Dogs in the traditional worldview of the chuvash people

ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 124–128 E-mail: [email protected] 124 ETHNOLOGY A.K. Salmin Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Nab. 3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia E-mail: [email protected] DOGS IN THE TRADITIONAL WORLDVIEW OF THE CHUVASH PEOPLE The dog has undergone a long process of domestication and in the mind of man has become a positive ¿gure: people swore to dogs, composed eulogies to dogs and have created rules concerning the handling of dogs; dogs were even considered a means of delivering sacri¿cial gifts to the recipients. Etymologists associate a number of corresponding Turkic words with the Chuvash word jytă (dog). However, it is also possible that the etymology of the word jytă goes back to the Sanskrit idƗ, the name for food that modern Zoroastrians in Iran still feed dogs after the death of a relative. The dog is one of the most symbolic characters in the traditional beliefs of the Chuvash. It is believed that the dog is directly connected with the supreme deity Tură. At the semantic level, it has much in common with the wolf and man. The dog may be used as a sacri¿ce. According to traditional beliefs, the dog can also serve as a substitute for ancestral spirits and can communication with the other world. Keywords: Ethnography, religion, Chuvash, dog, semantics. Introduction From the point of view of religion the dog, jytă (anchăk, akar, nyakha) is a complex character (Georgi, 1775: 854; Berezkin, 2005). The dog has undergone a long process of domestication and represents man’s ¿rst tamed animal. The dog has generally become a positive ¿gure in the human mind: people swore to dogs, composed eulogies to dogs and have compiled rules concerning the handling of dogs. Dogs were believed to be able to deliver sacri¿cial gifts to the intended recipient. Etymologists usually adduce a number of Turkic words to the Chuvash word jytă. However, it is possible that the etymology of the word goes back to the Sanskrit idƗ, since this word designates the food that the Zoroastrians of Iran still feed to dogs after the death of a close relative or friend (Litvinsky, 1984: 166). Another word akar is translated as “hound, hunting dog” and corresponds to the Turkic eger, iger and to other words with the same meaning, whereas Hungarian has the word agar (from the Old Chuvash language), Ossetian has eger, Circassian has hager, Polish has oger, and Serbian has ogor (Andreyev, 1974: 16). The third word which designates the dog among the Chuvash is nyakha. This word has etymological cognates with the Mongolian (nokaj), Kalmyk (nokhd), Tungus (ƾinda), Evenki (ƾinakin), and Even (ƾin) languages (Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, 2003: 1029, 1030). However, the semantic relation between the Sanskrit word çva / çvan (‘dog’) and the Chuvash çăva (‘cemetery’) undeniably attracts scholarly interest. Apparently, the Sanskrit çƗva, ‘cadaveric (smell)’; cava, ‘corpse, mortal remains’; çávya, ‘funeral ritual’; çvabhra, ‘pit, cave, hell’ (Kochergina 1978: 643–61) are also related to the Sanskrit word çva / çvan (‘dog’). It is easy to see that the concept of ‘dog’ and ‘cemetery (the underworld)’ in Sanskrit and in the Chuvash languages are ¿rmly bound together on a semantic and etymological level. In general, they create a single concept of the complex and succinct notion of “dog = graveyard” that was signi¿cant in the past. Wolf – Dog – Man Certain sources reÀect traditional beliefs concerning the close relationship between dogs and the supreme deity Tură. For Copyright © 2011, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2011.06.016 A.K. Salmin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 124–128 example, in the legend explaining why wheat has single ears it is said that originally, wheat had ears along the entire length of the stem. However, one woman began to complain that the number of ears interfered with her