Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
|Part 2 - ORIGIN OF TATARS · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Conclusion · Literature · Name and Ethnic Index|
Fourth Chapter - Second half
Madjgar, Bashkurt, Burtas and Bulgar States
127. Is the Madjgarian state related to the statehood of the Bulgaro-Tatars?
The history of the Bulgaro-Tatar statehood we start habitually (euphemism for practical survival tactics during the times from the "friendship of peoples" till today - Translator's Note) only from the time of the formation of the Itil-Bulgarian state. Sometimes, it is also pointed out that the Bulgars used the experience of the Hunnish, Türkic and Khazarian states. In the latest years M.Zakiev started studying the state formations of the Biars, Majdgars, Bashkurts and Burtases, as the pre-Bulgarian states [Zakiev M.Z., 1998, 426-461] (i.e. Zakiev M.Z., Törki-Tatar ètnogenezy. Mèskèu 1998 - Translator's Note).
Our historians did not think about the presence of the Majdgarian/Misharian statehood at all. Only A.H.Halikov in his works about the ethnogenesis of the Tatars has mentioned an attempt by the Mishars to create in the 15th-16th centuries a Temnik state, but it did not succeed in view of the expansion of the Russian state [Halikov A.H., 1978, 130-146]. A.Halikov presupposed that in that region the Türkic-speaking population appeared only in the 13th-14th centuries, if not earlier, as he has added [Ibid, 132]. Following the traditional stereotypes, he considered Madjgars to be Hungarian-speaking, therefore he did not examine their statehood in the Türkic system.
We stated above ( see para. 70 and 91) that the Madjgars of the Ural-Itil region, described rather in detail by the Arabo-Persian travelers, were not Hungarian-speaking, i.e. they were not Magyars, but the Türkic-speaking Madjgars who now are called (in Russian - Translator's Note) Mishyars.
The ethnonym Mishar consists of parts misha-ar ‘forest people or people with tree totem’. Etymologically this ethnonym historically goes back to the ethnonym Akatsir/Agathir/Agach èri (last part -os is the Greek nominal indicator, agath/agaf is 'tree', ir is ‘man, people’). In the 7th century BC Akatsirs had a king, hence, they had a state organization [ Herodotus, IV, 102]. They lived near Byzantium, interfaced with the Danube Finno-Ugrians. Apparently, a part of the Akathyrs (Madjgar) (in this translation is used the conventional spelling of the word Akathyr, aka spelled Akatsir, Akačir etc, representing attempts to convey the sound usually transcribed [ts] in English - Translator's Note) assimilated among the ancestors of the Hungarians, to whom they have transferred their ethnonym Madjgar, adopted by the Hungarian language in the form Magyar (pronounced "Mahdyarr, Mah-dyar, Ma-dyar", not Mag-yar - Translator's Note).
In the 9th-10th centuries AD the Arabo-Persian travelers unanimously informed that "Madjgars are a Türkic tribe. Their leader sets out to a campaign with 20,000 horsemen and is called Kendes. This is a title of their king, because the own name of the man who is their king is Djyla (? Kan Gabdulla Djilki (Shilki), 855-882 ? - Translator's Note). All Madjgars obey orders given by their leader, by the name of Dzhyla, whether he orders to attack the enemy, or repulse the enemy, or what else" [Zahoder B.N., 1967, 48-49]. From these messages it becomes clear that the Madjgars had a state. By the way, their king had a title Kendes ‘core, shaft, center’, hence, he was a core, a center of the country. At that time his personal name was Dzhyla, i.e. Yoyly ‘warm, affable, tender, attentive’.
B.N.Zahoder summarized all information of eastern travelers as follows:
- The beginning of the Madjgar borders is between the country of Besenyos (Badjinaks) (or Bulgars) and the Bulgarian As.k.l. (S'k'l'/Skydy/Scyth - M.Z.) (in this case As.k.l. would be Esegel/Askal/Iskil/Sekels/Székely/Székely-ek/Scyth - Translator's Note);
- Madjgars are Türks … (see above);
- Madjgars live in yurts, they coach in search of pastures;
- The Madjgar country is extensive, a hundred farsahs in length and width (one farsah is approximately 3 miles, or 5-6 km, so we are talking about 500-600 km square - Translator's Note), one side faces the sea, there flow two rivers; Madjgars live between these rivers (Itil and Don - Translator's Note), in the winter they lodge on the bank of that river which is closer, they are engaged in fishery;
- … their clothes are like at Arabs, they are engaged in agriculture …
- In the the Madjgar country are trees, reservoirs, wet lands, arable lands;
- Madjgars attack Slavs (truer: Sakaliba, i.e. Kypchaks. - M.Z.) who neighbor them, turn them into slavery, sell them in the Byzantium;
- Madjgars are idolaters (or fire worshippers);
- Madjgars have a good appearance, they have rich clothes and arms, etc.
In addition B.N.Zahoder notes that in the 7th-8th centuries the Majdgarian state was located along the banks of the rivers Oka and Sura, in the Northern Caucasus, their territory was rich with forests, arable lands and rivers [Zahoder B.N., 1967, 51-53].
The sources inform that to the left of the Madjgars toward the Sakaliba live n.n.d.r., i.e. unnudar = unny = Huns. The river on the right side of the Madjgars flows to the Sakaliba and runs into the Khazarian sea [Ibid, 53] (i.e Itil on the east - Translator's Note).
Probably in the12th century the Majdgarian state was subordinated to the Bulgars, for in the13th century during the invasion of the Mongolo-Tatars we do not meet any more the Madjgars and their state.
Apparently, in their dialects the Bulgars and Madjgars (Mishars) were relatives, for the Mishars/Madjgars live in the territory of the Bulgarian state till now. This fact suggests that as soon as the Bulgars took the power in their hands, Madjgars could immediately voluntarily join the Itil-Bulgarian state.
Thus, the Madjgars (earlier Akathyrs, later Mishars) were able to create their states, and of them the pre-Bulgarian state was a part of the Itil-Bulgarian state.
128. Bashkurtian state and her relation to the Bulgaro-Tatar statehood.
The Bashkirs/Bashkurts in the language and ethnologic relation are the closest to Bulgaro-Tatars people. These peoples formed as a result of consolidation of basically the same tribes, but in different portions and proportions. The Bulgars-Tatars and Bashkirs during different times had the states, and sometimes lived in the same state. Therefore the study of the problems of the Bulgaro-Tatar statehood should also note some stages of the Bashkir statehood development. But, unfortunately, researching the problems of the Bulgaro-Tatar statehood we ignore the similar questions in the ethnically close peoples. In the modern Tatar people we include the Siberian, and the Astrakhan, and the Kasimov Tatars, but our scientific research institutes have no experts on the history of these Tatars, and without that in the nearest years we cannot have a more or less full history of the Bulgaro-Tatars as a whole.
The historians, creating the detailed linguo-ethnical and ethno-political history of our people, should already use the big experience of joined life of the Bashkirs and Tatars.
As is known, the ethnonym Bashkurt was recorded for the first time in the Arabian language sources starting from the 9th century as Bashgrd, Bashĵird, Baskhard, Bashkird, Basĵird, etc. We already stated that in the opinion of the Hungarian and some other scientists, Bashkirs were ostensibly formed as a result of the Türkicizing of the Hungarians-Madjars who in the 7th-8th centuries ostensibly lived in the Ural-Itil region. Even the word Bashkir, they say, is ostensibly a phonetic variation of the ethnonym Magyar. This is, naturally, a far-fetched hypothesis. The Bashkirian scientist N.A.Majitov states that from the 7th century on the banks of the river Agidel (r. White) lived not the Hungarians, but the Bashkirs [Ivanov V.A., 1988, 53-54]. And in our opinion, the Magyars (Madjgars) of the Arabian sources are not the Bashkirs, but the Türkic-speaking Madjgars/Mashgars/Mashars/Mishars.
As to the Bashkirs, they lived among the Madjgars and other tribes under a name Bashkurt, and judging by the dialect of their language, they maintained very close contacts with the ancient Khuarases, Huns, and the ancestors the of the Turkmen: in these languages the [s] is pronounced as [h-kh]: su - hu, suaras - huaras, sön - hön. The staunchness of the Bashkirian ethnos against various assimilating influences is visible, first of all, that the Bashkirs did not change their ethnonym under any circumstances.
But the traditional historical science usually stipulates that the ancestors of the Tatars, and of the Bashkirs ostensibly came to the Ural-Itil region only in the 4th century, together with the Huns, and then also with the Türks; R.G.Kuzeev believes that a part of the Bashkir ancestors, under an ethnonym Büriyan came to the Urals from the Middle Asia in the 6th century AD [Kuzeev R.G., 1974, 140-141]. And the tribes Usergen and Tangaur, a part of the Bashkirs, in his opinion came from the Northern Caucasus together with the Bulgars only in the 10th century [Kuzeev R.G., 1974, 156-158].
The scientist N.Majitov with more rational views on the history of the Bashkirs and Bulgars, also believes that the Türkic tribes came to the Urals inthe 8th-9th centuries from the Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan and, assimilating the local population, helped the formation of the Bashkirs [Majitov Í., Sultanova À., 1994, 166-168].
R.G.Kuzeev and S.F.Muhamedjarov, believing that in the Ural-Itil region earlier lived the Scythians-Ossets, assert that to the lands of the Irano-Ossetians the influx of Türks, the ancestors of the Bashkirs and Tatars, continued even in the 17th century [1990, 51-53].
