А. Н. Кононов, С. К. Кенесбаев: “12-я Сессия постоянной интернациональной Алтаической конференции и наши задачи”, Вестник Академии Наук Казахской ССР № 7 (303) 1970.6, pp. 74–76.
Editor’s Note: Translation from Russian to English heavily assisted by google.ai.
The 12th Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference and our tasks
The Altaic studies section of the 24th International Congress of Orientalists in Munich adopted a resolution at its meeting on September 4, 1957, to hold an international conference on the problems of Altaic studies—a complex of sciences studying the languages, history, literature, and culture of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic-Manchu peoples, since the usually saturated program of the international congresses of orientalists does not leave sufficient time for an in-depth exchange of views on issues of Altaic studies.
In order to implement this resolution, the first international meeting on Altaic studies was held on June 25–28, 1958, in Mainz (FRG), with the assistance of the Academy of Sciences and Literature of the FRG, at which the following issues were discussed: 1) the problem of the genetic relationship of the Altaic languages; 2) the current state of Mongolian studies; and 3) new publications on Altaic studies.
Based on the positive results of this meeting, its participants decided to establish the Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC). The initiators of PIAC set a single goal for this institution: the organization of annual conferences involving the maximum number of Altaic scholars to discuss the scientific and organizational problems of Altaic studies.
It should be noted that PIAC is not an organizationally formalized or permanently operating association; it has no permanent governing body, nor does it have an approved charter.
According to the original plan, PIAC Meeting were to be held annually in June or July in Mainz (FRG). The well-known orientalist Professor W. Heissig (FRG) was elected Secretary General. However, this procedure for holding Meeting was soon disrupted.
In 1961, the next Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference was held in Cambridge (England), where it was decided to hold Meetings in different countries whose national scientific centers agree to take upon themselves the responsibility for their organization and financing. The proposal for organizing the next Meeting is considered at an open meeting of the current Meeting.
The president of the upcoming meeting sends invitations to all countries whose scholars are engaged in Altaic studies, determines the program of the Meeting in accordance with the applications received for reports, and directs all the work.
For the general coordination of the activities of the Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, a secretary general is elected for a term of five years.
In 1962, at the 5th Meeting of PIAC (Bloomington, Indiana, USA), Denis Sinor, professor and chair of the Department of Altaic Studies at Indiana University, who had taught for many years at universities in France and England, was elected Secretary General.
Prof. D. Sinor publishes (apparently funded by the Department of Uralic and Altaic Languages of Indiana University) the bulletin “Permanent International Altaistic Conference Newsletter” (a total of four issues have been published so far).
The unflagging interest in PIAC Meetings is sustained by the following important circumstance: Altaic studies, both in the USSR and in Western Europe, is one of the oldest traditional branches of Oriental studies. The latter, for approximately fifteen years, it has also received great development in the USA, where Altaic scholars from Europe are invited.
Among the countries that have organized PIAC Meetings were the FRG, the Netherlands, Finland, the USA, Italy, England, Denmark, and the GDR.
* * *
More than 150 scholars from 14 countries participated in the 12th Meeting of PIAC, reading 80 reports. For the first time, a large group of Soviet scientists (37 people) participated in the meetings of the conference, presenting 31 reports.
In addition to the Soviet delegation, Altaic scholars from the GDR, England, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Netherlands, Italy, Mongolia, Poland, the USA, Turkey, France, the FRG, and Czechoslovakia participated in the work of the 12th Meeting.
The work of the 12th Meeting of PIAC took place within the framework of 4 plenary and 16 sectional sessions.
The first plenary session, held in the meeting hall of the Academic Council of Humboldt University, opened with a welcoming speech by the honorary president of the 12th Meeting of PIAC, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the GDR F. Hintze, and the president, Dr. G. Hazai. Then, reports were delivered by the veteran German orientalist, Professor H. F. Junker—”20 Years of Altaic Studies in the GDR” and Professor D. Sinor—”Status and Tasks of International Altaic Research.”
The second plenary session was dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of the prominent German Turkologist, Professor of Berlin University Willy Bang (1869–1934), at which reports were delivered by Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. N. Kononov and Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the GDR A. v. Gabain.
The third plenary session was devoted to the consideration of organizational matters: 1) the place and time of convocation and the election of the president of the next, 13th Meeting of the PIAC; 2) the awarding of the medal established by Indiana University for outstanding works in the field of Altaic studies; 3) current business of the regular Meetings of the PIAC, etc.
On the first issue, the following decision was made: a) to accept the proposal made by Professor of Strasbourg University (France) I. Mélikoff to hold the 13th Meeting of the PIAC in Strasbourg in the last decade of June 1970; b) to elect Professor I. Mélikoff as President of the 13th Meeting.
On the second issue, the nominations proposed by the Special Committee for the PIAC medal were discussed: Dr. Gerard Clauson (England) and Prof. T. Hattori (Japan). By a majority of votes, the PIAC medal was awarded to G. Clauson. The medal was first awarded in 1963 to A. Mostaert (Belgium); in 1964—to E. Haenisch (FRG); in 1965—to I. Rinchen (MPR); in 1966—to J. Németh (Hungary); in 1967—to M. Räsänen (Finland); and in 1968—to L. Ligeti (Hungary).
The third issue was mainly devoted to the consideration of proposals aimed at improving the organization of scientific reports at PIAC Meetings. In particular, it was suggested to recommend that speakers submit abstracts of their reports. In addition, it was planned to increase the volume of the “Newsletter” and make it a regularly published printed organ.
