Tatars in the history of the Russian state. How many Tatars are there in the world?

How did the Tatars appear? Origin of the Tatar people

5 (100%) 1 vote

How did the Tatars appear? Origin of the Tatar people

The leading group of the Tatar ethnic group is the Kazan Tatars. And now few people doubt that their ancestors were the Bulgars. How did it happen that the Bulgars became Tatars? The versions of the origin of this ethnonym are very interesting.

Turkic origin of the ethnonym

For the first time, the name “Tatar” was found in the 8th century in the inscription on the monument to the famous commander Kül-tegin, which was erected during the Second Turkic Khaganate - a Turkic state located on the territory of modern Mongolia, but with a larger area. The inscription mentions the tribal unions "Otuz-Tatars" and "Tokuz-Tatars".

In the X-XII centuries, the ethnonym “Tatars” spread in China, Central Asia and Iran. The 11th century scientist Mahmud Kashgari in his writings called the space between Northern China and Eastern Turkestan “Tatar steppe”.

Perhaps that is why at the beginning of the 13th century the Mongols began to be called that way, who by that time had defeated the Tatar tribes and seized their lands.

Turkic-Persian origin

The learned anthropologist Alexey Sukharev, in his work “Kazan Tatars,” published in St. Petersburg in 1902, noted that the ethnonym Tatars comes from the Turkic word “tat,” which means nothing more than mountains, and the word of Persian origin “ar” or “ ir”, which means person, man, inhabitant. This word is found among many peoples: Bulgarians, Magyars, Khazars. It is also found among the Turks.

Persian origin

Soviet researcher Olga Belozerskaya connected the origin of the ethnonym with the Persian word “tepter” or “defter”, which is interpreted as “colonist”. However, it is noted that the ethnonym “Tiptyar” is of later origin. Most likely, it arose in XVI-XVII centuries, when they began to call the Bulgars who moved from their lands to the Urals or Bashkiria.

We recommend reading

Old Persian origin

There is a hypothesis that the name “Tatars” comes from the ancient Persian word “tat” - this is how the Persians were called in the old days. Researchers refer to the 11th century scientist Mahmut Kashgari, who wrote that“Tatami the Turks call those who speak Farsi.”

However, the Turks also called the Chinese and even the Uyghurs tatami. And it could well be that tat meant “foreigner,” “foreign-speaking.” However, one does not contradict the other. After all, the Turks could first call Iranian-speaking people tatami, and then the name could spread to other strangers.

By the way, the Russian word “thief” may also have been borrowed from the Persians.

Greek origin

We all know that among the ancient Greeks the word “tartar” meant other world, hell Thus, “Tartarine” was an inhabitant of the underground depths. This name arose even before the invasion of Batu’s army in Europe. Perhaps it was brought here by travelers and merchants, but even then the word “Tatars” was associated by Europeans with eastern barbarians.

After the invasion of Batu Khan, Europeans began to perceive them exclusively as a people who came out of hell and brought the horrors of war and death. Ludwig IX was nicknamed a saint because he prayed himself and called on his people to pray to avoid Batu's invasion. As we remember, Khan Udegey died at this time. The Mongols turned back. This convinced the Europeans that they were right.

From now on, among the peoples of Europe, the Tatars became a generalization of all barbarian peoples living in the east.

To be fair, it must be said that on some old maps of Europe, Tartary began just beyond the Russian border. The Mongol Empire collapsed in the 15th century, but European historians continued to call everyone Tatars until the 18th century. eastern peoples from the Volga to China.

By the way, the Tatar Strait, separating Sakhalin Island from the mainland, is called that because “Tatars” - Orochi and Udege - also lived on its shores. In any case, this was the opinion of Jean François La Perouse, who gave the name to the strait.

Chinese origin

Some scientists believe that the ethnonym “Tatars” has Chinese origin. Back in the 5th century, in the northeast of Mongolia and Manchuria there lived a tribe that the Chinese called “ta-ta”, “da-da” or “tatan”. And in some dialects Chinese name sounded exactly like “Tatar” or “tartar” due to the nasal diphthong.

The tribe was warlike and constantly disturbed its neighbors. Perhaps later the name Tartar spread to other peoples who were unfriendly to the Chinese.

Most likely, it was from China that the name “Tatars” penetrated into Arab and Persian literary sources.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. developed in the world and in the Russian Empire social phenomenon- nationalism. Which promoted the idea that it is very important for a person to classify himself as a member of a certain social group - a nation (nationality). A nation was understood as a common territory of settlement, culture (especially a common literary language), and anthropological features (body structure, facial features). Against the background of this idea, in each of the social groups there was a struggle to preserve culture. The emerging and developing bourgeoisie became the herald of the ideas of nationalism. At this time, a similar struggle was carried out on the territory of Tatarstan - world social processes did not bypass our region.

In contrast to the revolutionary cries of the first quarter of the 20th century. and the last decade of the 20th century, who used very emotional terms - nation, nationality, people; in modern science it is customary to use a more cautious term - ethnic group, ethnos. This term carries within itself the same community of language and culture, like people, nation, and nationality, but does not need to clarify the nature or size of the social group. However, belonging to an ethnic group is still important social aspect for a person.

If you ask a passerby in Russia what nationality he is, then, as a rule, the passerby will proudly answer that he is Russian or Chuvash. And, of course, one of those who are proud of their ethnic origin will be a Tatar. But what will this word - “Tatar” - mean in the mouth of the speaker? In Tatarstan, not everyone who considers themselves a Tatar speaks or reads the Tatar language. Not everyone looks like a Tatar from a generally accepted point of view - a mixture of features of the Caucasian, Mongolian and Finno-Ugric anthropological types, for example. Among the Tatars there are Christians and many atheists, and not everyone who considers themselves a Muslim has read the Koran. But all this does not prevent the Tatar ethnic group from surviving, developing and being one of the most distinctive in the world.

Development national culture entails the development of the history of the nation, especially if the study of this history has been prevented for a long time. As a result, the unspoken, and sometimes open, ban on studying the region led to a particularly rapid surge in Tatar historical science, which is observed to this day. Pluralism of opinions and lack of factual material led to the formation of several theories trying to combine the greatest number known facts. Not just historical doctrines have been formed, but several historical schools that are conducting a scientific dispute among themselves. At first, historians and publicists were divided into “Bulgarists,” who considered the Tatars to be descended from the Volga Bulgars, and “Tatarists,” who considered the period of formation Tatar nation the period of existence of the Kazan Khanate and the Bulgars who denied participation in the formation of the nation. Subsequently, another theory appeared, on the one hand, contradicting the first two, and on the other, combining all the best of the available theories. It was called “Turkic-Tatar”.

Purpose of the work: to explore the range of points of view on the origin of the Tatars that currently exist.

Consider the Bulgaro-Tatar and Tatar-Mongol points of view on the ethnogenesis of the Tatars;

Consider the Turkic-Tatar point of view on the ethnogenesis of the Tatars and a number of alternative points of view.

1. History of the origin of the Tatars

The term "Turk" has three meanings. For the 6th - 7th centuries, this is a small ethnic group (Turkut), which headed a huge association in the Great Steppe (El) and died in the middle of the 8th century. These Turks were Mongoloids. From them came the Khazar dynasty, but the Khazars themselves were Europeans of the Dagestan type. For the 9th - 12th centuries "Turk" - common name warlike northern peoples, including the Malyars, Russians and Slavs. For modern orientalists, “Turk” is a group of languages spoken by ethnic groups of different origins. In his work, Lev Gumilyov writes: “In the 6th century, the Great Turkic Khaganate was created. Among those who considered it good to help the conqueror in order to share with him the fruits of victory were the Khazars and the Bulgar tribe of the Uturgurs, who lived between the Kuban and the Don. However, in the Western Turkic Kaganate, two tribal unions formed two parties that fought for power over the powerless khan. The Uturgurs joined one, and the Khazars, naturally, another party, and after the defeat they accepted the fleeing prince as their khan. Eight years later, the Western Turkic Kaganate was captured by the troops of the Tang Empire, which benefited the Khazars, who took the side of the previously defeated prince, and to the detriment of the Bulgars - the Uturgurs, who lost the support of the Supreme Khan. As a result, the Khazars defeated the Bulgars around 670, and they fled to the Kama, to the Danube, to Hungary, and even to Italy. The Bulgars did not create single state: the eastern, in the Kuban basin, the Uturgurs, and the western, between the Don and the lower reaches of the Danube, the Kuturgurs, were at enmity with each other and became prey to new newcomers from the east: the Kuturgurs were subjugated by the Avars, and the Uturgurs by the Turkuts.”

In 922, the head of the Kama Bulgars, Almush, converted to Islam and separated his state from Khazaria (which was subordinated after the Tyuryut Khaganate), counting on the help of the Baghdad Caliph, who was supposed to prohibit Muslim mercenaries from fighting against their co-religionists. The caliph ordered to sell the confiscated estate of the executed vizier and hand over the money to ambassador Ibn Fadlan, but the buyer “could not” catch up with the embassy caravan, and the fortress in Bulgar was not built, and the Khorezmians in the 10th century no longer paid attention to the orders of the weakened Baghdad caliphs. Apostasy did not strengthen, but weakened the Great Bulgars. One of the three Bulgar tribes - the Suvaz (ancestors of the Chuvash) - refused to convert to Islam and fortified themselves in the forests of the Trans-Volga region. The divided Bulgarian state could not compete with the Jewish Khazaria. In 985, the Kiev prince Vladimir began a war with the Kama Bulgars and Khazars. The war with the Kama Bulgars was unsuccessful. After the “victory,” the head of the campaign, Vladimir’s maternal uncle, Dobrynya, made a strange decision: the booted Bulgars would not give tribute; we need to look for lapotniks. An eternal peace was concluded with the Bulgar, that is, the government of Vladimir recognized the independence of Kama Bulgaria. In the 17th century, the Volga Bulgars reduced the constant war with Suzdal and Murom to an exchange of raids for the sake of capturing captives. The Bulgars replenished their harems, and the Russians made up for their losses. At the same time, children mixed marriages were considered legitimate, but the exchange of the gene pool did not lead both neighboring ethnic groups to unification. Orthodoxy and Islam separated the Russians and the Bulgars despite genetic mixing, economic and social similarity, the monolithic geographical environment and the extremely superficial knowledge of the dogma of both world religions by the majority of the Slavic and Bulgar population. Based on the collective meaning of the term “Tatar,” the medieval Tatars considered the Mongols as part of the Tatars, since in the 12th century the hegemony among the tribes of Eastern Mongolia belonged to the latter. In the 13th century, the Tatars began to be considered as part of the Mongols in the same broad sense of the word, and the name “Tatars” was familiar and well known, and the word “Mongol” were synonymous because numerous Tatars made up the vanguard of the Mongol army since they were not spared in being placed in the most dangerous places. “Medieval historians divided the eastern nomadic peoples into “white”, “black”, and “wild” Tatars. In the fall of 1236, Mongol troops took the Great Bulgar, and in the spring of 1237 they attacked the Alan Kipchaks. In the Golden Horde, after it became a “Muslim sultanate,” a “great turmoil” arose, followed by the collapse of the state and ethnic division into Kazan, Crimean, Siberian, Astrakhan and Kazakh Tatars. The Mongol campaigns mixed up all the ethnic communities that existed before the 13th century and seemed so integral and stable. From some only their names remained, while from others even their names disappeared, being replaced by the collective term - Tatars. So the Kazan Tatars are a mixture of ancient Bulgars, Kipchaks, Ugrians - descendants of Magyars and Russian women whom Muslims captured and made legal wives - inhabitants of harems."