harvesting since they often cut the hands of the harvesters. Then Tură appeared and began to pluck the ears of wheat from the stem asking: “Is it enough to keep this many ears on the top?” The woman said nothing and so Tură continued to pluck off the ears of wheat. Finally, only one ear remained on the stem but the woman still remained silent. Then a nearby dog began to howl mournfully and Tură left the last ear of wheat for the sake of the poor dog. Therefore, people say that one ear on the cereals was left for the sake of the dog. Now, at home in the evening, people ask each other: “Have you fed the dog today?” Otherwise, the dog may complain to the deity Tură (Rekeyev, 1898: 8). There are other versions of this legend, but they all have the same core. The Mari have a similar text (Kaliyev, 2003: 37). Another Chuvash legend, confirming the connection between the dog and Tură, describes how Tură created man. The legend has it that Tură molded man out of clay. While he went to get a soul for man, he left a dog to guard his creation. Then, the evil spirit Shuyttan, the antipode of Tură, came and threw a bone for the dog to distract it. Then Shuyttan began to dis¿gure the man. Tură returned, saw everything and told the dog: “Let man only give you bones to eat” (Ashmarin, 1936: 297). In a similar Mari legend, Yumo acts instead of Tură, and Kiremet acts instead of Shuyttan (Vishnevsky, 1856: 282). The traces of the connection “supreme deity– dog” are present among the Setos, the Komi-Permyak as well as in Georgian mythology. Thus, the Setos give the ¿rst Àatbread made of new wheat to the dog (Khagu, 1983: 14, 17). In a similar ritual, the Chuvash give the ¿rst fruits to the deity Tură. Among the Georgians, faithful dogs accompany the supreme deity Gmerti, and he sends them to either help or punish the people (Surguladze, 1987). Another aspect of note is the proximity of the images of dog and wolf. In general, the Chuvash call the wolf “the dog of the deity Pikhampar.” When meeting a wolf, one should say: “Pikhampar, stop your dog.” According to the legend, when villages were founded, the Chuvash ¿rst buried a dog or a wolf in the ground. The dog, participating in a “dog wedding,” is called kƟrt jytti, and the word kƟrt undoubtedly goes back to the Turkic k’rt / kurt, ‘pack of dogs’. “It can also be etymologized as the Indo-European: Slavic khort (greyhound, from khrt – rapid), Lithuanian kurtas (hunting dog, from kurti – to run, to hop)” (Eremeyev, 1990: 130). Generally speaking, among some peoples the dog as a mythological character evolved from the wolf. A number of materials testify to the equal status of dog and man. For example, the names of people and their family’s nicknames which coincide with the dogs’ names – Ulaj, Khuraç, Khuraçka – testify not only to the desire to confuse evil spirits and to avoid trouble, but also to a recognition of the dog’s high status. This motif can be traced in the custom of throwing a baby’s ¿rst fallen tooth in a bread crumb to a dog: people wished the child to have teeth as strong as a dogs. It was believed that when a sorcerer created harm, he took the form of a dog, a cat, or a pig, or rather, left his own body at home and entered the body of a dog. Thus, sorcerers would use dogs as mediums. If a dog walks beside you in a dream, it is said that a person will cling to you that day. It is said that Mur / Mor, once a man, acting at the behest of Tură, may enter the yard in the form of a dog. To avoid the loss of cattle, one should feed Mor with treats. He must not be killed for otherwise, it is said, all one’s domestic animals will die immediately. The dog occupied a similar place in the lives of the Zoroastrians: the dog is the second most holy creature after man. “The Thirteenth Fragard of Videvdat is entirely dedicated to it. The death of a dog ... is equivalent to the death of a man and requires similar rituals” (Avesta…, 1994: 240). Dogs are also honored by the peoples of the North. For example, the Selkups