 December, he went to the Minister of Public Instruction, Count Sergej Semënovič Uvarov (1786–1855), who was also President of the Academy of Sciences, and attempted to get his support in advance. The Minister, however, replied to Sjögren that he did not know the issue sufficiently and wanted to wait for the official decision of the Academy. He also hoped that Sjögren himself could travel. Sjögren, however, had decided to travel only if it was explicitly required by the Academy. On the next day Sjögren wrote to Professor Alexander Blomqvist (1796–1848) in Helsinki asking him to tell Frans Johan Rabbe (1801–1879) to submit Castrén’s inquiry to apply for a salary for him from Finland until his appointment was decided in the Academy. On 20 December 1843/1 January 1844, Sjögren stated in his diary that he had written an encouraging letter to Castrén, although he did not feel optimistic himself.57 On 5/17 January 1844, Sjögren discussed with Peter von Köppen who should be sent by the Academy to the east, Castrén or Reguly. Köppen still supported Reguly, because he knew him personally. Two days later, Köppen told Sjögren that Reguly had obtained funding from the Austrian government, but not enough to carry out his ongoing studies. Baer, therefore, attempted to get Sjögren’s support for obtaining financing for Reguly from the Academy. In this stage, Sjögren decided to make the official proposition to appoint Castrén in the historical-philological section on 12/24 January. A completely new counter-proposal was made by the members of the physical-mathematical section who were at present at the meeting. They asked for an additional 500 silver roubles to Middendorff and suggested that it could be temporarily taken from the 3,000 roubles assigned to the linguistic-ethnographical expedition. Baer even demanded that the whole sum of 3,000 roubles be given to Middendorff instead of Castrén, because the latter was funded by the Alexander University. Sjögren now said that he would travel himself only if circumstances permitted and this seemed impossible for the time being. Eventually, his proposal was accepted in the meeting and Castrén was given funding for three years, 1,000 silver roubles  KK Coll. 209: Eph. 29, 30 Dec. 1843, 1 Jan. 1844; Branch 1968: 342–345. 27 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 27 21.8.2019 15:44:48 �Itineraria        Bulletin des séances de la classe 1843: 335–336; Летопись Российской Академии Наук II: 308, 325; Branch 1968: 346–347; Сухова  – Таммиксаар 2005: 28–29, 36–50, 244; Tammiksaar 2009: 145; Teckning 1855: 251– 252; KK Coll. 209: Eph. 24 Jan., 15 Feb. 1844; Sjögren 1955: 226– 234. See also Hf. Mbl 17/1844 where the news about Castrén’s appointment was published. Baer 1845. Baer still continued with his efforts for Reguly. Castrén had taught Reguly Finnish in Helsinki in 1841 and had given a very negative assessment of his skills and knowledge back then. He had written about it to Sjögren on 27 August/8 September 1843 and 22 July/3 Aug. 1844 (see the volume of letters in this series), and Sjögren related this assessment in the meeting of 12/24 January. Consequently, Baer left an official protest against Sjögren’s assessment and wrote also to the Lecturer in Finnish, Carl Axel Gottlund (1796–1875) in Helsinki asking for an honest estimate about Reguly and, at least according to Sjögren, for Gottlund’s support. KK Coll. 209: Eph. 28, 29 Feb., 13, 22 March 1844; Branch 1968: 344–345. Sjoegren 1844. Koeppen 1844. Kappeler 2009: 68–69. KK Coll. 209: Eph. 17, 18, 24 April 1844. Castrén shared the prize with Ferdinand Johann Wiedemann (1805–1887). According to Летопись РАН II: 326, the per year, but on the condition that Sjögren would travel with him. It was also decided to use the required 500 roubles for Middendorff’s expedition until Baer could possibly get compensation for it through a new grant from the state. After receiving formal confirmation for it from Minister Uvarov, Castrén was finally appointed on 16/28 February 1844.58 After the appointment, Baer published additional instructions for Castrén wishing above all to obtain the skulls and skeletons of Siberian peoples via him as well as ethnographic collections of them. He read them at a meeting of the physical-mathematical section of the Academy on 8 March 1844.59 Castrén received detailed special instructions for the Siberian journey from A.J. Sjögren in January 1844. They were written to convince the Academy to appoint him. Castrén’s region of research was restricted between the Obˈ and Enisej rivers, and it was set his special task to carry out research among the Samoyeds and the Khanty but also to collect information about the languages and cultures of other peoples such as the Kets and to investigate the situation of the Assans, Kots, Arins, Mators and Kamassian Samoyeds. It was explicitly stated that he should not divide his attention to include the Tungus and other Turkic peoples. While Sjögren considered languages to be Castrén’s primary area of research, he also required him to collect folklore, geographic and topographic information, copy inscriptions and describe Chud graves both internally and externally in relation to their surroundings. If Castrén were able to find artefacts, he should send them to the Academy.60 Peter von Köppen wrote a supplementary instruction in March 1844, in which he added some tasks to the ones listed by Sjögren, but his questions did not bring any really new fields of research within Castrén’s scope.61 As a statistician, Köppen had classified all the peoples living in Russia62 and it was in his interest to make Castrén collect additional data for him. After a stay of two months for collecting material on the northern dialects of the Khanty language, culture and society Castrén had to give up plans to travel to Turuxansk because of his deteriorating health and turned southwards instead. After being diagnosed with tuberculosis by a Polish doctor, he eventually left for Finland in March 1844, i.e. just after the Academy of Sciences had made the decision to appoint him for an expedition to the east. Sjögren got to know about this on 5/17 April and after some hesitation he presented it at the Academy. Academician C.F. Graefe (1780–1851) suggested there that they would wait until the next autumn to see whether Castrén’s health had been restored, and the issue was left at that.63 Castrén arrived in Helsinki on 15 May 1844 after travelling for two and a half years in the north. Here he learned that he had been 28 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 28 21.8.2019 15:44:48 �Introduction awarded half of the Demidov Prize by the Academy of Sciences for his Komi grammar as well as money for printing costs, a total of 1,000 silver roubles.64 The Alexander University gave him the Alexander grant, a special stipend for travel, in Castrén’s case most probably 900 silver roubles.65 There is varying contemporary information on whether it was only his poor health or also his desire to arrange the material collected during the past years that brought Castrén back to Finland, but it seems that both reasons contributed to these developments. The issue is explained in more detail and with source references in the commentary notes on p. 544–546 to the travels in 1841–1844. The reader is also referred to Castrén’s letters, published in a later volume of this series. Castrén also published a description of this journey in 1852 (No. 8 in this volume). In addition to it, two unpublished notebooks with miscellaneous notes (Nos. 9 and 12), a fragmentary travel diary from the summer of 1842 (No. 11) and a letter extract published previously as Utdrag ur ett bref, dateradt Kuolajärvi den 3 December 1841 (No. 10) are preserved. Actually Castrén has did not originally write the Utdrag at all in Kuolajärvi in 1841 but in Muonio in 1838, which g can be seen in the modifications that he made to the text. Because this publication aims at the last versions by Castrén, the text has been kept in its traditional connection with the 1841–1844 journey. The linguistic materials are analysed in separate volumes of this series by different editors. Castrén was considered to be an expert of the questions about Samoyed languages and cultures now. His expert position can be seen from the fact that the Academy of Sciences asked him for a review of Alexander Gustav von Schrenk’s (1816–1876) travel book Reise durch den Tundren der Samojeden for a possible Demidov Prize. It is n probably Sjögren’s influence that can be recognized in this request. Also, Castrén himself swiftly took an expert position presenting a detailed criticism of Schrenk’s linguistic and ethnographic observations.66 His assessment as well as his account of the hydrography of the Mezenˈ district are also published here (Nos. 14 and 15). Siberia 1845–1849 After recovering for a while, Castrén left Helsinki for Russia again on 27 February 1845. He and his companion Johan Reinhold Bergstadi arrived in St Petersburg for the first time in their lives eight days later, remaining there until 12/24 March.67 Above all, he had to meet the members of the Academy of Sciences personally, which he also did, and, of course, he has also discussed the details of the instructions especially with Sjögren and Köppen.  Academy made its decision on 12/24 April, but according to Sjögren’s diary, only Köppen’s recommendation to Castrén was presented on that day with support from some other members, and the prize-winners were decided on 17/29 April; KK Coll. 209: Eph. 24, 29 April 1844; Sjögren 1955: 233 where the sum is expressed as 2,500 + 1,000 paper roubles (Banco Assignations) the rate being 1 silver rouble = 3.50 paper roubles. On the rate, see also p. 246. The sum is not given in the minutes. According to Snellman 1870: XLVI; cf., it was 900 Rub. Sr, but in Teckning 1855: 259, Sjögren writes that Castrén was awarded 6700 roubles in assignations by the university. Sjögren seems to have based this on the letter from Castrén, 3 Aug. 1844 where Castrén wrote that ‘according to what is told’ [enligt berättelsen] he was awarded 6700 roubles in assign. (= 1,900 silver roubles). However, it can be read in his later letters that he withdrew the whole sum in three instalments in 1845 (Castrén to Sjögren, 26 Apr./8 May and 12/24 Aug. 1845), which makes it most probable that the Alexander grant was less than 1,900 silver roubles. The sum 6,700 seemingly contains both the 1,000-rouble grant of 1842 and the 900-rouble Alexander grant of 1844, given in paper roubles. The grant decision in favour of Castrén was made in the University Senate on 12 June 1844, and the affirmation 29 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 29 21.8.2019 15:44:48 �Itineraria    of it by the Chancellor (Carevič Aleksandr Nikolaevič) was taken into the minutes on 17 August. There were three applicants, with Castrén receiving five votes out of 12. The most detailed vota for him were delivered by professors Alexander Blomqvist and Gabriel Rein (1800–1867). On the other hand, Professor Jakov Grot (1812–1893) and three others associating themselves with his votum, were of the opinion that the university had already supported