Naturally, such views on the formation of the Bulgaro-Tatars and Bashkirs do not match the reality. In the 7th-3rd centuries BC in the Ural-Itil region also lived the tribes whom the ancient Greeks called Scythians. And among the Scythians Türks occupied a major place. In the Ural-Itil region the scientists locate the Argippeis and Iirks. The Iirks etymologically correspond to the Biars/Bilyars in their ethnonym. The Argippeis (Yu.Zuev provides a direct and straightforward translation of "argippei": "In ancient Greek the word "argippei" means "white-horsed" ["Â äðåâíå-Ãðå÷åñêîì ÿçûêå ñëîâî àðãèïïåè çíà÷èò "áåëîêîííûå""]. Yu.Zuev, Kaganate Seyanto and Kimeks, 2004, p. 18 - Translator's Note) are usually identified with the ancestors of the Bashkirs. The Bashkirs call irat (ir 'man', at 'horse') the comely men capable to protect their family and their native land. The ancestors of the Bashkir could explain to the visiting Greeks (or to Herodotus) the meaning of the word irat as literally 'men-horse', and the Greeks could leave the first part of a word ir/ar without translation, and translate the other part -at into the Greek language as gippei; in the result the Türkic irat could take the form Argippei (This hypothesis may be not as far-fetched as it looks. The Greek scholars must have known the term "ir/ar" as well as we know the terms "homo" and "man", because of the Greeks were surrounded in all sides by the tribes with "ir/ar" in their names. If we can make "Frenchman" and "Kentishman", though neither French nor Celtic people called themselves "man", the Greeks also could compose a transparently sounding name - Translator's Note). There is potentially another etymology also: in the word Argippei the last part pei/pi coincides with the Türkic primary ethnonym bi/bay/pi/pey; then the first part argy coincides with the Türkic argy 'remote', ‘that side’. In this case Argippei means ‘distant bei/pei’, or the ‘pei/bei from that side’. Here it should not be forgotten that a prominent historian S.I.Rudenko regards the Argippeis also the ancestors of the Bashkirs [Rudenko S.I., 1955, 331].
If the Herodotus' Argippeis and Iirks are accepted as the ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars it should be recognized that they could have their state formations even before our era. But the first known state of the Biars/Bilyars, one of the ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars and Bashkir, was the Biarmia, where later the prevailing position instead of the Bilyars/Biars was taken by the Bulgars, and in the east by the Tabynians (a part of the Bashkirs).
The Bashkirian scientist R.Bukanova believes that in parallel with the Bulgarian state in the east was formed a state, the Tabynian Khanate, which then became a part of the large state created by the Khan Bashkir [Bukanova Ð., 1997, 195-197].
We find more detailed information about it in the works of N.Majitov and A.Sultanova. In their opinion, the Bashkirs were located between the Bulgars and Kimaks. In 9th-12th centuries they had their statehood. Even before the Mongolian onslaught the Bashkirs passed the consolidation stage and created a confederation, a union of seven tribal associations. From the results of the study of the genealogy of the Usergans, N.Majitov deducts a conclusion that the territory subordinated to the Bashkir state reached from the r. White and Kama to the Tobol and Irtysh rivers [Majitov Í., Sultanova À., 1994, 208-209, 242].
Recognized by the Bashkir scientists, the Bashkirs had their state which in vassalage to the Bulgarian state. This is also confirmed by the record of the foreign travelers. So, Idrisi who lived at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries, notes the ethnic affinity of the Bulgars and Bashkirs. His contemporary al-Balhi tells that Bashkirs recognized their dependency from the Bulgars [Majitov Í., Sultanova À., 1994, 207-208]. Hence, the economic and political influence of the Bulgars, through the subordinated Bashkir Khanate, reached the ancestors of the Western Siberian Tatars, who were living in the region of the r. Tobol and Irtysh.
The scientists suggest still in the 1219-1220 a part of the Bashkirs was included in the Mongolo-Tatar state when Chingiz-Khan had his main stan on the Irtysh river, and the all territory of the Southern Siberia, Kazakhstan and Middle Asia was already subjugated [Majitov Í., Sultanova À., 1994, 243. N.Majitov foresees that, apparently, between the conquerors and the subjugated Bashkirs was made a treaty and a friendship union. This is evidenced by the Muyten bej (the Bashkir Khan) from all Bashkirs went to Chingiz-Khan with large gifts, and achieved his favor [Ibid, 244].
The western Bashkirs retained a close connection with the Bulgars. In the 1223 in the deciding battles of the Bulgars against the Mongolo-Tatar conquerors the Bashkir cavalry actively participated also. The Bulgars and Bashkirs completely destroyed the Mongolo-Tatar troops. And in the battles of the Bulgars in the 1229 and 1232 against the Mongolo-Tatar, Bashkirs also fought together with the Bulgars [Majitov Í., Sultanova À., 1994, 245-248].
In the 1236-39 the Bulgars and Bashkirs, not sustaining the Mongolo-Tatar pressure, agreed to recognize their authority. Apparently, that was the reason for the Tatars to retain the Bashkiro-Bulgarian state integrity within the Djuchi Ulus, but the Bulgars and Bashkirs were not allowed to unite, minding their strength. The Bashkirian integrity turned out to be stronger, more monolithic, than that of the Bulgars. This is evidenced by the Bashkirs preserving their ethnonym in any conditions, while the Bulgars in a due course accepted the ethnonym Tatar.
Thus, some epizodes in the emergence and development of the Bashkir statehood are also directly connected with the problems of the Bulgarian state.
Here we should note two negative phenomena in the research of the Bulgaro-Tatars' and Bashkirs' history. The first is that some Tatar historians study both the Bulgarian, and the pre-Bulgarian periods of the history only as the Tatarian, and under the name Tatars, which is an anachronism because the ethnonym Tatars was accepted by the nation itself only in the middle of the 19th century. The second is that the Bashkirian scientists study the history of the Bilyar/Biar, Geyne, Min, Saralymin, Ürmi, etc. tribes, which are a part of both the Bulgaro-Tatars, and the Bashkir, only as the Bashkirian tribes. Actually, their major part is in the Bulgaro-Tatar nation.
129. Did the Burtas state exist and what relation it had to the Bulgarian state?
In the traditional historical science the ethnic structure of Burtases is defined in a number of ways.
The Indo-European scientists believe that Burtases are Ossets, for in their ethnonym is a primary ethnonym As which ostensibly belonged to the Ossets. The first part of the ethnonym ostensibly consists from the Persian burt/furt 'son': Burtas/Burt-as in the Persian is ‘son of As, i.e. son of people As’. In the opinion of the traditionalists, inthe 8th-11th centuries the Burtases were the Persian-lingual Ossets, and in the12th century under an influence of the Bulgars they started Bulgarizing, and this process came to the end only in the 17th century.
Trusting the correctness of this Burtaso-Ossetic concept, A.H.Halikov called Burtases not simply Burtases, but always Bulgarized Burtases. Continuing this concept, A.H.Halikov came to a conclusion that as a result of the Bulgarization of the Burtases were formed the Hungarian-speaking Magyars, who then turned into the Türkic-speaking Mishars/Mishgars. This position he proves by the ethnonym Magyar is replaced with the ethnonym Burtas in the territories where earlier lived the Magyars-Hungarians [Halikov A.H., 1990, 96-97].
This concept, though it matches the traditional views of the historians, does not match the reality. Arguing more or less realistically, really, the unsoluble contradictions about the Burtassko-Ossetic concept spring up at once. First, if the Burtases were Ossetian-lingual, in their territories would necessarily be remaining the Ossetic toponyms, but they do not exist. Hence, in these territories the Burtases were not Ossetian-lingual. Secondly, if the Mishars were formed by Türkicizing of the Burtas-Ossets, in the Mishar language would be preserved the Ossetic substrate words, but they also do not exist. Hence, the Mishars formed not from the Ossetic substrate. Thirdly, if the Mishars were Ossets and only in the 12th-17th centuries were Türkicized, they would carry the ethnonym Burtas or Osset, and would be called Mishyars/Madjgars.
The science has still another viewpoint, according to which the Burtases were the ancestors of either Mordva or even Mari. But till now it has not find any proofs.
From the reliable sources many scientists have proved that the Burtases were Türkic-speaking from the very beginning [Zahoder B.N., 1962, 243; Priests A.I., 1973, 116-120; Zakiev M.Z., 1990, 21-29; Zakiev M.Z., 1998, 242-245].
The ethnonym Burtas is formed from two Türkic roots by the Türkic model. As is the primary Türkic ethnonym, and the first part burta/murta is the Türkic word with a meaning ‘swell, decay inside’. From the research of the scientists, this word historically ascends to the Nostratic (i.e. uniting Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, and Altai languages) bor/bura/bort/mur/murt [Illich-Svitych V.M., 1971, 186-187; Vasmer Ì., 1986, vol. 1, 198, 248]. The word burta/murta is used in a sense ‘beehive, bee-keeping’. In the Tatar literary language ‘beehive, bee-keeping’ is umarta, in the Misharian dialect it is murta. The Russian word "bortnichestvo", the wild-hive beekeeping, is formed from the root burta/murta/bort .
The Türkic Ases of the Ural-Itil region who were gathering honey in the forests (wild-hive beekeeping), were called Burta As, from this comes their name Burtas. As notes B.N.Zahoder, alongside with provision of furs, the sources mention the wild-hive beekeeping at Burtases; the honey, according to the sources, is the major detail of the Burtas prosperity. Gardizi and Marvazi, noting the absence of fruits at Burtases, state that "wine there is prepared from the honey" [Zahoder B.N., 1962, 245].
According to the Compendilum of information about the Eastern Europe, collected and investigated by B.N.Zahoder, Burtases lived in the Middle Itil between the Khazars and Bulgars. The Burtas is a name of the people, and the country, and the city. Masudi informs that the Burtas is a people from the Türks [Zahoder B.N., 1962, 230-234].
Burtases are recorded in the eastern sources, beginning in the 9th-10th centuries, but it does not mean that they lived in the Middle Itil region only from the 10th century. Burtases, like the other Ases and Türks (Suases ‘Water Ases’, Taulases ‘Mountain Ases’, Huns/Süns, Alans, Subars/Suars/Sabirs), lived way before our era, but only in the 9th-10th centuries reached the historical development to reveal themselves.
In the 8th-9th centuries Burtases, possessing a real force, occupied a large territory, and did not accede to neither the Khazars, nor the Bulgars, but lived independently. But the sources do not note a presence of their king. Therefore to tell surely that Burtases had a state is still impossible. But some public organization, administration they had. The sources inform that in each district exists one or two elders to whom Burtases address about their problems, that these elders hold court in case of any conflicts or something else that took place between them [Zahoder B.N., 1962, 247]. Without their particular statehood, the Burtases could not live between the two strong states of the Khazars and Bulgars. Such a particular Burtas state, apparently, existed in the 7th-9th centuries, by the 10th century it was completely subordinated to the Itil Bulgaria, for from then on about Burtases having their country is not mentioned any more [Zahoder B.N., 1962.243].
The problems of the relationship of the Burtas state with the Itil Bulgaria for the present were not investigated, for in spite of the fact that the ancient sources clearly noted the Türkic-speaking of the Burtases, the historians for some reasons tried to tear their destiny from both the Khazars, and from the Bulgars, were identifying them with the Finno-Ugrians, and the Indo-European historians were drawing them into the Persian-lingual Ossets.