On September 2, at the concluding 4th plenary session, Secretary General Prof. D. Sinor and the president of the 12th Meeting Dr. G. Hazai spoke about the results of the 12th Meeting of PIAC. The final word was given to the representative of the Soviet delegation, A. N. Kononov, who expressed his gratitude to the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the GDR and the direct organizers of the 12th Meeting of PIAC for their hospitality and brilliant organization of the Meeting.
* * *
At the 16 sectional meetings, 80 reports were heard, the vast majority of which were dedicated not to general problems of Altaic studies (at times very important ones), but to specific issues of Turkology, Mongolian studies, and Tungusic studies, covering various fields of linguistics, history, history of literatures, ethnography, and art.
The largest number of reports was read by Turkologists, followed by Mongolists and Tungusic scholars. Twelve Soviet scientists chaired sectional meetings. These reports were diverse in nature, both in theme and content, as well as in the methodology of the approach to solving a particular problem: a) most of the reports were dedicated to philological sciences; b) reports were also read on history, including ethnography and archaeology, and some other issues.
It should be noted that the presentations of Soviet scientists were at the center of attention; at the congress, they were listened to with interest and received a positive assessment from the conference participants. Their reports and briefings touched upon the most current and least developed issues of Altaic studies, where alongside documentation and the descriptive part of the analysis, generalizing conclusions were also provided.
Before the opening of the congress, many assumed that Altaic linguists would likely have to engage in a sharp debate regarding the genetic community of the Turkic-Mongolian-Tungusic-Manchu languages. The course of the discussion showed that a significant portion of the participants looked favorably upon the recognition of this community, and there were no objections on this matter. However, it must be assumed that this problem requires broader and deeper study, involving fresh facts drawn from the repository of all Altaic languages. At the same time, one must not lose sight of the importance of a collective development of this problem, not only by linguists but also by other representatives of the humanities —archaeologists, historians, folklorists, etc.
This problem—one of the most interesting and yet difficult concerning the nature of the Altaic language community—requires a comprehensive clarification of the concept of a community in general, and a material community in particular. The point is that a material community, in our opinion, can be expressed not only in a genetic form: the possibility of this (i.e., material) community manifesting in various types of language contact is not excluded.
It should be specifically noted that representatives of the national republics of the Soviet Union actively participated in the sessions of the Meeting: the conference program included reports by specialists from Moscow, Leningrad, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Karakalpakia, Kirghizia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Tataria. This fact is indicative because Turkology in our country is developing both in breadth and depth. In conversations with a number of foreign scholars, the importance of presentations by representatives of the national republics was noted.
Kazakhstan was represented by three specialists (Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR M. S. Silchenko, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR N. S. Smirnova, and Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR S. K. Kenesbaev), who delivered reports on the themes: “On the Typological Study of the Work of Poet-Enlighteners of Turkic-Speaking Peoples,” “Altaic and Kazakh Versions of the Epic ‘Kozy-Korpesh’,” and “On the Question of the Turkic-Mongolian Linguistic Unity.” And these reports met with favorable responses from the main participants of the congress.
* * *
On the whole, the work of the congress was successful: a useful exchange of opinions on current issues of Altaic studies took place; the extensive work of the president of the 12th Meeting of PIAC, Prof. G. A. Hazai, who did much for the successful execution of this congress in the GDR, was unanimously noted. We, members of the Soviet delegation led by Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. N. Kononov, which included: President of the Academy of Sciences of the Turkmen SSR P. A. Azimov, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR S. K. Kenesbaev, Prof. N. A. Baskakov, Prof. G. D. Sanzheev, Candidate of Historical Sciences and Turkologist A. S. Tveritinova, as well as other Soviet scholars, became acquainted with Altaic scholars from various countries. It is impossible not to mention that our German friends in the GDR were very friendly toward the Soviet scholars.
The Soviet delegation is unanimous in the view that Soviet scholars consider participation in the works of PIAC necessary and important, so as not to lose sight of an area vital for Soviet Altaicists, where one can confidently propagate the achievements of domestic scholars and become acquainted with the experience of scholars from foreign countries. The coordination of works on Altaic studies represents one of the important tasks for both the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences and other interested research institutions in Moscow, Leningrad, and the Turkic-speaking Soviet republics. It would be highly useful to consider creating a coordinating center under the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences for issues of Altaic studies (specifically, for Turkology). It seems advisable to establish a Society of Soviet Turkologists, designed to attract a wide circle of young Turkologists to collect, systematize, and generalize facts of language, ethnography, history, archaeology, written monuments, and other crucial testimonies of Turkic-speaking peoples, 90% of whom are represented in the USSR. It is necessary to raise questions of general Turkology (and Oriental studies as a whole) more broadly in humanities research institutions and universities, not only in the center but also in the national republics. One of the pressing tasks is the publication of textual materials, which are so necessary for researchers and Orientalists. A corresponding scientific problem council could plan in advance the long-term tasks of studying general and specific issues of Turkology, including the theoretical heritage of the past and holding anniversaries for scholars of past eras. Special attention should also be paid to the training of young Turkological cadres, for which it is necessary to carry out a series of measures related to creating curricula and educational literature on Turkology applicable to the humanities universities of the union and autonomous Soviet republics.
A. N. Kononov, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences,
S. K. Kenesbaev, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR.