|
Contents � Djagfar Tarihi Contents � Historical ancestors of the ancient Bulgars |
|
|
Z. Z. Miftakhov Lecture Course for History of Tatar People |
|
|
The English text is a machine translation and needs a heavy editing. Until then, the translation allows a glimpse at the contents and scope of the textbook. |
|
|
Lecture 1 PROBLEM OF HISTORY OF TATAR PEOPLE AND MAIN PRINCIPLES OF ITS STUDY |
|
|
No development of culture is possible without knowledge of native history and
the a definite concept of it. Contents
1. The problem and its significance |
|
|
1. 玴旂櫛恲岍 玿恔侜构 � 齬 檄眑檢嗐恮砵 � 瀁儴槼翴� 硾樦� 縺摠�魡殣�� 謥賙鴇 碫瀇殥� 鴈蠈謥黟 � 瀔霟鋋檍. 氝鍏鳺 � �艜鵰魰賚鍎 諘��錒嬿 謥嚦飶譇灕樥 瀔霟鋋蜦 � 樍� 櫇謼鍡魡臇闃蠂. 砎� �襜� 灚鋋瞂灚齕�� 檞儴� 鳼殣 瀁 儋嚦僗霠膼 羻豂囔 瀔鎀鍻樇膼檍 憵蹢賾覷: 闅 謥鳪鴇 勷硾樦樇膼� 緡賝� 鍙� 碫� 魡錪鷿 黼鍱鼏 � 蜱鶋� 瞂膰� � 瀁黓罻� 黓襜膰�. 砐襝槦膼嚦� 檞儴樇蕻� 瞀闉鍎 鍧鴈麔� 碫� 邍踑 � 櫇謶鍱� �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 蠉耩� 嚦鳧鍒鼏�� 碫� 搿錼� 霠槻鳼膼�. 砎鍕錼憵 瀔鍞嚬鍻麧膻� 蠉蠉� - 翴闅�樦錼憵� � 瘔緱�� 欑嚦� 麠豂膰蜦 膴鵽� 碭瀔闃鍒, 鼀�諘臇�� � �襡鍏樇樄鍎 擨鍏儓 勷硾樦樇蕻� 縺豂儋� 靨譇賥�. 椯� 鍕��劖�殣��, � 欑嚦膼嚦�, 蠈�, 蘹� �襡儚殥膱� 膰謺� � 瞂蠋� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 朢錒 儋嚦僗霠膼 斁�蕻擯 � 儇鴈蕻擯. 砐�襜檍 �襜� 瀔鍕錼斁� 鳿魡碴� 鴈蠈謥勷瘔錒嬿 擨鍏鳺 禖魡��鳺�� 黓襜謶膱, 膼 膻膰蜠� 瀔樉麧 緪錟膻� 闃檞儴鼏� 瞂嬿 羻� 黓襜謶灚齕鍏� 譇誺鼏�� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 翴 朢鋋 嚦鎀� 縺嚦鍣玁禖�, 罻� � 瀁儴槼膻� 蜦噊. 泃 �碲�樦�� 鼀鳼殣槶�擯 襜蜦, 罻� 緡碭� 鴈蠈謥� � �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 瀔��碲��� 翴 襜錪膰 厴氀魰錒嚦�-黓襜謶膱, 膼 � 麠豂罻� 鍕�殥蠋樇膼嚦�. 癩鍺鍷 硾樦� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 闃蠉瘔錟嬿 蠈斁� 瀀摠儗黓蠂灚齕儓 厴闉鍒, 膼 翴 厴氀魰錪蕻� 鏵罽鳭樇蠉錪蕻� 縺齀蕻� 黓儴槼鍒鳧鴇. 呬蜺� 諘懤蠂譔, � 罻膰� 糈僾闃譔� � 翴膰襜蹖� 瀁� 縺欑錒 玁蠉譔 碫� 襜, 蘹� 歞鷿襙� � 蠉蠉譇�. � �襜 翴 儴齀骫膼. 砫蠉蹖 闅膼��襙� � 玁儴� 僽槻翴澮儓 � 擨鍏鎀�僾�� �襡闃鍒. � 嚫槼膻� 瞂罻 膻 鍱鴈 縺豂� 翴 瀔魤錼罻� � 鼫摎 嚦鎀� 瀔黓蠉錪膼蜦 碴鳻鳧�� 黓襜謶膰�, 蜲鍏譇鐕�, 歞黟蠈錼�, 瀔飶鼏槶樥 斁蜰�殥蠋樇蕻� 蜦嚧魡貘蠋, 罻� 蠉蠉蹖. � 膻� 齴� 斁錏� 闅 摎謥蜦� 祏羻蜦 鍧樈縺 縺 碭嚦鍧� 儋 獲錟艜儚殥膰蜦 縺 諘櫡麧. 紶錟� 瀇��魡 禖魡��儓�� 齀樇�� 瞃錌欑錟 鼀槼樇�� � 膻� � 鼀鍞 襝鵫�. 挕膻 歞黟錒 � 碭嚬凞樇鳺�, 僽鵽鳺 勷 嚦譇羻�, 膼 膻膷� 翴 闃蠉瘔錥� 譇碴鍱齁蕻�. �搿 蠉蠉蹖 � 儓 黓襜謶灚齕鳺 瀔槼膱 鍧馵鳪� 謥鸆��槫 碭諙樥嚦睯� 縺 羻� 黓襜謶灚齕鍏� 瀔隬殥黟 縺 鍏豂擨�� 瀔闃襜譇� 靨譇賥�. 昲� 勷諙鳪� 鼀鍷鍕譇賝嚲 � 黟斁朢襡嚲 灕睯錒諘灕�, 瀁碲��禘嚲 縺 膧錪覷賾 擨鍏儓 縺豂儋� 擯譇. 昢鍕樇膼 霘麔鳻� 儓 碲��膻� 朢鋋 � 蠉膱� 嚪歑僛 灚鋋瞂灚齕鍣 麧�蠈錪膼嚦�, 罻� 鵿譇碲樇鳺 鍕�殥蠋鍎 � 蜦嚧魡貘蠋鍎, 碭樇膼� 麧鋋, 儰瀇鍎僗��, 緡碭襡鍒鍱嚦碭 � 襜謾鍒�� (1; 42). 籐槻膻� 蠉蠉蹖 朢錒 翴 襜錪膰 瀁襜擣鳭� 蘦臇鍒, 膼 � 縺儴槼膻罻擯 儓 膧錪覷蹖. 砐�襜檍 鍙� 翴 儴齀骫膼 蜦謱鳹黓� �鼀鍞� 瀔鍞嚬鍻麧膻樦, 鼀鍞擯 斁譇錪蕻擯 罻灚嚦瘔擯, 鼀鍷� 謥錒蜼樥, 鼀鍞� 儋憵齶鳻 朢襜�� (2; 14). � �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉� 朢錒 瞀錼譖 � 櫡麧膻�, 櫇謶鍱� 擯謺鍣 緡賝� � 膴鍒飶��, 緪嚦鍧儓 碭鴈. 昲� 魛蠂碴� 齀僔蠋鍒鳪� � 擯豂碭� 瀁錒蠂耪 � 蠈灚膻� 擨鍏儓 嚦鎀殣鴇. ч 膰豂襚鴇 黓襜謶灚齕鴇 嚫鍧 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉蹖 勷諙鳪� 翴齕鎀�膰 斁蜰�殥蠋樇蕻� 蜦嚧魡貘蠋, 碴殥錒 瞂勷檞� 瞃錟� � 鍕�樦麃鍒嚲 灕睯錒諘灕�. 挕縺膰 儓 黓蠂臇鍷 瞂錒玁� 勷嚦��鋋 � 襜�, 蘹� 鍙� 翴 齁錒 � 翴朢蠂�, 瀁儋摿� 擨鍏鳻 蕻翴 黓灚賝鶌麠� �襡闃鳭. � �襜 翴儵闅�� 縺 瀔槻譇襡闃蠂 嚧噉朢 � 縺 襜, 蘹� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉蹖 緡錒 瀁 勷鼫儊蠋� � 碭鴈嚦瞂臇�擯 � 斁蜰�殥蠋樇蕻擯 瀇樦樇鳭�. 昲� 勷臝鳧鳹� 鼫�� 罻� �襡儚殥罻� 欈鋋嚦膼嚦�, 縺齴� � 鼫摎 鼨錵 儇� 黟斁麔瞂謷麧膻�, 勷臝鳧樇�� 鼀鍷� 膧錪覷謺�-黓襜謶灚齕鍣 襝馯儗鳷. 挕縺膰 � 豂錒 � 懤嚦� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉� � 鍕�樦 瀔隬殥鼫 譇誺鼏�� 灚鋋瞂灚嚦瘔, 鍕 儓 瞃錟麧 � 鍕�毿槶鍒毿殥膧� 灕睯錒諘灕� 擨鍏鳺 嚧���, � 勷糈錼膻�, 瀁 闅麧錪蕻� �歞賧魡�, 瀁 瀔鍞誺鎀�膼檍 縺搿賾 黓襜謶灚齕儓 幰緪襜�. 秮鵫膼 縺誺僗� 僽鵽鍣 縺豂�, �襡儚殥罻� 黓襜謶� 膰襜豂蜦 朢錟 朢 蠉� 賨鍙鳭歑樇膼 黓罻緪縺. � 蠈灚膻� 擨鍏儓 麧��蠂錼蠂� � 隮儗魰錪膼� 黓襜謶鍏譇鐓� � 蠉蠉譇� 歞黟錒 � 劖黓羻儰蠈錪蕻� � 鵯儚鳽鼏槶�蕻� 襜縺�. 椯膻灚齕�� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 譇嚭憵襝魤鳪僔� 罻� 鼀鍷鍕譇賝�� 瀁儊瞂玁瘔��鴇 鐕�, 瀔鳿瘔臇�� 闅蠈膻譔 ��瀁矐錪膼-瀔鍏謥嚭魤蕻�� 麧�膻� 僽鵽儓 縺豂儋�. 昢鍕樇膼 黓罻糈錒嬿 賾嚭膰-蠉蠉貘膱� 闅膼鷿膻� XIII-XVI 瞁. 椯� 闅膼鷿膻� 鳿鍕譇糈錒嬿 罻� 瀁嚦��臇�� 擨鍏鍒樏鍒�� 搿蹞摳 賾嚭膱� � 蠉蠉譇擯. 瀔� �襜� 翴 齀鼏�瘔鋋嬿, 蘹� �襡儚殥罻� 緡賝� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉� 鍕錟魡錟 翴瀔氁鍱��樥 黟斁欈臇闃譔� � 翴 鼀鍱鳹僔� 襜錪膰 � 賾嚭膰-蠉蠉貘膱� 瞀骭斁闅膼鷿膻��. � �蠂 瞀骭斁闅膼鷿膻�, 膲蠉蠂, 鳻槶� 蜱鶋鍧鳺 膰謺� � 魡碴�� 擨鍏鍏譇臇嚲 黓襜謶灚齕嚲 襝馯儗噮 � 碭碫� 翴 鼀鍱鳹黓� 錒籫 � 搿蹞摎. � 蠈灚膻� 擨鍏儓 麧��蠂錼蠂� 鳿齀樇鳺 黓襜謶� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉� 膼鼨鋋 碭 擨鍏儓 鼀鍞� 僔櫇膷僛 譇趜鍡翴臇��, 儴齀骫蕻� 矐譇膷歑. 氝鍏鳺 �黓襜謶膱� 鍕鍡謥瘔錒 �襡儚殥膧� 黓襜謶� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉� 錒籫 灚謥� 瀔闉樄� 斁縺嚦�貘膰蜦 鍧縺. 栦闅瞂襙蠋樇膼 禖碭噊 瀁鋹欑錒嬿 翴瀁錍�擯, 嚬樦僗儚蕻擯 � 翴襜籦�擯. 砫膰� 瀁勯鍱 瀁誺鎀�� 瀔槼嚦飶鼏槶�� 隮儗魰錪膼� 黓襜謶鍏譇鐓� 勷諙飶僗� � 瀁僽僔蠉��儓 瀁膰錼膻� 瀔槼嚦飶錼膻� � 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉譇� 罻� � 賨闃欑嚦蕻� 蜦嚦�� 縺 緡賝樇膼� 歞賾 縺豂儋� 擯譇. 氝鍏鳺 襝鵫膼嚦� � 霟魨膱 瀔隬殥黟 鳿齀樇�� �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉� 鍕鵨鋋碲樇�, 碭-櫇謼��, 翴儋嚦僗霠膼嚦�� 邍膷儚殥膱� 魡臇�� � 僽槻翴澮樦 櫇謶鍱� 儓 緡賝槼��蠈錪膼嚦�, 鐨飹懤艜僦膼嚦�� � 瀔闅魤闉毿魤闃譔� 縺錒籦�� 鼀槼樇鴇, 碭-碞闉��, 縺錒玁樦 � 賾嚭膰� 黓襜謶鍏譇鐓� 搿錪囔蜦 膰錒灚嚦瘔 嚦歑槴蠂瀁�, 欙鳭瀁� � 囔睯膻嚦儚殥膰� 鍧譇齕鍣 闅膼鼨蠈錪膼 �襡儚殥膱� 鼀鍣嚦� � 麧�膻� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉�. � 蠈灚膻� 擨鍏儓 麧��蠂錼蠂� 玁蠉蠈��� 瀔儓鍱鳹闃� 儵闅謥譔 縺 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 蜱馵鳭� 賾嚭膱� 飶襜豂� 鶇黽僗謶闅儚殥膰蜦 襜鍆�. 