Castrén enough, although they did not want to deny the significance of his work as such. HYKA KoA University Senate minutes 12 June § 18, 17 August 1844 § 5. The grant had been instituted in 1842, and the Chancellor had decided its amount to be 1,285 silver roubles per year. HYKA KoA University Senate minutes, 19 Nov. 1842 § 1, 21 Dec. 1842 § 3. See also Бэръ & al. 1850 with Castrén as co-author. The University Senate had awarded Bergstadi a Hedman grant for the journey and applied to the Chancellor to permit Bergstadi to travel three years with Castrén in Siberia. HYKA KoA University Senate 12 Feb., 12 Apr. 1845. On the Hedman grant, see Tietosanakirja III: 203 [Hedman, Claudius]. Rancken 1884: 3. There was a large Finnish community in St Petersburg in the middle of the 19th century. Its number has been counted ca. 11 000 in 1840 Castrén described in his diary notes the feelings evoked by the capital city. At first, he disliked its monotony, but over the following days he also found much that was beautiful there. On 16 March, he addressed sharp criticism about the atmosphere in the city where free expression of opinions was not possible and, to keep safe, it was best not to express any opinion at all of anything and to be completely uninterested in the issues of the day. In Castrén’s opinion, most people in academic and literature circles were either pedants or dilettantes. Castrén assumed that if he were not travelling to Siberia of his own will, he would be sent there as a prisoner. What was not described by Castrén but what can be read in Bergstadi’s diary, is that during their days in St Petersburg they engaged in active social life with other Finns of the city, eating, drinking wine and singing Carl Michael Bellman’s (1740–1795) quartets.68 Activities of this kind were almost completely left unmentioned by Castrén in his descriptions. Castrén and Bergstadi arrived via Moscow and Vladimir to Kazanˈ on 29 March/9 April. Kazanˈ was their headquarters for little over a month. During that time, Castrén concentrated on the Volga-Finnic languages and met scholars at the university as far as his health permitted. After short stops in Permˈ, Ekaterinburg and Tjumenˈ they stayed in Tobolˈsk for ten days to prepare for their journey. In Glazov and Permˈ, Castrén’s route coincided with Sjögren’s journey of 1827.69 Middendorff was travelling in Northern Siberia in 1842–1844. Because of the delay in Castrén’s departure they never met. From June until September 1845 Castrén studied Southern Khanty and some Samoyedic dialects in the regions of Samarovo (present-day Xanty-Mansijsk) and Surgut. After considering different possible routes to the Samoyeds, he and Bergstadi remained for the rest of 1845 in Narym. They spent the following months until March 1846 in Togur and Molčanova to collect material mainly on the Tomsk region Samoyeds or Selkups but also on the Tatars. They went on to travel via Tomsk and Ačinsk to Krasnojarsk where they arrived on 11/23 March 1846 and continued downstream on the River Enisej five days later. Along the Enisej, Castrén collected material of a wide array of languages and cultures, Tungus, Kets, Selkups, Nganasans, Enets and Nenets. In Turuxansk (present-day Staroturuxansk) he stayed for one and a half month in June and July 1846. Another long-term stay was in Dudinka where Castrén spent almost three months from August to November 1846, travelling thereafter still further north to Tolstyj Nos. Bergstadi remained in Dudinka, leaving Castrén and returning via Krasnojarsk and Kazanˈ to Finland in 1847. Castrén 30 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 30 21.8.2019 15:44:48 �Introduction attempted get a new travel companion from Finland but was unsuccessful and he continued his journey alone. During the winter and spring of 1847 he travelled back to the south, spending three weeks in Xantajka and some time in Turuxansk on the way. Castrén took on a new task on the steppes around the upper course of the Enisej in spring and summer. He collected linguistic and ethnographic material on the Tatars (Khakasses) and carried out archaeological excavations of kurgans and documented inscriptions on rocks and grave stelae (see the volume of archaeological and historical writings and the last part of this volume in this series). His main base was at Ustˈ-Abakanskoe (present-day Abakan) and Minusinsk. On 20 June/1 July, Castrén travelled without a passport to the Chinese side of the border to meet Soyots (present-day Tuvans), returning from there in August to continue his work on the steppes. He left Minusinsk for the last time on 5/17 September and arrived in Krasnojarsk 16 days later. The months until the end of 1847 were spent studying the languages and cultures of the Kots and Kamassian Samoyeds on the smaller rivers east of Krasnojarsk. Despite the restrictions in his written programme, Castrén continued via Irkutsk to Verxneudinsk (present-day Ulan-Udè) and stayed in the region southeast of Lake Bajkal until March 1848 to collect material on the Tungus, Buryats and Buddhist religion. All these had been explicitly excluded from his duties by the Academy, at least as far as the written instructions are concerned.70 He then turned towards Kjaxta and visited China for the second time before continuing via Čita and the town of Nerčinsk to the Nerčinsk mines on the Chinese border near the River Amur. He spent May and June 1848 there and returned to Čita on 26 June/8 July, staying there for three weeks before continuing to Irkutsk, where he had to stay to cure his poor health for a whole month in July–August 1848. The next long stay required by health took place in Krasnojarsk in November. It was not until then that Castrén was able to make the effort to continue to the west. Castrén had changed his route plans several times on the way, either because of practical difficulties in travelling or because he noticed that it was unnecessary to visit regions which he originally had in mind. He had to give up a planned visit to the annual market of Selijarovo in 1845 because of flooding rivers. His planned route from the Obˈ via the Vax and the Taz to the lower course of the Enisej was considered impossible to travel, and he turned towards Narym and Tomsk instead.71 After finding the desired languages and dialects on the lower Enisej, Castrén could completely give up his plan to travel to the Taz.72 He did not decide to travel to the Soyots until the summer of 1847; neither was this one of the tasks assigned to him     belonging to all classes of society. Engman 2003: 165, 308. Branch 1973: 143. Sjoegren 1844: 326; Koeppen 1844: 373. Castrén’s letters to Sjögren, 28 Aug./9 Sept. and 1/13 Dec. 1845. Castrén’s letter to Lönnrot, 28 June/10 July 1846 and Sjögren, 5/17 July 1846. 31 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 31 21.8.2019 15:44:48 �Itineraria           Castrén’s letter to Sjögren, 5/17 July 1847. Castrén’s letters to F.J. Rabbe, 5/17 Nov. 1847, 6/18 Jan. 1848, to Sjögren, 1/13 Dec. 1847. Castrén’s letter to Sjögren, 1/13 March 1848. Castrén’s letter to Fabian Collan 22 March/3 April 1847. Castrén’s letter to Sjögren, 1/13 March 1848. Castrén’s letters to Sjögren, 3/15 July, 12/24 Aug., 3/15 Nov. 1848, to Rabbe, 12/24 Aug., 3/15 Nov., 2/14 Dec. 1848. Castrén’s letter to Sjögren, 1/13 March 1848. KK Coll. 209: Eph. 27, 29, 30 Jan., 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13–15, 17, 20, 21 Feb. 1849 (esp. the two last dates). On the importance of the material collected by Castrén, see Korhonen, M., 1986: 64–66; Janhunen 2009. Middendorff 1875. by the Academy.73 No document is preserved in which explains his decision. After leaving to Minusinsk valley in autumn 1847, Castrén planned to travel to Irkutsk as soon as possible, but having found Kot speakers east of Krasnojarsk, he stayed there longer than he had thought.74 Furthermore, Castrén had to leave some places in the Lake Bajkal region unvisited contrary to his earlier plans.75 Castrén’s period in offices with the Academy was originally meant to end on 10 March 1848, when he should have been in St Petersburg, but he decided already in spring 1847 to apply for a short prolongation.76 The unexpected tasks between Krasnojarsk and Irkutsk introduced a new reason to stay even longer in the east. Still in March 1848, he planned to arrive in Omsk in July77, but actually he was not there until December, largely because of lengthy stops caused by deteriorating health.78 For his journey back to the west, Castrén had plans for excavations of kurgans in the Governorates of Tomsk and Omsk, but because health problems had postponed his journey until winter, he had to leave them undone. They would have also involved considerable costs.79 Castrén arrived in St Petersburg on 13/25 January 1849 and left the Imperial capital for Helsinki on 10/22 February. The most crucial task for him now was to inform the Academy of Sciences about his results. The only source we have about his programme in St Petersburg is A.J. Sjögren’s diary, and even this does not give very detailed information about his encounters. Sjögren, however, read Castrén’s report at the Academy describing the journey and its fieldwork. It was decided to award Castrén an annual grant of 700 silver roubles for three years to edit the collected materials.80 The last journey resulted indeed in a large numbers of travel reports, descriptions, diaries and notes, most of which Castrén could not publish or utilize in any way himself before his death. However, the vast material was important for future research, and therefore the most important materials were edited by Franz Anton von Schiefner (1817–1879) in St Petersburg in 1853–1862.81 They were also used by A.T. von Middendorff in his large publication of his own journey. The latter combined them with his own observations about the Siberian peoples, cultures and languages.82 Castrén’s travel plan (No. 15), nine descriptions or reports (Nos. 16–21, 23, 24, 26), the hydrography of the Enisej (No. 22) and an account of the Finnish prisoners and deported persons in Siberia (No. 25) are published here. Moreover, there are four previously unpublished travel diaries, covering the whole journey except for the period from October 1845 to May 1846 (Nos. 27–30), and calendars for 1846 and 1847 containing some brief notes (Nos. 31, 32). Again, 32 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 32 21.8.2019 15:44:48 �Introduction the extensive linguistic, ethnographic and other scholarly materials are published in separate volumes by different editors in this series, except for the field notes that Castrén wrote in his diaries. Castrén and the tradition of expeditions Two of Castrén’s four journeys can be considered as real scholarly expeditions, the one to northern Russia and western Siberia in 1841– 1844 and the one to Siberia in 1845–1849. The journey to Lapland in 1838 was a rehearsal to obtain experience of travelling in field conditions, and the one to Karelia in 1839 was for the purpose of collecting folk poetry in the sense of Elias Lönnrot, Zacharias Topelius Sr. (1781–1831) and other Finnish national-romantics. Lapland east of the Tornionjoki