bury old dogs in graves like people (Golovnyov, 1995: 252). In 1984, the expedition of the Research Institute with the Cabinet of Ministers of the Chuvash Republic, including V.G. Rodionov, G.A. Nikolaev, and V.P. Ivanov, visited the village of Kalmayury in the Ulyanovsk Province. Each of the researchers recorded the following fact from different informants. In 1984, because of the danger of severe drought, the elderly women caught a dog and killed it. They brought the severed head to the lake, tied it with a rope to a stake rammed it into the ground and threw it into the water. The ritual was accompanied by an appeal to the supreme deity Tură, requesting irrigation for the ¿elds. Indeed, two days later there was torrential rain and the women had to pull the dog’s head out of the water (Nikolaev, 1984: fol. 103; Rodionov, 1984: fol. 62; Ivanov, 1984: fol. 45). The event described above is an example of dog sacri¿ce. Traces of dogs being used in sacri¿ce can be seen in a ritual to cure scrofula: “People anoint the heads of the scrofulous with butter and then call the dog to lick it. While the dog licked the patient’s head, often until blood was drawn, jomzya would cut a tuft of fur from dog’s head, burn it on a wood chip and then scatter the ashes on the sore spot” (Nikolsky, 1929: 49). In this case, the text of the incantation should be noted: “Burning the dog’s head, I sprinkle the ashes. Be strong like a dog. Be tempered. Tfu! Tfu!” Naturally, a burned tuft of hair from the head of the dog symbolizes the animal as a whole. Dog sacri¿ce is embodied in such place names as “Ravine, where they hung a dog” (Elle, 1934: fol. 214). Among the Ainu people, the dog could be a redemptive sacri¿cial gift. If a person committed a serious crime, he “should slay his most valuable dog that was used as a thriller in the dogsled and offer it as a sacri¿ce for the gods” (Arutyunov, Schebenkov, 1992: 124). Among the Chuvash, during the village puri¿cation, ritual dogs, cats, and poultry did not have to be taken through the earthen gates (construction in the form of a short tunnel): it was believed that they were immune from pests (Shavly, 1935– 1948: fol. 62). The same motif can be seen in a similar ritual among the Slavs, the Tartars, and the Udmurt, who buried slain dogs on both sides of their ¿res (Maksimov, 1989: 128; Magnitsky, 1881: 137; Aptiyev, 1891: 2), most certainly to enhance the effect of puri¿cation and protect the village from epidemics. The Chuvash pursued the same goals by burying dogs in the ground during the foundation of a settlement or new home (Zemlyanitsky, 1924–1925: fol. 47, Spassky, 1912: 50). The Chuvash hold a very ¿rm belief that the forest spirit 125 126 A.K. Salmin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 124–128 Arçuri is afraid of dogs, and therefore stays away from the people in the village (Vambery, 1885: 482; Sboev, 1865: 124; Ashmarin, 1928: 310). According to Armenian beliefs, all evil spirits avoid houses with black dogs (Kharatyan, 1980: 114). An interesting ritual, known as “dog’s oldness” was recorded among the Chuvash, which was conducted to cure a child from anemia. The child’s face would be covered with a layer of dough. Then the dough would be carried to the threshold, and thrown on the Àoor through the yoke. A dog comes and licks the dough. Whilst this is happening a sorcerer says: “Eat, the dog’s oldness” (Magnitsky: fol. 141v., Nikolsky, 1915–1917: fol. 573, Elle, 1916: fol. 17v.). This ritual ¿nds a parallel in the Wakhan ritual called “anointing the infants with dough.” When a baby is born, the child’s face is anointed with dough to prevent it from becoming hairy. The dough is kneaded with the mother’s milk, and in the form of Àat breads is attached to the posts in the house. Then it is scraped from the posts and thrown to the dogs (Grunberg, Steblin-Kamensky, 1976: 269). The dog was also used in incantations against the evil eye. During rituals connected with funeral rites and the commemoration cycle