2. Bulgaro-Tatar and Turkic points of view on the ethnogenesis of the Tatars

It should be noted that in addition to linguistic and cultural community, as well as general anthropological features, historians pay a significant role to the origin of statehood. So, for example, the beginning of Russian history is considered not archaeological cultures pre-Slavic period and not even the tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs who migrated in the 3rd-4th centuries, but Kievan Rus, which formed by the 8th century. For some reason, a significant role in the formation of culture is given to the spread (official adoption) of the monotheistic religion, which happened in Kievan Rus in 988, and in Volga Bulgaria in 922. Probably, the Bulgaro-Tatar theory arose primarily from such premises.

The Bulgaro-Tatar theory is based on the position that the ethnic basis of the Tatar people was the Bulgar ethnos, which formed in the Middle Volga region and the Urals since the 8th century. n. e. (V Lately Some supporters of this theory began to attribute the appearance of Turkic-Bulgar tribes in the region to the 8th-7th centuries. BC e. and earlier). Most important provisions This concept is formulated as follows. The main ethnocultural traditions and features of the modern Tatar (Bulgaro-Tatar) people were formed during the period of Volga Bulgaria (X-XIII centuries), and in subsequent times (Golden Horde, Kazan Khan and Russian periods) they underwent only minor changes in language and culture. The principalities (sultanates) of the Volga Bulgars, being part of the Ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde), enjoyed significant political and cultural autonomy, and the influence of the Horde ethnopolitical system of power and culture (in particular, literature, art and architecture) was purely external influence, which did not have a noticeable impact on Bulgarian society. The most important consequence of the dominance of the Ulus of Jochi was the disintegration of the unified state of the Volga Bulgaria into a number of possessions, and the single Bulgar nation into two ethno-territorial groups (“Bulgaro-Burtas” of the Mukhsha ulus and the “Bulgars” of the Volga-Kama Bulgar principalities). During the period of the Kazan Khanate, the Bulgar (“Bulgaro-Kazan”) ethnos strengthened the early pre-Mongol ethnocultural features, which continued to be traditionally preserved (including the self-name “Bulgars”) until the 1920s, when it was forcibly imposed on it by Tatar bourgeois nationalists and the Soviet government ethnonym "Tatars".

Let's go into a little more detail. Firstly, the migration of tribes from the foothills North Caucasus after the collapse of the state of Great Bulgaria. Why is it that at present the Bulgarians, the Bulgars assimilated by the Slavs, have become a Slavic people, and the Volga Bulgars are a Turkic-speaking people who have absorbed the population that lived before them in this area? Is it possible that there were much more newcomer Bulgars than local tribes? In this case, the postulate that Turkic-speaking tribes penetrated this territory long before the Bulgars appeared here - during the times of the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Khazars, looks much more logical. The history of Volga Bulgaria begins not with the fact that alien tribes founded the state, but with the unification of the door cities - the capitals of the tribal unions - Bulgar, Bilyar and Suvar. The traditions of statehood also did not necessarily come from alien tribes, since local tribes neighbored powerful ancient states - for example, the Scythian kingdom. In addition, the position that the Bulgars assimilated local tribes contradicts the position that the Bulgars themselves were not assimilated by the Tatar-Mongols. As a result, the Bulgaro-Tatar theory breaks down because Chuvash language much closer to Old Bulgarian than Tatar. And the Tatars today speak the Turkic-Kipchak dialect.

However, the theory is not without merits. For example, the anthropological type of the Kazan Tatars, especially men, makes them similar to the peoples of the North Caucasus and indicates the origin of their facial features - a hooked nose, a Caucasian type - in the mountainous area, and not in the steppe.

Until the early 90s of the 20th century, the Bulgaro-Tatar theory of the ethnogenesis of the Tatar people was actively developed by a whole galaxy of scientists, including A. P. Smirnov, H. G. Gimadi, N. F. Kalinin, L. Z. Zalyai, G. V. Yusupov, T. A. Trofimova, A. Kh. Khalikov, M. Z. Zakiev, A. G. Karimullin, S. Kh. Alishev.

In his work A.G. Karimullin “On Bulgaro-Tatar and Turkic origin” he writes that the first information about the Turkic tribes called “Tatars” is known from the monuments of the 18th century placed on the graves of the rulers of the East Turkic Kaganate. Among large nations, who sent their representatives to the funeral of Bumyn - Kagan and Istemi - Kagan (VI century), the founders of the powerful Turkic state, are mentioned in “Otuz Tatars” (30 Tatars). Tatar tribes are also known from other historical sources from more western regions. Thus, in the famous Persian geographical work

X century “Hudud al-alam” (“Borders of the world”) the Tatars are named as one of the clans of the Toguz - Oguz - the population of the Karakhanid state, formed after the collapse of the Western Turkic Kaganate. The Central Asian philologist of the 11th century, Mahmud Kashgari, in his famous “Dictionary” names the Tatars among 20 Turkic tribes, and the Persian historian of the same century, al-Gardizi, describes the legend about the formation of the Kimak Kaganate, in which the main role was played by people from the Tatar tribal union (the Kimaks are Turkic tribes who lived in the 8th - 10th centuries in the Irtysh basin; their western part is known as the Kipchaks. According to some information, for example from Russian chronicles, as well as according to the Khiva Khan and the 17th century historian Abdul-Gazi, the Tatars were known in Eastern Europe , in particular in Hungary, Rus' and Volga Bulgaria, even before the Mongol conquests, they appeared there as part of the Oguzes, Kipchaks, and other Turkic tribes. Consequently, medieval historical sources clearly indicate ancient Turkic, Tatar tribes known since the 6th century, part who moved to the West - to Western Siberia and Eastern Europe even before the Mongol invasion and the formation of the Golden Horde.

The theory of the Tatar-Mongolian origin of the Tatar people is based on the fact of the migration of nomadic Tatar-Mongolian (Central Asian) ethnic groups to Europe, who, having mixed with the Kipchaks and adopted Islam during the period of the Ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde), created the basis of the culture of modern Tatars. The origins of the theory of the Tatar-Mongol origin of the Tatars should be sought in medieval chronicles, as well as in folk legends and epics. The greatness of the powers founded by the Mongolian and Golden Horde khans is spoken of in the legends of Genghis Khan, Aksak-Timur, and the epic of Idegei.

Supporters of this theory deny or downplay the importance of Volga Bulgaria and its culture in the history of the Kazan Tatars, believing that Bulgaria was an underdeveloped state, without urban culture and with a superficially Islamized population.

During the period of the Ulus of Jochi, the local Bulgar population was partially exterminated or, retaining paganism, moved to the outskirts, and the main part was assimilated by incoming Muslim groups, who brought urban culture and the language of the Kipchak type.

Here again it should be noted that, according to many historians, the Kipchaks were irreconcilable enemies with the Tatar-Mongols. That both campaigns of the Tatar-Mongol troops - under the leadership of Subedei and Batu - were aimed at the defeat and destruction of the Kipchak tribes. In other words, the Kipchak tribes during the Tatar-Mongol invasion were exterminated or driven to the outskirts.

In the first case, the exterminated Kipchaks, in principle, could not cause the formation of a nationality within the Volga Bulgaria; in the second case, it is illogical to call the theory Tatar-Mongol, since the Kipchaks did not belong to the Tatar-Mongols and were a completely different tribe, albeit Turkic-speaking.

The Tatar-Mongol theory can be called if we consider that Volga Bulgaria was conquered and then inhabited by Tatar and Mongol tribes that came from the empire of Genghis Khan. It should also be noted that the Tatar-Mongols during the period of conquest were predominantly pagans, not Muslims, which usually explains the tolerance of the Tatar-Mongols towards other religions.

Therefore, it is more likely that the Bulgar population, who learned about Islam in the 10th century, contributed to the Islamization of the Ulus of Jochi, and not vice versa. Archaeological data complement the factual side of the issue: on the territory of Tatarstan there is evidence of the presence of nomadic (Kipchak or Tatar-Mongol) tribes, but their settlement is observed in the southern part of the Tataria region.

However, it cannot be denied that the Kazan Khanate, which arose on the ruins of the Golden Horde, crowned the formation of the Tatar ethnic group. This is strong and already clearly Islamic, which had for the Middle Ages great importance, the state contributed to the development and, during the period under Russian rule, the preservation of Tatar culture.

There is also an argument in favor of the kinship of the Kazan Tatars with the Kipchaks - the linguistic dialect is referred by linguists to the Turkic-Kipchak group. Another argument is the name and self-name of the people - “Tatars”. Presumably from the Chinese “da-dan,” as Chinese historians called part of the Mongolian (or neighboring Mongolian) tribes in northern China.

The Tatar-Mongol theory arose at the beginning of the 20th century. (N.I. Ashmarin, V.F. Smolin) and actively developed in the works of Tatar (Z. Validi, R. Rakhmati, M.I. Akhmetzyanov, and more recently R.G. Fakhrutdinov), Chuvash (V.F. Kakhovsky, V.D. Dimitriev, N.I. Egorov, M.R. Fedotov) and Bashkir (N.A. Mazhitov) historians, archaeologists and linguists.

3. Turkic-Tatar theory of the ethnogenesis of the Tatars and a number of alternative points of view

Tatar nation ethnic migration

The Turkic-Tatar theory of the origin of the Tatar ethnos emphasizes the Turkic-Tatar origins of modern Tatars, notes the important role in their ethnogenesis of the ethnopolitical tradition of the Turkic Kaganate, Great Bulgaria and the Khazar Kaganate, Volga Bulgaria, Kipchak-Kimak and Tatar-Mongol ethnic groups of the Eurasian steppes.

The Turkic-Tatar concept of the origin of the Tatars is developed in the works of G. S. Gubaidullin, M. Karateev, N. A. Baskakov, Sh. F. Mukhamedyarov, R. G. Kuzeev, M. A. Usmanov, R. G. Fakhrutdinov, A G. Mukhamadieva, N. Davleta, D. M. Iskhakova, etc. Proponents of this theory believe that it best reflects the rather complex internal structure of the Tatar ethnic group (characteristic, however, for all large ethnic groups), combines the best achievements other theories. In addition, there is an opinion that M. G. Safargaliev was one of the first to point out the complex nature of ethnogenesis, which cannot be reduced to a single ancestor, in 1951. After the late 1980s. The unspoken ban on the publication of works that went beyond the decisions of the 1946 session of the USSR Academy of Sciences lost its relevance, and accusations of the “non-Marxism” of the multicomponent approach to ethnogenesis ceased to be used; this theory was replenished by many domestic publications. Proponents of the theory identify several stages in the formation of an ethnic group.

Stage of formation of the main ethnic components. (mid-VI - mid-XIII centuries). The important role of the Volga Bulgaria, the Khazar Kaganate and the Kipchak-Kimak state associations in the ethnogenesis of the Tatar people is noted. At this stage, the formation of the main components occurred, which were combined at the next stage. The great role of Volga Bulgaria was that it founded the Islamic tradition, urban culture and writing based on Arabic script (after the 10th century), which replaced the most ancient writing - the Turkic runic. At this stage, the Bulgars tied themselves to the territory - to the land on which they settled. The territory of settlement was the main criterion for identifying a person with a people.