and Muonionjoki rivers had been annexed to the newly established Grand Duchy of Finland of Russian Empire in the Peace Treaty of Hamina in 1809, and scholarly expeditions there were just about to begin in the 1830s. Some naturalists such as the French researcher Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698–1759) and Swedish scientists such as Carl von Linné (1707–1778) and Lars Levi Laestadius (1800–1861) had travelled in Lapland since the first half of the 18th century, but there was no established tradition in the field of the humanities until the late 19th century.83 Karelia on both sides of the border between the autonomous Finland and Russia proper had been quickly established as an area for collecting folk poetry in the 1820s and 1830s. Publishing the first version of the Kalevala epic in 1835 had linked Russian Karelia to the a image of Finnishness being created by the cultural elites of the time. Despite cultural differences Karelia and Karelians were suddenly presented as a part of Us; also the boundary between the Finnish and Dvina Karelian languages was not distinct. Castrén’s journey in Finnish and Russian Karelia was an integral part of the continuum that lasted from the previous decade until the 1940s.84 With his journeys in Russia and Siberia Castrén was connected with both Russian and European traditions of research expeditions, while linking Finnish national(ist) interests to them. Castrén’s travels were carried out in a period when the approach emphasizing the ethnic diversity of Russia was challenged by rising Russian nationalism underlining ethnically Russian points of view and attempts to find out ‘what specifically makes Russia Russia’. Of course, the more universalistic approach did not appear overnight, but research on non-Russian peoples of the empire could not find as much support at the Academy as it had found previously.85 All three sets of instructions, written by non-Russian members of the Academy for    Linné (Linnaeus) travelled in Lycksele and Tornio Lapland as a young scholar in 1732. Kallinen s.a. [2003]: 229, 232–233; Blunt – Stearn 1971: 40–68. Sihvo, H., 2003: 66–76, 100– 143. Knight 2009: 118–128; Tammiksaar 2009: 145; Clay 1995; Ahola  – Lukin 2016: 59; Sjögren 1955: 220–224. 33 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 33 21.8.2019 15:44:49 �Itineraria         Sarnowsky 2015 passim. Vermeulen 2015: 26, 92–95; Sarnowsky 2015: 207–208. Dahlmann 1999; Dahlmann 2009: 105–142. Vermeulen 2015: 202–203; Ahola  – Lukin 2016: 55; for a synthesizing overview of explorations of Russia, see Stagl 2009. Vermeulen 2015: 29, 44–81, 113– 122. Dahlmann 1999: 9–25; Dahlmann 2009: 39, 66–73, 82–87, 96, 105–115; Vermeulen 2015: 87–99. Dahlmann 1999: 23–25; Dahlmann 2009: 112–136; Winter  – Figurovskij 1962; Vermeulen 2015: 108–122. Strahlenberg published his observations, despite the promise not to publish them he had given to the Academy of Sciences. Strahlenberg 1730. Bucher 2009: 47. Castrén, still reflect the notion of cultural diversity of the Russian Empire and necessity to collect information about it. The earliest expeditions worldwide had been made either to search for unknown continents or routes to previously known places. Their peak period was in the 15th and 16th centuries. Increasing knowledge of the earth made it possible to concentrate on more detailed questions already from the17th century onwards, but the era of traditional expeditions of discovery was not over until the end of the 18th century.86 Organizing expeditions gradually became a colonial pursuit for several European countries.87 Russia was no exception, although its expansive and colonial attention was not turned to the distant countries behind the oceans but to its own immediate neighbouring areas in Asia.88 Therefore, the Russians also found the cultural Other increasingly within their own Empire, even in its European parts.89 There had been travellers who had described their experiences and observations from Siberia since the 15th century, such as Johannes Schiltberger (1381–1440), Sigismund von Herberstein (1486–1566), Eberhard Isbrand Ides (1657–1708) and Nicolaes Witsen (1641–1717). Also the mapping of Siberia had begun in the 16th century along with the Russian conquest. Russian power had reached the Pacific Ocean in 1639 and become established in the whole Asiatic north by the end of the 17th century. There was obvious demand for research concerning the natural resources and indigenous peoples of the conquered area. The idea of the Enlightenment gave a strong impulse for expeditions to remote areas all over the world.90 These ideas were also imported to Russia through German scholars, leading to the founding of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in the 1720s. The 18th century was particularly crucial for collecting information about Siberia.91 Three expeditions of the first half of the 18th century were especially important. Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt (1685–1735) travelled through most of Siberia in 1720–1727. Two Kamčatka expeditions were for the purpose of seeking a new sailing route from Europe to Asia and mapping the Kamčatka region. The first one was led by Vitus Bering (1681–1741) in 1725–1730 and the second one was carried out by Bering, Johann Georg Gmelin (1709–1755) and Gerhard Friedrich Müller (1705–1783) in 1733–1743. Also the Swedish prisoner of war Philipp Johann Tabbert (von Strahlenberg, 1677–1747) travelled in Siberia in 1711–1722, ultimately together with Messerschmidt.92 Gudrun Bucher has emphasized the change brought about by Messerschmidt’s expedition: it launched the systematic collecting of information about Siberia.93 The Second Kamčatka Expedition, however, was the first one sent to Siberia with explicit instructions and 34 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 34 21.8.2019 15:44:49 �Introduction definite questions to answer. Its results and questions were used a couple of decades later as the most important basis for his own travels by Peter Simon Pallas (1741–1811).94 The questions the travellers were required to answer were mostly of a scientific character, seeking information about natural resources and sailing routes, but also languages and cultures in the area, even archaeological remains came within their scope from early on.95 Han F. Vermeulen has discussed the question of whether the travellers were also involved in the Russian colonialist project in Siberia, but in his opinion this connection was only indirect.96 The borderline between direct colonialist activities and others of a more indirect type but of colonial importance because of their applicability remains, however, unclear. In the second half of the 18th century, Ivan Ivanovič Lepëxin's (1740–1802) journey in 1769–1772, mostly in European Russia but extending also briefly into westernmost Siberia, and Peter Simon Pallas’s journey in 1768–1774 to Southern Russia and Siberia were the most prominent expeditions of the period within the Russian empire.97 Some of Müller’s observations had been published by J.G. Gmelin, the leader of the expedition, and Pallas published a threevolume description of his journey. 98 Thus, they were more readily accessible for Castrén than Messerschmidt’s unpublished notes. Müller had a broad research programme for the history and ethnography of Siberia, which he partly realized himself, and partly delegated to others with extremely detailed instructions.99 According to Müller, it was language that showed possible relations between peoples.100 Castrén was linked to the international continuum of travels, the professionalization of different scholarly disciplines, applied interests of Russian administration and emerging Finnish nationalist ideas alike. He combined with the latter also some interest in Turkic and Mongolic languages, because their relationship to the Finno-Ugric languages was unclear. Turkology had some appeal in Western Europe in the first half of the 19th century. He was also connected to a tradition of Tibetan studies, practised in Europe since in the late 18th century.101 Castrén’s routes crossed those of the earlier travellers at several points, above all in the Minusinsk region, Turuxansk/Mangazeja, Irkutsk and Kjaxta and the region east of it as far as the River Argunˈ. These regions were visited by Messerschmidt and Gmelin with Müller and Pallas. Castrén’s route crossed Lepëxin's route especially in the White Sea region.102 Kazanˈ and its surroundings on the Volga were visited by almost all researchers travelling in Russia. It was stated already in the first chapter of this introduction that Castrén followed Sjögren in many parts of his journeys in European Russia.  Dahlmann 1999; Vermeulen 2015: 141–194; Bucher 2009: 47– 52; Dahlmann 2009: 118–128.  Dahlmann 2009: esp. 120–122.  Vermeulen 2015: 26 etc.  Dahlmann 2009: 136–142.  Gmelin 1999 [1752]; Pallas 1771, 1773, 1776.  Bucher 2009: 54–56; Vermeulen 2015: 131–133, 164–194.  Bucher 2009: 50.  Karttunen 1992: 158–164, 242– 250; Aalto 1971: 83–85.  Gmelin 1999 passim, esp. map on the cover inside; Pallas 1771, 1773, 1776 passim; Messerschmidt 1962: map; 1964: map; 1966: map; 1968: map; 1977: map; Русские путешественники и мореплаватели: Лепехин, Иван Иванович, http://rus-travelers.ru/lepehinivan-ivanovich. 35 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 35 21.8.2019 15:44:49 �Itineraria  Миллер 1999: 453–454, 503– 511, Gmelin 1999: 286–291; Белокобыльский 1986: 24–30.  Vermeulen 2015: 167–168; Bucher 2009: 49–50.  Белокобыльский 1986: 31–37.  Vermeulen 2015: 104–108 etc.; on otherness in ethnography in general, see Fabian 2014; on some applications also Salminen, Timo, 2017b.  Öhrnberg 2010: esp. 32–55.  Engman 2007: esp. 16–20.  