yupa, çimƟk, kƟr sări, etc., some food was especially set aside and then thrown (on the street, in the yard, or behind the storage shed) to the dogs. “The oldest woman in the family would throw pieces of food to the dogs, and say with tears in her eyes, that with this food she feeds the deceased” (Maslenitsky, 1785: fol. 281). According to legend, a dog’s prayer exists: “Let him (my master) have many children, let them constantly drop bread under the table, for me to pick up” (Magnitsky: fol. 139). The Chuvash believe that when they throw selected food to the dogs (the dogs belonging to other families are carefully expelled from the yard), they clean the whole house from ¿lth. Apparently, throwing out food from a funeral was associated with cleansing the house in a general sense, and the food itself was considered a symbolic meal for the spirits of the ancestors. The existence of beliefs in the transmigration of the soul of the ancestor into the dog during commemoration days is reflected in ethnographic sources. During the funeral feast, it was desirable that the favorite dog of the deceased should receive the food, and so sometimes, whilst the food was being set aside that particular dog was kept in the house. The four-footed friends rushed to get the food, whining and howling. The person who had thrown the food would enter the house and happily announce that the dogs were jumping around and dashing to get the food. It was considered that the dogs eating the food was a sign that the sacri¿cial meal had been accepted by the spirits of dead relatives. In a song performed during yupa the spirit of the ancestor says: My table was taken out (on the street), Overthrow it! Give to the dog, And do not give to the cat! (Etnogra¿ya…, 1880–1939: fol. 65). Other texts which support the version “dog–the spirit of the ancestor,” explain that dogs, eating the selected food, carry it to the cemetery to the recipients. Therefore, the Chuvash are afraid to walk past cemeteries especially at night. The version “dog–the spirit of the ancestor” is supported and re¿ned by material on the Zoroastrian religion. For the Zoroastrians, as well as for the Chuvash, “dogs should be fed just after sunset” (Avesta..., 1997: 116). At the time of commemoration, “in addition to prayers, the family of the deceased would prepare food favored by the deceased three times a day and give it to the dog” (Meitarchiyan, 1999: 119). Similar beliefs are expressed in the Chuvash culture. “The Chuvash people believe that when a bowl with pieces of bread in it is in the house, it is as if the deceased drinks and eats out of the bowl. Allegedly, it is for this reason that bread and water which are placed near to the deceased lose their taste” (Nikanor, 1910: 32). According to the Mari beliefs, “souls can be ¿lled only with smell, that is, they can eat only the scent or the essence of food, but not the food itself” (Kuznetsov, 1907: 75). In other words, feeding dogs is perceived as making an offering to the ancestral spirits, because, according to the beliefs, “the dead are revealed in the dogs’ muzzles.” Therefore, there are a number of prohibitions in relation to dogs. During commemoration rituals, dogs would follow the smell of meat and gather in great numbers around the people who were eating. People rejoiced at their presence rather than chasing them away. It was forbidden to beat the dogs, even if, sensing that they were being given their freedom, they would start lapping right out of the cauldron. The most that could be done was to aim a blow at them. If a dog sniffed a dish with food in it on a non-commemoration day, the food would immediately be fumigated with oak tinder to return (to cleanse) the taste of food, “taken away” by the dog. The word for dog nyakha which has been preserved only in the vocabulary of young children goes back to the Mongolian nokhaj and also has a direct connection to dogs snif¿ng a commemoration meal. Lexicologists explain that the root of this word is suf¿ciently