Now we can tell with confidence that the Burtases were the same Türkic-speaking, as the Khazars and Bulgars; the Burtas country was related to both Khazaria, and the Bulgarian state, they ended up a part of the Itil Bulgaria. In the census of the 1624-1626 the Burtases are designated as supporting Tatars, in the former Itil Bulgaria territory survived many Burtas toponyms, giving the evidence to the Türkic-speaking of the Burtases [Zakiev M.Z., 1998, 244-245].
130. First Bulgar/Bolgar states.
In the traditional Türkology the first Bulgar/Bolgar state is considered the Great Bulgaria of the Khan Kurbat (called distorted Kubrat by the author - Translator's Note). But the Danube Bolgarian scientists believe that still before our era Bulgars had a state in the headwater region of of Amu Darya, in the Pamir and Hindukush mountains, in the most civilized part of the Middle Asia.
As the Bulgarian scientist Peter Dobrev states, in a well-known Latin anonymous chronograph of the 345 the name of the ancient Bulgars is used to designate the ancient Baktrians, who were also living in the territory near the Pamir and Hindukush. In the north the Bactria bordered Sogd, and the Sogdians called the northern part of the Pamir Blgar, the Arabs called it Burgar, the Afghans called it Falgar or Palgar [Dobrev Ï., 1999, January].
Bactria is one of the most ancient centers of the agricultural culture and statehood formation in the Middle Asia, where a slaveholding society already existed in the 1st half of the 1st millennium BC. In the 6th-4th centuries BC Bactria was included into the Ahaemenid state, and then in the Alexander the Great empire, and after its disintegration arose the Greko-Baktrian kingdom. Then in the 2nd century BC Bactria, together with Sogd, became a center of the upcoming Kushanian state created mostly by the Tochars. After the name of the main inhabitants this region started to be called Toharistan. In the 14th-15th centuries the area to the south from the Amu Darya was called Balh, it was the name of the city and of the tribe, it constitutes the first part of the ethnonym balh-ar/balhar/bolgar.
Click to enlarge
Thus, in this most civilized part of the Middle Asia along with many other Türkic tribes also lived the Balhars/Balgars, who created there the states Balgar and Balhara, which were famous as "the country of a thousand cities".
To present more clearly the location of these ancient Bulgarian states, we shall demonstrate here the map of the Middle Asia reconstructed by the Academician S.Eremyan from the materials of the Armenian geography "Ashharauyts" and Ptolemy records.
Click to enlarge
S.P.Tolstov, studying the Ancient Khoresm, came to a conclusion that over the ancient, blazed still in the Neolith (8th-3rd millenniums BC) roads, Khoresm extends its hegemony to the distant Kama area, where the influences of the Khoresm and Helleno-Scythian N. Pontic intersect [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 342]. From this message, also follows a conclusion that alongside with the other tribes, Bulgars very early appeared in the Kama area and in the Northern Pontic, and also in the Western Siberia. And in these regions they could have had their states. Of the known Bulgarian states, in detail was studied the Great Bulgaria of Khan Kurbat.
In the center of the former ancient Akathyrian state, in the Northern Pontic and in the Northern Caucasus approximately in 632 on the ruins of the Western Türkic Kaganate Bulgars organized a powerful state which the Byzantian historians called Ancient Great Bulgaria. Its ruler was known as Khan Kubrat (Greek-distorted from Kurbat, where Kur/Chur = "prince", Bat = "father, superior", used by the author - Translator's Note) from a clan Dulo of the Bolgaro-Onogurian (Onogundurian) origin.
The traditional Türkology recognizes that Bulgars came to the East Europe from the Southern Siberia during the Great Movement of Peoples [Ühas P., 1985, 437-444]. The Bulgarian scientists, also by tradition, believe that during the rough epoch of the Great Movement the ancient Bulgars were expelled from their former native land, Pamir and Hindukush, by some nomad tribes, and resettled with their old civilized neighbors, Massagets and Sakas,in the Caucasus, and then from there spread over all Northern Pontic region.
Actually in those regions the Bulgars lived long before our era, in the 7th century they accumulated a big force, and in the result the power from the hands of the Akathyrs (Madjgars/Mishars) passed to the Bulgars.
That the Bulgars lived there long before our era clearly shows that fact that in the 7th century BC, during colonization of the Northern Pontic by the Greeks, there were cities of Phanogoria and Panticapaeum. The Fanagors/Honogurs are the direct ancestors of the Bulgars, and the name Panticapaeum historically ascends to the Bulgaro-Türkic Pontykapy, i.e. pont-kapa ‘Pontus Gate’. In another way this city was called in Türkic/in Bolgarian Kirish 'entrance' which later began to sound as Kerch. The ancient name of the Black Sea (kara "black" here means 'too rich'), Ponty also ascends to the Türko-Bulgarian bunty/punty that means ‘rich with food, with eatable’, 'feeder'.
The ancient Great Bulgaria reached from the r. Dnieper to the r. Kuban, and from the r. Donets to the Black and Azov Seas. Neighboring them, i.e. the Onogundurs/Onogurs, in the Caucasus lived other ancient Bulgarian tribal groups: Kupi-Bulgars, Chdar-Bulgars, Kuchi-Bulgars. Their names are mentioned in the Armenian geography of Anani Shiranatsi. The all at the time belonged to the Western Türkic to Kaganate.
In the 632 Khan Kurbat united all Bulgars and related to them tribes along the coasts of the Azov and Caspian Seas. During a struggle against the Western Türkic Kaganate the other khans had to recognize the supreme authority of Kurbat, and that actually predetermined the formation of the Great Bulgaria.
The reign of the Khan Kurbat gave a rise to the establishment of the permanent and active standing of the Bulgars in the state and political life in the history of the Medieval Europe. The Byzantian chronists Theophan and Nikifor write that Kubrat bequeathed his sons to be unitited to be able to rule everywhere, and to not submit to other peoples [Kaymakamova M. Great Bulgaria during Kubrat from the clan Dulo (632-665). 1999 Calendar. April]. But they did not follow the Kurbat's will, and by the end of 70es of the 7th century the Great Bulgaria broke down under the attacks of the Khazars and Arabs.
131. Danube Bulgaria and her connections with the Itil Bulgaria.
After the death of Kurbat in 665 the Great Bulgaria gradually breaks up under the attacks of Khazars. The first son of Kurbat, Bayan (known as Bat-Bayan, i.e. "Elder", or "Superior" Bayan - Translator's Note) remained in the lands of the Great Bulgaria as a vassal of the Khazars. The second son (known in the literature as Kotrag because he lead his Kuturgurs (Kotrags) - Translator's Note) with his army retreated to the Itil Bulgars. The third son Asparuh (Atilkese Asparuh, where "Asparuh" is an appellation of the proper name - Translator's Note) left to the west to the borders of Byzantium. Passing over the Dnieper and Dniestr, Asparuh with his retinue (and his Onogurs (Utigurs) - Translator's Note) settled in the Southern Bessarabia (called at the time Atilkese - Translator's Note) in the immediate proximity of the Byzantium. These Bulgars, led by Asparuh, were to play a major role in the formation of the Danube Bulgaria, which overlived all the empires of that time and exists to this day.
In the 680, after a conclusion of a peace treaty with the Arabs, the Byzantium army undertakes a strong campaign by the sea and by land against the (Asparuh - Translator's Note) Bulgars. The Byzantines suffered a shattering defeat. After the victory, (Asparuh - Translator's Note) Bulgars cross r. Danube and invade the Lower Moesia province (present Northern Bolgaria). Khan Asparuh attracts the Slavic tribes who penetrated there in the 6th century. The war with Byzantium continues. In the 681 the Byzantium emperor (Justinian II Cut-nose, where "Cut-nose" is an appellation of the proper name - Translator's Note) was compelled to conclude a peace treaty with Khan Asparuh, and the Byzantium starts paying an annual tribute to the (Asparuh - Translator's Note) Bulgars.
The Danube Bulgaria continues the traditions of the Kurbat's powerful Great Bulgaria state in the new territory.
Khan Asparuh proves to be a far-seeing statesman and gives the Slavs an opportunity to live in the conditions of the internal political autonomy. Therefore all the population of the country is interested in protecting the newly won lands. The Bolgars concentrate their forces in the northwestern Bolgaria where the fortress Pliska becomes a capital of the state. The borders of the Bulgaria as a whole were Danube, Black Sea, Stara Planina; within the limits of the state also were some lands on the other side of the Danube.
The prevailing position in the Bolgaria for a long time was in the hands of the Bolgars-Türks led by a Khan, who was a military leader and a supreme priest. In the opinion of the scientists, there the Türkic and Slavic languages intersect, but the Slavic form wins (i.e. the mixed Türko-Slavic lexicon within the framework of the Slavic grammar - Translator's Note).
Asparuh, probably, fell in a fight with Khazars (in 700), his successor became his son Tervel, who ruled for 21 years, and was a talented commander. He succeded in adding also other territories to the Bulgarian state. He earned special merits defending the Byzantium, and was awarded the title "Caesar". In the 717 the Byzantian emperor once again asks for the help from Tervel.
The problem was that the capital of the empire Constantinople was besieged by the Arabs, and the Byzantian capitulation was a matter of time. Tervel, as the clever diplomat, considers neighboring with the saved Byzantium more favorable than bordering the Arabs. The 30-thousand strong heavy calvary of the Bulgars, dressed in chain mail from the feet to the head, attacked the Arabs from the rear and struck them a crushing blow.
This victory played a major role in the destiny of the Southeast and Central Europe. The army of the Arabs, which broke to the Western Europe through the Spain and Southern Italy, could wipe out the Byzantium, but was finally broken. The name Bulgaria becomes famous in all civilized world [Angelov D. "Khan Asparuh from the clan Dulo (680-700), a founder of the Danube Bulgaria, and his son Khan Tervel (700-721)". 1999 Calendar. June].
The Danube Bulgaria maintains close connections with the Caucasian Balkaria and the Itil Bulgaria, which western borders reach the Crimea and almost the Kiev.
Until now in the historical science the role of the Türks-Bulgars and Slavs in the following development of the Danube Bulgaria is considered disputable. The historians of the Slavic peoples and a part of the scientists in the Bolgaria believe that the Bulgars were only nomadic cattlemen, and they were subjected to the influence of the Slavic culture, and therefore was going a gradual process of assimilation of the Türkic-speaking Bulgars by the Slavs.