Sahlberg 2007; Wallin 2010– 2014. Especially Müller, because of his clearly-cut humanistic research problems to solve, but also Pallas displayed considerable interest in humanistic questions. However, it is Pallas of all Castrén’s predecessors in Siberia who is best known for his published and detailed ethnographic and archaeological observations. Also Castrén cited him in several contexts, sometimes also expressing some criticism. On the other hand, Pallas was above all collecting information about natural resources and did not have any detailed instructions for cultural observations. G.F. Müller, travelling in Siberia four decades before Pallas, remained less known, because most of his observations remained unpublished. It was explicitly mentioned in his instructions that he should excavate kurgans and send the discovered artefacts to the Academy in St Petersburg, but no tasks of a more analytical nature were given to him. His fieldwork extended from the River Irtyš to the Argunˈ, and, on the basis of them, he and J.G. Gmelin classified the Enisej region grave mounds into five types and he also drew some historical, socio-economic and ethnic conclusions and had a vague idea that graves containing only copper or bronze artefacts might be older than the ones with iron objects. He also documented rock inscriptions during his journey.103 Müller himself gave Johann Eberhard Fischer (1697–1771) more detailed instructions for collecting and describing ancient remains in 1740, but they have not been published.104 Pallas continued Müller’s work. He also divided graves into different types and drew conclusions about the wealth and social organization of the people.105 Eighteenth-century travellers in Siberia developed what came to be known as Völker-Beschreibung, the description of peoples. Han F. Vermeulen considers the Siberian expeditions in particular to have been decisive to the whole development of ethnographic interest and a systematic gaze on the Other. Its roots were in the Enlightenment ideas and more specifically in the German universities where the most travellers were taught.106 Castrén inherited this idea and applied it in his work. As it shown above, his relationship to the Other was not unambiguous, though, as it was determined both by his ethnic assumptions and cultural distance. Even in the Finnish context, Castrén was not the only explorer of his time. Another linguist, Georg August Wallin, mentioned above as a candidate for the Siberian journey, turned his attention to the Arabic language and culture, travelling in Egypt and on the Arabian Peninsula in 1843–1850.107 The zoologist Reinhold Ferdinand Sahlberg (1811–1874) travelled around the world in 1839–1843, firstly from Europe around South America to Alaska and continuing via Siberia and Russia back to Finland.108 Both their travel diaries have been published recently.109 36 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 36 21.8.2019 15:44:49 �Introduction Peoples, cultures and languages Together with other figures who developed historical-comparative linguistics, Castrén considered languages to reflect the history of peoples and their relations with each other. Languages were regarded as natural organisms, and therefore linguistics was like comparative anatomy. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) had launched an attempt to classify all peoples into groups on the basis of their languages. August Ludwig von Schlözer (1735–1809) had developed Leibniz’s classification further. The next step was taken by Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803), who, contrary to Schlözer, considered peoples to be not only taxonomic units but also ‘organic entities, in which humanity expressed itself’, each of them distinguished from the others by its own characteristic spirit. Language was the basis on which communities and emerging national identities were constructed in an industrializing society where the earlier local communities gradually lost their significance.110 On the basis of Herder’s ideas on national spirit or character, Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) formulated a plan for comparative anthropology in the 1790s and developed it further in his works of the 1810s–1830s. Humboldt’s plan may also have influenced Castrén, although Humboldt was not appreciated by linguists in his lifetime. The connection between language and national character belonged to the most crucial ones for him.111 In Castrén’s words, ‘grammars are not my main goal, but without grammars this goal cannot be reached’.112 In addition to language, the national spirit found its expression in all other aspects of culture such as folklore, customs, traditional artefacts, and ways of life with their roots in prehistory.113 For Castrén, culture was the result of historical development, the parts of which could not be separated from each other. Therefore, they should also be investigated and analysed jointly and accordingly he had a genuine interest in all spiritual and material culture, customs and history of each people he encountered on the way, and his travel notes reflect how he attempted to combine all these aspects of culture into an integrated whole.114 The roots of Castrén’s universalistic approach go back to the medieval but especially Renaissance ideal of universal knowledge, which was on the verge of being replaced by different, more specific realms of specialization. On the one hand, Castrén specialized in linguistics, while on the other hand he followed Herder’s idea of history as the history of culture and cultural development. In that perspective, language, poetry and other forms of culture formed an inseparable entity. Perhaps the most important mediator of Herder’s      Hovdhaugen & al. 2000: 156– 162; Oesch 2006: 73; Vermeulen 2015: 284–295, 300, 321–322; Ahola – Lukin 2016: 43–52, 55– 56. Bunzl 1996: 20–33. Castrén’s letter to Snellman, 18 Oct. 1844 (‘Grammatikorna utgöra ej mitt hufwudsakliga ändamål, men utan Grammatikor winnes ändamålet icke.’); Karkama 2006; Oesch 2006: 76– 77, 80–83; Nisbet 2006: 90–95, 106–110; Apo 2006: 262–263; Häkkinen, K., 2006: 296, 306– 310; Branch 2006: esp. p. 346– 347. Salminen, Timo, 2003: 152–156. Ahola – Lukin 2016: 43–50. 37 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 37 21.8.2019 15:44:49 �Itineraria       Oittinen 2006: 44; Häkkinen, K., 2006; Branch 2006: passim, esp. 315–316, 344–347. Trigger 2006: 121–133; Jensen 2009. Middendorff 1875: 1412–1414. On different aspects of language and ethnicity, see Fought 2006: 6–7, 20–21, 77–78, 93. ‘Die Frage über die Stammgenossenschaft der Völker muss allendlich durch die Ethnographie entschieden werden und nur wo diese die Resultate der linguistischen Forschungen bestätigt, dürfen sie für gewiss und unzweifelhaft gelten.’ Middendorff 1875: 1403. Castrén 1857b: 11–13. See also Louheranta 2006: 60. ideas to Castrén was A.J. Sjögren, but also Elias Lönnrot was well aware of them.115 Also prehistory was just emerging as an element in the image of different cultures in Castrén’s time. It made researchers acquaint themselves with the remains of an assumed national antiquity and suggest the first scholarly interpretations of them. Castrén’s expeditions were carried out at a time when the ethnological interpretation of archaeological finds had been established but there was no actual methodology for comparing and dating them yet. The professionalization process made archaeology a tool for rising nationalism.116 Middendorff commented on Castrén’s interpretations in his publication, rejecting some of them such as the assumption of a polar race. He cited Castrén’s statements about the relation between the Samoyedic and Finnic languages, wanting to confirm it but, on the other hand, rejecting the possibility to see linguistic relations as definite evidence of ethnic affinity. Middendorff quoted Castrén’s observation that a European Finn had Caucasian features and an Asian Finn Mongolic ones, and that a Turk resembled Europeans in Europe and Asians in Asia. On the basis of this, Castrén had assumed that there could not be any definite difference between the Caucasian and Mongolic races. Middendorff stated that Castrén himself had related several cases where different peoples have merged with each other, and even more common examples of language change. Therefore, an affinity between languages was independent of an ethnic relationship.117 This kind of conclusion became common in sociolinguistics only gradually during the 20th century118, but it was possible for Middendorff, because he based his interpretation on evidence from physical anthropology. He wrote that ‘the question of the relationship between peoples must eventually be solved by ethnography [= anthropology] and only where ethnographic studies confirm linguistic results, the latter ones can be considered certain and doubtless’.119 This is not only a statement on a general level but also a direct answer to the criticism Castrén had addressed towards physical anthropology in general and especially towards Middendorff and Baer in his ethnological lectures. Castrén stated there that physiology is floating on a wide open sea as long as philology does not lead it, and it is impossible to build anything on its results so far.120 38 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 38 21.8.2019 15:44:49 �Introduction Castrén and the experiences of travel Both in Lapland in 1838 and in Karelia in 1839 Castrén travelled mostly by foot or boat, in Karelia also by horse-drawn carriage. Because the first journey to Russia began in winter, reindeer with different sleighs were used. In times of open water Castrén travelled also along the rivers, mostly in a kajuk, a fairly large covered boat. The same means of transportation as well as horse-drawn sleighs and dog sledges were used also in 1845–1849. The only possibility to utilize new technology came in 1848 when Castrén crossed Lake Bajkal on a steamer. Still inexperienced in Lapland in 1838, Castrén was somewhat surprised by the difficulties of the journey. The journey there had begun in a positive mood, but Castrén’s spirits sank to some extent when difficulties arose on the way through the wilderness from Muonio to Inari and they often had to spend the night with no shelter. The most strenuous part of the whole journey was journeying by foot across the bogs from Inari to Sodankylä. Something similar can be noted also during his first long journey in Russia. In 1845– 1849, Castrén already knew better what to expect. He admitted both in Lapland 1841 and in the Sajan Mountains in 1847 his unfamiliarity with some circumstances that he encountered, such as reindeer sledges or riding horseback, which he never had done before. The Karelian journey in 1839 as an experience of travelling on the practical level was most probably easier than the previous one. Most of the difficulties were due to cultural differences between the travellers and the local Old-Believer population, but also some local officials made travelling complicated with their arbitrary measures. At Miinoa, Castrén and his companions were almost arrested for vagrancy because they were travelling without passports, until a higher official came to their defence. Travelling on the White Sea and in the tundra introduced Castrén to both new means of transportation and circumstances even more difficult than in Lapland. He viewed himself even with some kind of humour when he drove with a stubborn reindeer towards Kola. He described the journey with Komi merchants to Obdorsk in autumn 1843 as the most arduous of his whole life. Another severed experience was the trip to Indiga in a snowstorm in the winter of 1843, and he even returned to this experience in autumn 1845 when a snowstorm on the Obˈ evoked unpleasant and frightening memories form two and a half years ago. Another practical question that must be considered in this context is that of Castrén’s language skills. He said very little about them himself. There are mentions about his studies in Saami in 39 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 39 21.8.2019 15:44:49 �Itineraria Khanty men in reindeer-drawn nart sleighs at Larjak on the River t Vax in 1898. Photograph by U.T. Sirelius. The Finnish Heritage Agency, Finno-Ugric Picture Collection. 40 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 40 21.8.2019 15:44:50 �Introduction A kajuk boat on the River Obˈ in k 1899/1900. Photograph by U.T. Sirelius. The Finnish Heritage Agency, Finno-Ugric Picture Collection. 