囑蠈嚦瞂臇�, 蘹� 瞀蜱�� 儓 朢� 瞂嬿憵 翴僽鵵槶�摿��, 摎蜱�� � 瀁瞂贂膼嚦蕻�. 砎槼懤� 膧貘�. 挓�樏襜� 鳿齀樇�� �碲�殣�� �襡儚殥罻� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 � 僽槻翴澮儓 硾樦樇 儋 鼫蜦僾�齶樍� 僾�. 冓踠懤殣��, 蠉膰� 鍏豂擨�� 瀇僔� 黓襜謶� 翴 斁緪� 朢譔 鳿齀樇 諘 鍱鴈 瀔鳺�. 砐�襜檍 鍕�鴇 膧貘 錼艖鴇 瀁 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 瀁僽馵麧錼� 縺 灚譖謥 欑嚦�. 忺緛�� 欑嚦� 鳻槫� 鼀鍣 闃鍕�� 瀔槼懤� 瀁賝鳧��. 盷謼�� 欑嚦� (� 魡錪翴澮樦 謥襴 瀁毈殣 襜錪膰 � 翴�) 瀁鼀��樇� 鳿齀樇噮 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 �襡闃� � 僽槻翴澮儓 硾樦樇 儋 1556 �. 椯闅 櫇謶鍱 縺嬾�樇 �謤鳻� � 擨鍏闇摫馵蕻擯 勷朢蠂�擯. ч 灚謥儋� 勷朢蠂� 縺� 翴鍕羻儰斁 譇誽��麧譔 諘膰膼懤謺闃蠂 �襡鍏樇樄� � �襡儚殥膰� 緡賝� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉�, 禖�睯譔 � 瀁��譔 鋋蜼膧 勷朢蠂�. 鏃飶縺� 欈錪 膧貘� � 儋嚦儚� 瀁膻憵膻� �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 馯樏瘔襡� 黟斁� 黓襜謶� � � 膰艜樏嚦� 譇誺鼏�� 嚫槼翴瞂膰禖� 灕睯錒諘灕� 靨譇賥�. 椯� 欈錪 錼蜺� 嚪闉檍錒豂瘔譔, 膼 禖瀁錍鼏� 槫 襝鵫膼. 砐�襜檍 擨鍏� 碴鳻鳧�� 摷麧� 鵫槶樇� 譇齕蹖蠂� 縺魨鎀槫 鏵罽鳭樇蠉錪蕻� � 儴鍻蕻� 鳼樥 �襡鍏樇樄� 譕謤齕儓 縺豂儋�. 2. 芡衿阺� � 衿鰻迓-蟲旆�甡疻呿阺� Ш釋觕 弝倳� ч魡玁 鳿齀樇�� 膧貘�: - 鐕謽麃鍒鳧鳺 � 嚦鵫樇襜� 縺齀蕻� 瀔槼嚦飶錼膻� � 懤嚦� � 豂錒 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 � 鍕�樦 羻麧 黓襜謶灚齕鍏� 譇誺鼏�� 灚鋋瞂灚嚦瘔, � 樍� 瞃錟麧 � 鍕�毿槶鍒毿殥膧� 灕睯錒諘灕�; - 鳿鋋緪膻� 黓襜謶� 碫氁 �襡鍏譇鐓灚齕儓 蜸鵿� 蠉蠉�, 膼 翴 罻� �嚧擤�� 儓 黓襜謶�, � 罻� 欈鋋嚦膼嚦�; �蠉 欈鋋嚦膼嚦� 嚧�殥蠋鵴� � 睯麧 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 碴� 諘睯鼨斁嚦� 闅 懤嚦 樍� 鍕鼏鳧��; - 闅譇緪膻� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 馯樏瘔襡� 黟斁� 樍� 黓襜謶�. 凎鷿膻� �蠂� 諘魡� 瀁誺鎀鼏 嚪闉擯豂瘔譔 � 玁蠉蠈�� 鶌馰鼏槶�膼� 闅膼鷿膻� � 瀔霟鋋檍, 鋹蠲� 瀁��譔 縺嚦���槫 � � 鳿瞂嚦蕻� 瀔槼槶僛 瀔槼睯麧譔 摷劌�槫. 鏃鶋鍧鍷 鵨碭樇鳺 勷麧謷鳧�� 膧貘� 瀁誺鎀鼏 瘔�, 摷劌�鳻 齀鼏槶�� 黓襜謶�, 縺齀鼏� 瀁僽僔蠉��槫 瀁膰錼膻� 碫鋹麠瘔譔�� � 懤鋋儰� 灚謥儋瘔膻� �瀁�, 勷朢蠂� � 瀁膰錼膻�. 雞 嚧懤殣� 瀁斁襴 齀樇鴀鳭 譇賧摫僗��� � 碭賚鍻蕻� 瘔謶鳧蠉� 譇誺鼏�� 灚鋋瞂灚嚦瘔 � 欈鋋�, 縺豂儋� 凎厴鶋錒膱 砫蠉貘蠉� � 欑嚦膼嚦�. ��嚦闉�� 碭厴鼏�瘔殣� - �襜 瀁鋋緪膻�, 禖齕馵鳧膼� 鋹蠲鳻� 鶂鳭� 灚鋋瞂灚嚦瘔, 薃緱� 闃齍殥蠋��譔 碭 碫樥 瀁錍闅�. 扰鍎� 襜蜦, �襜 魡嚦 碭賚鍻膼嚦� 禖譇搿蠉譔 � 摷劌�儓 齀鼏槶樥 黓襜謶� � 儓 齀樇鴀鍒 儴槼嚲�嚲 鼨嚦樦� 鶂樇鴇: - 闅錒欑譔 儋嚦鍒歑蕻� 黓襜謶灚齕鳺 邍膷� 闅 擨樇鴇; - 鼨艜樄麃鍒僗� 鳿齀樇薃� 鴈鐕謽僪噮 � 鐕謽鵻麃鍒僗� 禖碭噊; - 鳿錟蜬譔 鵨碭樇蕻� 鼀槼樇�� 縺 闃膼瞂 禖譇搿蠉臇鍏� 瀇鳧�; - 鐕謽鵻麃鍒僗� 碭瀔闃� � 禖矔樇�譔 蜱飶薃� 檞儴� 瀔� 鳿齀樇鳷 罻緛鍣 蠈檞; - 碭厴豂鳿碭儰譔 縺魨鎀槫 瘔緱�� 瀁鋋緪膻� � 譇賝�� 譇膧貘僛; - 闅錒欑譔 嚧�殥蠋樇膼� 闅 憵鋋賝僝鼏槶�膼蜦, 黓襜謶灚齕嚲 瀔儚鴈膼嚦� 闅 儴齀骫膼蜦 � 黓襜謶�; - 瀁膻憵譔, 罻� 碲��殣 麧�蠈錪膼嚦� 錒籦闃蠂 縺 譇誺鼏鳺 鍕�殥蠋� � 蜦嚧魡貘蠋�, 縺 嚧噉朢 縺豂儋�. 挔錟麧膻� �蠂擯 鶂樇��擯 瀁誺鎀鼏 譇嚭斁襝殣� �襡儚殥膧� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 翴 罻� 瀔闃襜� 櫇謥玁儴樇鳺 勷朢蠂�, � 罻� 欈瀁癰� 瀔儚鴈膼-儴槼嚦瞂臇�� 鼀�谾�. 桎嚦樦僗儚殥膰� 鳿鋋緪膻� �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 勷瀔�緪膼 � 翴憵錵擯 襝鵫膼嚦�擯. 侲魨鎀槫 鍕�樄縺玁檞擯 �碲��襙� 儴槼嚲�鳺 瀔鍕錼檞. 鎬-櫇謼��, 蠉蠉貘罻� 縺灕� 瀁僽馵麧��殣�� 縺 擨鍻殥蠋� 蜸鵿� � 瀁鳲賾瀅. 椯� � 罻諘艚膱� 蠉蠉蹖, � 蠉蠉蹖-擯鸆蹖, � 蠉蠉蹖-膴�鷿蕻, � 僔襝僛鳧齕鳺, � 鼨摜貘膱�, � 膴�旚膱� 蠉蠉蹖. 軠嚦� 蜸鵿�, � 鼀鞜 霠歑槼�, 瀁僽馵麧��殣�� 縺 擨鍻殥蠋� 瀁鳲賾瀅. 椯� 鍕嚦��蠈錪嚦碭 瀁豂緛馲� 霠樇� 鼫蹞樄蕻� 碭瀔闃: 儋錛樇 錒 齀槦蕻� 膧貘 瀁 �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 勷嚦��譔 鳿 �嚧擤� 黓襜謶�� 譇賨儚蕻� 蜸鵿� � 瀁鳲賾瀅 蠉蠉� 鳹� 薃緱� 鳿齀僗� 翴蘹� 鴈蠈蜸魬嚲�槫? 囑錒 瀁毈樦 瀁 櫇謼鍎� 瀀蠂, 襜 瀔鳼殣�� 鳿齀僗� 黓襜謶� 罻緛鍣 蜸鵿燹, � 諘蠈� 齕錟噊瘔譔 翴膧� 鍕�嚲 罻貗鴈�. 砐鋹玁襙� 斁諘儚膼� 櫡臇�. 囑錒 瀁澽� 瀁 碞闉鍎� 瀀蠂, 襜 薃緱� 摷麧� 瀔樉麧 碫樍� 禖矔樇鼏� 翴蘹� 鍕�槫, 瀔黓齍槫 碫樦 蜸鵿櫡� � 瀁鳲賾瀅鳭 蠉蠉� 翴諘睯鼨斁 闅 懤嚦� 儓 譇嚭槶樇��. 砫膱� 鴈蠈蜸魬嚲�鳻 縺欑鋋� 斁蜰� 朢譔 瀔隬殥� 碭賝鴀膼瞂膻� � 譇誺鼏�� 蠉蠉貘膰� 蜦嚧魡貘蠋樇膼嚦� � 黓襜謶灚齕�� 嚧噉摳 �襡闃� � 欈鋋�. 泃 瀁毈樦 瀁 �襜檍 瀀蠂. 鎬-碞闉��, 薃緱� 鳿縺欑錪膼 瀔飶鳹�膼 闀謥麧錒譔 �襡儚殥膧� 櫇謼闇劖鍒� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡. 栝鍻膼嚦� 勷嚦鍞� � 襜�, 蘹� 瀔� 樍� 鐕謽麃鍒鳧鳷 齀僔蠋鍒鳪� 擨鍏鳺 �襡儚殥膱� 膰斀鍙樇譖. � 儓 玁儴� 朢錒 � 僽槻膻� 摷鍺僦�, � 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉蹖, � 膱濷魛�, � 蠉耩� 翴膰襜蹖� 僽鵽鳺 譕謤��踑籦�� 瀇樦樇�. 砐�襜檍 瀔鴈灕歞鳪�膼 瘔緱� 禖矔樇鼏� 闃膼碴�� 瞂劌�鳺 �襡儚殥膱� 膰斀鍙樇譖 � 瀔闃錼儰譔 儓 黓襜謶灚齕鴇 瀀譔. �-襝殣�儓, �襡儚殥罻� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 � 樍� 瀔槼膰� 蠈劖� 櫇謥瀇槶僔� � 黓襜謶樥 � 嚧噉搿� 擨鍏儓 僽鵽儓 �襡闃鍒. 砐�襜檍 瀔� 碭嚭蠉膼碲樇鳷 �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 薃緱� 摷麧� 麧謷僗� � 瀁錼 趜樇�� 瀔隬殥� �襡鍏樇樄� � �襡儚殥膧� 黓襜謶� 擨鍏儓 譕謤��踑籦�� � 鴈�� 縺豂儋�. 扻 碫樦 縺豂魡� 檞 儋錛蕻 闅膼鼨譔�� � 鶌馰樇鳺� 罻� � 譇碴��, 羻�� � 翴 瀁羻緡� 縺 縺�. 俜 瀁儇樉鼏 勷擨樇噮, 蘹� 黓襜謶罻� 儴槼鵴� 縺嚦鍣玁碭 � 欈錼鵨襝樦錼臇� 搿豂譔�� 勷 賨鍙鳭歑樇蕻擯 擯邍擯 � 襜�, 蘹� 鍱膻 縺豂噊 � 賨鍱樘, � 僽鵽鳺 � 膼鼨蠈錒 灕睯錒諘襜貘膰� 擯嚭鳷. 俜錪�� 儋瀀齕僗� � 蠈膻 縺灕鍙鳪�膼蜦 欏鳧嚦瘔, 瀔鴈鳽樇�� 豂錒 僽鵽儓 縺豂儋� � 麧�膻� 灚鋋瞂灚嚦瘔. �-灚蠋歑譖�, � 蠈灚膻� 擨鍏儓 麧��蠂錼蠂� 黓襜謶罻� 譇趜氂鳪闃� 灕蠂豂瘔譔 � 膰擤樇蠂豂瘔譔 黓襜籦鴀�, 闀謥麧錼臇�� 瀁嚦鳧鍒錼膻樦 窐 薹�/�/ 闅 9 飶蜰嚦� 1944 �. �� 勷嚦��膻� � 懤譇� 鵻齀鷿膻� 憵嚭鍒�-瀁錒蠂灚齕鍣 � 鳼槴鋋蜼灚齕鍣 譇搿譖 � 砫蠉貘膰� 櫡貗鴇膼� 闉蜬膻諘灕��. 侲 闃膼瞂 �襜蜦 瀁嚦鳧鍒錼膻� 闅麧錪蕻� 僔櫇膷鳭 �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 瀔鳼鳪� 嚦僗鵨 翴踑摠樦闃蠂 � 碫槴朅膼嚦�. � 謥踠錪蠉蠈 縺膰歞鋋嬿 搿錪囔� 膰錒灚嚦碭 蠉膱� 譇搿� 瀁 黓襜謶� 砫蠉貘蠉縺 � 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡, 縺 膰襜蹖� 錼緡� 櫇欑譔 罻膰�-襜 縺劌憵臇闃蠂, 瀇魛僗膼� 鳹錌嚦謶豂瘔臇闃蠂 � 罻膼膻賥豂瘔臇鍣 儋蜵�. 