The stage of the medieval Tatar ethnopolitical community (mid-XIII - first quarter of the XV centuries). At this time, the consolidation of the components that emerged at the first stage took place in a single state - the Ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde); medieval Tatars, based on the traditions of peoples united in one state, not only created their own state, but also developed their own ethnopolitical ideology, culture and symbols of their community. All this led to the ethnocultural consolidation of the Golden Horde aristocracy, military service classes, Muslim clergy and the formation of the Tatar ethnopolitical community in the 14th century. The stage is characterized by the fact that in the Golden Horde, on the basis of the Oguz-Kypchak language, the norms of the literary language (literary Old Tatar language) were established. The earliest surviving literary monument on it (Kul Gali’s poem “Kyisa-i Yosyf”) was written in the 13th century. The stage ended with the collapse of the Golden Horde (XV century) as a result feudal fragmentation. In the formed Tatar khanates, the formation of new ones began ethnic communities, who had local self-names: Astrakhan, Kazan, Kasimov, Crimean, Siberian, Temnikov Tatars, etc. During this period, the established cultural community of the Tatars can be evidenced by the fact that while the central horde still existed (the Great Horde, the Nogai Horde), most of the governors on the outskirts sought occupy this main throne, or had close ties with the central horde.

After the mid-16th century and until the 18th century, a stage of consolidation of local ethnic groups within the Russian state was distinguished. After the annexation of the Volga region, the Urals and Siberia to the Russian state, the processes of migration of the Tatars intensified (as mass migrations from the Oka to the Zakamskaya and Samara-Orenburg lines, from the Kuban to the Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces are known) and interactions between its various ethno-territorial groups, which contributed to their linguistic and cultural rapprochement. This was facilitated by the presence of a single literary language, a common cultural, religious and educational field. To a certain extent, the unifying factor was the attitude of the Russian state and the Russian population, who did not distinguish between ethnic groups. There is a common confessional identity - “Muslims”. Some of the local ethnic groups that entered other states at this time (primarily the Crimean Tatars) further developed independently.

The period from the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century is defined by supporters of the theory as the formation of the Tatar nation. Just the same period mentioned in the introduction to this work. The following stages of nation formation are distinguished: 1) From XVIII to mid-19th century - the stage of the “Muslim” nation, at which religion was the unifying factor. 2) From the middle of the 19th century to 1905 - the stage of the “ethnocultural” nation. 3) From 1905 to the end of the 1920s. - stage of the “political” nation.

At the first stage, the attempts of various rulers to carry out Christianization were beneficial. The policy of Christianization, instead of actually transferring the population of the Kazan province from one denomination to another, through its ill-consideration, contributed to the cementation of Islam in the consciousness of the local population.

At the second stage, after the reforms of the 1860s, the development of bourgeois relations began, which contributed to the rapid development of culture. In turn, its components (the education system, the literary language, book publishing and periodicals) completed the establishment in the self-consciousness of all the main ethno-territorial and ethnic class groups of the Tatars of the idea of belonging to a single Tatar nation. It is to this stage that the Tatar people owe the appearance of the History of Tatarstan. During this period of time, Tatar culture not only managed to recover, but also achieved certain progress.

From the second half of the 19th century century, the modern Tatar literary language began to form, which by the 1910s had completely replaced the old Tatar language. The consolidation of the Tatar nation was strongly influenced by the high migration activity of Tatars from the Volga-Ural region.

The third stage from 1905 to the end of the 1920s. - This is the stage of the “political” nation. The first manifestation was the demands for cultural-national autonomy expressed during the revolution of 1905-1907. Later there were ideas of the State of Idel-Ural, the Tatar-Bashkir SR, the creation of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. After the 1926 census, the remnants of ethnic class self-determination disappeared, that is, the social stratum “Tatar nobility” disappeared.

Let us note that the Turkic-Tatar theory is the most extensive and structured of the theories considered. It really covers many aspects of the formation of the ethnic group in general and the Tatar ethnic group in particular.

In addition to the main theories of the ethnogenesis of the Tatars, there are also alternative ones. One of the most interesting is the Chuvash theory of the origin of the Kazan Tatars.

Most historians and ethnographers, just like the authors of the theories discussed above, are looking for the ancestors of the Kazan Tatars not where these people currently live, but somewhere far beyond the territory of present-day Tatarstan. In the same way, their emergence and formation as a distinctive nationality is attributed not to the historical era when this took place, but to more ancient times. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the cradle of the Kazan Tatars is their real homeland, that is, the region of the Tatar Republic on the left bank of the Volga between the Kazanka River and the Kama River.

All these nationalities and tribes apparently lived in those forested regions since time immemorial, and partly perhaps also moved from Trans-Kama, after the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols and the defeat of Volga Bulgaria. By character and level of culture, as well as way of life, this multi-tribal the masses, before the emergence of the Kazan Khanate, in any case, differed little from each other. Likewise, their religions were similar and consisted of the veneration of various spirits and sacred groves - kiremetii - places of prayer with sacrifices. This is confirmed by the fact that until the revolution of 1917 they remained in the same Tatar Republic, for example, near the village. Kukmor, a village of Udmurts and Maris, who were not touched by either Christianity or Islam, where until recently people lived according to the ancient customs of their tribe. In addition, in the Apastovsky district of the Tatar Republic, at the junction with the Chuvash Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, there are nine Kryashen villages, including the village of Surinskoye and the village of Star. Tyaberdino, where some of the residents, even before the Revolution of 1917, were “unbaptized” Kryashens, thus surviving until the Revolution outside of both the Christian and Muslim religions. And the Chuvash, Mari, Udmurts and Kryashens who converted to Christianity were only formally included in it, but continued to live according to ancient times until recently.

In passing, we note that the existence almost in our time of “unbaptized” Kryashens casts doubt on the very widespread point of view that the Kryashens arose as a result of the forced Christianization of Muslim Tatars.

Now let's see how historical conditions the Kazan Tatar nation, as we know them, could have arisen and multiplied at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

In the middle of the 15th century, as already mentioned, on the left bank of the Volga, Khan Ulu-Mahomet, who had been overthrown from the throne and fled from the Golden Horde, appeared with a relatively small detachment of his Tatars. He conquered and subjugated the local Chuvash tribe and created the feudal-serf Kazan Khanate, in which the victors, the Muslim Tatars, were the privileged class, and the conquered Chuvash were the serf common people.

In the latest edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, we read the following in more detail about the internal structure of the state in its finalized period: “Kazan Khanate, a feudal state in the Middle Volga region (1438-1552), formed as a result of the collapse of the Golden Horde on the territory of Volga-Kama Bulgaria. The founder of the dynasty of Kazan khans was Ulu-Muhammad.”

Higher government belonged to the khan, but was directed by the council of large feudal lords (divan). The top of the feudal nobility consisted of Karachi, representatives of the four most noble families. Next came the sultans, emirs, and below them were the Murzas, lancers and warriors. A major role was played by the Muslim clergy, who owned vast waqf lands. The bulk of the population consisted of “black people”: free peasants who paid yasak and other taxes to the state, feudal-dependent peasants, serfs from prisoners of war and slaves. The Tatar nobles (emirs, beks, murzas, etc.) were hardly very merciful to their serfs, who were also foreigners and people of other faiths. Voluntarily or pursuing goals related to some benefit, but over time, the common people began to adopt their religion from the privileged class, which was associated with the renunciation of their national identity and with a complete change in their way of life and way of life, in accordance with the requirements of the new “Tatar” faith - Islam. This transition of the Chuvash to Mohammedanism was the beginning of the formation of the Kazan Tatars.

The new state that arose on the Volga lasted only about a hundred years, during which raids on the outskirts of the Moscow state almost did not stop. In the inner state life Frequent palace coups took place and proteges found themselves on the Khan’s throne: either Turkey (Crimea), or Moscow, or the Nogai Horde, etc.

The process of forming the Kazan Tatars in the above-mentioned way from the Chuvash, and partly from other, peoples of the Volga region occurred throughout the entire period of the existence of the Kazan Khanate, did not stop after the annexation of Kazan to the Moscow state and continued until the beginning of the twentieth century, i.e. almost up to our time. The Kazan Tatars grew in number not so much as a result of natural growth, but as a result of the Tatarization of other nationalities of the region.

Let us give another rather interesting argument in favor of the Chuvash origin of the Kazan Tatars. It turns out that the Meadow Mari now call the Tatars “suas”. From time immemorial, the Meadow Mari were close neighbors with that part of the Chuvash people who lived on the left bank of the Volga and were the first to become Tatars, so that in those places not a single Chuvash village remained for a long time, although according to historical information and scribal records of the Moscow State there were them there a lot of. The Mari did not notice, especially at the beginning, any changes among their neighbors as a result of the appearance of another god among them - Allah, and forever retained the former name for them in their language. But for distant neighbors - the Russians - from the very beginning of the formation of the Kazan kingdom, there was no doubt that the Kazan Tatars were the same Tatar-Mongols who left a sad memory of themselves among the Russians.

Throughout the entire comparative short story This “Khanate” continued continuous raids by the “Tatars” on the outskirts of the Moscow state, and the first Khan Ulu-Mohammed spent the rest of his life in these raids. These raids were accompanied by the devastation of the region, the robberies of the civilian population and the deportation of them “in full”, i.e. everything happened in the style of the Tatar-Mongols. Thus, the Chuvash theory is also not without its foundations, although it presents us with the ethnogenesis of the Tatars in the most original form.

Conclusion

As we conclude from the material considered, at the moment even the most developed of the existing theories - the Turkic-Tatar one - is not ideal. It leaves many questions for one simple reason: the historical science of Tatarstan is still extremely young. The mass has not yet been studied historical sources, active excavations are underway on the territory of Tataria. All this allows us to hope that in the coming years the theories will be replenished with facts and will acquire a new, even more objective shade.

The material reviewed also allows us to note that all theories are united in one thing: the Tatar people have a complex history of origin and a complex ethnocultural structure.

In the growing process of world integration, we are already striving to create a single state and a common cultural space European states. Tatarstan may not be able to avoid this either. The trends of recent (free) decades indicate attempts to integrate the Tatar people into the modern Islamic world. But integration is a voluntary process, it allows you to preserve the self-name of the people, language, cultural achievements. As long as at least one person speaks and reads Tatar, the Tatar nation will exist.

Bibliography

1. Akhmetyanov R. “From a deceived generation” P.20

2. Gumilyov L. “Who are the Tatars?” - Kazan: a collection of modern studies on the history and culture of the Tatar people. P.110

3. Kakhovsky V.F. Origin of the Chuvash people. - Cheboksary: Chuvash Book Publishing House, 2003. - 463 p.

4. Mustafina G.M., Munkov N.P., Sverdlova L.M. History of Tatarstan XIX century - Kazan, Magarif, 2003. - 256c.

5.Safargaliev M.G. “The Golden Horde and the history of the Tatars” - Kazan: Collection of modern studies on the culture of the Tatar people. P.110

5. Sabirova D.K. History of Tatarstan. From ancient times to the present day: textbook / D.K. Sabirova, Ya.Sh. Sharapov. - M.: KNORUS, 2009. - 352 p.