41 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 41 21.8.2019 15:44:52 �Itineraria    Castrén's letter to Sjögren 28 Feb./11 March 1844 and to the Academy of Sciences 23 May/4 June 1845. Богораз 1927: 8. Varpio 2005: 36–37. Muonio in 1838, the Russian lessons he took from a local teacher in Kola in 1842 and his attempts to learn Nenets in the same region in 1842–1843, but this is almost all we get to know. In his letter to Sjögren in early 1844 he stated that the only language in which he is able to communicate with the Academy of Sciences is Latin. In 1845 he still wrote to the Academy of Sciences that his German is not very fluent.121 It is also known that Bergstadi translated Castrén’s grammars into Latin and reports to the Academy into Russian in 1845–1846. V.G. Bogoraz has quoted Jakov Grot’s (1812–1893) letter to Pëtr Aleksandrovič Pletnëv (1792–1865), where Grot stated that before travelling to Siberia Castrén was able to read Russian quite fluently but neither spoke nor wrote it. He spoke German ‘to some к extent’ [кое-как].122 It was only during his years in Russia and Siberia that Castrén acquired considerable practical skills in Russian. It can be read in his travelogues that he hired interpreters in different local languages, which gives the impression that he most probably communicated in Russian. It was a common pattern in travel descriptions that a journey was described as a series of difficulties that a hero coming from the centre to a periphery must overcome to reach a prize that is awaiting him. This kind of concept of a heroic journey had been known at least since the Middle Ages.123 The prize may have been of material type, but often it was more abstract. For Castrén, it was the Finnish past that he was seeking. By enduring difficult circumstances, he wanted to find a connection with the mythical Finnish tribe with its historical strata. The physical difficulties of travelling were apparently something that he considered to be a reasonable price for the historical connection, despite the fact that he appreciated all kinds of comfort and deplored severe circumstances and their injurious effects on his health. He stated in several connections that the journey had been or would be burdensome, but actually only once did he express that he was getting fed up with uncomfortable travelling. This happened in Ščeljajur on the River Pečora in 1843 and can be g read in his field notes. The traveller’s life is ‘motley’ (brokig) to the extreme, Castrén said at the Enisej in 1847 quoting a Finnish proverb about the variety of human life. Castrén saw himself also in the context of world literature and culture. Arriving in Turuxansk in 1846 he compared his arrival to Don Quijote’s return to his old family estate in Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra’s (1547–1616) novel. There are also references to Ancient Greek and Roman literature and the Bible in his travel notes. References of this kind are not very numerous, but their existence reflects Castrén’s view of the world around him. 42 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 42 21.8.2019 15:44:54 �Introduction Castrén’s prolonged farewell rituals when leaving Finland in the winter of 1845, which are described in his travel diary, were a real rite of passage or transition to another world, necessary for leaving the world of the home behind and to prepare him to encounter everything that was to be expected during the long journey, just as with funeral rites where mourning connects the deceased and the living as a special group and prepares the deceased for the journey to the afterworld. The transition is also comparable to a reverse image of rites by which a new member is welcomed to a group. Castrén was in a liminal state before leaving the domestic community behind him.124 Contrary to the abrupt departure of 1841, it was now possible for him to say goodbye to his friends and home. It took him five days to bid farewell to friends and Finland and another three days of solitary meditation and self-examination expressed in diary notes before the Russian border. Another farewell ceremony took place with Finns and other acquaintances in St Petersburg; there had been analogous cases during Castrén’s earlier travels as in Inari and Kola in 1842. Once more it would take place on a smaller scale with three other Finns in Kazanˈ before the departure for Permˈ in May 1845. Castrén himself was stared at especially because of his spectacles, of which he mentioned several examples, e.g. in Karelia in 1842 and in Permˈ in 1845. Both for Russians and the indigenous peoples, he represented otherness. Socially, he was seen as a representative of St Petersburg, the reigning power and the urban upper classes. Ethnically, he was considered a foreigner, a немец. In both respects and for almost everyone he was something extremely remote from the point of view of their world. He was, however, gradually able to adapt to the primitive circumstances in which he was working. Olavi Louheranta has, therefore, characterized him as a ‘Dionysian’ field anthropologist, as opposed to the ‘Apollonian’ tradition, whose representatives were more inclined to keep to a European way of life on their field expeditions.125 In Lapland in 1838, the local Finns looked at the travellers with some benevolent arrogance, based both on their local knowledge and practical skills, which the travellers lacked. Sometimes Castrén also asked them questions, e.g. about their religious beliefs or local traditions that they were chary to answer, as when he asked about guardian spirits in different places. Sometimes his questions and evoked some amusement, or he was seen as a dreamer, contrary to the working peasant people. A clear socially-based feeling of otherness can be noticed. There were several expressions of the cultural barrier between the travellers and the local inhabitants during the Karelian journey of 1839. For instance, an old woman threatened to drive Castrén out of her house with a broom.  Van Gennep 1960: 29–33, 146– 148; Turner 1977.  Louheranta 2006: 84–86. 43 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 43 21.8.2019 15:44:54 �Itineraria   Sjoegren 1844: 331–332. See also Salminen, Timo, 2016; 2017a. Castrén presented critical comments on several phenomena of his day such as poverty in Finnish Lapland (1838 and 1841) or among the Buryats (1848), politics and academic relations in St Petersburg (1845), the domination of Russians over the indigenous peoples and the Russification of the latter (especially 1845), the debt relations between merchants on the one hand and Arctic hunters and nomads on the other (1844 and 1846), arbitrary measures of Russian administrative officials and priests (1845), and the subordination of women within the indigenous communities, especially the Komi (1843), Nenets (1845) and Khanty (1844, 1845). However, in many cases, Castrén merely stated the situation and did not propose any measures for changing it. His possible suggestions aimed above all either at improvements of economy or a stricter or more accurate following of existing laws and regulations (e.g., 1843). The key concepts for understanding his attitude are morals and diligence. Lack of either of them explains the merchants’ or officials’ exploitation of indigenous people as well as the economic backwardness of the latter. His thought follows the lines of Biblically based philosophy of society. Castrén’s archaeological fieldwork Some words need to be devoted to Castrén’s archaeological fieldwork especially in Siberia. The instructions given by the Academy of Sciences obliged him to carry out archaeological excavations in the Minusinsk Valley at the upper course of the Enisej. Sjögren considered it especially important to collect new data, because there were some conflicting interpretations about the graves.126 Castrén was personally interested in attempting to either confirm or disprove the assumed connection between the Finno-Ugric peoples and the grave mounds. It is especially significant that specific research questions had been defined for Castrén to answer. For earlier travellers, archaeological research had rather been part of obtaining general information about the country.127 Castrén was not especially eager to carry out the task, because he considered it likely that the ancient graves did not have any connection with the Finns. He continued excavations later in the regions of Aginsk and Konduj in Eastern Siberia, probably on his own initiative, although even fewer Finnic connections could be found there. This seems to show that his interest in archaeological fieldwork and confidence in its possibilities gradually grew along with experience. Because G.F. Müller had excavated east of Lake Bajkal, Castrén may have wanted to check these older 44 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 44 21.8.2019 15:44:54 �Introduction results, but there is no information about this. Furthermore, the documentation of Castrén’s excavations has mostly been lost. Castrén had made archaeological observations already during his journey to Lapland in 1838. Both there in 1838 and in Karelia in 1839 he mentioned remains that he called Lapp graves and Lapp cairns. On his way to the north in 1838 he also visited some Bronze Age cairns in Ostrobothnia. No documentation of this is preserved except for notes. They are commented in more detail with references to literature in the endnotes of this volume and in the volume of Castrén’s archaeological and historical writings. In the Arxangelˈsk region in late 1841, Castrén visited the site of Xolmogor. Excavations were impossible because of winter, but he made observations regarding the site and interviewed local people. There are two different descriptions of the visit by Castrén. He wrote in his published account how he travelled to Xolmogor, which had been the Biarmians’ famous fortress, but was now only a small and insignificant district town. He would have wanted to excavated at a the location of the temple of Jumala [Eng. God] temple, but because the soil was frozen, he could only make observations. Instead, he stayed in town for several days to collect the traditions of the Biarmian people. Still in 1843, Castrén wrote to the University Senate in Helsinki and announced that he was willing to send archaeological finds from the northern parts of the Arxangelˈsk Governorate to the university, listing different valuable objects that have been found in the region such as gold rings. The University Senate was willing to receive finds but Castrén did not send anything and had actually already left the region for the east.128 The unpublished notes contain a more detailed description of the site. In a romantic tone, Castrén described the empty, sorrowful desolation and imagined hearing the sounds of weapons and battle cries. Instead of a town, there was only forest and a cemetery. s He mentioned that the Chuds used to have their own king (Knäs) in Xolmogor. He also wrote about the etymology of the name Xolmogor and cited chronicle information on the history of the town. On his way from the north to the Minusinsk area in the spring of 1847 Castrén excavated a couple of kurgans somewhere along the River Ana, but he conducted the majority of all his excavations in the Minusinsk–Ačinsk region, where he opened approximately 20 kurgans. These are his best-known excavations, because he made quite detailed field notes that were preserved and published for the first time by Johan Reinhold Aspelin (1842–1915) in 1901. Castrén himself wrote an account of his results, which was published in 1870.129 Castrén noted the traditions according to which the kurgans were not built by the Kirghiz or Tatars, but instead by a people called  HYKA KoA University Senate 30 June 1843 §8.  