ancient: “The meanings of the boreal N-X- were ‘nose,’ ‘to sniff,’ ‘to sneeze’...: Ved. NƖ-sƗ, ‘nostrils,’ ‘nose’ (from *NeX-s-); Fin. N-enä, ‘nose’...; Lat. NƖ-ris, ‘nostril’...; Est. NoH-u, ‘runny nose’...; Khant. N’ăG-tipta, ‘to sneeze’...; Skr. NA-kra-, ‘nose’...; Fin. Nuu-skia, ‘to sniff’” (Andreyev, 1986: 8–9). According to Chuvash beliefs, whereas people cannot see the spirits of the dead relatives who come to their houses, dogs and horses can see them. “Four-eyed” dogs, that is, dogs with two bright spots above their eyes, are considered all-seeing. As the Chuvash explain, such dogs can smell evil spirits usals, and so are chased away, and avoided on the street. However, it is believed that “four-eyed” dogs which possess the ability to see evil spirits, can also drive the spirits away. Since dogs can see the spirits of the deceased (this is also noted in the beliefs of the Polish people (Vinogradova, Tolstaya, 1999: 247)), in the days of the commemoration it is forbidden to let them off the chain at night. Four-eyed, spotted dogs with wide noses, belonging to the god of death Yama in the Rigveda “search for people who are destined to die, and deliver them to Yama. To perform the rituals, the Zoroastrians, if possible, use white dogs (a Zoroastrian color) with dark spots above their eyes. The quality of having “four-eyes” refers to the ability of dogs to see death itself, with which the ritual sagdid (Modern Pers. ‘dog’s gaze,’ ‘inspected by the dog’) is associated” (Avesta ..., 1997: 100). A.K. Salmin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 124–128 Spirits and diseases can come in the guise of a dog, including “pestilence” and cholera. This “werewolf” dog may take shelter in someone’s barn or follow a man in the ¿eld. Ordinary dogs can distinguish them and will bark at them constantly giving warning of their presence. In general, as the Chuvash say, a howling dog is an omen of someone’s death. When people hear of someone’s death, they say: “I knew it, because the dogs barked all night, I had a bad night. The dogs barked throwing themselves at the crowd of the dead who came to the one who was to pass away” (Nikolsky, 1915–1917: fol. 418). It is believed that the dead can come home and bother the living whilst a dog is barking. In general, a dog’s howling is explained in two ways: “If when howling it [the dog] looks at the ground, it means that misfortune will come to the village. Either one of the guys will be sent to the army, or someone will die. If a dog howls while looking at the sky, it is complaining to Tură that it is being poorly fed” (Mészáros, 1909: 91; 2000: 82). A number of favorable and unfavorable signs are related to dogs. At the Old New Year*, the surkhuri people perform the ritual of “listening to the ground”: if when you place your ear to the ground you can hear a dog barking, it is a sign of a good marriage. In other cases, the barking of a dog is perceived as an evil omen. According to Russian beliefs, dogs howling at night foretells a death (Dal, 1981: 322). Meeting a dog when heading for somewhere or a dog crossing a traveler’s path is associated with the failure of an endeavor. It is said that if a dog crosses one’s path, then the traveler should turn around and postpone their business until the next day. During surkhuri, boys and girls leave their footprints in fresh snow in the evening. It is believed that if a dog’s print or feces are then found near the human footprint, something bad will happen to the owner of the footprint (for example, the individual would be sent to the army or die, etc.). A dog appearing in a dream is a sign of the need to make a sacri¿ce to an ancestor. Deities such as Kiremet appear in a dream in the form of a dog. Generally, having a dream about a dog is considered a bad omen. According to the beliefs of the Chuvash people, when the deceased is lain into a grave, a black dog strikes the deceased with a whip. The strike from the whip is what sends the soul of the deceased