6. Rashitov F.A. History of the Tatar people. - M.: Children's book, 2001. - 285 p.

7. Tagirov I.R. History of the national statehood of the Tatar people and Tatarstan - Kazan, 2000. - 327c.

8. R.G.Fakhrutdinov. History of the Tatar people and Tatarstan. (Antiquity and Middle Ages). Textbook for secondary secondary schools, gymnasiums and lyceums. - Kazan: Magarif, 2000.- 255 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The history of the spread of Turkic tribes and identification of existing points of view on the origin of the Tatars. Bulgaro-Tatar and Tatar-Mongolian points of view on the ethnogenesis of the Tatars. Turkic-Tatar theory of the ethnogenesis of the Tatars and a review of alternative points of view.

test, added 02/06/2011

Features of urban and rural settlements among the Tatars at the end of the 19th century. The structure and attributes of the interior of a Tatar hut, the appearance of objects characteristic of urban life. Tatar everyday life, ordinary dishes. Specifics of the Tatar wedding.

presentation, added 02/27/2014

Social, state system of the Kazan Khanate. Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the formation of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, composition and territorial borders of the republic. The Tatar Republic as a political Soviet socialist autonomy, the organization of people's commissariats.

abstract, added 11/30/2010

History of human settlement of the territory belonging to Tatarstan. Location of main archaeological sites Volga Bulgaria: towers of Syuyumbeki and Nuralieva Mosque. Formation of the Tatar people during the existence of the Kazan Khanate.

presentation, added 02/09/2013

Analysis of points of view and theories of historians on the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Features of the formation of a number of migration theories about the origin of the Slavic people. Facts and contradictions of individual theories. The complexity of the process of formation of the Slavic nation.

test, added 02/09/2010

The birth of the Mongol Empire. Batu's campaigns in northeastern Rus'. The struggle of the Slavs and Polovtsians against the Mongol-Tatars. Tragic battle on Kalka. A new campaign of the Mongol-Tatars to Rus' after the death of Genghis Khan. Consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

presentation, added 04/19/2011

History of the indigenous peoples of Crimea. The situation preceding the deportation of the Crimean Tatars. The first actions of liberators, judicial and extrajudicial repressions. Legal status of deported persons in special settlements. The problem of the Crimean Tatars in post-Soviet times.

thesis, added 04/26/2011

The birth of the Mongol-Tatar state: the conquests of the Mongols, the tragedy on Kalka. Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus': "Batu's invasion", onslaught from the north-west. Horde rule in Rus'. Uprisings in Rus'. Moscow as the center of unification of Russian lands.

test, added 07/08/2009

History of Ancient Rus'. Economic and cultural situation of the state in the XII-XIII centuries. Prerequisites for the conquest of Rus'. The first Tatar invasion and the Battle of Kalka. Batu's attack and domination Mongol yoke. Alternative opinions about the Tatar-Mongol yoke.

thesis, added 04/22/2014

Formation of the ethnic foundations of the Tatar people, the characteristics of their way of life, national culture, language, consciousness and anthropological appearance in the environment of Volga Bulgaria. Bulgars during the period of the Mongol invasion, the Golden Horde and the Kazan Khanate.

There are many stranger nations in our country. It is not right. We should not be strangers to each other.
Let's start with the Tatars - the second largest ethnic group in Russia (there are almost 6 million of them).

1. Who are the Tatars?

The history of the ethnonym “Tatars,” as often happened in the Middle Ages, is a history of ethnographic confusion.

In the 11th-12th centuries, the steppes of Central Asia were inhabited by various Mongol-speaking tribes: Naiman, Mongols, Kereits, Merkits and Tatars. The latter wandered along the borders of the Chinese state. Therefore, in China the name Tatars was transferred to other Mongolian tribes in the meaning of “barbarians.” Actually, the Chinese called the Tatars white Tatars, the Mongols who lived to the north were called black Tatars, and the Mongolian tribes who lived even further, in the Siberian forests, were called wild Tatars.

At the beginning of the 13th century, Genghis Khan launched a punitive campaign against the real Tatars in revenge for the poisoning of his father. The order that the Mongol ruler gave to his soldiers has been preserved: to destroy everyone taller than the cart axle. As a result of this massacre, the Tatars as a military-political force were wiped off the face of the earth. But, as the Persian historian Rashid ad-din testifies, “because of their extreme greatness and honorable position, other Turkic clans, with all the differences in their ranks and names, became known by their name, and all were called Tatars.”

The Mongols themselves never called themselves Tatars. However, Khorezm and Arab merchants, who were constantly in contact with the Chinese, brought the name “Tatars” to Europe even before the appearance of Batu Khan’s troops here. Europeans compared the ethnonym “Tatars” with the Greek name for hell - Tartarus. Later, European historians and geographers used the term Tartaria as a synonym for the "barbarian East". For example, on some European maps of the 15th-16th centuries, Moscow Rus' is designated as “Moscow Tartary” or “European Tartary”.

As for modern Tatars, neither by origin nor by language they have absolutely nothing to do with the Tatars of the 12th-13th centuries. The Volga, Crimean, Astrakhan and other modern Tatars inherited only the name from the Central Asian Tatars.

The modern Tatar people do not have a single ethnic root. Among his ancestors were the Huns, Volga Bulgars, Kipchaks, Nogais, Mongols, Kimaks and other Turkic-Mongolian peoples. But the formation of modern Tatars was even more influenced by the Finno-Ugrians and Russians. According to anthropological data, more than 60% of Tatars have predominantly Caucasian features, and only 30% have Turkic-Mongolian features.

2. Tatar people in the era of Genghisids

The emergence of the Ulus Jochi on the banks of the Volga was an important milestone in the history of the Tatars.

During the era of Genghisids, Tatar history became truly global. The system has reached perfection government controlled and finance, postal (Yamskaya) service, inherited by Moscow. More than 150 cities arose where the endless Polovtsian steppes recently stretched. Their names alone sound like fairy tale: Gulstan (land of flowers), Saray (palace), Aktobe (white vault).

Some cities were much larger than Western European ones in size and population. For example, if Rome in the 14th century had 35 thousand inhabitants, and Paris - 58 thousand, then the capital of the Horde, the city of Sarai, had more than 100 thousand. According to the testimony of Arab travelers, Sarai had palaces, mosques, temples of other religions, schools, public gardens, baths, and running water. Not only merchants and warriors lived here, but also poets.

All religions in the Golden Horde enjoyed equal freedom. According to the laws of Genghis Khan, insulting religion was punishable by death. The clergy of each religion were exempt from paying taxes.

The contribution of the Tatars to the art of war is undeniable. It was they who taught the Europeans not to neglect reconnaissance and reserves.
During the era of the Golden Horde, there was enormous potential for the reproduction of Tatar culture. But the Kazan Khanate continued this path for the most part by inertia.

Among the fragments of the Golden Horde that scattered along the borders of Rus', Kazan was of greatest importance to Moscow due to its geographical proximity. Spread on the banks of the Volga, among dense forests, the Muslim state was a curious phenomenon. As a state entity, the Kazan Khanate arose in the 30s of the 15th century and during the short period of its existence managed to demonstrate its cultural identity in the Islamic world.

3. Capture of Kazan

The 120-year neighborhood between Moscow and Kazan was marked by fourteen major wars, not counting almost annual border skirmishes. However, for a long time both sides did not seek to conquer each other. Everything changed when Moscow realized itself as the “third Rome,” that is, the last defender of the Orthodox faith. Already in 1523, Metropolitan Daniel outlined the future path of Moscow politics, saying: “The Grand Duke will take all the land of Kazan.” Three decades later, Ivan the Terrible fulfilled this prediction.

On August 20, 1552, a 50,000-strong Russian army camped under the walls of Kazan. The city was defended by 35 thousand selected soldiers. About ten thousand more Tatar horsemen were hiding in the surrounding forests and alarming the Russians with sudden raids from the rear.

The siege of Kazan lasted five weeks. After the sudden attacks of the Tatars from the direction of the forest, the Russian army was most annoyed by the cold autumn rains. The thoroughly wet warriors even thought that the bad weather was being sent to them by Kazan sorcerers, who, according to the testimony of Prince Kurbsky, went out onto the wall at sunrise and performed all sorts of spells.

All this time, Russian warriors, under the leadership of the Danish engineer Rasmussen, were digging a tunnel under one of the Kazan towers. On the night of October 1, the work was completed. 48 barrels of gunpowder were placed in the tunnel. At dawn there was a monstrous explosion. It was terrible to see, says the chronicler, many tortured corpses and mutilated people flying in the air at a terrible height!
The Russian army rushed to attack. The royal banners were already fluttering on the city walls when Ivan the Terrible himself rode up to the city with his guards regiments. The presence of the Tsar gave new strength to the Moscow warriors. Despite the desperate resistance of the Tatars, Kazan fell a few hours later. There were so many killed on both sides that in some places the piles of bodies lay level with the city walls.

The death of the Kazan Khanate did not mean the death of the Tatar people. On the contrary, it was within Russia that the Tatar nation actually emerged, which finally received its truly national-state formation - the Republic of Tatarstan.

4. Tatars in Russian history and culture

The Moscow state never confined itself to narrow national-religious boundaries. Historians have calculated that among the nine hundred most ancient noble families Russia, Great Russians make up only one third, while 300 surnames come from Lithuania, and the other 300 come from Tatar lands.

Ivan the Terrible's Moscow seemed to Western Europeans to be an Asian city not only for its unusual architecture and buildings, but also for the number of Muslims living in it. One English traveler, who visited Moscow in 1557 and was invited to the royal feast, noted that the tsar himself sat at the first table with his sons and the Kazan kings, at the second table sat Metropolitan Macarius with the Orthodox clergy, and the third table was entirely allocated to the Circassian princes. In addition, another two thousand noble Tatars were feasting in other chambers!

In the government service they were not assigned last place. And there was no case when the Tatars in Russian service betrayed the Moscow Tsar.

Subsequently, the Tatar clans gave Russia a huge number of intellectuals, prominent military and social and political figures. I will name at least some names: Alyabyev, Arakcheev, Akhmatova, Bulgakov, Derzhavin, Milyukov, Michurin, Rachmaninov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Tatishchev, Chaadaev. The Yusupov princes were direct descendants of the Kazan queen Suyunbike. The Timiryazev family descends from Ibragim Timiryazev, whose surname literally means “iron warrior.” General Ermolov had Arslan-Murza-Ermola as his ancestor. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov wrote: “I am a purebred Tatar on both my father’s and mother’s sides.” He signed “Arslanbek”, which means “Lion”. The list can be endless.

Over the centuries, the culture of the Tatars was also absorbed by Russia, and now many native Tatar words, household items, and culinary dishes have entered the consciousness of Russian people as if they were their own. According to Valishevsky, when going out into the street, a Russian person put on shoe, armyak, zipun, caftan, bashlyk, cap. In a fight he used fist. Being a judge, he ordered to put on the convicted person shackles and give it to him whip. Setting off on a long journey, he sat in a sleigh with coachman. And, getting up from the mail sleigh, he went into tavern, which replaced the ancient Russian tavern.

5. Tatar religion

After the capture of Kazan in 1552, the culture of the Tatar people was preserved primarily thanks to Islam.

Islam (in its Sunni version) is the traditional religion of the Tatars. The exception is a small group of them, which in the 16th-18th centuries was converted to Orthodoxy. That’s what they call themselves: “Kryashen” - “baptized”.

Islam in the Volga region established itself in 922, when the ruler of Volga Bulgaria voluntarily converted to the Muslim faith. But even more important was the “Islamic revolution” of Uzbek Khan, who at the beginning of the 14th century made Islam the state religion of the Golden Horde (by the way, contrary to the laws of Genghis Khan on the equality of religions). As a result, the Kazan Khanate became the northernmost stronghold of world Islam.