But other scientists believe that this tendentious view does not match the reality. The Hungarian researcher of the Bulgars from their most ancient times, Peter Ühas, proved that the Türko-Bulgarian tribes were involved in agriculture still in their Asian ancestral motherland [Ühas P., 1985, 439]. In his opinion, Türko-Bulgars were at a higher level than it is suggested by the historical science.
"It would be a crime in respect to the science to silence or ignore the data of the written sources, comparative linguistics, ethnography and archeology, which unanimously testify to a high thousand-year old material and spiritual culture of the Türko-Bolgars. And therefore has no foundation that uniformly adopted also in the scientific literature concept according to which the Türko-Bulgars are yielded a minimal role in the creation of the Bulgarian state and later of the Bulgarian people and its culture" [Ühas P., 1985, 444] Museum sidekick click here.
132. Emergence of the pre-Mongolian Itil Bulgaria.
In a traditional historical science, as soon as an ethnogenesis of a people is started to be studied, immediately is raised a deeply incorrect traditional question: from where and when they came here? In reality, as soon as a people start to be engaged in a producing economy, it becomes unprofitable to abandon the familiar places where they have adapted their economy for the environment of the native place. Even the cattlemen had permanent summer pastures and winter settlements. To their own pastures they tried to allow the others. A resettlement of a certain part of the population was observed only in exceptional situations. And the migration of the whole people, of the whole country or a state, sometimes described by historians (for example, the migration of the ancient Hungary from the Ural-Itil region to the Pannonia), is, most likely, from a fantasy area. This is first.
Second, in accordance with the biological laws, the various tribes, finding themselves in a common territory, always tried to interact between themselves both in the economic, and in the biological relation. Among them during various periods of history ones were rising above the others. The ethnonym of a prevailing tribe was becoming known in the other countries, and under that name was recorded in the foreign sources. The ethnonym of a prevailing tribe, which seized the power, was also spread to the others as a general name.
The problems of the forming of the Itil Bulgarian state and its ethnic structure till now are being studied separately from the neighboring regions, whiose ethnic composition is recorded in various historical sources. Therefore the earlier reconstructed history of the Itil Bulgaria cannot satisfy us from the viewpoint of the conformity of its many instances with the reality. So, for example, is the statement that the first Bulgars came to the Itil region from the southeast of Europe in the middle of the 8th century, a new powerful wave of Bulgar migration was repeated again in the end of the 10th century, and ostensibly only after that came the forming of the Bulgarian culture [Kazakov E.P., 1992, 325]. At that time are ostensibly known seven names of the tribes and ethnic groups. These are Bulgars, Esegels (skl > s'k'l' > s'k'd' > s'k'dy > Scyth - M.Z.), Bersulas, Bilers, Barandjars, Suazes and Bajdjards [Kazakov E.P., 1992, 326]. Some historians write that the son of Kubrat Kotrag with his retinue came to the Itil region and created the Itil-Bulgarian state: Kubrat died in 665, his son should create the state in the Itil area at the end of the 7th century; but at the same time is considered as established that this state was created at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries.
Actually, as we saw above, the ancient Middle Asian and Near Eastern states had the closest contacts with the Kama area, and hence, also with the Itil region, already in the Neolithic period. I shall repeat here again the S.P.Tolstov's conclusion that the hegemony of the Ancient Khoresm was recognize in the 4th century by the Aorses (Avars. - M.Z.), Alans -Ases of the Northern Caspian and N. Caucasus. A branch of the Horezmian Siyavushids appears as a new "Sauromatian" Aspurgian dynasty in the Bospor (8 BC - 38 AD Aspurgas, son of Asander, the dynasty lasts from 8 BC to 341 AD - Translator's Note). Along the ancient ways blazed still in the Neolith, the Khoresm extends its hegemony to the distant Kama area, where the influences of the Khoresm and Helleno-Scythian N. Pontic intersect [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 342].
Recall that the Kwarezmians/Horasmians were formed by consolidation of the Suar/Huar and As tribes, in another way they are called Kangha/Kangar/Kungur, next to the Horasmians lived the Sumers, whose ethnonym comes from the ethnonym Subar/Sumar/Sumer, their self-name was Kangar/Kungur. To the east of the Horasmis lived the ancient Bulgars, who created two states, Balgar and Balhara in the Pamir and Hindukush.
If the Middle East and Middle Asia since the Neolith times a had very close contacts with the Western Siberia, Ural-Itil region, Caucasus and Northern Pontic, it is natural to suggest that in the Ural-Itil region still before our era were both the Balgars/Bulgars, and the Ases, and Suars/Huars, and Kungurs/Kangars. In addition, in the Middle Asia still before our era lived the Süns/Huns, Sogdys (Sakdys), Pardys (Parthians), Usuns, Ars/Irs, Tochars/Tauars, Kusans/Kasans, etc. These tribes or tribal associations were spread also in the Ural-Itil region. Listing the local Türkic-speaking tribes we should take into account the Türkic Burtases, Madjgars/Mishars, Sarymans, Saralys, Khazars, etc.
As to the presence in the Ural-Itil region of a statehood, the Danube Bolgarian scientists infer the presence there of the Bulgarian state as early as the 2nd-3rd centuries AD [Miyatev P., 1999. The Itil Bulgaria. Bulgarian Calendar 1999. May]. But at that time there and in the Middle Asia flourished the empire of the Kusans/Kasans/Kazans. They also had a huge role in ethnic development of the Itil region.
The Bulgars, as we have noted above, were not nomads, they were engaged in agriculture and cattle herding still before our era. Therefore with a full confidence it is possible to state that the agricultural settled culture of the Imenkovians was left by these Türkic tribes. During the existence of this culture, i.e. in the 4th-7th centuries, the Biars/Bilyars started taking a prevalent place among other Türkic and not Türkic local tribes, they created at the end of the 7th, or maybe, in the beginning of the 8th century, a strong, rich in every respect state that came into history as Biarm/Biarmia/Biarmland. At the end of the 8th - 9th century this state gradually passes from the hands of the Biars/Bilyars into the hands of the gaining on them Bulgars. So, in the 11th century was formed the Itil-Bulgarian state. Thus the Itil Bulgars succeeded in using the experience in organization of the many states in the West, East, South and North.
Thus, the Itil Bulgaria arose in the region where, since the 3rd millennium BC, was accumulating the experience of creation, presence and fall of many states: the Ancient Khoresm, Ancient Balgar, Ancient Pardys (Parthia), Kushan empire, Hun's tribal union, Türkic Kaganate, Khazaria, etc.
133. Territory of the Itil Bulgaria.
The precise definition of the state territory in the antiquity and Middle Ages is almost impossible, for no their fixed borders existed then. But it is possible to establish approximately the base territory and the territory of their hegemony. Our scientists usually do not distinguish between the borders of the pre-Mongolian and post-Mongolian Bulgaria. The territory of the Itil Bulgaria is delimited by the right bank of the r. Kama from the north, the basin of r. Sviyaga from the west, a line Chistopol - Bilyarsk, or sometimes by the r. Shishma from the east, and the Samara Bend region from the south [Halikov A.H., 59-70; Kazakov E.P., 1992, 6-7]. Coming from the archeological data, F.S.Huzin extends these borders a little: he places the southeast border by the river Yaik, the western border runs to the r. Sura, the southern border he also places in theSamara Bend area , and the northern border he limits by the river Kazanka [Huzin F.S., 1995, 105].
These boundaries of the Itil Bulgaria do not agree with the historical connections of that country, and here again are ignored the borders of the neighboring countries. Following the Itil Bulgaria delimitations by A.H.Halikov, E.P.Kazakov and F.S.Huzin, we cannot explain the wide complex connections of that country with both the neighboring, and with the far countries.
In this connection are pertinent some observations of the Danube Bolgarian historians. Even before the formation of Kurbat's Great Bulgaria, in the opinion of the Bulgarian scientists, Bulgars, in addition to the Balgar and Balhar in the Pamir and Hindukush, in the 5th century AD created the extensive Bulgarian state of Khan Irnik, which covered a huge territory from the Northern Pontic to the r. Irtysh, including the Northern Caucasus, Northern Kama area, and the lake Balkhash, its northern borders passed along the right bank of the r. Kama and Middle Itil (see map).
The realm of Khan Bel-Kermek (Gr. Khan Hernach, Slav. Khan Irnik), 463-489 (Map header by Translator)
This map of Irnik's Bulgaria makes also clear the Itil Bulgaria map of the 9th-13th centuries, also drawn by the Danube Bolgarian scientists (see the following map) which allows to track the contacts of the Bulgars with many countries.
Itil Bulgaria in the 9th-13th centuries
On this map the western border of the Itil Bulgaria passes along the line: the city of Phanagoria - r. Don, Oka - headwaters of Northern Dvina - Barents sea; the northern border passes the Barents Sea - Kara Sea (Türk. Kar dinggeze ‘Snow Sea’); eastern border: lower course of Yenisei - headwaters of Ob and Irtysh; southern border: Balkhash (Balhash/balg-As) where lived the Balg(ars) and Ases - northern coast of Aral Sea - northern part of the Caspian Sea - Caucasus ridge - to Phanagoria.
Objecting this definition of the question about the territory of the Itil Bulgaria is tough.
Coming from all available materials, in the book "Törki-Tatar ètnogenezy" we also tried to define the borders of the pre-Mongolian Itil Bulgaria (page 467). Now appeared the new data determining some parts of the borders of that country more precisely. with The Danube Bolgaria scientists on the basis of every possible source also determined the borders of the pre-Mongolian Itil Bulgaria (see map) that we believe is agreeable. What evidence prompts us to agree with this definition of the territory of the pre-Mongolian Itil Bulgaria?
Let's take the western borders, they are: Phanagoria - r. Don - r. Oka. First, the medieval Arab geographer al-Idrisi in the 1154, defining the borders of the incipient Rus, wrote that west of Russia is Poland, to the southwest are the Burdjan lands, i.e. the Danube Bulgaria, in the southeast is Kumania, in the south is the Black Sea, in the east is the Itil Bulgaria, in the north is the Gloom Sea (Arctic ocean), in the northwest is the city of Novgorod that does not belong, in the words of al-Idrisi, to any malik [Konovalova I.G., 1999, 124]. From this description, it is natural to draw a conclusion that the western borders of the Itil Bulgaria coincided with the eastern borders of the incipient Russia (the author is using the term "Ancient Rus", the only term legalized in the Russian publications, which is translated here as "early, or incipient Rus", to avoid using the term defined as pertaining to a period 1,000 years earlier - Translator's Note).