into the other world. The relationship between dog symbolism and hell can be traced in the traditional beliefs of many peoples. In Chuvash legends, the dog is depicted as an embodiment of evil. For example, there is a legend that an evil fate awaits the town of Yadrin and a benevolent fate awaits Cheboksary, for Yadrin was founded on a dog’s head, and Cheboksary on big loaf of bread. For the same reason, the Chuvash stopped throwing bones, the remains of ritual meals, to dogs. Even in the middle of the 19th century, V.A. Sboev wrote the following: “It is probable that the common noun dog (ida, in Tatar, et) became a pejorative word among the Chuvash at a later date, in imitation of the Tatars; it is likely that in times gone by the animal was considered, if not sacred, then, at least, *The Old New Year is an informal traditional holiday celebrated as the start of the New Year according to the Julian calendar (January 13). 127 not contemptible” (Sboev, 1865: 137). It is possible that only at a later date the symbolism of characters in Chuvash mythology became inverted, some of them acquiring the form of a dog, for example, Vupkăn. In the religious rivalry with Zoroastrianism, adherents of the new religion, Islam, began to torture dogs to torment followers of Zoroastrianism. “Apparently, a negative attitude expressed towards a dog (similarly to removing the Kushti belt or spitting into the ¿re) was an outward sign of conversion to the new faith” (Bois, 1987: 192). Conclusions The traditional beliefs of the Chuvash are saturated with animal symbolism, and with dog symbolism in particular. The dog has a direct relationship with the supreme deity Tură. On a semantic level, the dog has much in common with the wolf and man. The dog can be used as a sacri¿cial gift. It serves as a substitute for the ancestral spirits and is said to be in communication with the other world. It is also possible that the etymology of the word jytă, “dog” is related to the Sanskrit idƗ. References Andreyev N.A. 1974 K voprosu o sozdanii istoricheskoi leksikologii. In Chuvashsky yazyk, literatura i folklore, iss. 3. Cheboksary: NII Yazyka, literatury, istorii i ekonomiki, pp. 3–20. Andreyev N.D. 1986 Ranneindoevropeisky prayazyk. Leningrad: Nauka. Aptiyev G.A. 1891 Iz religioznykh obychayev votyakov Ufimskoi gubernii Birskogo uyezda. Izvestiya Obshchestva arkheologii, istorii i etnogra¿i (Kazan), vol. IX, iss. 3: 1–2. Arutyunov S.A., Schebenkov V.S. 1992 Drevneishii narod Yaponii: Sudby plemen ainov. Moscow: Nauka. Ashmarin N.I. 1928 Slovar chuvashskogo yazyka, iss. 1. Kazan: Narkompros CASSR. Ashmarin N.I. 1928, 1936 Slovar chuvashskogo yazyka, iss. 9. Cheboksary: Chuvashgosizdat. Avesta. VƯdaƟva dăta. 1994 Fr. 8, V.Yu. Kryukova (trans., introd., and comments). Vestnik drevnei istorii, No. 1: 238–249. Avesta v russkikh perevodakh (1861–1996). 1997 I.V. Rak (ed.). St. Petersburg: Russkii khristianskii gumanitarnyi institut. Berezkin Yu.E. 2005 Cherny pes u sleznoi reki: Nekotorye predstavleniya o puti v mir mertvykh u indeitsev Ameriki i ikh evraziiskie korni. Antropologicheskii forum, No. 2: 174–211. Bois M. 1987 Zoroastriitsy: Verovaniya i obychai, I.M. Steblin-Kamensky (ed.). Moscow: Nauka. Dal V. 1981 Tolkovyi slovar zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka, vol. 1. Moscow: Russkii yazyk. 128 A.K. Salmin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 124–128 Elle K.V. 1916 Etnogra¿cheskiye materialy. 1916 g. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Elle K.V. 1934 Drevnosti Chuvashskoi ASSR, vol. 3. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Eremeyev D.E. 1990 “Tyurk” – etnonim iranskogo proiskhozhdeniya? (K probleme etnogeneza drevnikh tyurkov). Sovetskaya etnogra¿ya, No. 3: 129–135. Etnogra¿ya, folklor. 1880–1939 gg. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Georgi J.G. 1775 Bemerkungen einer Reise im Russischen Reich in den Jahren 1773. und 1774., Bd. 2. St. Petersburg: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Golovnyov A.V. 1995 Govoryaschiye kultury: Traditsii samodiitsev i ugrov. Yekaterinburg: UrO RAN. Gryunberg A.L., Steblin-Kamensky I.M. 1976 Yazyki Vostochnogo Gindukusha: Vakhanskii yazyk. Teksty, slovar, grammaticheskii ocherk. Moscow: Nauka. Ivanov V.P. 1984 Polevye materialy, sobrannye v khode kompleksnoj ekspeditsii v Ulyanovskuyu, Kuibyshevskuyu oblasti i Tatarskuyu ASSR. 1984 g. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Kaliyev Yu.A. 2003 Mifologicheskoe soznanie mari: Fenomenologiya traditsionnogo mirovospriyatiya. Yoshkar-Ola: Mariisk. Gos. Univ. Khagu P.S. 1983 Agrarnaya obryadnost i verovaniya setu. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Leningrad. Kharatyan Z.V. 1980 Traditsionnye demonologicheskiye predstavleniya armyan (po materialam semeinogo byta XIX – nachala XX v.). Sovetskaya etnogra¿ya, No. 2: 103–116. Kochergina V.A. 1978 Sanskritsko-russkii slovar. Mosow: Russkii yazyk. Kuznetsov S.K. 1907 Kult umershikh i zagrobnye verovaniya lugovykh cheremis. Moscow: A.A. Levenson. Litvinsky B.A. 1984 Pogrebalnyi obryad i ritualy Baktrii – Tokharistana. In B.A. Litvinsky, A.V. Sedov. Kulty i ritualy Kushanskoi Baktrii. Pogrebalnyi obryad. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 150–169. Magnitsky V.K. [Manuscripts]. In Tsentralny gosudarstvenny arkhiv Chuvashskoi respubliki, f. 334, inv. 1.1. Magnitsky V.K. 1881 Materialy k obyasneniyu staroi chuvashskoi very: Sobranny v nekotorykh mestnostyakh Kazanskoi gubernii. Kazan: [Tip. Imper. univ.]. Maksimov S. 1989 Nechistaya, nevedomaya i krestnaya sila. Moscow: Kniga. Maslenitsky T. 1785 Topogra¿cheskoye opisaniye gubernii Simbirskoi. 1785 g. In Rossiiskii gos. voenno-istoricheskii arkhiv, f. VUA, No. 19026. Meitarchiyan M.B. 1999 Pogrebalnyi obryad zoroastriitsev. Moscow: Inst. vostokovedeniya RAN. Mészáros G. 1909 Csuvas népköltéisi gyüjtemény. I köt.: A csuvas ösvallás emlékei. Budapest: Kiada a Magyar tud. akad. Mészáros G. 2000 Pamyatniki staroi chuvashskoj very. Cheboksary: CHGIGN. Nikanor, arkhiepiskop. 1910 Ostatki yazycheskikh obryadov i religioznykh verovanii u chuvash. Kazan: Kazan. eparkhiya. Nikolaev G.A. 1984 Materialy kompleksnoi ekspeditsii, sobrannye v Ulyanovskoi i Kuibyshevskoi oblastyakh. 1984 g. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Nikolsky N.V. 1915–1917 Istoriya, etnogra¿ya, selskoe khozyaistvo, literatura, folklor. 1915–1917 gg. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Nikolsky N.V. 1929 Narodnaya meditsina u chuvash. Cheboksary: Narkomzdrav. Rekeyev A. 1898 Raznye chuvashskie moleniya. Kazan. Rodionov V.G. 1984 Materialy kompleksnoi ekspeditsii v TASSR, Ulyanovskuyu i Kuibyshevskuyu oblasti. 1984 g. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Sboev V.A. 1865 Chuvashi v bytovom, istoricheskom i religioznom otnosheniyakh: Ikh proiskhozhdenie, yazyk, obryady, poverya, predaniya i prochee. Moscow: [Tip. S. Orlova]. Shavly Stikhvan. 1935–1948 Folklor, etnogra¿ya. 1935–1948 gg. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Spassky N. 1912 Ocherki po rodinovedeniyu: Kazanskaya guberniya, vol. 2. Kazan: Imper. univ. Starostin S., Dybo A., Mudrak O. 2006 Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Surguladze I.K. 1987 Gmerti. In Mify narodov mira: Entsiklopediya, vol. 1. Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, p. 307. Vambery H. 1885 Das Turkenvolk in seinen ethnologischen und ethnographischen Beziehungen. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Vinogradova L.N., Tolstaya S.M. 1999 Zadushki. In Slavyanskie drevnosti: Etnolingvisticheskii slovar. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, pp. 246–247. Vishnevsky, protoierei. 1856 O religii nekreshchenykh cheremis Kazanskoi gubernii. Vestnik Imper. Russkogo geogra¿cheskogo obschestva, pt. 17: 281–290. Zemlyanitsky T.A. 1924–1925 Chuvashi Samarskogo kraya i ikh istoricheskoye proshloye. 1924–1925 gg. In Arkhiv Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta gumanitarnykh nauk. Received June 15, 2009.