In Russian-Tatar history there was a sad period of acute religious confrontation. The first decades after the capture of Kazan were marked by persecution of Islam and the forced introduction of Christianity among the Tatars. Only the reforms of Catherine II fully legalized the Muslim clergy. In 1788, the Orenburg Spiritual Assembly opened - a governing body of Muslims, with its center in Ufa.

In the 19th century, forces gradually matured within the Muslim clergy and Tatar intelligentsia, feeling the need to move away from the dogmas of medieval ideology and traditions. The revival of the Tatar people began precisely with the reform of Islam. This religious-renovation movement received the name Jadidism (from the Arabic al-jadid - renewal, “new method”).

Jadidism became a significant contribution of the Tatars to modern world culture, an impressive demonstration of Islam's ability to modernize. The main result of the activities of the Tatar religious reformers was the transition of Tatar society to Islam, cleansed of medieval fanaticism and meeting the requirements of the time. These ideas penetrated deeply into the masses of the people, primarily through Jadidist madrassas and printed materials. Thanks to the activities of the Jadidists, by the beginning of the 20th century, among the Tatars, faith was largely separated from culture, and politics became an independent sphere, where religion already occupied a subordinate position. Therefore today Russian Tatars are, in the full sense of the word, a modern nation to which religious extremism is completely alien.

6. About the Kazan orphan and the uninvited guest

Russians have long said: “The old proverb is said for a reason,” and therefore “there is no trial or punishment for the proverb.” Silencing inconvenient proverbs is not the best way to achieve interethnic understanding.

So, Ushakov’s “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” explains the origin of the expression “orphan of Kazan” as follows: initially it was said “about the Tatar mirzas (princes), who, after the conquest of the Kazan Khanate by Ivan the Terrible, tried to receive all sorts of concessions from the Russian tsars, complaining about their bitter fate.” .

Indeed, the Moscow sovereigns considered it their duty to caress and affectionate the Tatar Murzas, especially if they decided to change their faith. According to documents, such “Kazan orphans” received about a thousand rubles in annual salaries. Whereas, for example, a Russian doctor was entitled to only 30 rubles a year. Naturally, this state of affairs gave rise to envy among Russian service people.

Later, the idiom “Kazan orphan” lost its historical and ethnic connotation - this is how they began to talk about anyone who just pretends to be unhappy, trying to evoke sympathy.

Now - about the Tatar and the guest, which of them is “worse” and which is “better”.

The Tatars of the Golden Horde, if they happened to come to a subordinate country, behaved in it like gentlemen. Our chronicles are full of stories about the oppression of the Tatar Baskaks and the greed of the Khan's courtiers. Russian people unwittingly got used to considering every Tatar who came to the house not so much as a guest, but as a rapist. It was then that they began to say: “A guest in the yard - and trouble in the yard”; “And the guests did not know how the owner was tied up”; “The edge is not big, but the devil brings a guest and takes away the last one.” Well, and - “an uninvited guest is worse than a Tatar.”

When times changed, the Tatars, in turn, learned what the Russian “uninvited guest” was like. The Tatars also have many offensive sayings about Russians. What can you do about it?

History is the irreparable past. What happened, happened. Only truth heals morals, politics, interethnic relations. But it should be remembered that the truth of history is not bare facts, but an understanding of the past in order to live correctly in the present and future.

7. Tatar hut

Unlike other Turkic peoples, the Kazan Tatars for centuries lived not in yurts and tents, but in huts. True, in accordance with common Turkic traditions, the Tatars have preserved the method of separating the female half and the kitchen with a special curtain - charshau. In the second half of the 19th century, instead of ancient curtains, a partition appeared in Tatar dwellings.

On the men's side of the hut there was a place of honor for guests and a place for the owner. Here, a space for relaxation was allocated, the family table was set, and many household chores were carried out: men were engaged in tailoring, saddlery, and weaving bast shoes, women worked at the loom, twisting threads, spinning, and rolling felt.

The front wall of the hut, from corner to corner, was occupied by wide bunks, on which rested soft down jackets, feather beds and pillows, which were replaced by felt among the poor. Bunks are still in fashion to this day, because they have traditionally had a place of honor. In addition, they are universal in their functions: they can serve as a place to work, eat, and relax.

Red or green chests were a mandatory attribute of the interior. According to custom, they formed an indispensable part of the bride's dowry. In addition to their main purpose - storing clothes, fabrics and other valuables - chests noticeably enlivened the interior, especially in combination with bedding picturesquely laid out on them. In the huts of the rich Tatars there were so many chests that sometimes they were stacked on top of each other.

The next attribute of the interior of Tatar rural dwellings was a striking national feature, and characteristic only of Muslims. This is a popular and universally revered shamail, i.e. a text from the Koran written on glass or paper and inserted into a frame with wishes for peace and prosperity to the family. Flowers on the windowsills were also a characteristic detail of the interior of a Tatar home.

Traditional Tatar villages (auls) are located along rivers and roads. These settlements are characterized by cramped buildings and the presence of numerous dead ends. The buildings are located inside the estate, and the street is formed by a continuous line of blind fences. Externally, a Tatar hut can hardly be distinguished from a Russian one - only the doors open not into the hallway, but into the hut.

8. Sabantui

In the past, the Tatars were mostly rural residents. Therefore, their folk holidays were associated with the cycle of agricultural work. Like other agricultural peoples, spring was especially anticipated among the Tatars. This time of year was celebrated with a holiday called “Saban Tue” - “wedding of the plow”.

Sabantuy is a very ancient holiday. In the Alkeevsky district of Tatarstan, a tombstone was discovered, the inscription on which says that the deceased died in 1120 on the day of Sabantuy.

Traditionally, before the holiday, young men and old men began collecting gifts for Sabantuy. The most valuable gift was considered to be a towel, which was received from young women who got married after the previous Sabantuy.

The holiday itself was celebrated with competitions. The place where they were held was called “Maidan”. Competitions included horse racing, running, long and high jumps, and national koresh wrestling. Only men took part in all types of competitions. The women just watched from the sidelines.

The competitions were held according to a routine developed over centuries. Their races began. Participation in them was considered prestigious, so everyone who could entered horses into village races. The riders were boys 8-12 years old. The start was arranged in the distance, and the finish was on the Maidan, where the participants of the holiday were waiting for them. The winner was given one of the best towels. Owners of horses received separate prizes.

While the riders were heading to the starting point, other competitions were taking place, in particular running. Participants were divided by age: boys, adult men, old people.

After the completion of the competition, people went home to treat themselves to festive dishes. And after a few days, depending on the weather, they began sowing spring crops.

Sabantuy to this day remains the most beloved public holiday in Tatarstan. In cities it is a one-day holiday, but in rural areas it consists of two parts: collecting gifts and Maidan. But if previously Sabantuy was celebrated in honor of the beginning of spring field work (at the end of April), now it is celebrated in honor of its end, in June.

Bulgaro-Tatar and Tatar-Mongolian points of view on the ethnogenesis of the Tatars

It should be noted that in addition to linguistic and cultural community, as well as general anthropological features, historians pay a significant role to the origin of statehood. So, for example, the beginning of Russian history is considered not to be the archaeological cultures of the pre-Slavic period, or even the tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs who migrated in the 3rd-4th centuries, but Kievan Rus, which emerged by the 8th century. For some reason, a significant role in the formation of culture is given to the spread (official adoption) of the monotheistic religion, which happened in Kievan Rus in 988, and in Volga Bulgaria in 922. Probably, the Bulgaro-Tatar theory arose primarily from such premises.

The Bulgar-Tatar theory is based on the position that the ethnic basis of the Tatar people was the Bulgar ethnos, which formed in the Middle Volga region and the Urals since the 8th century. n. e. (recently, some supporters of this theory began to attribute the appearance of Turkic-Bulgar tribes in the region to the 8th-7th centuries BC and earlier). The most important provisions of this concept are formulated as follows. The main ethnocultural traditions and features of the modern Tatar (Bulgaro-Tatar) people were formed during the period of Volga Bulgaria (X-XIII centuries), and in subsequent times (Golden Horde, Kazan Khan and Russian periods) they underwent only minor changes in language and culture. The principalities (sultanates) of the Volga Bulgars, being part of the Ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde), enjoyed significant political and cultural autonomy, and the influence of the Horde ethnopolitical system of power and culture (in particular, literature, art and architecture) was purely external in nature, which did not have any impact significant influence on Bulgarian society. The most important consequence of the dominance of the Ulus of Jochi was the disintegration of the unified state of the Volga Bulgaria into a number of possessions, and the single Bulgar nation into two ethno-territorial groups (“Bulgaro-Burtas” of the Mukhsha ulus and the “Bulgars” of the Volga-Kama Bulgar principalities). During the period of the Kazan Khanate, the Bulgar (“Bulgaro-Kazan”) ethnos strengthened the early pre-Mongol ethnocultural features, which continued to be traditionally preserved (including the self-name “Bulgars”) until the 1920s, when it was forcibly imposed on it by Tatar bourgeois nationalists and the Soviet government ethnonym "Tatars".

Let's go into a little more detail. Firstly, the migration of tribes from the foothills of the North Caucasus after the collapse of the state of Great Bulgaria. Why is it that at present the Bulgarians, the Bulgars assimilated by the Slavs, have become a Slavic people, and the Volga Bulgars are a Turkic-speaking people who have absorbed the population that lived before them in this area? Is it possible that there were much more newcomer Bulgars than local tribes? In this case, the postulate that Turkic-speaking tribes penetrated into this territory long before the Bulgars appeared here - during the times of the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Khazars, looks much more logical. The history of Volga Bulgaria begins not with the fact that alien tribes founded the state, but with the unification of the door cities - the capitals of the tribal unions - Bulgar, Bilyar and Suvar. The traditions of statehood also did not necessarily come from alien tribes, since local tribes neighbored powerful ancient states - for example, the Scythian kingdom. In addition, the position that the Bulgars assimilated local tribes contradicts the position that the Bulgars themselves were not assimilated by the Tatar-Mongols. As a result, the Bulgar-Tatar theory is broken by the fact that the Chuvash language is much closer to the Old Bulgar than the Tatar. And the Tatars today speak the Turkic-Kipchak dialect.

The Tatar-Mongol theory can be called if we consider that Volga Bulgaria was conquered and then inhabited by Tatar and Mongol tribes that came from the empire of Genghis Khan.

It should also be noted that the Tatar-Mongols during the period of conquest were predominantly pagans, not Muslims, which usually explains the tolerance of the Tatar-Mongols towards other religions.

Therefore, it is more likely that the Bulgar population, who learned about Islam in the 10th century, contributed to the Islamization of the Ulus of Jochi, and not vice versa.

Archaeological data complement the factual side of the issue: on the territory of Tatarstan there is evidence of the presence of nomadic (Kipchak or Tatar-Mongol) tribes, but their settlement is observed in the southern part of the Tataria region.

However, it cannot be denied that the Kazan Khanate, which arose on the ruins of the Golden Horde, crowned the formation of the Tatar ethnic group.

This is strong and already clearly Islamic, which was of great importance for the Middle Ages; the state contributed to the development and, during the period under Russian rule, to the preservation of Tatar culture.