Aspelin 1901; Castrén 1870d/ 2017a: 89–105. 45 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 45 21.8.2019 15:44:54 �Itineraria View of the steppe and Tagar Period kurgans at Oraki. Drawing by Hjalmar Appelgren, 1887. Appelgren-Kivalo 1931: Abb. 64. the Chuds. He went on to mentioned folk traditions about the Chuds and their disappearance with the arrival of the white forest and the white Tsar. In the same manner as around Arxangelˈsk, Castrén collected information on the distribution, appearance, and structure of the kurgans in the Upper Enisej area by interviewing local people and keeping his eyes open when travelling around. He mentioned the Tatar tradition, according to which kurgans were made like Kirghiz tents. It is typical of Castrén’s fieldwork that to draw conclusions he searched for analogies both in ethnographic material and folklore. 46 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 46 21.8.2019 15:44:54 �Introduction There were kurgans of Late Bronze Age Stone Slab Culture in Aginsk area, two of which Castrén excavated. He mentioned also the earlier khirigsuur graves in the same region, ‘brick-built r kurgans’ at the Chinese border, and graves on the Chinese side at the fort of Curuxajtuj and other places. He excavated ruins of the well-known Mongol Period palace near the village of Konduj near Nerčinsk. Most probably also the other brick kurgans observed by him were ruins of buildings, as Castrén already assumed. Castrén’s letters show that he already had a conscious desire to develop his fieldwork methodology, and he asked Sjögren for instructions in this area. Otherwise we know little about the examples that he followed in his archaeological work. He mentions the Swedish researcher Sven Nilsson (1787–1883) on one occasion and the Baltic-German amateur archaeologist Johann Karl Ulrich Bähr (1801–1869) and his excavations of the graves of the Livs on another occasion, but this is all we get to know from his writings.130 Castrén’s excavation notes in general reveal that he had a sense of stratigraphy. Usually he indicated the depths of excavated layers, as well as the type of soil. He made observations regarding constructions of wood and stone, human bones, ceramics, the direction and position of the burial(s) and their number. Castrén did not have any reliable method for dating the graves that he excavated, although he was aware of the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages and their mutual chronological relationship. He did not even propose any absolute chronology. He attempted to date the mounds by observing the thickness of the soil layers, vegetation, and the extent to which the decomposition of human bones and other organic material had proceeded. According to Castrén, the older kurgans were usually larger than the younger ones, more quadrangular and more often with stone stelae erected on top, and were mostly at ground level without any elevation, because their inner construction had collapsed and allowed the mound to sink. Both in his comparisons and field methodology, Castrén still represented the antiquarian tradition rather than the comparative archaeology that was developing in the early 19th century, although more modern ideas had influenced him. Although Jurij Belokobylˈskij has stated that Castrén’s field methods had achieved a higher level than those of several other researchers of Siberia in his time or even in the second half of the 19th century, his documentation can by no means be described as very detailed.131  Castrén 1870b: 147/2017a: 108; about Nilsson, see Trigger 2006: 129–131; Christensson 2005.  Белокобыльский 1986: 44; cf. Trigger 2006: 110–114, 121–129; Eberhardt 2012. 47 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 47 21.8.2019 15:44:56 �Itineraria     Fabian 2014: 12–21; Vermeulen 2015: 202–203, 284–289. Fabian 2014: 22–25, 31, 38–39, 49, 53–69; Louheranta 2006: 104–106 with references. See, e.g., Nöth 1996: 11. Hinton 2000: 6–8, 14, 17, 150– 156. Travelling among the Other and as the Other What was Castrén’s relationship with the phenomena that he encountered? What kind of meanings did travelling in itself bear for e him? What did he represent to the people that he met? The key concept in understanding Castrén’s relation to everything he encountered is otherness. According to Johannes Fabian, ethnology and ethnography emerged on the basis of the idea of evolution.132 Time was naturalized during this process by severing it from its religious roots, and the other was conceived both in time r and space. Fabian divides time into four types: physical, mundane, typological, and intersubjective time. The typological concept of time makes it possible to conceive of a people or group of peoples as belonging to another epoch, denying its contemporaneity with us in spite of chronological simultaneity. Different epochs can coexist. Socalled primitive peoples or traditional forms of culture are remains of the past and thus offer windows on our own history. Cultural distance is both a temporal and a spatial problem.133 In a new place and environment, a traveller appears as a more or less divergent element with his or her own aims and intentions among the community, or likewise in the natural environment, setting him/herself both consciously and unconsciously to a relationship to the people and surroundings s/he has encountered. When lacking more specific or individual information, people mostly look at each other through established stereotypes or at least with strong impact from established ways of thinking. A narrative of an environment is constructed by providing it with meanings arising from personal life experience and values. This kind of signification may also be formed and applied unconsciously.134 Perry R. Hinton has stated that while shaping a stereotype image of a group of people we define them according to a special characteristic and add other features to it. Stereotypes arise from group prejudices and group formation processes. Social groups are distinguished from each other ‘by differences in their everyday knowledge’.135 All this applies also to encounters with cultures and ethnic groups. Also travelling in itself is a cultural process and experience, as we have seen above. If we look at Castrén’s accounts of the natural environment in which he was travelling there are both descriptions without any further assessments and ones in which Castrén looks at the environment as a natural resource utilizable by man. In the latter case, he pays attention to sources of livelihood. For the most part, he connects the concept of beauty in nature with human culture. A natural landscape can have values of beauty in itself, but it is monotonous until ennobled by the human touch. Evaluations of this kind appear 48 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 48 21.8.2019 15:44:56 �Introduction above all during the two long journeys, but they underlie his descriptions also in Lapland and Karelia in 1838–1839. Another feature typical of Castrén’s description of nature is its personification, seen e.g., on the way from Inari to the Kola Peninsula in 1842 and on the Obˈ in 1845. He wrote in his field notes on the Pečora in 1843 that his way to look at the nature is such that he completely goes deep into it but is not able to develop theories about the beautiful in nature. The element of sameness or otherness also appears in Castrén’s view of the landscape, with Finnish nature as his main reference in the comparison. This approach is most frequently evident during the 1845–1849 journey, and especially in Western Russia as far as the Vjatka region, but sometimes also in the forested areas of Siberia. In this concept of nature, Castrén is connected to the Biblical tradition, according to which nature is given to man to cultivate. It had been given a more specific form by Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805) and it is a crucial element of Enlightenment thinking. Although romanticism replaced this idea partly with the notion of a mythical natural environment, it never really lost its predominant position until the 20th century.136 At the practical level, its roots can be traced to the very basics of agricultural society, in which untamed nature is a threat and becomes a source of livelihood only when brought under human control. Therefore, also the natural landscape without human impact could not fulfil requirements of beauty. In Finland at the time, J.V. Snellman had recently expressed his opinion on the superiority of the cultural landscape in several articles in the 1840s, and Zacharias Topelius (1818–1898) repeated the same idea both in the same decade and later.137 Castrén’s overall relation to the cultures and peoples that he encountered is ambivalent. They represented otherness for him, and he compared them with his own cultural values. This applies not only to the indigenous peoples that he met but also to Russians and different smaller groups among them, such as the Starovery. Castrén’s first encounter with cultural otherness took place in the Juutua Saami village in Inari in 1838, but it was still otherness that he could look at as an exotic play and leave the theatre when he had had enough. Therefore, his real first collision with the Other was caused precisely by the Old-Believers of Karelia. Castrén and his companions came to notice that the social standards in an Old-Believer village were different and they had to adapt themselves to them in order to be able to continue their work there. By the same token, they had to accept the more or less arbitrary actions of Russian local authorities, especially since they travelled without passports. Castrén described in his report the surprise and even shock that this caused to him.   Varpio 2005: 28–29, 37. Lahtinen 2006: 188–193; Tiitta 1994: 282–283, 303–304. 49 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 49 21.8.2019 15:44:56 �Itineraria  Ballaster 2005: 364; Koivunen 2015: esp. 9–11.  Mason 1998: 1–5, 72, see also p. 90 on the conflict between ethnographic accuracy and ‘aesthetic predilections’, actually in figurative art but fully applicable also to literary accounts of cultures.  See also Koivunen 2015: 112.  