俜瀔槼瞀�襜�, 瞅鶂玁碭� 鳿齀樇鳺 �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 摷麧� 鳻殣� 翴憵鋋瘔緱鍷 賝僝樇鳺 翴 襜錪膰 儇� 搿錼� 蜱鶋鍧鍏� 瀁膻憵膻� 黓襜謶灚齕鍣 嚧噉朢 �襜蜦 縺豂魡, 膼 � 儇� 闃檞儴樇�� 儴鍻蕻� 瀔鍕錼� 譇誺鼏�� 僽鵽儓 �襡闃鍒. �-��譖�, � 縺嚦���槫 硾樦� 瀔槼嚦飶錼膻� 瀁 擨鍏鳻 儴鍻蕻� 瀔鍕錼憵� �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 鐕謽麃嚲襙� 翴 � 羻麧 縺齀膼� 儰齕鵨鼨�, � � 燹鋹 瀁錼擯膱 縺 嚦譇膻攡� 櫇謶鍱儚殥膰� 櫇欑蠂, 縺 擯蠂罾僛. 砎儚樦 碭 碫樦 �襜� 齀僔蠋嚲�, � 闃膼碴鍎, 錌儰, 鳻澒�鳺 瞂嬿憵 闅魡錼臇鍷 闅膼鷿膻� � 黓襜謶灚齕鍣 縺鵳�. 鎚� �襜 � 擨鍏鍷 僽鵽鍷 縺膹馯�瘔殣 縺 瘔�, 摷劌�儓 齀鼏槶樥 黓襜謶�, 搿錪欗� 闅瞂襙蠋樇膼嚦� � 麧錼 鍕齀樇�� � 碭厴鼏鳧�� 瀁僽僔蠉��儓 瀁膰錼膻�. 俜譇趜氂樇蕻�, 翴譇趜颬闅鳧蕻� 瀔鍕錼� �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� 潁� 儋嚦僗霠膼 擨鍏�. 挕縺膰 瀁嚦樖樇膼 黓襜謶灚齕�� 縺鵳� 禖羻儰� 縺 膼禖� �蠉� 鼨嚦樦僗鳿僪鳷 � 膰薧樖覷鳪�膼蜦 闃檞儴樇�� 縺膰瀇樇蕻� 邍膷鍒, 闅膼���儓�� � �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 譕謤��踑籦�� 縺豂儋�, � �.�. � 蠉蠉貘膰蜦. �懤臇� 瘔� 瀔槼嚦鍞� 瀁-膼碭檍 闃檞儴鼏� 瞂嬿 擨鍏鍒樏鍒鍣 瀀譔 黓襜謶灚齕鍏� 譇誺鼏��, 瀔鍣麧臇�� 蠉蠉貘膱� 縺豂儋�. 3. 旂倬弅衄� 弝倳� 侜忒�� � 嚦賾膷鶇膼� 闅膼鷿膻� 瞂嬿 瀁儇樉僓鴇 鳿齀樇噮 憵蠈謶鳪 譇諙槶樇 縺 ��譔 摠鍧鍒. 盷謼�� 摠鍧 � �砐 儴槼鳭 黓襜謶灚齕儓 瀔槼膰�� � 瞃錌欑殣 憵蠈謶鳪, 闅譇糈��鴇 瀀譔, 瀔鍣麧臇�� 黓襜謶灚齕鳻� 瀔槼罻擯 勷硾樦樇蕻� 蠉蠉�. 婜謽麃鍒鳧鳺 錌搿蜦 縺豂魡 �碲�殣�� 霠樇� 儴鍻蕻� � 儇鼏槶�蕻� 瀔隬殥勷�. 俜 �碲�殣�� 黓膹�灚膻樦 � 蠉蠉貘膱� 縺豂�, 碭摫飶麠� � 鼫�� 瀔� 鐕謽麃鍒鳧鳷 譇賨儚蕻� �襡儚殥膱� 膰斀鍙樇譖. 砐齕鎀�膧 勷硾樦樇縺� 蠉蠉貘罻� 縺灕� 瞃錌欑殣 � 鼫�� 譇賨儚蕻� 蜸鵿燹 � 瀁鳲賾瀅� 蠉蠉�, 襜 縺� 薃緱� 摷麧� 謥麠譔 鳱鵴儰薃� 諘魡蘼. 鎬-櫇謼��, 禖�睯譔 � 勷闅瞂襙蠋嚲�鳻 鍕譇賧� 闀黓僗� 覷 �襡儚殥膧� 櫇謼闇劖鍒�, 縺 摳谾 膰襜豂� 碭賝鴀錒 �蠂 蜸鵿燹 � 瀁鳲賾瀅� 蠉蠉�. 椯� �襡儚殥膧� 櫇謼闇劖鍒� 檞 摷麧� � 魡錪翴澮樦 鳻樇鍒僗� �襡闃-闃膼碭�. 鎬-碞闉��, 縺澽� �襡儚殥膧� 闃膼碥 闅麧錪蕻� 蜸鵿� � 瀁鳲賾瀅 蠉蠉�. 冓踠懤殣��, �襜 碭賚鍻膼 鼥槶僗� 錒籫 瀔� 縺錒玁� 黓襜謶灚齕儓 黓襜籦鴀鍒. 泃 摷麧� 黓羻儰譔 縺 鳱黼 闃膼碭瀁錟蜬��儓 瀔槼嚦飶錼膻�, � 鳻樇膼: 碭-櫇謼��, �襡鍏樇樄 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 朢� 擨鍏鍧鍎瀁翴艜蕻�, 碭-碞闉��, � 瀔隬殥鼫 鐕謽麃鍒鳧�� 罻諘艚膱� 蠉蠉� 罻� 闃鍕鍣 �襡鍏譇鐓灚齕鍣 蜸鵿燹 勷硾樦樇膼� 蠉蠉貘膰� 縺灕� � 罻灚嚦瞂 瞂劌�儓 �襡儚殥膱� 膰斀鍙樇襜� 瀔鴈�錒 齀僔蠂� 碭錛齕鳺 摷鍺僦� � 賧鋋襜闉噊艚膱� 蠉蠉蹖. 砐�襜檍 � 櫇謼鍎 摠鍧� (譇諙槶�) 摷麧� 譇嚭斁襝樇� 黓襜謶� 鐕謽麃鍒鳧�� 碭錛齕儓 摷鍺僦, � � 襝殣�樦 譇諙槶� � 黓襜謶� 齕錟噊瘔膻� 鍕�膼嚦� 賧鋋襜闉噊艚膱� 蠉蠉�. � ��襜� 譇諙槶� 摷麧� 譇嚭斁襝樇 羻� 鐕謽麃鍒鳧�� 罻諘艚膱� 蠉蠉� 罻� 謥踠錪蠉� 儵氂樇�� 碭錛齕儓 摷鍺僦 � 賧鋋襜闉噊艚膱擯 蠉蠉譇擯. 鎗闉鍣 摠鍧 � �鎬錛齕�� 闆鍺僦��� � 摷麧� 瀁鼀��樇 鳿鋋緪膻� � 碭賚鍻膼 搿錪鷿� �劖闃譔� � 瀁儴槼鍒僗槶�膼嚦�� 碭瀔闃鍒, 鼀�諘臇�� � 黓襜謶樥 摷鍺僦齕儓 � 摠鳿膰豂儊蠋樇蕻� 鳻 瀇樦樇, 櫇謥鼫錒禘儓�� � 譇濎蕻 栮槼翴蜦 砐碭錛��. � �襜� 譇諙槶� � 欈艜謥 縺鷿蜦 碴鳻鳧�� 摷劌� 瀔鍕錼檞, 鼀�諘臇�� � 羻��濄蠋樇膼-�膰膼擯灚齕鍣 麧�蠈錪膼嚦�� 碭錛齕儓 摷鍺僦, 譇誺鼏鳺� 儓 膧錪覷蹖 � 鐕謽 蜦嚧魡貘蠋樇膼嚦�. 秮殣鴇 摠鍧 � �籐槻膻� 蠉蠉蹖: 瀔鍞嚬鍻麧膻� � 黓襜謶灚齕�� 嚧噉摳� � �襜 欈艜譇錪縺� 欑嚦� 膧貘� 錼艖鴇. 昲 縺玁縺殣�� � 闀黓鳧�� 譕謤�-蠉蠉貘膰蜦 擯譇 儋 瀁�碲樇�� 縺 黓襜謶灚齕鍣 壚樇� 郯罾黓矐縺. 椯闅 擯� 朢� 蘺樄禖欑澼� 譇賝闇摫馵蕻� � 儴鍻蕻�. 犧� 瀁膻憵膻� �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 僽槻膻� 蠉蠉� 霠樇� 瘔緱� 鳿齀鼏� 瀔隬殥� 鐕謽麃鍒鳧�� 欈艜譇錒賧瘔臇鍏� 沓罾鎀�齕鍏� 蜦嚧魡貘蠋� � 禖�劖鼏� 樍� 豂錪 � 黓襜謶灚齕鍣 嚧噉摎 蠉蠉� � 摷鍺僦. 郟鼏�瘔� �襜 鍕嚦��蠈錪嚦碭, 擨鍏� 碴鳻鳧�� 摷麧� 鵫槶樇� 譇嚭斁襝樇噮 碭瀔闃鍒, 鼀�諘臇�� � 譇誺鼏鳺� 瞀骭斁闅膼鷿膻� 懤緛� 蠉蠉譇擯 � 斁罾鎀鳭� � XII-XIII 瞁. 逜蠋歑譖� 摠鍧 � �⑥鋋蠉� 昦魡� � 瀁鼀��樇 鳿鋋緪膻� 勷朢蠂�, 鼀�諘臇�� � 碭賝鴀膼瞂膻樦 � 譇誺鼏鳺� 鍱膼蜦 鳿 黟檞� 膴鵿蕻� � 斁蜰�殥蠋樇蕻� 蜦嚧魡貘蠋 嚫槼翴瞂膰禕�. � 欈艜謥 碴鳻鳧�� 摷劌� 翴 襜錪膰 瀔鍕錼檞 碭樇膼-瀁錒蠂灚齕鍏� 矐譇膷歑�, 膼 � 碭瀔闃� 譇誺鼏�� 膧錪覷蹖 � 碴氂翴� 瀁錒蠂膱. ��譖� 摠鍧 � �忺諘艚膰� 矐艚蠋�: 碭賝鴀膼瞂膻�, 譇誺鼏鳺 � 黓襜謶灚齕�� 嚧噉摳� � �襜 諘瞂蹢僠�鴇 譇諙槶 櫇謼鍣 欑嚦� 魡臇鍏� 膧貘� 錼艖鴇. 冓諙槶 闅膴�瘔殣�� 瀁罻賧� 瀔隬殥黟 譇厴馯� 瀔樉麧 槼鴈鍏� 欈艜譇錒賧瘔臇鍏� 蜦嚧魡貘蠋� ⑥鋋蠉� 昦魡 � 瀁�碲樇�� 縺 樍� 譇誺鳪鴈僛 膼禖� 蠉蠉貘膱� 蜦嚧魡貘蠋 � 扰�旚膰蜦, 忺諘艚膰蜦, 桎摜貘膰蜦 � 獰襝僛鳧齕鍏� 矐艚蠋�, � 蠉耩� 侹蜬濄膰蜦 膫�緪嚦瘔. 婜謽麃鍒鳧鳺 � 譇誺鼏鳺 忺諘艚膰蜦 矐艚蠋� 翴譇趜�碴� 朢鋋 鼀�諘膼 � 譇壚瞂襜� 蠉蠉貘膰� 膧錪覷蹖, 瀔槻譇�樇鳺� 忺諘膻 � 膴鵿翴澮鴇 膧錪覷謺�� 欈艜� 嚫槼翴瞂膰禕�. 侲 闃膼瞂 鳿齀樇�� 黓襜謶灚齕儓 黓襜籦鴀鍒 � 勷闅瞂襙蠋嚲�樥 錒蠈譇覷蹖 碭嚭鍡魡殣�� 罻貗鴈� 賾嚭膰-蠉蠉貘膱� 瞀骭斁闅膼鷿膻� 儋 鼫謥儰蕻 XVI �. 椯闅 譇諙槶 膧貘� 錼艖鴇 勷麧謷鼏 黟檞� 櫇欑錪蕻� 嚦譇膻籜 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡. � 襜 緪 硾樦� � 膻� 諘櫇欑襛樇 蜲豂鳿�, 黟斁瀁緪貗碭瘔膻� 諘�鼏膻膰� 忺諘膻 碭 鳻� 鼀鍕鍱�, 翴諘睯鼨斁嚦� 鼀鍷蜦 縺豂魡. 郯嚦闅� 儓 瀁檞儴鍒, 檍緪嚦碭 禖誺鳪� 碭嚬凞樇鳺 � 鼀鳼殣槶� �蠂� 勷朢蠂�, 飶襜譇 ��嚦闉鳷 忺諘艚膰蜦 攡貘蠋��. � �襜� 譇諙槶� 謥襴 瀁毈殣 翴 襜錪膰 � 瞅隰膼睯蠈��� 搿蹞朢 諘 勷臝鳧樇鳺 翴諘睯鼨斁嚦�, 膼 � � 瀔槼僗槶�� 鴈蠈謥勷� 縺豂儋� 忺諘艚膰蜦 矐艚蠋�. 忺緛�� 縺豂�, 縺鼫��禘鴇 樍� 蠈貙鼏闉噮, 鳻槶 翴 襜錪膰 瀔槼僗槶樥, 膼 � 縺灕鍙鳪�蕻� 蜲豂槻. 昜黓鳧噮 縺灕鍙鳪�膼-闃碭搿儰蠈錪膼� 搿蹞朢 摷麧� 鵫槶樇� 擨鍏� 碴鳻鳧�� � �襜� 譇諙槶�. 枟蠈謶鳪 摠鍧� �昦蜬膻諘灕� 瀁賝飶僗槶�膼� 麧�蠈錪膼嚦� 嚦鵫樇襜�� 齕鍎櫡膼瘔� 蠉膱� 鍕譇賧�, 蘹鍕� 嚦鳻鵻麃鍒僗� 檞儴鼏槶�薃� 麧�蠈錪膼嚦� 嚦鵫樇襜� 縺 闃膼瞂 闃檞儴樇�� 賝鳧鴇 瀁鋹灚臇�� 縺 錼艖���. 砎槼錟蜬樦�� 鍕�樦 � 勷麧謷鳧鳺 諘魡膻� 飶襜豂� 譇嚭憵襝魤僠襙� 翴 罻� 槼鴈嚦瞂臇� 碭賚鍻蕻�, � 罻� 鍱鴈 鳿 瘔謶鳧襜�. 砎樖鍱飶僗槶� 斁緪� 瘔蹞麃鍒僗� 諘魡膻� � 諘睯鼨斁嚦� 闅 嚦樖樇� 瀁鳲闅鍒錼臇闃蠂 嚦鵫樇襜�, 儓 鶂樇�� 鳧鳪鳿麃鍒僗� 憵蠈謶鳪, 鼨嚦樦僗鳿麃鍒僗� � 鍕鍕�僗� 瀁鋹灚臇�� 賝鳧��. 砐齕鎀�膧 瀔槼瀁錟蜬殣��, 蘹� 瀁賝飶僗槶�縺� 麧�蠈錪膼嚦� 嚦鵫樇襜� 摷麧� 膼鼨譔 蠋闉灚齕�-瀁黓膰禖� 矐譇膷歑, 襜 蠈膲譖 錼艖鴇 魡蕻 膴僗膰. 昲� 闅譇糈�� 錒籫 闃膼碴鍷 � 瀔隬殥鼫 �襡鍏樇樄� � �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉�. 釐骭斁鼀�踙 勷麧謷鳧�� 錼艖鴇 � 懤襜儰灚齕鳻 摠鍧鍎 摷麧�, 縺 縺� 瞀蜱��, 厴闃鍕嚦碭瘔譔 譇誺鼏噮 � 嚦鵫樇襜� 鶂樇�� 黟斁嚦��蠈錪膼 鐕謽麃鍒僗� 鍕鍕�樇�� � 禖碭噊 縺 闃膼瞂 鳧鳪鳿� 黓襜謶灚齕鍏� 憵蠈謶鳪�. 砫膱� 鍕譇賧�, 勷麧謷鳧鳺 摠鍧� �昦蜬膻諘灕� 瀁賝飶僗槶�膼� 麧�蠈錪膼嚦� 嚦鵫樇襜�� 瀔鳿瘔膼 翴 諘懤膻譔 蠈膲譖 錼艖鴇, � 儋瀁錍鼏� 儓. 