There is also an argument in favor of the kinship of the Kazan Tatars with the Kipchaks - the linguistic dialect is referred by linguists to the Turkic-Kipchak group. Another argument is the name and self-name of the people - “Tatars”. Presumably from the Chinese “da-dan”, as Chinese historians called part of the Mongolian (or neighboring Mongolian) tribes in northern China

The Tatar-Mongol theory arose at the beginning of the 20th century. (N.I. Ashmarin, V.F. Smolin) and actively developed in the works of Tatar (Z. Validi, R. Rakhmati, M.I. Akhmetzyanov, recently R.G. Fakhrutdinov), Chuvash (V.F. Kakhovsky, V.D. Dimitriev, N.I. Egorov, M.R. Fedotov) and Bashkir (N.A. Mazhitov) historians, archaeologists and linguists.

Turkic-Tatar theory of ethnogenesis of the Tatars and a number of alternative points of view

The Turkic-Tatar concept of the origin of the Tatars is developed in the works of G. S. Gubaidullin, A. N. Kurat, N. A. Baskakov, Sh. F. Mukhamedyarov, R. G. Kuzeev, M. A. Usmanov, R. G. Fakhrutdinov , A.G. Mukhamadieva, N. Davleta, D.M. Iskhakova, Y. Shamiloglu and others. Proponents of this theory believe that it best reflects the rather complex internal structure of the Tatar ethnic group (characteristic, however, for all large ethnic groups), combines the best achievements of other theories. In addition, there is an opinion that M. G. Safargaliev was one of the first to point out the complex nature of ethnogenesis, which cannot be reduced to a single ancestor, in 1951. After the late 1980s. The unspoken ban on the publication of works that went beyond the decisions of the 1946 session of the USSR Academy of Sciences lost its relevance, and accusations of the “non-Marxism” of the multicomponent approach to ethnogenesis ceased to be used; this theory was replenished by many domestic publications. Proponents of the theory identify several stages in the formation of an ethnic group.

The stage of the medieval Tatar ethnopolitical community (mid-XIII - first quarter of the XV centuries). At this time, the consolidation of the components that emerged at the first stage took place in a single state - the Ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde); medieval Tatars, based on the traditions of peoples united in one state, not only created their own state, but also developed their own ethnopolitical ideology, culture and symbols of their community. All this led to the ethnocultural consolidation of the Golden Horde aristocracy, military service classes, Muslim clergy and the formation of the Tatar ethnopolitical community in the 14th century. The stage is characterized by the fact that in the Golden Horde, on the basis of the Oguz-Kypchak language, the norms of the literary language (literary Old Tatar language) were established. The earliest surviving literary monument on it (Kul Gali’s poem “Kyisa-i Yosyf”) was written in the 13th century. The stage ended with the collapse of the Golden Horde (XV century) as a result of feudal fragmentation. In the formed Tatar khanates, the formation of new ethnic communities began, which had local self-names: Astrakhan, Kazan, Kasimov, Crimean, Siberian, Temnikov Tatars, etc. During this period, the established cultural community of the Tatars can be evidenced by the fact that there was still a central horde (Great Horde, Nogai Horde) most of the governors on the outskirts sought to occupy this main throne, or had close ties with the central Horde.

The period from the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century is defined by supporters of the theory as the formation of the Tatar nation. Just the same period mentioned in the introduction to this work. The following stages of nation formation are distinguished: 1) From the 18th to the mid-19th century - the stage of the “Muslim” nation, in which religion was the unifying factor. 2) From the middle of the 19th century to 1905 - the stage of the “ethnocultural” nation. 3) From 1905 to the end of the 1920s. - stage of the “political” nation.

From the second half of the 19th century, the modern Tatar literary language began to form, which by the 1910s had completely replaced the old Tatar language. The consolidation of the Tatar nation was strongly influenced by the high migration activity of Tatars from the Volga-Ural region.

In addition to the main theories of the ethnogenesis of the Tatars, there are also alternative ones. One of the most interesting is the Chuvash theory of the origin of the Kazan Tatars.

There are also convincing arguments in favor of the fact that the Kazan Tatars arose, took shape as a distinctive people and multiplied over a historical period, the duration of which covers the era from the founding of the Kazan Tatar kingdom by the Khan of the Golden Horde Ulu-Mahomet in 1437 and up to the Revolution of 1917. Moreover, their ancestors were not the alien “Tatars”, but local peoples: Chuvash (aka Volga Bulgars), Udmurts, Mari, and perhaps also not preserved to this day, but living in those parts, representatives of other tribes, including those who spoke the language , close to the language of the Kazan Tatars.
All these nationalities and tribes apparently lived in those forested regions since time immemorial, and partly perhaps also moved from Trans-Kama, after the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols and the defeat of Volga Bulgaria. In terms of character and level of culture, as well as way of life, this diverse mass of people, at least before the emergence of the Kazan Khanate, differed little from each other. Likewise, their religions were similar and consisted of the veneration of various spirits and sacred groves - kiremetii - places of prayer with sacrifices. This is confirmed by the fact that until the revolution of 1917 they remained in the same Tatar Republic, for example, near the village. Kukmor, a village of Udmurts and Maris, who were not touched by either Christianity or Islam, where until recently people lived according to the ancient customs of their tribe. In addition, in the Apastovsky district of the Tatar Republic, at the junction with the Chuvash Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, there are nine Kryashen villages, including the village of Surinskoye and the village of Star. Tyaberdino, where some of the residents, even before the Revolution of 1917, were “unbaptized” Kryashens, thus surviving until the Revolution outside of both the Christian and Muslim religions. And the Chuvash, Mari, Udmurts and Kryashens who converted to Christianity were only formally included in it, but continued to live according to ancient times until recently.

The above considerations allow us to make the assumption that in the Bulgar state, the Golden Horde and, to a large extent, the Kazan Khanate, Islam was the religion of the ruling classes and privileged classes, and the common people, or most of them: Chuvash, Mari, Udmurts, etc. lived according to their ancient grandfathers customs.
Now let's see how, under those historical conditions, the Kazan Tatars as we know them at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries could arise and multiply.

The highest state power belonged to the khan, but was directed by the council of large feudal lords (divan). The top of the feudal nobility consisted of Karachi, representatives of the four most noble families. Next came the sultans, emirs, and below them were the Murzas, lancers and warriors. A major role was played by the Muslim clergy, who owned vast waqf lands. The bulk of the population consisted of “black people”: free peasants who paid yasak and other taxes to the state, feudal-dependent peasants, serfs from prisoners of war and slaves. The Tatar nobles (emirs, beks, murzas, etc.) were hardly very merciful to their serfs, who were also foreigners and people of other faiths. Voluntarily or pursuing goals related to some benefit, but over time, the common people began to adopt their religion from the privileged class, which was associated with the renunciation of their national identity and with a complete change in their way of life and way of life, in accordance with the requirements of the new “Tatar” faith - Islam. This transition of the Chuvash to Mohammedanism was the beginning of the formation of the Kazan Tatars.

The new state that arose on the Volga lasted only about a hundred years, during which raids on the outskirts of the Moscow state almost did not stop. In the internal life of the state, frequent palace coups took place and proteges found themselves on the khan’s throne: either from Turkey (Crimea), then from Moscow, then from the Nogai Horde, etc.
The process of forming the Kazan Tatars in the above-mentioned way from the Chuvash, and partly from other, peoples of the Volga region occurred throughout the entire period of the existence of the Kazan Khanate, did not stop after the annexation of Kazan to the Moscow state and continued until the beginning of the twentieth century, i.e. almost up to our time. The Kazan Tatars grew in number not so much as a result of natural growth, but as a result of the Tatarization of other nationalities of the region.

Throughout the relatively short history of this “Khanate,” continuous raids by “Tatars” on the outskirts of the Moscow state continued, and the first Khan Ulu-Magomet spent the rest of his life in these raids. These raids were accompanied by the devastation of the region, the robberies of the civilian population and the deportation of them “in full”, i.e. everything happened in the style of the Tatar-Mongols.

Rafael Khakimov

History of the Tatars: a view from the 21st century

(Article from Ivolumes of History of the Tatars from ancient times. About the history of the Tatars and the concept of a seven-volume work entitled “History of the Tatars from ancient times”)

The Tatars are one of those few peoples about whom legends and outright lies are known to a much greater extent than the truth.

The official history of the Tatars, both before and after the 1917 revolution, was extremely ideological and biased. Even the most outstanding Russian historians presented the “Tatar question” with bias or, at best, avoided it. Mikhail Khudyakov in his famous work “Essays on the History of the Kazan Khanate” wrote: “Russian historians were interested in the history of the Kazan Khanate only as material for studying the advance of the Russian tribe to the east. It should be noted that they mainly paid attention to the last moment of the struggle - the conquest of the region, especially the victorious siege of Kazan, but left almost without attention the gradual stages that the process of absorption of one state by another took place" [At the junction of continents and civilizations, p. 536 ]. The outstanding Russian historian S.M. Solovyov, in the preface to his multi-volume “History of Russia from Ancient Times,” noted: “The historian has no right to interrupt the natural thread of events from the middle of the 13th century - namely, the gradual transition of patrimonial princely relations into state ones - and insert the Tatar period, highlight the Tatars, Tatar relations, as a result of which the main phenomena, the main reasons for these phenomena must be covered up” [Soloviev, p. 54]. Thus, a period of three centuries, the history of the Tatar states (Golden Horde, Kazan and other khanates), which influenced world processes, and not just the fate of the Russians, fell out of the chain of events in the formation of Russian statehood.

Another outstanding Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky divided the history of Russia into periods in accordance with the logic of colonization. “The history of Russia,” he wrote, “is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of colonization in it expanded along with its state territory.” “...The colonization of the country was the main fact of our history, with which all its other facts stood in close or distant connection” [Klyuchevsky, p. 50]. The main subjects of V.O. Klyuchevsky’s research were, as he himself wrote, the state and the nation, while the state was Russian, and the people were Russian. There was no place left for the Tatars and their statehood.

The Soviet period in relation to Tatar history was not distinguished by any fundamentally new approaches. Moreover, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, with its resolution “On the state and measures to improve mass-political and ideological work in the Tatar party organization” of 1944, simply prohibited the study of the history of the Golden Horde (Ulus of Jochi), the Kazan Khanate, thus excluding the Tatar period from history of Russian statehood.

As a result of such approaches to the Tatars, an image of a terrible and savage tribe was formed that oppressed not only the Russians, but also almost half the world. There could be no talk of any positive Tatar history or Tatar civilization. Initially, it was believed that Tatars and civilization were incompatible things.

Today, each nation begins to write its own history independently. Scientific centers have become more independent ideologically, they are difficult to control and it is more difficult to put pressure on them.

The 21st century will inevitably make significant adjustments not only to the history of the peoples of Russia, but also to the history of the Russians themselves, as well as to the history of Russian statehood.

The positions of modern Russian historians are undergoing certain changes. For example, a three-volume history of Russia, published under the auspices of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and recommended as teaching aid for university students, it provides a lot of information about non-Russian peoples who lived on the territory of present-day Russia. It contains characteristics of the Turkic, Khazar Khaganates, Volga Bulgaria, and more calmly describes the era of the Tatar-Mongol invasion and the period of the Kazan Khanate, but it is nevertheless Russian history, which cannot replace or absorb the Tatar one.

Until recently, Tatar historians in their research were limited by a number of rather strict objective and subjective conditions. Before the revolution, being citizens of the Russian Empire, they worked based on the tasks of ethnic revival. After the revolution, the period of freedom turned out to be too short to have time to write a full history. The ideological struggle greatly influenced their position, but, perhaps, the repressions of 1937 had a greater impact. Control by the CPSU Central Committee over the work of historians undermined the very possibility of developing a scientific approach to history, subordinating everything to the tasks of the class struggle and the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The democratization of Soviet and Russian society made it possible to reconsider many pages of history, and most importantly, to rearrange all research work from ideological to scientific ones. It became possible to use the experience of foreign scientists, and access to new sources and museum reserves opened up.