Ibn-Fadlan repeatedly pointed to the connections of the Bulgars with the northern peoples, the information about them was reaching other peoples from the words of the Bulgars, and therefore the northern borders of the Itil Bulgaria, delineated on the map by the Danube Bolgaria scientists, deserve a most close attention. The indication of the eastern borders could be approximate, for the region of the rivers Irtysh, Ob, Yenisei is the native land of the Türks and Finno-Ugors. During the existance of the Itil Bulgaria there were no other state formations.
The southern and southeastern borders of the Itil Bulgaria coincided with northwestern and northern borders of the Khoresm. P.I.Rychkov also wrote about it [Rychkov P.I., 1999, 40]. But the Itil Bulgaria could extend its southern borders to the Caspian Sea and to the Caucasian ridge only after the Khazaria was ravaged by Rus.
Thus, the Itil Bulgaria initially took a a small part of the Biarmia, and then gradually expanded its territory and as a result became a powerful empire.
134. Results of the sovereign development of the Itil Bulgaria.
Every state always aspired to independence, i.e. to the sovereignty. The Itil Bulgaria was not an exception. Evolving on the former Biarmian (Bilyarian or Biarian) lands with direct relation with the powerful then Khazarian Kaganate, she aspired to the independence first of all from the Khazars. In the Khazaria were spread the Christianity , and the Islam, and the Judaism. The last gradually received the national importance.
The Bulgars searched persistently for the ways to the sovereignty, and at last found it: they decided to protect themselves from others by the authority of the strongest power of that time, the Arabian Caliphate. In spite of the fact that together with the Khazars many Bulgars already became Moslems, the Bulgarian state decided to accept Islam officially as a state religion. The other preconditions for the sovereignty were already there: the common territory, close economic ties between the regions of the country, similarity or uniformity in the style of life and culture of the ethnic groups melting into a nation, and the common, or at least clear to everybody, language [Halikov A.H., 1989, 87]. Only one ingredient was missing: official acceptance of Islam, and that happened in the 922, it was not a simple acceptance of Islam, but it meant the achievement of the sovereignty under an ideological wing of the Arabian Caliphate which enabled the unobstructed political, economic and cultural development of the country.
According to the archeologists, in the beginning of 11th century the Itil Bulgaria turns into a country of cities. Only in the central Bulgarian lands are recorded about 200 ancient fortresses [Halikov A.H., 1989, 90]. The basis of the economy in the pre-Mongolian Bulgaria was the advanced for its time agriculture, combined with meat-and-milk cattle breeding. The national economy also depended on the developed various craft manufacturing: ferrous metallurgy, forging, jeweler, bronze casting, ceramics, tanning, bone cutting, lumber and other crafts. Accordingly were developing both internal and foreign trade, which helped the close economic and cultural unification of all parts of the Bulgarian lands, and all ethnic groups of the population. In the 11th-12th centuries all that resulted in the consolidation of the local Türkic-speaking and Türkicized tribes, and in the formation of the all-Bulgarian nation.
The utmost display of the results of the sovereign development of the Itil Bulgaria was the successful resistance of the Bulgars against the Mongolian invasion.
The early feudal Mongolian state led by Chingiz-Khan in the 1207-1211 subordinated the peoples of the Siberia and Eastern Turkestan: Buryats, Yakuts, Oirots, Kirgizes, Uigurs, in the 1211-1215 was conquered the Northern China, in the 1215 was taken Peking. In the 1218 the power of the Mongolian feudal lords was also spread over the Jetty Su (Seven rivers - Translator's Note). In the 1219 Mongolian armies invaded Middle Asia, they took the cities of Otrar, Hodjent, Urgench, Bukhara, Samarkand, etc. In the 1221 with the capture of Khoresm the conquest of the Middle Asia was completed. The military actions were moved to the territory of the modern Afghanistan. Here the son of the Horezmshah, Djelal-ad-din, for the first time has shown a resistance to the Mongols, but by the end of the 1221 he was also crushed, and then the main Mongolian forces left to Mongolia.
Only a 30-thousand strong expeditionary corps headed by Djebe and Subedei continued a war in the west. The Mongolian army broke through the Northern Iran into the Southern Caucasus, and devastated a part of the Georgia and Azerbaijan, by the coast of the Caspian Sea it has penetrated into the Alanian lands, and after crushing them, came to the Kipchak steppes. In a fight at the river Kalka on May, 31, 1223 the Mongolian army defeated the allied Ruso-Kipchak army, pursued it to the river Dnieper, and then decided to capture the Itil Bulgaria [Kargalov V.V. BSE, 3rd edition, vol. 16, 520].
This strong Mongolian army, considered invincible, in the autumn of 1223 in territory of the Itil Bulgaria suffered a defeat for the first time.
The Bulgars, who had close connection with Khoresm, learned beforehand about the events of the Mongolian invasion, and started preparing for repulsion of the Mongolian threat. In the autumn of the 1223 Mongols crossed Itil and entered in the territory of Bulgaria. Under message Ibn-al-Asir, the Bulgars "in several places set up ambushes, moved against them, met them, and drawing them until they came to the ambush location, attacked them from the rear so that they stayed in the middle; the sword was slashing them from all directions, a multitude was annihilated, and only a few of them escaped. It was said that them (whose who survived?) were up to 4,000 men. They went to Saksin, on the way back to their malik Chingiz-Khan, and the Kypchak lands were freed of them; those of them who survived have returned to their land". The Bulgar amies, apparently, were headed by the Ilgam Khan then ruling in Bulgar, who skillfully organized the whole battle and won a convincing, unknown in those times victory [Halikov A.H., 1994, 24].
The victory of the Bulgars in the 1223 over the military forces of the Mongols had far-reaching consequences: the Mongolian invasion of the Bulgaria, Rus and Europe was delayed to almost the end of the 30es of the 13th century.
In the 1229 against the Bulgaria again begun a Mongolian campaign, authorized during the Mongolian kurultai, and the general leadership of the campaign was assigned to Batu. But that campaign, because of the persistent resistance by the Bulgars, has choked again. In the 1232 a new Mongol campaign was organized, but it was again stopped by the Bulgars.
In the 1235 in the Karakorum was called an all-Mongolian kurultai for the organization of a decisive campaign to Europe. The first country for to be conquered was named the Bulgaria. Against the Bulgars raised a huge army of approximately 250-300 thousand soldiers. The Mongols for almost a whole year, since the autumn of the 1236 till the autumn of the 1237, fought on the Bulgarian soil. There was a persistent, systematic destruction of the Bulgaria as the most resisting state and as the most subversive people to the Mongols [Halikov A.H., 1994, 36].
In the 1238 Bulgars made a desperate attempt to overrun the conquerors and to retain again their independence. Plano Karpini tells that only at the turn of the 1239-1240 the Mongols completely destroyed the capital, and hence, also the country as a whole.
Thus, the development of the sovereign Itil Bulgaria during the 11th-12th centuries enabled Bulgars to make a huge contribution to the history of the struggle of the Eurasian peoples against the Mongol conquerors. The Itil Bulgaria has fallen, but the results of its comprehensive development and the experience in the creation of a strong state, in new circumstances brought new feats when the Bulgars began again to play not a minor role in the newly created Kipchak Khanate [Halikov A.H., 40-41].
135. Kipchak Khanate in the system of Chingizid empires and the problems of its study.
Studying the history of the Kipchak Khanate, we should not be forgetting that it was one of the Chingizid empires. Especially in the initial peroid of its formation and development they, the empires of Khubilai, Chagatai, Khulagu Djuchi, had very close mutual relations, especially at the ruling level, i.e. the Chingizids. And the Western Europe regarded them as close among themselves Tartarian states. The politics and scientists of the West called the population of all four empires Tartars, but in none of them the native people call themselves that, they all retained their former native ethnonyms. The remains of the Mongolo-Tatar conquerors, a significant part of which was recruited from the defeated countries, in all four empires rather quickly assimilated among the local, native peoples. Therefore the assertion of some historians that in the Djuchi Ulus, i.e. in the Kipchak Khanate the former local peoples and tribes were replaced with the newcomer Tatars does not match the reality. Also should be kept in mind that the rather fast successful development of these empires enabled some latest historians to dream about a restoration of these empires. But these historians or politics have forgotten that the empires, in a way as they existed once, are not restorable.
Thus, we are coming to a conclusion that the studying some cardinal questions of the Djuchi Ulus we should remember that this Ulus was only one of the four Chingizid Uluses.
The first contours of the Djuchi Ulus were sketched in the 1227, when Chingiz-Khan bequeathed to his successor Djuchi the lands captured in the west down to the r. Irtysh. In the 1229 to this Ulus were added the western Siberian and S. Uralian steppes, and in the 1232 were included the lands down to the r. Itil, except for the central areas of the Itil Bulgaria, which resistance was broken only at the end of 30es. In the 1237 to the Ulus Djuchi were attached the Don and N.Pontic lands, and soon also the steppes in the lower course of Danube. Thus was composed the huge state Djuchi Ulus, headed by Batu-khan (in Russian distorted to Batyi-khan), his father Djuchi has died in the 1227.
The Djuchi Ulus at first was ruled from the center of the Mongolian empire Karakorum. But from the beginning of the 60es of the 13th century the large Mongolian empire began breaking up, its uluses gradually were becoming independent states, were formed uluses that are practically the empires of Khubilai, Chagatai, Khulagu, and Djuchi.
It is recognized that Batu-khan began creating the Kipchak Khanate in the 1242, when he felt from the far west, almost from the coast of the Adriactic Sea, an impossibility of conquering and holding the captured lands, and came back to the most restless place of these conquests, to the ruined, but still rebellious Bulgaria, and he set up there his center for almost five years (1242-1246), calling it Bulgar. And to Batu in Bulgar were coming not only the Rus and Armenian, but also the Bulgarian princes, to ask for a prince's throne.
In its development the Kipchak Khanate has gone through a few stages: establishing during the Khans Batu and Berke (1242-1266), blossom during the Khans from Mengu-Timur to Uzbek, Djanibek and Berdibek (1267-1359), decline from the 60es till 80es of the 14th century. From the end of the14th and till the 80es of the 15th century. Even with the state was nominally intact, but practically it already did not dominate, and only ruled within the limits of the Itil region [Halikov A.H., 1994, 44-45]. The rule was weakening from year to year. Within the limits of the central area of the former Bulgaria was forming a new state, the Kazan princedom, and then the Kazan Khanate.