For an overall account of Castrén’s perception of identities of the Finno-Ugric peoples, see Leinonen, M., 2009: 474–476. In addition to the relationship of otherness, there was one of power and consequent economic exploitation between the travellers and the local people, emerging from Castrén’s dependence on local guides and coachmen, whose decisions he had only limited possibilities to question. Castrén compared the distances and prices he had paid for them (e.g. in the winter of 1842–1843) and accused especially Russians of charging too much. In some cases, Castrén made observations of other travelling people, especially in the case of the so-called murmanski going to i the northern coast of the Kola Peninsula for their yearly spring fishing season. Castrén encountered them in the spring of 1842. The murmanski were exotic for him; Castrén made observations of them i as of a theatre play, although he finally considered them to be more of a nuisance, even ridiculing them. For Castrén, travelling often meant a romantic encounter with the exotic. There was growing interest in what was conceived and constructed as exotic in Europe in the early 19th century. According to Ros Ballaster, increasing knowledge about Oriental cultures in the 18th century made Europeans first search for analogies to their own culture, but changed soon to creating visions of alterity.138 Peter Mason has stated that exotic artefacts were used ‘to evoke an exotic culture by virtue of the principle of pars pro toto’ and similarly also accounts of cultural features were used. It was also crucial that the exotic was always somewhere else, not at home.139 In Castrén’s case it became visible, e.g. in his description of the Tatar riders and mosques in the Kazanˈ area in spring 1845, his encounter with a Tungus knight at the Enisej in 1846 and in his ride over the Sajan Mountains to the Soyots in 1847. There are also other contexts in which he viewed the clothes, buildings and customs of the peoples he met in the east as romantically exoticizing. Castrén did not use the word exotic, but it lies in his attitude. I understand exotic here as different c with a romantic tone and a hint of admiration. All that is different is c thus not exotic. Therefore, the Finno-Ugric peoples were not exotic in Castrén’s view, although also they often manifested an explicit cultural otherness besides their assumed ethnic sameness to him.140 An experience of sameness caused by the assumed ethnic affinity made Castrén also neglect obvious elements of cultural difference, as with the Udmurts in 1845. This was due to the notion of a primordial and inherent national character. Despite ethnic sameness, social otherness could sometimes become dominant as in the relationship with the Komi hunters and merchants, with whom Castrén travelled in 1843.141 In the case of the Finnic peoples in Siberia, the feeling of ethnic affinity was competing with exotic otherness. In most cases, cultural otherness predominated and brought forth 50 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 50 21.8.2019 15:44:56 �Introduction even expressions of aversion, but when Castrén was simultaneously encountering peoples such as the Kets (Enisej Ostyaks) and Tungus at the Enisej in 1846, the otherness was suddenly represented by the more remote people (Tungus), and the other, in itself exotic, group (Kets) was transformed to the realm of sameness. There is also a good deal of stereotypes that Castrén connected to the Siberian peoples, especially the Khanty and the Kets, like the traditional image of innocent and simple ‘children of nature’. This idea leads back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) and forward to Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) and their notions of human cultural evolution from savagery to civilization.142 ‘Cultural progress’ belonged even as such to Castrén’s vocabulary as well as terms such as ‘primitive [rå/raw] peoples’ or ‘savages’ [vildar].143 r Castrén assumed that every people will sooner or later proceed from nomadism or a hunting-gatherer economy at least to cattle breeding or, where climate and soil allowed it, to agriculture. Therefore, he also described this kind of change as desirable, for instance in Lapland and along the large Russian and Siberian rivers. The most illustrative examples of this can be found from Inari in 1842 (also 1838) and the rivers Pečora in 1843 and Obˈ in 1845. Especially adopting the Christian religion was a sign of progress for Castrén. Among every people he visited he stated whether they were Christians or something else, and if Christians, the level of their knowledge of religion and what kind of practical opportunities they had for religious life. The most illustrative examples can be shown among the Inari Saami in 1838 and the Khanty in 1845. On the other hand, while regarding Christian conversion as a positive development, Castrén deplored the disappearance of traditional forms of culture and expected that more appreciation of their own culture should be implanted among the Siberian peoples instead of stigmatizing it as inferior to Russian culture. The best example of this is again his encounter with the Khanty on the Obˈ in the autumn of 1845. The belittling attitude towards the indigenous cultures has been dominant in Russian way of thinking for most of the time that non-Russian peoples have been subordinated to Russian rule. However, in terms of practical adaptation to the circumstances, also Russians followed the example of indigenous peoples in many respects when migrating to Siberia. Despite the fact that the Russian conquest of Siberia and its economic exploitation from the 16th century onwards led a large part of its indigenous peoples to extinction, it was only gradually and not really before the 20th century that Russian cultural domination become prevalent in the annexed lands. Above all practical reasons such as long distances and poorly  Broome 1963: 48–49; Burke Leacock 1967: lxv.  See Ahola – Lukin 2016: 53; cf. also Salminen, Timo, 2017b. 51 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 51 21.8.2019 15:44:56 �Itineraria  Dahlmann 2009: 22–24, 41, 44, 47, 80–83, 99–100, 149–154, 262–266.  Ahola – Lukin 2016: 47.  See also Ahola  – Lukin 2016: 50, 53.  Varpio 2005: 37.  Castrén 1857b: 14, 22. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach was a German physician, naturalist and anthropologist, famous for his division of mankind into five races published in his work De generis humani varietate nativa in 1776 and 1798. Hartmann 2005; Kemiläinen 1993: 56–110.  When meeting a Saami fisherman at the River Ivalojoki in 1838, Castrén explicitly described him as a victim of oppression, because he had lived since his childhood with Finns, which had made him forget his own nationality and consequently all kind of self-esteem (all känsla af sitt mennisko-wärde). In his newspaper article from the same journey Några dagar i Lappland Castrén in clear words opposed the view of the Saami as a cowardly people. developed traffic as well as the small number of Russians in Siberia had made it impossible before that.144 Castrén’s somewhat problematic attitude to the idea of adopting Christianity as a positive development on one hand and willingness to preserve indigenous cultural values on the other reflects both his own personal background as a vicar’s son and, even more, a gradual change in models of thought in society. It was still self-evident that the Christian faith was considered superior and correct in comparison with other belief systems, but Castrén, while accepting this idea, also arrived at considering its problematic cultural consequences. His most important model in this respect seems to have been Jacob Grimm (1785–1863), for whom the same dichotomy was also meaningful.145 Because Castrén was committed to the evolutionist idea of progress in all of his thinking146, he saw the peoples with a more ‘primitive’ culture as reflecting earlier phases of development towards the high level of the Europeans. When considered as relatives, they represented at the same time ethnic sameness and cultural otherness. The evolutionist view drew parallels between the so-called primitive peoples and either natural phenomena or children, also children of nature.147 Also Castrén made comparisons of this kind, especially in Lapland in 1838, but they seldom predominated in his view of the peoples he described during his later travels, probably because of his increasing experience and the ethnic affinity he assumed to exist between many Siberian peoples and the Finns. Castrén thus evaluated the cultures he was looking at, but was he a racist? What did racism mean in early 19th-century context? Firstly, we must ask what Castrén’s relationship was to the socalled scientific racism of his day. When writing about the inhabitants of the Kazanˈ Governorate in his diary on 10 April 1845, Castrén discussed the possible relation between Finns and Mongols as well as Finns and Turks. Here, he made reference to Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s (1752–1840) division of mankind into main races, rejecting Blumenbach’s assumption that Turks and Mongols belonged to different races. Either they both should belong to the Mongolic race, or there would be no definite difference between the two races. He returned to this also in his ethnological lectures. This shows that Castrén has considered the racial division made by Blumenbach and the scientific racist paradigm in general as a relevant means to consider mankind. In the discussion of the day about the system of mankind slightly different racial divisions were proposed and Finns both were an object of the international discussion and took part in it themselves. The main question in their case was whether they were Mongols or not, and the answer to this question also lay behind Castrén’s view.148 52 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 52 21.8.2019 15:44:57 �Introduction It is more complicated to answer whether Castrén also evaluated different human races in relation to each other. Throughout his travel notes and reports, he characterized peoples with stereotypical national features. Sometimes he also commented on their cultures in evaluative tones, and clearly regarded the Saami to inferior to the Finns when listing the characteristics of both peoples in his travelogue of 1841–1844. On the other hand, he opposed the established view of them as a cowardly people and considered them rather be victims of oppression.149 Despite this, he did not, for the most part, base his evaluations on racial arguments but rather on a concept of cultural evolution. There may be one exception to this principle, though. Castrén wrote in St Petersburg on 20 March 1845: ‘I also looked at a nice collection of apes in a museum one day. When I had successively seen all of them and herewith noticed the small difference, which distinguishes this animal in its highest potency from a human being, I considered it possible that the best ape also in the spiritual sense would be even with the worst human, e.g. among the Samoyeds.’ This kind of account could be interpreted as a sign of a racist attitude towards at least some other peoples. But Castrén continued with a note of self-irony: ‘But this brother of the ape, how does he consider himself to be a high and distinguished lord on the earth. As far as it regards me, I am a fool like all the others.’150 Actually, Castrén gave one more reply to the question about racism in his thoughts in his ethnological lectures. According to him, because the Finnic tribe had been able to rise to almost an equal level of culture with Indo-Europeans despite different racial origins, ‘it seems to show that civilization and humanity are not the monopoly of one race. I will not accredit it to their superior capacity of culture that the Finnic peoples have gained a higher level of culture than their relatives [i.e., e.g. Samoyeds], but only to the fact that they have been in contact with civilized nations for a longer time, contrary to related peoples living in the strictest secession from the cultured nations of the world.’151 This kind of statement seems to show that Castrén regarded human races more or less equal and the racial question was not his first priority. He agreed with Herder here, who denied the significance of human races and emphasized brotherhood between peoples.152 Despite these notions of equality, the anti-Semitism common in the 19th-century society was not unfamiliar to Castrén.153 Namely, he stated in Tobolˈsk in May 1845 that man needs a fatherland in order not to decay into a Jew, Gypsy or something similar.154 But even this does not mean that we would be able to answer unambiguously, whether Castrén was a racist or not. Although he was committed to the idea of a national spirit and thus inherited attributes, he actually  ‘Jag betraktade äfven härom dagen en artig samling af apor i ett museum. När jag successivt hade genomgått dem alla och härwid anmärkt den ringa olikhet som i yttre motto skiljer detta djur i dess högsta potens ifrån menniskan, höll jag det för möjligt, att den bästa apa äfven i andelig mon kunde vara nästan jemgod med den sämsta menniska, t. ex. bland de Samojeder. Men denne apans broder, hvad tycker han sig icke vara för en hög och förnäm herre på jorden. Hvad mig sjelf beträffar, är jag en narr, liksom alla de andra.’  ‘[…] men att den icke dess mindre förmått höja sig nära nog till samma kulturgrad, som de indogermaniska folken, synes utvisa, att bildning och humanitet icke utgöra ett monopolium för någon viss mennisko-ras. Att de finska folken uppnått en högre kulturgrad, än de öfriga stamförvandter, detta vill jag icke heller tillskrifva deras större kapacitet af bildning, utan endast den omständighet, at de redan länge stått i beröring med bildade nationer, då deremot de befryndade folken lefvat i den strängaste afsöndring ifrån verldens kulturfolk.’ Castrén 1857b: 94–95.  Jokisalo 2006: 162–163.  On anti-Semitism in the 19th century, see Forsgård 1998.  ‘Allmänneligen behöfwer menniskan, för att ej förfalla till Jude, Zigenare eller något dylikt, ett fosterland, som hon kan älska, och hvari hon sjelf åtnjuter menniskors aktning.’ Tobolˈsk 16/28 May 1845. See Castrén’s travel diaries. 53 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 53 21.8.2019 15:44:57 �Itineraria  Cf. the inspiration given by Sjögren to some Komi intellectuals. Jääts 2009: 41. About the interaction between scholarly, ideological and even political goals in Finnish research on the Finno-Ugric peoples and languages, see, e.g., Salminen, Timo, 2009. considered here the negative features of Jews and Romani as a result of a historical process of development rather than something belonging to their very essence. Concluding remarks: travelling and constructing national identities Matthias Alexander Castrén belonged simultaneously to at least three different traditions of expeditions: the international scientific (here including the humanities) tradition seeking information about unknown regions, the Russian tradition aiming at the economic exploitation of annexed areas, and the Finnish tradition based on nationalist ideology and a quest for national roots. The way his model was later followed combined the first and third ones as a synthesis. Also institutionally, Castrén stood between and was able to benefit from the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg and new emerging Finnish organizations such as the Finnish Literature Society in Helsinki. Also in his way of seeing the peoples and cultural phenomena that he encountered Castrén represented a transitional phase. He had not been able to free himself completely from the Enlightenment ideas of progress and a Biblical set of values as the basis of his assessments of cultures, but he was nevertheless already able to see them valuable in themselves. Castrén’s overall approach differs at least in three respects from that of his predecessors. Firstly, his programme was aimed to form a consistent image of certain peoples’ languages and cultures, both past and present by combining the results of history, ethnography, folklore and archaeology. Secondly, the new comparative methodology gave him better tools for this than previously. Thirdly, he was the first one who could promote Russian goals alongside those of a minority people of the Russian Empire, the Finns, to develop the latter further into political ones in the following decades.155 There is no point in a detailed comparison between Castrén and his predecessors such as Pallas, Gmelin, Müller or Messerschmidt as travellers. Castrén was a representative of a different era and had a different education. He had become acquainted with the earlier travellers’ work as much as it had been possible for him and had absorbed all the information that could be gained from them. In a practical sense, Castrén felt he was their follower, but by carrying out research on the assumed ancestors of one’s own people and by constructing a new national identity he, as a humanist scholar of the Romantic era, provided the expeditions with a collectively subjective dimension of a new type. 54 Itineraria 1osa johdanto jne.indd 54 21.8.2019 15:44:57 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Matthias Alexander Castrén as a Travelling Researcher (Itineraria) Subject The topic of the resource <i>Itineraria</i>&nbsp;1. Manuscripta Castreniana, Personalia II,1. Pp. 1–691. <br /><i>Itineraria</i>&nbsp;2. Manuscripta Castreniana, Personalia II,2. Pp. 692–1647.<br />ISBN 978-952-7262-12-2 (1–2, print/hardcover), <br />ISBN 978-952-7262-13-9 (1, print/hardcover),&nbsp;<br />ISBN 978-952-7262-14-6 (2, print/hardcover), <br />ISBN 978-952-7262-15-3 (online).<br />80 € (1–2). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Timo Salminen Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Finno-Ugrian Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2019 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource © Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura – Société Finno-Ougrienne – Finno-Ugrian Society & the authors https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/files/original/b483f1bd5226cb5a84784193ea27e14b.png 419429192d5278369136c865b04f3314 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Description An account of the resource The printed volumes of Manuscripta Castreniana are divided into three sections (<i>Linguistica</i>, <i>Realia</i>, and <i>Personalia</i>). The Linguistica section will contain Castrén’s grammatical and lexical data. Title A name given to the resource Linguistica Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Ostiacica Subject The topic of the resource <i>Ostiacica</i>. Manuscripta Castreniana, Linguistica V. 175 p. ISBN 978-952-7262-00-9 (print/hardcover), ISBN 978-952-7262-01-6 (online/pdf). 50 €. Description An account of the resource The Khanty grammar is one of the few materials Castrén was able to publish himself. He collected the material over the course of a few weeks in the summer of 1845 in the Irtyš and Surgut areas, where the southern and eastern dialects of Khanty were spoken. <br /><br />During these weeks, he outlined the Khanty grammar in Swedish and his companion Johan Reinhold Bergstadi translated it into German. After Castrén returned from his journey in 1849, he was able to check the German translation and oversee the printing of the book. In this critical edition, most of the commentary is made based on the printed book, which is here translated into English. There are only minor comments on the differences between the printed version and the manuscript, as Castrén seemingly had control over the printing process, and thus the printed version can be regarded as his own synthesis of the grammatical and lexical notes. The commentaries are made on the basis of best modern knowledge of Khanty. In this volume, a brief modern grammar of Khanty is also presented, focusing on the Irty<span class="st"><span class="st"><span class="st">š and Surgut dialects.<br /></span></span></span> <h3><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/1818" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>View the whole volume (pdf)</strong></a></span></h3> <h3>Contents</h3> <p><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/880" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Manuscripta Castreniana: A General Preface to the Series</a> <i>by Juha Janhunen</i></p> <p><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/1817" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Editor’s Foreword</a> <i>by Ulla-Maija Forsberg<br /></i></p> <p><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/1819" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Short Grammatical&nbsp;<span class="Apple-tab-span"></span>Description of Khanty</a>&nbsp;<i>by Ulla-Maija Forsberg</i><span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span></p> <p><strong><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/1820" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Matthias Alexander Castrén: </a><span><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/1820" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Attempt at an Ostyak Grammar</a>&nbsp;</span></strong>with a Short Word List<br /><span><i>Edited and commentary by Ulla-Maija Forsberg</i></span></p> <p>Preface<br />I Phonetics (Sounds)<span class="Apple-tab-span"> <br /></span>II Morphology<span class="Apple-tab-span"> <br /></span><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/1821" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ostyak Word List</a><span><span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span></span></p> <p><span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/1822" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Abbreviations</a><br /><a href="https://www.sgr.fi/manuscripta/items/show/1823" target="_blank" rel="noopener">References</a> <span class="Apple-tab-span"> </span><span></span></p> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Matthias Alexander Castrén edited by Ulla-Maija Forsberg Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Finno-Ugrian Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource hardcover, PDF Language A language of the resource English, Khanty, Ostyak, ханты ясаӈ, xanti jasaŋ, қантәɣ ясәӈ, ķantəɣ jasəŋ Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context ISBN 978-952-7262-00-9 (print/hardcover), ISBN 978-952-7262-01-6 (online/pdf) Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1845–1849 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource © Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura – Société Finno-Ougrienne – Finno-Ugrian Society & the authors