Along with general democratization, a new political situation arose in Tatarstan, which declared sovereignty on behalf of the entire multi-ethnic people of the republic. At the same time, quite turbulent processes were taking place in the Tatar world. In 1992, the First World Congress of Tatars met, at which the problem of an objective study of the history of the Tatars was identified as a key political task. All this required a rethinking of the place of the republic and the Tatars in a renewing Russia. There is a need to take a fresh look at methodological and theoretical basis historical discipline related to the study of the history of the Tatars.

“History of the Tatars” is a relatively independent discipline, since existing Russian history cannot replace or exhaust it.

Methodological problems in studying the history of the Tatars were posed by scientists who worked on generalizing works. Shigabutdin Marjani in his work “Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahvali Kazan va Bolgar” (“Information drawn on the history of Kazan and Bulgar”) wrote: “Historians of the Muslim world, wanting to fulfill the duty of providing complete information about different eras and explanations of meaning human society, collected a lot of information about capitals, caliphs, kings, scientists, Sufis, different social strata, ways and directions of thought of ancient sages, past nature and everyday life, science and crafts, wars and uprisings.” And further he noted that “historical science absorbs the destinies of all nations and tribes, tests scientific directions and discussions” [Marjani, p.42]. At the same time, he did not highlight the methodology for studying Tatar history itself, although in the context of his works it is visible quite clearly. He examined the ethnic roots of the Tatars, their statehood, the rule of the khans, the economy, culture, religion, as well as the position of the Tatar people within the Russian Empire.

In Soviet times, ideological clichés required the use of Marxist methodology. Gaziz Gubaidullin wrote the following: “If we consider the path traversed by the Tatars, we can see that it is made up of the replacement of some economic formations by others, from the interaction of classes born of economic conditions” [Gubaidullin, p.20]. This was a tribute to the requirements of the time. His presentation of history itself was much broader than his stated position.

All subsequent historians of the Soviet period were under strict ideological pressure and their methodology was reduced to the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Nevertheless, in many works of Gaziz Gubaidullin, Mikhail Khudyakov and others, a different, non-official approach to history broke through. The monograph of Magomet Safargaleev “The Collapse of the Golden Horde”, the works of German Fedorov-Davydov, despite the inevitable censorship restrictions, by the very fact of their appearance had a strong influence on subsequent research. The works of Mirkasim Usmanov, Alfred Khalikov, Yahya Abdullin, Azgar Mukhamadiev, Damir Iskhakov and many others introduced an element of alternative into the existing interpretation of history, forcing us to delve deeper into ethnic history.

Of the foreign historians who studied the Tatars, the most famous are Zaki Validi Togan and Akdes Nigmat Kurat. Zaki Validi specifically dealt with the methodological problems of history, but he was more interested in the methods, goals and objectives of historical science in general, as opposed to other sciences, as well as approaches to writing common Turkic history. At the same time, in his books one can see specific methods for studying Tatar history. First of all, it should be noted that he described Turkic-Tatar history without isolating Tatar history from it. Moreover, this concerned not only the ancient common Turkic period, but also subsequent eras. He equally considers the personality of Genghis Khan, his children, Tamerlane, the various khanates - Crimean, Kazan, Nogai and Astrakhan, calling all this Turkic world. Of course, there are reasons for this approach. The ethnonym “Tatars” was often understood very broadly and included almost not only the Turks, but even the Mongols. At the same time, the history of many Turkic peoples in the Middle Ages, primarily within the framework of the Ulus of Jochi, was united. Therefore, the term “Turkic-Tatar history” in relation to Turkic population Dzhuchiev Ulus allows the historian to avoid many difficulties in reporting events.

Other foreign historians (Edward Keenan, Aisha Rohrlich, Yaroslav Pelensky, Yulai Shamiloglu, Nadir Devlet, Tamurbek Davletshin and others), although they did not set out to find common approaches to the history of the Tatars, nevertheless introduced very significant conceptual ideas into the study of various periods . They compensated for the gaps in the works of Tatar historians of the Soviet era.

The ethnic component is one of the most important in the study of history. Before the advent of statehood, the history of the Tatars largely boils down to ethnogenesis. Equally, the loss of statehood brings the study of ethnic processes to the fore. The existence of the state, although it relegates the ethnic factor to the background, nevertheless preserves its relative independence as a subject of historical research; moreover, sometimes it is the ethnic group that acts as a state-forming factor and, therefore, is decisively reflected in the course of history.

The Tatar people do not have a single ethnic root. Among his ancestors were the Huns, Bulgars, Kipchaks, Nogais and other peoples, who themselves were formed in ancient times, as can be seen from the first volume of this publication, on the basis of the culture of various Scythian and other tribes and peoples.

The formation of modern Tatars was influenced to a certain extent by the Finno-Ugrians and Slavs. Trying to look for ethnic purity in the person of the Bulgars or some ancient Tatar people is unscientific. The ancestors of modern Tatars never lived in isolation; on the contrary, they actively moved, mixing with various Turkic and non-Turkic tribes. On the other hand, government agencies, while developing official language and culture, contributed to the active mixing of tribes and peoples. This is all the more true since the state has always played the function of the most important ethnic-forming factor. But the Bulgarian state, Golden Horde The Kazan, Astrakhan and other khanates existed for many centuries - a period sufficient to form new ethnic components. Religion was an equally strong factor in the mixing of ethnic groups. If Orthodoxy in Russia turned many baptized peoples into Russians, then in the Middle Ages Islam in the same way turned many into Turkic-Tatars.

The dispute with the so-called “Bulgarists”, who call to rename the Tatars into Bulgars and reduce our entire history to the history of one ethnic group, is mainly of a political nature, and therefore it should be studied within the framework of political science, and not history. At the same time, the emergence of this direction of social thought was influenced by the poor development methodological foundations history of the Tatars, the influence of ideological approaches to the presentation of history, including the desire to exclude the “Tatar period” from history.

In recent decades, there has been a passion among scientists for searching for linguistic, ethnographic and other features in the Tatar people. The slightest features of the language were immediately declared a dialect, and on the basis of linguistic and ethnographic nuances, separate groups were identified that today claim to be independent peoples. Of course, there are peculiarities in the use of the Tatar language among the Mishars, Astrakhan and Siberian Tatars. Exist ethnographic features Tatars living in different territories. But this is precisely the use of a single Tatar literary language with regional characteristics, the nuances of a single Tatar culture. It would be reckless to talk about language dialects on such grounds, much less to single out independent peoples (Siberian and other Tatars). If you follow the logic of some of our scientists, Lithuanian Tatars who speak Polish cannot be classified as Tatar people at all.

The history of a people cannot be reduced to the vicissitudes of an ethnonym. It is not easy to trace the connection of the ethnonym “Tatars” mentioned in Chinese, Arabic and other sources with modern Tatars. It is even more incorrect to see a direct anthropological and cultural connection between modern Tatars and ancient and medieval tribes. Some experts believe that the true Tatars were Mongol-speaking (see, for example: [Kychanov, 1995, p. 29]), although there are other points of view. There was a time when the ethnonym “Tatars” designated the Tatar-Mongol peoples. “Because of their extreme greatness and honorable position,” wrote Rashid ad-din, “other Turkic clans, with all the differences in their ranks and names, became known by their name, and all were called Tatars. And those various clans believed their greatness and dignity in the fact that they included themselves among them and became known under their name, similar to the way they are now, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his clan, since they are Mongols - different Turkic tribes, like Jalairs, Tatars, On-Guts, Kereits, Naimans, Tanguts and others, each of whom had a specific name and a special nickname - all of them, out of self-praise, also call themselves Mongols, despite the fact that in ancient times they did not recognize this name . Their present descendants, therefore, imagine that since ancient times they have been related to the name of the Mongols and are called by this name - but this is not so, for in ancient times the Mongols were only one tribe from the entire totality of the Turkic steppe tribes" [Rashid ad-din, t. i, book 1, p. 102–103].

At different periods of history, the name “Tatars” meant different peoples. Often this depended on the nationality of the authors of the chronicles. Thus, monk Julian, ambassador of the Hungarian king Béla IV to the Polovtsians in the 13th century. associated the ethnonym “Tatars” with the Greek “Tartaros” - “hell”, “underworld”. Some European historians used the ethnonym “Tatar” in the same sense as the Greeks used the word “barbarian”. For example, on some European maps Muscovy is designated as "Moscow Tartary" or "European Tartary", in contrast to Chinese or Independent Tartaria. The history of the existence of the ethnonym “Tatar” in subsequent eras, in particular in the 16th–19th centuries, was far from simple. [Karimullin]. Damir Iskhakov writes: “In the Tatar khanates formed after the collapse of the Golden Horde, representatives of the military-service class were traditionally called “Tatars”... They played a key role in the spread of the ethnonym “Tatars” over the vast territory of the former Golden Horde. After the fall of the khanates, this term was transferred to the common people. But at the same time, many local self-names and the confessional name “Muslims” functioned among the people. Overcoming them and the final consolidation of the ethnonym “Tatars” as a national self-name is a relatively late phenomenon and is associated with national consolidation” [Iskhakov, p.231]. These arguments contain a considerable amount of truth, although it would be a mistake to absolutize any facet of the term “Tatars”. Obviously, the ethnonym “Tatars” has been and remains the subject of scientific debate. It is indisputable that before the revolution of 1917, Tatars were called not only the Volga, Crimean and Lithuanian Tatars, but also Azerbaijanis, as well as a number of Turkic peoples of the North Caucasus, Southern Siberia, but in the end the ethnonym “Tatars” was assigned only to the Volga and Crimean Tatars.

The term “Tatar-Mongols” is very controversial and painful for the Tatars. Ideologists have done a lot to present the Tatars and Mongols as barbarians and savages. In response, a number of scientists use the term “Turkic-Mongols” or simply “Mongols,” sparing the pride of the Volga Tatars. But in fact, history does not need justification. No nation can boast of its peaceful and humane character in the past, because those who did not know how to fight could not survive and were themselves conquered, and often assimilated. Crusades Europeans or the Inquisition were no less cruel than the invasion of the “Tatar-Mongols”. The whole difference is that Europeans and Russians took the initiative in interpreting this issue into their own hands and offered a version and assessment of historical events that was favorable to themselves.

The term “Tatar-Mongols” needs careful analysis in order to find out the validity of the combination of the names “Tatars” and “Mongols”. The Mongols relied on Turkic tribes in their expansion. Turkic culture greatly influenced the formation of the empire of Genghis Khan and especially the Ulus of Jochi. The way historiography has developed is that both the Mongols and the Turks were often called simply “Tatars.” This was both true and false. True, since there were relatively few Mongols themselves, and Turkic culture (language, writing, military system, etc.) gradually became the general norm for many peoples. Incorrect due to the fact that Tatars and Mongols are two different people. Moreover, modern Tatars cannot be identified not only with the Mongols, but even with the medieval Central Asian Tatars. At the same time, they are the successors of the culture of the peoples of the 7th–12th centuries who lived on the Volga and in the Urals, the people and state of the Golden Horde, the Kazan Khanate, and it would be a mistake to say that they have nothing to do with the Tatars who lived in East Turkestan and Mongolia. Even the Mongol element, which is minimal in Tatar culture today, influenced the formation of the history of the Tatars. In the end, the khans buried in the Kazan Kremlin were Genghisids and this cannot be ignored [Mausoleums of the Kazan Kremlin]. History is never simple and straightforward.

When presenting the history of the Tatars, it turns out to be very difficult to separate it from the general Turkic basis. First of all, we should note some terminological difficulties in the study of common Turkic history. If the Turkic Khaganate is quite unambiguously interpreted as a common Turkic heritage, then the Mongol Empire and especially the Golden Horde are more complex formations from an ethnic point of view. In fact, Ulus Jochi is generally considered to be a Tatar state, meaning by this ethnonym all those peoples who lived in it, i.e. Turko-Tatars. But will today's Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks and others who were formed in the Golden Horde agree to recognize the Tatars as their medieval ancestors? Of course not. After all, it is obvious that no one will particularly think about the differences in the use of this ethnonym in the Middle Ages and now. Today, in the public consciousness, the ethnonym “Tatars” is clearly associated with modern Volga or Crimean Tatars. Consequently, it is methodologically preferable, following Zaki Validi, to use the term “Turkic-Tatar history,” which allows us to separate the history of today’s Tatars and other Turkic peoples.

The use of this term carries another burden. There is a problem of correlating the common Turkic history with the national one. In some periods (for example, the Turkic Kaganate) it is difficult to isolate individual parts from the general history. In the era of the Golden Horde, it is quite possible to study, along with general history, individual regions, which subsequently became independent khanates. Of course, the Tatars interacted with the Uighurs, and with Turkey, and with the Mamluks of Egypt, but these connections were not as organic as with Central Asia. Therefore, it is difficult to find a unified approach to the relationship between common Turkic and Tatar history - it turns out to be different in different eras and with different countries. Therefore, in this work we will use the term Turkic-Tatar history(in relation to the Middle Ages), it’s as simple as that Tatar history(applied to later times).

“History of the Tatars” as a relatively independent discipline exists insofar as there is an object of study that can be traced from ancient times to the present day. What ensures the continuity of this story, what can confirm the continuity of events? After all, over many centuries, some ethnic groups were replaced by others, states appeared and disappeared, peoples united and divided, new languages were formed to replace the ones that were leaving.

The object of the historian’s research in the most generalized form is the society that inherits the previous culture and passes it on to the next generation. In this case, society can act in the form of a state or an ethnic group. And during the years of persecution of the Tatars from the second half of the 16th century, separate ethnic groups, little connected with each other, became the main custodians of cultural traditions. The religious community is always playing significant role in historical development, serving as a criterion for classifying a society as a particular civilization. Mosques and madrassas, from the 10th century until the 20s XX centuries, were the most important institution for the unification of the Tatar world. All of them - the state, ethnic group and religious community - contributed to the continuity of Tatar culture, and therefore ensured the continuity historical development.

The concept of culture has the most broad meaning, which is understood as all the achievements and norms of society, be it economy (for example, agriculture), the art of government, military affairs, writing, literature, social norms, etc. The study of culture as a whole makes it possible to understand the logic of historical development and determine the place of a given society in the broadest context. It is the continuity of the preservation and development of culture that allows us to talk about the continuity of Tatar history and its characteristics.

Any periodization of history is conditional, therefore, in principle, it can be built on a variety of foundations, and its various options can be equally correct - it all depends on the task that is assigned to the researcher. When studying the history of statehood there will be one basis for distinguishing periods, when studying the development of ethnic groups - another. And if you study the history of, for example, a home or a costume, then their periodization may even have specific grounds. Each specific object of research, along with general methodological guidelines, has its own development logic. Even the convenience of presentation (for example, in a textbook) can become the basis for a specific periodization.

When highlighting the main milestones in the history of the people in our publication, the criterion will be the logic of cultural development. Culture is the most important social regulator. Through the term “culture” we can explain both the fall and rise of states, the disappearance and emergence of civilizations. Culture determines public values, creates advantages for the existence of certain peoples, forms incentives for work and individual personality traits, determines the openness of society and opportunities for communication between peoples. Through culture one can understand the place of society in world history.

Tatar history with its difficult turns fate is not easy to imagine as a whole picture, since ups were followed by catastrophic regression, up to the need for physical survival and preservation of the elementary foundations of culture and even language.

The initial basis for the formation of the Tatar or, more precisely, the Turkic-Tatar civilization is the steppe culture, which determined the appearance of Eurasia from ancient times until the early Middle Ages. Cattle breeding and horses determined the basic nature of the economy and way of life, housing and clothing, and ensured military success. The invention of the saddle, curved saber, powerful bow, war tactics, a unique ideology in the form of Tengrism and other achievements had a huge impact on world culture. Without steppe civilization, the development of the vast expanses of Eurasia would have been impossible; this is precisely its historical merit.

The adoption of Islam in 922 and the development of the Great Volga Route became turning points in the history of the Tatars. Thanks to Islam, the ancestors of the Tatars were included in the most advanced Muslim world of their time, which determined the future of the people and its civilizational characteristics. And the Islamic world itself, thanks to the Bulgars, advanced to the northernmost latitude, which is up to today is an important factor.

The ancestors of the Tatars, who moved from nomadic to settled life and urban civilization, were looking for new ways of communication with other peoples. The steppe remained to the south, and the horse could not perform universal functions in the new conditions of sedentary life. He was only an auxiliary tool in the household. What connected the Bulgarian state with other countries and peoples were the Volga and Kama rivers. In later times, the route along the Volga, Kama and Caspian Sea was supplemented by access to the Black Sea through the Crimea, which became one of the most important factors in the economic prosperity of the Golden Horde. The Volga route also played a key role in the Kazan Khanate. It is no coincidence that Muscovy's expansion to the east began with the establishment of the Nizhny Novgorod Fair, which weakened the economy of Kazan. The development of the Eurasian space in the Middle Ages cannot be understood and explained without the role of the Volga-Kama basin as a means of communication. The Volga still functions as the economic and cultural core of the European part of Russia.

The emergence of Ulus Jochi as part of the Mongol super-empire, and then independent state- the greatest achievement in the history of the Tatars. During the era of the Chingizids, Tatar history became truly global, affecting the interests of the East and Europe. The contribution of the Tatars to the art of war is undeniable, which was reflected in the improvement of weapons and military tactics. The system of public administration, the postal (Yamskaya) service inherited by Russia, the excellent financial system, literature and urban planning of the Golden Horde had reached perfection - in the Middle Ages there were few cities equal to Sarai in size and scale of trade. Thanks to intensive trade with Europe, the Golden Horde came into direct contact with European culture. The enormous potential for the reproduction of Tatar culture was laid precisely in the era of the Golden Horde. The Kazan Khanate continued this path mostly by inertia.

The cultural core of Tatar history after the capture of Kazan in 1552 was preserved primarily thanks to Islam. It became a form of cultural survival, a banner of the struggle against Christianization and assimilation of the Tatars.

In the history of the Tatars there were three turning points associated with Islam. They decisively influenced subsequent events: 1) the adoption of Islam as the official religion by the Volga Bulgaria in 922, which meant recognition by Baghdad of a young independent (from the Khazar Kaganate) state; 2) isthe Lama “revolution” of Uzbek Khan, who, contrary to the “Yasa” (“Code of Laws”) of Genghis Khan on the equality of religions, introduced one state religion - Islam, which largely predetermined the process of consolidation of society and the formation of the (Golden Horde) Turkic-Tatar people; 3) reform of Islam in the second half of the 19th century, called Jadidism (from the Arabic al-jadid - new, renewal).

The revival of the Tatar people in modern times begins precisely with the reform of Islam. Jadidism outlined several important facts: firstly, the ability of Tatar culture to resist forced Christianization; secondly, confirmation of the Tatars’ belonging to the Islamic world, moreover, with a claim to a vanguard role in it; thirdly, the entry of Islam into competition with Orthodoxy in its own state. Jadidism has become a significant contribution of the Tatars to modern world culture, a demonstration of Islam's ability to modernize.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the Tatars managed to create many social structures: an education system, periodicals, political parties, their own (“Muslim”) faction in the State Duma, economic structures, primarily trading capital, etc. By the revolution of 1917, the Tatars had matured ideas for restoring statehood.

The first attempt to recreate statehood by the Tatars dates back to 1918, when the Idel-Ural State was proclaimed. The Bolsheviks managed to forestall the implementation of this grandiose project. However, as a direct consequence of the political act was the adoption of the Decree on the creation of the Tatar-Bashkir Republic. The complex vicissitudes of the political and ideological struggle culminated in the adoption in 1920 of the Decree of the Central Executive Committee on the creation of the “Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic”. This form was very far from the formula of the Idel-Ural State, but it was undoubtedly a positive step, without which there would not have been the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Republic of Tatarstan in 1990.

The new status of Tatarstan after the declaration of state sovereignty put on the agenda the issue of choosing a fundamental path of development, determining Tatarstan’s place in Russian Federation, in the Turkic and Islamic world.

Historians of Russia and Tatarstan are facing a serious test. The 20th century was the era of the collapse of first the Russian and then the Soviet empire and a change in the political picture of the world. The Russian Federation has become a different country and it is forced to take a fresh look at the path traveled. It faces the need to find ideological reference points for development in the new millennium. In many ways, the understanding of the deep processes taking place in the country, the formation of non-Russian peoples the image of Russia as a “friend” or “foreign” state.

Russian science will have to reckon with the emergence of many independent research centers who have their own views on emerging problems. Therefore, it will be difficult to write the history of Russia only from Moscow; it should be written by various research teams, taking into account the history of all the indigenous peoples of the country.

* * *

The seven-volume work entitled “History of the Tatars from Ancient Times” is published under the stamp of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan, however, it is a joint work of scientists of Tatarstan, Russian and foreign researchers. This collective work is based on a whole series scientific conferences, held in Kazan, Moscow, St. Petersburg. The work is of an academic nature and is therefore intended primarily for scientists and specialists. We did not set ourselves the goal of making it popular and easy to understand. Our task was to present the most objective picture of historical events. Nevertheless, both teachers and those who are simply interested in history will find many interesting stories here.

This work is the first academic work that begins to describe the history of the Tatars from 3 thousand BC. The most ancient period cannot always be represented in the form of events, sometimes it exists only in archaeological materials, nevertheless we considered it necessary to give such a presentation. Much of what the reader will see in this work is subject to debate and requires further research. This is not an encyclopedia, which provides only established information. It was important for us to document the existing level of knowledge in this area of science, to propose new methodological approaches, when the history of the Tatars appears in the broad context of world processes, covers the destinies of many peoples, not just the Tatars, to focus on a number of problematic issues and thereby stimulate scientific thought.

Each volume covers a fundamentally new period in the history of the Tatars. The editors considered it necessary, in addition to the author's texts, to provide illustrative material, maps, and also excerpts from the most important sources as an appendix.

This did not affect the Russian principalities, where the dominance of Orthodoxy was not only preserved, but also developed further. In 1313, Uzbek Khan issued a label to the Metropolitan of Rus' Peter, which contained the following words: “If anyone blasphemes Christianity, speaks badly about churches, monasteries and chapels, that person will be subject to the death penalty” (quoted from: [Fakhretdin, p.94]). By the way, Uzbek Khan himself married his daughter to the Moscow prince and allowed her to convert to Christianity.