濩襜� 嚦謥擯錥� 瀔� �襜� 鼥槶僗� 瀔隬殥� 瀁賝鳧�� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 � 樍� 黓襜謶灚齕儓 瀔槼膰� 鴈蠈謥劖�� � 厴闃鍕嚦碭瘔譔 鐕謽麃鍒鳧噮 � 嚦鵫樇襜� 搿錼� 禖勷膰蜦 鶇鍒�� 檞儴鼏槶�蕻� 鶂樇鴇. 砫膱� 鍕譇賧�, 鋋蜼灚齕�� 嚦賾膷鶇� 膧貘� 縺欈錼縺 縺 儋嚦鳽樇鳺 蜱飶膼� 欈錒 鍕齀樇�� � 鍒錟麧膻� 闃膼碴�擯 鏵罽鳭樇蠉錪蕻擯 瀔槼嚦飶錼膻�擯 瀁 �蠂灚齕鍣 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉�. 椯鍎� 瀔鳿瘔膼 厴闃鍕嚦碭瘔譔 擨鍏鍏譇臇鍷 鼨嚦樦僗鳿麃鍒鳧膼� 鳿鋋緪膻� 瘔緱樥麠� 邍膷鍒 � 勷朢蠂� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉貘膰蜦 縺豂魡 � 樍� 黓襜謶灚齕儓 瀔槼膰�. 泃 瀁錟蜬樦, 蘹� 瀔鳻樇�樦�� 縺擯 瀁儴槼鍒僗槶�膼嚦� 鳿鋋緪膻� 黓襜謶灚齕儓 勷朢蠂� 瀁誺鎀鼏 縺鳹齀麠� 鍕譇賧� 鳿齀鼏� � 闀黓僗� 鍱鴈 鳿 瘔緱樥麠� �蠉瀁� �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉�. 侲齕鎀�膰 飶襜賾 �襜 鵫鳪闃�, 嚧儰譔 摷麧� 玁蠉蠈錪. 栦瞂譖 嚦鵫樇蠉�. 濩襜� 黓羻儰� 鳿 闃膼碴鍏� 瀁鋋緪膻� - 鍕齀樇鳺 �碲�殣�� 魛蠂碴�� 瀔隬殥勷�. 砎闃襜� 瀔闃鋹麠瘔膻�, 蘹樇鳺 � 諘瀁擯縺膻� 邍膷鍒 憵鋋 蘹� 魡殣. 栺僦骫蠈嬿 譇誺鼏� 鶂樇鳺 黟斁嚦��蠈錪膼 檞儴鼏�. �踠欑澽� � 諘瀁擯縺澽� 厴闃鍕� 檞齴樇��, 闃膼碴�� 鳼樘. 侲齀鼏殥� 譇賚�齴�譔 � 闀麃僗��� 縺 謥踠錪蠉譖 鼀鍞� 譇賚�齴樇鴇. 侲齀鼏殥� 鳿碲樏僗� 賝鳧�� 鳿 黓襜謶灚齕儓 黓襜籦鴀鍒 � 厴氀魰錪膼� 錒蠈譇覷蹖. 咍蠈譇覷譇 瀁 �襡儚殥膰� 黓襜謶� 蠉蠉� � 襜, 蘹� 壝鼏馲襙� 澒, 瞂嬿憵 鍕麠謺� � 譇賝闇摫馵縺. 侲魨鎀槫 鴈鐕謽僪鴅臇� 樦膱� 黓襜謶灚齕鳺 黓襜籦鴀� � 錒蠈譇覷譇 摷劌� 隰僦魛蠈謶賧瘔蕻 � 縺欑錼 罻緛鍣 錼艖鳷. 砎� �襜� 諘魡欑 勷嚦鍞� 翴 � 襜�, 蘹鍕� 碫� 譇嚭蠉碲�譔 瀁 瀁鋋癰鳭 � 櫇謥玁儴�譔, 蘹� � 罻� 縺歞黟� 襜� 鳹� 鴈鍣 飶襜� � 蠉蠉譇�. 侲鸆 諘魡欑 - 隰僦魛蠈謶賧瘔譔 � 鍕�樥 鐕謽� 黓襜籦鴀�, 黓瀁錪賧瘔臇�� 瀔� 瀁鳲闅鍒耪 蠈膲蠉 襜� 鳹� 鴈鍣 錼艖鳷. �蠉�, 欈錪 膧貘� 錼艖鴇 闀謥麧錼縺, 諘魡玁, 瀁儇樉僓鳺 謥鷿膻�, 嚪闉檍錒豂瘔蕻. 昢蠉殣�� 瀔黓覷歞譔 � 儓 闃齍殥蠋錼膻�. |
.1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND ITS URGENCY Recently is observed a sharp burst of interest to the past. Many people engaged with enthusiasm in restoration of the primaeval past. The human thought follows much traveled route: in search of sources further down, from realities of modern life into the depths of centuries. A need to review all phases and periods of the ethnic history of Tatars also becomes more and more obvious. A problem of the origin of Tatars is an integral and important part of a broad spectrum of questions connected with ethnogenesis of many modern peoples in Eurasia. It is brought about, in particular, because the ethnic roots and branches of Tatar people were powerful and extensive. Therefore this problem for a long time interested many outstanding historians, but never before this desire to embrace the whole course of Tatar people historical development was so persevering as during the last years. We are witnessing that live interest to the ethnic history of Tatars display not only expert historians, but also the public at large. For a long time the history of Tatar people remained a theme of public disputes, but not special fundamental scientific research. It is easy to notice the newly voracity that started to consume everything written about Tatars. And it is not accidental. Tatars belong to the most ancient and populous ethnoses. In Middle Ages no other people attracted such staunch attention of historians, geographers, writers, powerful rulers, as Tatars. About them there was a rumour from coast of Pacific ocean in the east up to Atlantic in the west. A whole galaxy of outstanding scientists included information about them in their works. One wrote with admiration, others with fear, but nobody remained indifferent. For Tatars and their historical ancestors rendered deciding influence on a course of historical process on huge open spaces of Eurasia. They have created the original and original civilization which has influenced culture of many nations of the world. Their influence in such spheres of human activity, as management of a society and the state, military science, diplomacy, animal industries and trade (1 has been especially appreciable; 42). Ancient Tatars were not only descendants Huns, but also successors of their culture. Therefore they not casually were proud � of the origin, the moral qualities, the religion, the family life � (2; 14). In an ethnic history of ancient Tatars there were rises and falling, the periods of peace life and bloody, severe the soldier. They actively participated in world politics within many centuries. For short historical term ancient Tatars have created some the powerful states, have brought in the powerful contribution to a universal civilization. However their true greatness was, that they have not left in nonexistence, similarly to missed ethnoses much{many} nowadays. And it despite of vicissitudes of life and that ancient Tatars lived in the neighbourhood with aggressive and powerful tribes. They have kept themselves as ethnic integrity, have found in itself forces for self-affirmation, preservations of the cultural - historical tradition. However about a role and a place of ancient Tatars in the general development of mankind, about their contribution to a universal civilization many judge, unfortunately, on separate episodes, on an any set of historical plots. It is difficult to name other people which ethnic history would be so it is maliciously deformed. Within many decades in an official historiography about Tatars wrote in indulgent and pejorative tones. The ethnic history of Tatars was examined as the original highlighting background, called to shade "epohalno-progressive" acts of other peoples. Russko-Tatar attitudes{relations} XIII-XVI of centuries were especially deformed. These attitudes{relations} were represented as constant centuries-old struggle Russian with Tatars. Thus it was not taken into account, that ethnic life of ancient Tatars had lasting self-value and was not reduced only to the russko-Tatar mutual relations. And these mutual relations, by the way, had deep roots and old many-sided historical tradition and were not reduced at all only to struggle. Within many decades studying of a history of ancient Tatars carried isolated, casual character in many aspects. Many "historians" surveyed an ethnic history of ancient Tatars only through opening a monastic window. Accordingly conclusions turned out incomplete, schematical and inexact. Such approach allowed representatives of an official historiography to create at rising generations representation about ancient Tatars as about evil visitors on a vital feast of nations of the world. Many difficulties and mistakes of process of studying of an ethnic history of ancient Tatars are caused, first, by insufficiency of the facts about the most ancient period of their ability to live, a fragmentariness and discrepancy of available data, second, presence in Russian historiography of a plenty of stereotypes, stamps with chauvinistic colouring concerning ethnic properties and acts of ancient Tatars. Within many decades readers had to look at a history of Tatar people eyes of Russian authors urapatrioticheskogo sense. It is natural, that a sight of them was rather unfriendly, fluent and superficial. Subject of a course. Object of studying is the ethnic history of Tatar people since the most ancient times about one today. Certainly, such huge layer of a history cannot be investigated for one reception. Therefore the general course of lectures on a history of Tatar people is subdivided into four parts. Each part has the special subject of knowledge. The first part (further the question will be only it{her}) is devoted to studying of a history of the Tatar ethnos since the most ancient times till 1556. This period is sated with bright and diverse events. For cheredoj events it is necessary for us to make out laws ethnogenesisa and ethnic life of ancient Tatars to reveal and understand logic of events. The overall objective of a course - to achieve understanding of an ethnic history of Tatars adequately the history and in a context of development of medieval civilizations of Eurasia. This purpose is easy for formulating, but to execute her{it} difficultly. Therefore a lot of attention will be given to disclosing of the most fundamental and complex{difficult} ideas ethnogenesisa Turkic peoples. 2. SCIENTIFIC AND TEACHING AND EDUCATIONAL TASKS OF THE COURSE Tasks of studying of a course: - Formation at students of scientific representations about a place and a role of Tatar people in the general course of historical development of mankind, about his{its} contribution to a universal civilization; - A statement of a history of all ethnographic groups of Tatars, but not as "sums" of their histories, and as integrity; this integrity exists as Tatar people without dependence from places of his{its} dwelling; - Reflection of a history of Tatar people adequately his{its} most history. The decision of these tasks will allow to generate the valid attitude{relation} to the past at the reader, it is better to understand the present and in known limits to expect the future. Deep mastering of the maintenance{contents} of a course will allow you, to the future teachers of a history to learn rising generation to listen attentively to a melody of alternation of epoch, events and generations. You will manage to help pupils to understand possible{probable} variants of development of mankind as a whole, peoples of Republic Tatarstan in particular. � The history brings up � is the position stated by the best minds{wits} of mankind, it is necessary to carry out in all completeness. Besides it will enable to develop at the future teachers of a history and their pupils the following system of skills: - To distinguish authentic historic facts from opinions; - To synthesize the investigated information and to formulate conclusions; - To state the acquired data on the basis of the produced plan; - To formulate questions and to isolate the main idea at studying each theme; - To reproduce the most important positions in different foreshortenings; - To distinguish essential from insignificant, historical causality from casual in a history; - To understand, how activity of the person influences development of a society and the state, on destinies of peoples. Mastering by these skills will allow to consider an ethnic history of Tatars not as simple transfer of events, and as a chain of relationships of cause and effect. The regular statement of an ethnic history of Tatar people is connected to considerable difficulties. The most valid are the following problems. First, the Tatar nation is subdivided into set of groups and subgroups. It and Kazan Tatars, both Tatars-mishary, and Tatars-Kryashen, both Astrakhan, and Siberian, and Crimean Tatars. The part of groups, in turn, is subdivided into set of subgroups. This circumstance generates very serious question: whether on an ethnic history of Tatar people the training course should consist of � the sum of histories � various groups and subgroups of Tatars or it is necessary to study something integrigujushchee? If we shall go on the first way it is necessary to study a history of each group, and then to put{fold} a certain general picture. The mosaic panel will turn out. If to go on the second way it will be necessary to isolate first of all something the general, inherent in all groups and subgroups of Tatars irrespective of a place of their moving. integrigujushchim the beginning process of occurrence and development of the Tatar statehood and historical destiny of ethnos as a whole can be such. We shall go on this way. Second, it is necessary to define{determine} an ethnic fundamental principle of Tatar people initially correctly. Complexity will be, that at his{its} formation many ethnic components participated. Among them there were both ancient bulgary, and ancient Tatars, and kipchaki, and also some other tjurkojazychnye tribes. Therefore it is essentially important to isolate the basic conducting ethnic components and to track their historical way. Thirdly, the ethnic history of Tatar people and his{its} ancestors was closely bound with a history and destiny of many other ethnoses. Therefore at restoration of an ethnic history of Tatars it will be necessary to hold in sight process ethnogenesisa and an ethnic history of many tjurkojazychnyh and other peoples. We should be respectful to all peoples as to equal, though and not similar to us. Is not subject to doubt, that historians should struggle persistently and purposefully with ill-intentioned myths that one peoples - villains, and others - carriers tsivilizatorskoj missions. It is impossible to suppose and shadows of national conceit, belittling of a role of other peoples in act of mankind. Fourthly, within many decades historians were authorized to quote and make comments on the sources determined by the decision of Central Committee VKP/b/from August, 9, 1944 � About a condition and measures of improvement of massovo-political and ideological work in the Tatar party organization �. On the basis of this decision to separate aspects of an ethnic history of Tatars have given the status of firmness and generality{universality}. In result a plenty of such works on a history of Tatarstan and Tatar people on which the seal of any artificiality lays, poster illjustrirovannosti and canonized dogma has collected. Unbiassed, thoughtful studying of an ethnic history of Tatar people will have important value not only for deeper understanding of historical destiny of this people, but also for judgement of challenges of development of other ethnoses. Fifthly, now representations on many challenges of an ethnic history of Tatars are formed not during scientific discussion, and in pylu polemics on pages of periodicals, on meetings. And in all it participate, basically, people having rather remote attitude{relation} to a historical science. And many other things imposes all this on you, the future teachers of a history, the big responsibility in business of training and education of rising generations. Still it is a lot of non-authorized, undeveloped problems of an ethnic history of Tatars. However gradually historical science leaves on a new stage of ordering and conceptual judgement of the saved up facts concerning an ethnic history tjurkojazychnyh of peoples, including and Tatar. You should comprehend in a new fashion all centuries-old way of historical development, projdennyj Tatar people. 3. STRUCTURE OF THE COURSE OF LECTURES In the structural attitude{relation} all material subject to studying is divided{shared} into five blocks. The first block - � On traces of historical ancestors � - includes a material reflecting a way, projdennyj historical ancestors of modern Tatars. Formation of any people is very complex{difficult} and long process. Is not exception and the Tatar people which has incorporated at formation various ethnic components. As the modern Tatar nation includes various groups and subgroups of Tatars we will need to solve a two-uniform problem{task}. First, to reveal and in appropriate way to describe that ethnic fundamental principle on the basis of which there were these groups and subgroups of Tatars. We further shall call this ethnic fundamental principle an ethnos - basis. Second, to find an ethnic basis of separate groups and subgroups of Tatars. Certainly, it is possible for making only at presence of historical sources. We shall proceed on two basic representations, namely: first, ethnogenesis Tatar people was multicomponent, second, during formation of the Kazan Tatars as special ethnographic group of the modern Tatar nation as conducting ethnic components have taken part Volga bulgary and zolotoordynskie Tatars. Therefore in the first block (section) the history of formation Volga bulgar, and in the third section - a history of folding of a generality zolotoordynskih Tatars will be considered. In the fifth section the course of formation of the Kazan Tatars as result of mixture Volga bulgar with zolotoordynskimi Tatars will be considered. The second block - � Volga Bulgarija � - will be devoted to a statement with possible the greater clearness and sequence of the questions connected to a history bulgarskih and closely related them{him;it} of tribes, moved in areas of the Average Volga region. In this section in the center of our attention there will be the problems connected to economic - economic activities Volga bulgar, development of their culture and forms of statehood. The third block - � Ancient Tatars: the origin and historical destiny � is a central part of a course of lectures. It{he} begins with the description of the tjurko-Tatar world before occurrence on historical stage Chingizkhana. This world was extremely various and complex{difficult}. For understanding of an ethnic history of ancient Tatars it is very important to study process of formation of the centralized Mongolian state and to find out his{its} role in historical destiny of Tatars and bulgar. Taking into account this circumstance, a lot of attention will be given to consideration of the questions connected to development of mutual relations between Tatars and Mongols in XII-XIII centuries. The fourth block - "Golden Horde" - is devoted to a statement of the events connected to occurrence and development of one the largest and powerful states of a Middle Ages. In the center of attention there will be not only problems of military-political character, but also questions of development of culture and foreign policy. The fifth block - � Kazan hanstvo: occurrence, development and historical destiny � is a finishing section of the first part of the given course of lectures. The section opens display of process of disintegration before the uniform centralized state Golden Horde and occurrence on his{its} ruins of the new Tatar states - Crimean, Kazan, Siberian and Astrakhan hanstva, and also Nogajskogo princedoms. Formation and development Kazan hanstva have indissolubly been connected to blossoming the Tatar culture, transformation of Kazan into the largest cultural center of a Middle Ages. On the basis of studying historical sources and the corresponding literature the picture of the russko-Tatar mutual relations up to the middle of XVI century is recreated. This section of a course of lectures contains the most sad pages of a history of Tatar people. At the same time in them heroism, self-sacrifice of defenders of Kazan in the name of freedom, independence of people is embodied. Cleanliness of their thoughts, courage have caused admiration in the witness of these events, the author � Histories of the Kazan empire �. In this section the question will be not only inspirers of struggle for preservation of independence, but also about traitors of interests of peoples Kazan hanstva. Each people, naseljavshy his{its} territory, had not only traitors, but also national heroes. A lot of attention in this section will be given to the description of national-liberation struggle. Material of the block � the Organization of cognitive activity of students � skompanovan so that to stimulate cogitative activity of students on the basis of judgement of knowledge received on lectures. The offered{suggested} volume and the maintenance{contents} of tasks are examined by the author not as unique, and as one of variants. The teacher can vary tasks depending on a degree of readiness of students, their skills to analyze a material, to systematize and generalize the received knowledge. As it is supposed, that cognitive activity of students will have creative - search character texts of lectures are given briefly. They reflect only the basic in process ethnogenesisa and an ethnic history of Tatars. The interrelation of the maintenance{contents} of lectures with the methodical block will be to promote, in our opinion, to development in students of skill independently to form generalizations and conclusions on the basis of the analysis of a historical material. Thus, the maintenance{contents} of the block � the Organization of cognitive activity of students � is called to not replace texts of lectures, and to add them. The author aspired to make thus process of knowledge of a history of Tatar people and his{its} historical ancestors interesting and to promote formation at students more a high level of cogitative skills. Thus, the logic structure of a course is aimed at achievement of an overall objective of training - to mastering by the basic fundamental representations on an ethical history of Tatars. The many-sided systematized statement of the major facts and events of a history of Tatar people and his{its} historical ancestors is called to promote this. We believe, that the sequence of a statement of historical events used by us will allow to study and describe in the best way one of the major stages of an ethnic history of Tatars. As far as it was possible to the author, the reader will judge. Advice{Councils} to students. The author started with a substantive provision - training is active process. Simple listening, reading and storing of the facts is of no use. Try to develop skill independently to think. Study and remember ways of thinking, the basic ideas. Learn to reflect and lean{base} on results of the reflections. Learn to take knowledge from historical sources and the special literature. The literature on an ethnic history of Tatars and that is considered her{it}, is rather extensive and various. Most informatsionno capacious historical sources and the literature will be characterized in the beginning of each lecture. Thus the problem{task} will consist not in that all to place on half-glasses and to list{transfer}, as as this or that author about Tatars has written. Our problem{task} - to characterize the sources used by preparation of the text of this or that lecture in the general form. So, the purpose of a course of lectures is determined, the tasks subject to the decision, are formulated. It is necessary to start their realization. |
|
咍蠈譇覷譇 � 瀔鳻毿鳧�� 1. 侹碭� � 勷瞂襙膰� 黓襜謶灚齕鍣 縺鵳�. � �., 1988. 2. 牆蠉斁膼� �.�. 昹歑膱 僽槻翴澮樥 黓襜謶� 矐諘�. � �., 1937. |
Literature and notes 1. News of the Soviet historical science. - �., 1988. 2. Artamonov M.I. Notes on the ancient history of Khazars. - �., 1937. |
|
Contents � Djagfar Tarihi Contents � Historical ancestors of the ancient Bulgars |
|
| 2002固urkicWorld |