With the studies of the history of the Kipchak Khanate in the last years appeared some contentions. As is known, after the revolution of the 1917 the non-Russian peoples gain an opportunity for a national development, and in that connection the historians started studies of the ancient history of the non-Russian nations. And that contradicted the directive of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, according to which all the peoples, demonstrating the progressive grace of their annexation to the Russian state, had to begin their history from the period of jointed life with the Russians. A study of the earlier history was called inadequate ancientization (no quotation marks, please, this is not your Orwellian fantasy - Translator's Note) of the history of the non-Russian peoples. In this direction, the Central Committee of the VKP (b) (i.e. all-Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) - Translator's Note) in the August, 9, 1944 took the decision "Condition and improvement measures for mass-political and ideological work in the Tatar party organization", where the study of the history of the Kipchak Khanate was condemned and was pointed the necessity to pay a special attention to the research and illumination of the history of the joint fight of the Russian, Tatar and other peoples of the USSR against the foreign aggressors, etc.
However, the historians of the national republics, including the Tatar scientists, continued studying both the Bulgarian period of the history and the history of the Kipchak Khanate. But the main accent of the studies addressed only the negative sides of the Kipchak Khanate.
We know that at the end of the 19th century was published a detailed work of V.T.Tizengauzen "Collection of materials related to the history of Golden Horde" (SPb., 1884 and Ì., 1941). In the 1937 the faculty of the history of the Tatar institute of Marxism - Leninism in Kazan prepared a collection "History of Tataria in documents and materials", where was information for all periods of the Bulgaro-Tatar history. It was published in Moscow under edition of the History Institute. There is valid material also about the history of the Kipchak Khanate (pp. 40-90).
The main literature about the Kipchak Khanate appeared after the above cited decision of Central Committee VKP (b). These are the following books, articles and sections of the books: Grekov B.D., Yakubovsky A.Ü. Golden Horde and its fall. M. L., 1950; Safargaliev M.G. Disintegration of the Golden Horde. Saransk, 1960; Fedorov-Davydov G.A. Nomads of the Eastern Europe under power of Altyn Orda Khans. M, 1966; Zakirov S. Diplomatic relations of Golden Horde with Egypt. M, 1966; Fedorov-Davydov G.A. Social order of the Golden Horde. M, 1973; Nuretdin Agat. Altın Ordu (Cuçi ogulları) Paraları Katalogu (1250-1502) (Catalogue of coins of the Kipchak Khanate (sons of Djuchi) (1250-1502). Istanbul, 1976; Usmanov M.A. Award bills of the Djuchi's Ulus 14th- 16th centuries. Kazan, 1979; Muhammadiev A.G. Bulgaro-Tatar monetary system of the 12th-15th centuries. Kazan, 1983; Egorov V.L. Historical geography of the Golden Horde. Ì., 1985; Gerasimova Ì., Rud N.M., Yablonsky L.T. Anthropology of the antique and medieval population of the Eastern Europe. M, 1987; Halikov A.H. Mongols. Tatars. Golden Horde and Bulgaria. Kazan, 1994; Muhammadiev A.G. Golden Horde // Materials on the history of the Tatar people. Kazan, 1995. pp. 136-185. Melek Ozyatgin. Altın Ordu, Kırım ve Kazan Sahasına ait Yarlık ve Bitiglerin Dil ve Üslüp incelemesi (Language and style of documents and yarlyks of the Altın Ordu, Crimea and Kazan Khans). Ankara, 1996; Sabirova D.K., Sharapov Ya.Sh. History of Tatarstan. Kazan, 2000; Tagirov I.R. History of national statehood of the Tatar people and Tatarstan. Kazan, 2000; Usmanov M.A. Golden Horde: sources and heritage // Treasures of Golden Horde. SPb., 2000. Ñ. 26-46.
Some modern Tataro-Tatarists, opposing the Bulgarian and Altyn Orda periods of the Bulgaro-Tatars history, considering the modern Tatars to be the descendants of the Mongolo-Tatar conquerors, constantly declare that the period of the "Kipchak Khanate" is ostensibly studied insufficiently. At the same time these very Tatarists have not published a single solid work about the history of the Kipchak Khanate, have not made any attempts to organize the study of the history of the Kipchak Khanate by the historians of all those peoples whose ancestors populated that state.
And the university practice not only in the Tatarstan, but also in the other republics whose lands earlier belonged to the Kipchak Khanate, never stopped studying and teaching the students of the ethnic, and political, and the cultural history of the Kipchak Khanate. In the Tatar historical science there were no cases of opposing the Bulgarian and Altyn Orda periods.
136. Ethnic processes in the Kipchak Khanate.
We shall start with an analysis why the Djuchi Ulus in another way was called Desht-i-Kypchak?
No complete concept can be found about Kypchaks in the modern Türkology. Summarizing all that is in the Türkology about Kypchaks, we will get approximately the following picture.
The Kypchaks, as a part of the Türks, ostensibly multiplying in Asia, periodically were coming to Europe and there were mysteriously evaporating. For they the first time they ostensibly came to the Eastern Europe in the middle of the 10th century. At that time the Asian and European Kypchaks, in the rendition of some Türkologists, accelerate their reproduction and find habitation in the vast regions of the Altai-Sayan, Middle Asia, Kazakhstan, Western Siberia, Ural-Itil region, Northern Caucasus, Northern Pontic, and the Balkan peninsula [BSE. 3rd edition. Kypchak language]. Even from the position of the official Türkology this viewpoint is depicted very contradictory. If the Kypchaks came from the Asia to Europe only in the 10th century, a questions comes up: how did they manage to spread so quickly in the huge territory, and where had vanished the former population, say, Huns, Türks, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, etc. Why did they concede their lands to the Kypchaks? Why after the disintegration of the Djuchi Ulus the Desht-i-Kypchak and the Kypchaks themselves had so few remnants only as the carriers of the Kypchak dialects between the Kazakh and Uzbek peoples? [Bartold V.V., V, 551]. The Kypchaks also disappeared from the Europe, where from in their place came the other Türkic tribes? The official Türkology can't answer these elementary questions.
In reality the situation was as follows. The word Kypchak is a general ethnonym for all northern Türks, who differed from the southern Türks by their blond appearance. The blond Türks, whatever a primary ethnonym they had, were adding to the ethnonyms the definitions kuu ‘white, ochroleucous’ and sary 'yellow' to emphasize their blondness. So, in the deep antiquity appeared the ethnonyms Kyukishi ‘Blond People’, Kyusak > Kypchak ‘Blond Sak’, Kyuar > Kavar (Kawar? Russian language does not have "w", and the author renders it in Russian way, "v" - Translator's Note) ‘Blond People’, Kyumen > Kumans ‘Blond Men’, Kyusün > Kusan > Kushan ‘White Hun’, Sarysün ‘Yellow Hun’, Sarir ‘Yellow People’, etc.
Among these ethnonyms from the most ancient times the word Kypchak became the most prominent, and it became a general name for all the northern Türks. During the ancient times and in the Middle Ages the northern Türks understood the sense of this general ethnonym Kypchak and, introducing themselves to other peoples, called themselves Kypchaks, disclosing to them the meaning of this ethnonym. Therefore the other peoples called Kypchaks white-faced/blond in their own way, in their own languages: Ruses called them Polovets, Poles called them Plavsy, Armenians called them Hartesh, Arabs called them Sakaliba (Saklab in singular), Germans called them Flaven.
As we already stated, the Kypchaks-Kumans since the most ancient times lived across almost all Eurasia, even among the American Indians were Komans.
Studying the Türkic Kaganate, Khazarian Kaganate, Bulgaria, the Türkologists try to find around them especial Kypchaks, but in vain: the Türkic Kaganate is a Kypchak Kaganate, Khazarian Kaganate is a Kypchak Kaganate, the Bulgarian state is a Kypchak state.
The Kypchaks were regarded as a state-forming ethnos since the most ancient times. In the 8th-3rd centuries BC the Kypchaks created a huge state under the name Scythian or Sakian; in the 3rd century BC they created their state under the name Sarmatian, in the 1st century AD they created their state under the name Alano-Asian, in the 3rd c. AD they created their state under the name Hunish, etc. And at last, as a result of the victory of the Mongolo-Tatar conquerors was created the state Djuchi Ulus. which from the ethnic composition of its population was called by the name Kypchak, or more more exactly Desht-i-Kypchak ‘Kypchak steppe’.
The comes a question: Why the population of the Djuchi Ulus was called Tatars (Tartars) by the others, and did they call themselves Tatars? During their aggressive incursions, in Europe the Mongolo-Tatars were called Tatars. And the whole Mongolian empire and the four states resulting from its dissolution, the Khubilai, Chagatai, Khulagu, and Djuchi, were all called Tatar states. From the name of the states, in the Western Europe and their population was called Tatars (Tartars). But the population itself, consisting of various local tribes and peoples, did not call themselves Tatars, on the contrary, their attitude toward Tatars-conquerors was sharply negative.
How many Mongolo-Tatars settled in the conquered countries and then in the splinter Tatar states of Khubilai, Chagatai, Khulagu, and Djuchi? The historians answer this question mostly negatively: not many. First, the Mongolo-Tatars were not so numerous that they could be spread in all four empires of the Chingizids, secondly, the army of Chingiz-Khan only in the initial stage consisted of the Mongolo-Tatars, in the process of conquest it was replenishing by the representatives of the defeated nations. Thirdly, as note the researchers, after subjugation of the new countries in these lands remained only so many Mongolo-Tatar, as was necessary for the ruling, and all of them, because of their small number, fairly quickly assimilated among the numerous local peoples. Fourthly, it is established that the Mongolo-Tatars did not affect any appreciable influence on either the language, or on the anthropological features of the local peoples. All this is true also for the ethnic conditions in the Kipchak Khanate.
Did the Tatar people formed in the above named four Tatar states of Chingizids? In the relation to the states of Khubilai, Chagatai and Khulagu such question does not get raised. It is raised only in the relation to the DzhuchiUlus, for some historians, Tataro-Tatarists, try to spread the opinion according to which the Tatar people were ostensibly formed in the Kipchak Khanate.
Yes, theoretically, if the Kipchak Khanate was a centralized state, in its territory had to be the conditions for consolidation of the ancestors of the Bulgars, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Nogays, Ruses and Finno-Ugors into one people, which after the name of the state would be called with the ethnonym Tatars. But the Kipchak Khanate could not create the condition for consolidation of various peoples in one nation, though tried to keep in check the ancestors of all local peoples: Bulgars, Kwarezmians, Kazakhs, Ruses, Finno-Ugors, etc. In the Kipchak Khanate were not even the first indicators of the formation of the uniform Tatar nation.
Maybe, the Tatar nation was formed in the lands of the Bulgars from the newcomer Tatars and Kypchaks, as the newly appeared Tataro-Tatarists try to assert? This question does not have a foundation at all. The anthropological features of the modern Bulgaro-Tatars do not go back to the newcomer Tatars and Kypchaks from Asia at all, and their language is not a newcomer, but is characterized by the specifics of the Ural-Itil region. Besides, if the newcoming Tataro-Kypchaks had enough mass to form a whole nation in the Bulgarian lands, where the Bulgars have vanished? One more srgument is that no "pure" Kypchaks were among the newcomers, for the Kypchaks was a general term for all northern Türks: for the Bulgars, and for the Bashkirs, and for the Kwarezmians, and for the ancestors of the Kazakhs.
Thus, in the Kipchak Khanate were no conditions for the formation of a uniform Tatar people.
And the ethnonym Tatar, which was used as the external colloquial name for the inhabitants of the Kipchak Khanate, by the people themselves was not accepted, but on the contrary, the advanced representatives of people, for example, the poet Muhamedyar (15th century) always badmouthed the ethnonym Tatar [Zakiev M.Z., 1998, 477-478].
137. States formed as a result of splintering of the Kipchak Khanate. Bulgarian and Kazan Khanates.
Much is written in the historical literature about the reasons of fragmentation of the Kipchak Khanate [Grekov B.D., Yakubovsky A.Ü., 1950, 261-430; Safargaliev M.G., 1996, 453-517; Muhammadiev A.G., 1995, 168-184, etc.]. To all the reasons for disintegration detailed in these works it would be possible to add that the rulers of the Kipchak Khanate did not have a design of uniting the subordinated peoples and forming from them a functional unified society. The major occupation of the Kipchak Khanate Khans was a fierce struggle for power, in which were drawn the main energy of the popular masses. Only in the 1357-1380 (in 23 years) were displaced more than 25 khans. Simply there were no conditions for the further development of the Kipchak Khanate.
In the 60es of the 14th century the Khoresm gains its independence, its local population later takes part in the formation of the Uzbek people. During the same time from the Kipchak Khanate separated the White Horde, but there the ancestors of the Kazakhs achieved a full independence only in the middle of the 15th century.
At the end of the 14th century the Poles and Ruses also took a path toward the liberation from the Kipchak Khanate.
The 15th century was marked by the separation from the Kipchak Khanate and emergence of the independent Khanates: in the 20es of the Siberian, in the 1438 of the Kazan, in the 40es of the Nogay, in the 1443 of the Crimean, and in the middle of the century of the Astrakhan Khanates.
Thus, in the Kipchak Khanate the ethnoses did not experience any essential changes: whatever ethnoses were there before its formation, the same ethnoses also remained its fragmentation.
Under a pretext of supporting the origin of the modern Tatars from the Mongolo-Tatars, the newly appeared Tataro-Tatarists insist that our historical science should recognize a formation of new Tatar ethnos in the territory of the Kipchak Khanate already in its initial stage of development. But in the Kipchak Khanate under the influence of the Tatars-conquerors was no organized Tatar nation. If to this region from the Central or Middle Asia, or from the Siberia came the "Tatars", then, first, in the Ural-Itil region would find diffusion the Türkic vernacular of the Centralasian type, secondly, the ethnic features of the population of the Ural-Itil region and the population of the Central or Middle Asia would be identical, thirdly, the Mongoloid type would prevail in the population there, fourthly, in all the territory of the Kipchak Khanate would spread the self-name Tatar. Hence, there was no arrival of any Tatar ethnos which would be capable to assimilate the local Türks and to form a new Tatar population of the Kipchak Khanate. Hence, in the Ural-Itil region earlier lived the Bulgars in a broad sense of that word, and after the fragmentation of the Kipchak Khanate they continued to live there. Besides the Bulgarian state has not disappeared completely in the fold of the Kipchak Khanate, it continued to function in a state of a vassalage, even though by the size of its territory it considerably decreased. Their wide skills in the state organization, agriculture, cattlebreeding, craft, trade and in the construction of small and large cities the Bulgars passed to the population of the Kipchak Khanate [Fahreddinov Ð., 1993, 37-38; Gimadi H.G., 1948, 197-198; Alishev S.H., 1995, 186-192].
Above we discussed the smaller state formations that arose on the ruins of the Kipchak Khanate. In the given paragraph we are interested in the Kazan Khanate. Speaking about the Kazan Khanate, frequently is raised a question, was the Kazan Khanate a continuation of the Bulgarian, or by that time the Bulgarian state ceased to exist, and the Kazan Khanate is a chipping from the Kipchak Khanate?
Our (i.e. Tatarstan Republic's - Translator's Note) Tataro-Tatarists, with a part of the Bashkirian, and many Chuvashian historians advocate that the Kazan Khanate was not a continuation in the development of the Bulgarian state. Is expressed an opinion that the Bulgars spoke the Chuvash language, and the language of the Kazan Tatars is a Kypchako-Tatar, which was ostensibly formed only in the Kipchak Khanate. Ravil Fahrutdinov even came up with an fictitious scheme. In his opinion, the Kazan, though it was built on the Bulgarian land, almost did not have any Bulgars remaining: during the capture of the Kazan in the 1437, Ulu Mohammed brought with him more than 40 thousand Tatars, the descendants of the Mongolo-Tatars. These Mongolo-Tatars ostensibly formed the population of the Kazan Khanate [Fahrutdinov R.G., 1995, 178].
In the vision of this author, the remains of the Tataro-Mongolian armies, who entered the Ural-Itil region in 30es of the 13th century, for 200 years retained their Tatar type, without interacting with the local population. Where could they be preserved in this pure Mongolo-Tatar condition, maybe there were big refrigerators!!? But without irony, it is abundantly clear that Ulu Mohammed's armies, or rather of his son Mahmutek's, brought by him to battle Vasily II, consisted of the local Türkic-speaking peoples.
In addition, it should be noted that Ulu Mohammed and his son Mahmutek did target a replacement of the Bulgarian people with the Tatar people. In the opinion of some historians, he did not reach the Kazan.
In the truncated state, the Bulgarian Khanate continued to function in the structure of the Kipchak Khanate, and the Kazan Khanate arose on the place of this truncated Bulgarian Khanate.
138. Transformation of the Bulgarian Khanate into Kazan Khanate and its fall.
We decided attract the attention of the reader once again to the fact that the population of the Kazan Khanate is not a descendant of neither ancient Tatars, nor the Kipchak Khanate Tatars, it is a direct continuation of the population of the Bulgarian Khanate. Because this is a cardinal question of in the Tatar history. It is a watershed between the Bulgaro-Tatarists who recognize the modern Tatars as aboriginals, and the Tataro-Tatarists who (trotting in the groove of the Russian state historical doctrine and Russian academic postulates, and not exactly by their own choice - Translator's Note) consider the modern Tatars not native, but the newcomers.
As a result of the Mongolo-Tatar invasion, the Itil Bulgaria as the state stepped on the road to extinction. But in the Kipchak Khanate in a truncated form she still continues to exist, but in dependent, not a sovereign position. A.H.Halikov wrote in detail about the existence of the Itil Bulgaria in the Kipchak Khanate, with the analysis of the available facts [Halikov A.H., 1994].
Bulgars always aspired to independence, and in structure of the Kipchak Khanate too, for which the khans of the Kipchak Khanate repeatedly subjected this state to ruin. Seeing that Bulgars are becoming unprotected, the ushkuyniks (river robbers from Novgorod - Translator's Note) increased their plundering assaults. Bulgaria was not any more in a position to resist the Altyn Orda and Slavic (the author is using the anachronism "Russian" - Translator's Note) attacks. In the 1431 Feodor Pestryi has almost finally plundered and destroyed the city Bulgar. The capital of the Bulgaria is transferred to the city of Kazan which initially was called Ĵgèdide Bolgar ‘New Bolgar’. But the local Kazan q-dialect people did not want to yield the reins of the government to the newcomer k-dialect Bulgars-Mishars. They took the power into their hands and turned down the new name Ĵgèdide Bolgar ‘New Bolgar’, they returned to city its former name Kazan. Therefore the new state with the new capital began to be called Kazan.
If the Bolgarians (i.e from the Bolgar city - Translator's Note) were very closely connected with the Northern Pontic, Misharian lands, Northern Caucasus and the basin of r. Oka and r. Sura, the citizens of Kazan were traditionally in close contact with the Middle Asia.
It was said above that still in the 3rd millennium BC the main population of the Ancient Khoresm, Horasmis (Suar-Ases) had close contacts with the Kama area: both in the Middle Asia, and in the Kama-Itil area lived the Suars and Ases. Both the Horasmis and Sumers also had a common ethnonym Kang/Kangar/Kungur. The Kungurs lived both in Asia, and in the Kama area. In the 3rd century BC in the Middle Asia the Parthians (Pardy/Bardy), who also lived in the Kama area (the ancestors of the modern Bardymian Tatars), created a state. In the 1st century BC in the Middle Asia the Kusans/Kushans/Kasans created a big empire. In the Fergana valley these Kusans/Kasans erected the city of Kasan, which served as a simulated capital of the empire, next was running the river Kasanchay. The Kasanian/Kusanian empire extended its hegemony. among others, also to the Kama-Itil area, where also lived the Kasans/Kusans/Kushans who erected the city of Kasan/Kazan, its river was called Kasansu/Kazansu. Their traces in the Itil-Kama area remained in the names of the city Koshan and the river Koshan, recorded in the 11th century sources.
Thus, the city of Kazan was founded by tribes named Kazan, which historically ascends to a complex word Ka-san/Ku-san ‘White Süns’, i.e. ‘White Huns’. Precisely because the Kazan was founded by the Kazans/Kasans, in the Rusian sources they were not confused with Bulgars, they were called Kazanians. Thus the Bulgarian Khanate starts to be called Kazan Khanate.
Returning to the khans of the Kipchak Khanate, who delegated the collection of taxes from the population of the Slavo-Russian lands to the Moscow princes. And these princes in their turn very skillfully used this assignment: they collected taxes in such amounts, that a certain share was left for themselves, causing at the same time a popular hatred toward the khans of the Kipchak Khanate, i.e. toward the Tatars. In the result the Moscow princedom gradually subordinated all other Rus princedoms and created real conditions for the organization of a centralized state. Thus, the khans of the Kipchak Khanate made the Moscow princes their undertakers.
The Moscow Russian state, first subjugated the Finno-Ugric peoples of the upper Itil region, and conceived of a capturing of all the lands belonging to the Kipchak Khanate. On its way eastward the its first obstacle became the Kazan Khanate. Therefore the Russians started organizing campaigns against the Khanate. In the 1551 Ivan the Terrible with a firm intention to take Kazan built a fortress Sviyajsk almost near Kazan. On October, 2, 1552, Kazan was taken by the Russians: the way to the east was open. In the 1556 the Astrakhan Khanate, in the 1598 the Siberian Khanate have fallen; the colonization of the Crimea comes later, only in the 1783.
The domination of the Kipchak Khanate, i.e. the Tatar state, in the Kypchak lands did not pass tracelessly also in respect to the change of the ethnonym of the people. All population of the Kipchak Khanate, the Bulgars, the ancestors of Chuvashes, Finno-Ugric peoples, Russians, Kwarezmians, and the ancestors of Kazakhs, etc. are called Tatars (Tartars) by the scholars of the Western Europe. And the Russians call them (naturaly, except for the Russians) Tatars. All other peoples, except for the Bulgars, did not adopt the ethnonym Tatars as a self-name. Only the Bulgars, in the 19th-20th centuries accept the ethnonym Tatars as their self-name. Therefore the leading historians of the Tatar people prefer to call these people Bulgaro-Tatars.
In the process of consolidation into the Bulgaro-Tatars enter the Türks from the Western Siberia, and the Astrakhan Khanate, and the Northern Caucasus. This Bulgaro-Tatar people formed common literary norms of the language, common writers, culture class, etc.
Thus, the tendency to the loss of their statehood for the Itil Bulgars begins with the Mongolo-Tatar conquest; during the Kipchak Khanate time this tendency continues, and with creation of the centralized Russian state it comes to an end, the Bulgars finally lose their statehood.
139. Struggle of the Bulgaro-Tatars for survival in the conditions of the Imperial Russia.
This question is covered in detail by I.R.Tagirov [2000, 138-305], D.K.Sabirova and J.S.Sharapov [2000, 110-305]. We decided to mention this in general, to show the aspiration of the Bulgaro-Tatars for the revival and development of their nation.
The fall of the Kazan and the Kazan Khanate meant that Bulgaro-Tatars have lost their statehood. For the Kazan Khanate, as expressed H.Atlasi, was a heart of all other Tatar Khanates. The days of both the Astrakhan and the Siberian Khanates were numbered. Started an open realization of the metropolitan Makariy's plans for organizing a genocide of the Tatars, and under Tatars the Russian then understood all Moslem Türks.
The Bolgaro-Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvashes, Mari, Udmurts organized liberation struggles which entered the history as the Patriotic Wars of these peoples. But these wars were ruthlessly crushed. Did not also brought luck the revolts of the peoples of that territory under the leadership of Stepan Razina (end of 17th century) and Emelian Pugachev (end of the 18th century). All these wars and revolts lead to the ruthless destruction of the main forces of these peoples.
Then starts the peaceful course of the revival, preservation and development of the non-Russian peoples of eastern fringes (these "fringes" are in actuality right in the heart of the realm, less than 500-1000 km from the Moscow - Translator's Note). By the will of fate, the organizers in this were the Kazan Tatars. For, after the fall of the Kazan Khanate those Tatars who refused to accept Christianity were deported from the lands. Or they, afraid of forcible Christianization, fled to the other regions. The inhabitants of many settlements located along the main roads, on the banks of the large rivers and on the fertile grounds also were deported to the other regions, and the settlements freed from their former inhabitants were taken by the Russian immigrants. Therefore the Kazan Tatars turned out in the Western and Eastern Siberia, Astrakhan, in the Caucasus, in the Crimea, Kazakhstan and Middle Asia.
As a result of the Kazan Tatars conducting a national-liberation propaganda in the extensive territories of the Russian state begins the process of consolidation of the isolated Tatars and local Türkic tribes. They were united by a common struggle against Christianization and Russification. As a result of the peaceful national-liberation and confessional-liberation struggle the Bulgaro-Tatars, without having a state, by 19th century consolidated in the Russian huge territory so that by the middle of the century was formed the Tatar nation (Bulgaro-Tatars).
In the process of the formation of the nation the problem of the ethnonym attains a very big prominence. As the Bulgaro-Tatars lived among the Russians, they frequently had to apply the ethnonym Tatars, though they clearly realized that their self-ethnonym was Bulgars. By virtue of that, and with the purpose of education the youth in the spirit of the Altyn Orda's Tatar nationalism, the intelligentsia decided to affirm for the people the ethnonym Tatars, though they understood that the Bulgaro-Tatars represent only a small part of the former Altyn Orda's population.
In this connection sometimes arise the disputes about the territory of the formation of the Tatar nation. Nowdays nobody doubts that the Tatar nation was formed not in the territory of the former Kipchak Khanate, but in that part of it that belonged to the pre-Mongolian Itil Bulgaria. Hence, the Tatar nation was formed on the foundation of the former Bulgarian component, and therefore to differentiate the Tatar nation from the ancient Tatars, or Mongolo-Tatars, from the Tartars (i.e. the population of all four Chingizid empires), from the Kipchak Khanate Tatars (i.e. from all the population of the Kipchak Khanate), from the Crimean and Dobrudja Tatars, all leading scientists call them Bulgaro-Tatars.
Where was the Tatar nation formed? The answer is: in the Kazan, Ufa, Orenburg, Samara, Astrakhan, Ekaterinburg, Tomsk, Tobolsk (Tümen), and Perm provinces. They constituted a part of the population of the St. Petersburg, Moscow, Caucasus, Kazakhstan and Middle Asia. In the 1905-1907 existed Tatar newspapers and magazines in the St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Ufa, Simbirsk, Samara, Orenburg, Astrakhan, Uralsk, Ekaterinburg, Troitsk, Tomsk, Tyumen, Semipalatinsk, and Tashkent.
Without a statehood, lead by the inteligentsia through the newspapers and magazines, the Tatar nation at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries achieved such heights in its development that the foreign scientists and bolsheviks took a note of it, the last seeing in it a threat for the expansion of the Russian colonies.
For example, a German scientist Oòòo Geotch in the 1913 publishes his work "Russian Turkestan and tendencies of the modern Russian colonial policy", in which he writes that the Russian government is afraid of the speedy development of the Moslem Tatars and tries to limit their penetration into the Turkestan. This work of Oòòo Geotch was studied and made a thorough abstract by V.I.Lenin during the development of the bolsheviks' national policy. This abstract then was included in 28th volume of the fifth edition of his works. The abstract by Lenin of the part of the Oòòo Geotch work by a concrete example shows the results of the peaceful development policy of the Tatar nation. First he characterizes the social, economic, and cultural development of the Moslems as a whole, whose leadership role, in his opinion, is lead by the Tatars.
In the 1880 in Russia was total of 11 million Moslems, all their printed literature consisted of 7-8 books; they had one printing house, 4 leaders and 12 people with higher education, including one who studied in the Western Europe.
In the 1910 there was already 20 million of them, they had over 1,000 printed books, 14 printing houses and 16 periodicals, 200 people with higher education from Russia, and 20 from the Western Europe, about 100 writers, 6 higher and 5,000 public schools, 37 charitable establishments, 3 small banks and 3 rural banks.
"For last 10 years the Muslim population of Russia strongly developed in the cultural relation: the Kazan Tatars (highlighted by us - M.Z.) for 150 people have now 1 mosque and 1 mullah, while the Russians and aliens (the Russian internal moniker for non-Russian natives in Russia, excluding the Tatars in this sentence - Translator's Note) of the same area have 1 priest only for 1500 souls; the first have one school on 100 souls of both sexes; the orthodox (i.e. Christians, primarily Russian - Translator's Note) have one for 1,500-3,000 persons. The Moslem Tatars have higher distribution of the book and newspaper literature... The connection with the Muslim population of Turkestan is thus created naturally; and in fact, from the north is already brought to them the pan-Islamism mutiny. The Russian government is afraid of this penetration of the Tatar adherents of the Islam and whenever possible does not allow them to the Turkestan" [Lenin V.I., Coll. of works, V edition, vol. 28, 514-515].
V.I.Lenin and bolsheviks, naturally, were troubled that the Tatars, in the Russian consciousness the masters of the Kipchak Khanate, even in the conditions of Russification and Christianization have found a possibility for revival and development, and the development of the orthodox population is on such a low level that the expansion of empire can come to a stall.
140. October revolution and acquisition of a statehood by the Tatars.
With a view of capturing the power, bolsheviks developed a harmonious national policy. Trusting the sincerity of that policy, the progressive forces of all nations (in Russia - Translator's Note) went to the side of the bolsheviks (social democrats), and the revolution of the 1917 went successfully. Immediately after their victory the bolsheviks on November, 2, 1917 promulgated the "Declaration of the rights of the Russia's nations" in which the so-called lenin national policy was proclaimed. The declaration proclaimed:
1) Equality and sovereignty of the nations in Russia;
2) The right of peoples in Russia for free self-determination, down to separation and formation of independent states;
3) Cancellation of all and any ethnic and national-religious privileges and restrictions;
4) Free development of ethnic minorities and the ethnographic groups living in the territory of Russia.
Based on these principles, the Tatar community made an attempt to form in the framework of Russia the Volgo-Ural Democratic Republic (Idel-Ural state), and after a failure of this project came up an idea to create the Tataro-Bashkir Soviet Republic. This idea also has suffered a fiasco.
In the October, 1919 started a discussion about creation of the Tatar republic. "The leadership of the Kazan province (chairman of the province magistrate I.I.Hodorovsky, the secretary of the province committee RKP (b) G.S.Gordeev (Russian Communist Party (of bolsheviks) - Translator's Note), chairman of the province trade union A.I.Dogadov) voiced against a formation of the Tatar Republic, motivating that among the Tatars do not have enough the experienced and prepared communists to whom the control of the republic" could be transferred. The representatives of the Tatar national movement approved the project" [Sabirova D.K., Sharapov J.S., 2000, 202]. After a persistent and detailed work of the Interdepartmental commission, the Project of the Law about forming the Republic Tatarstan was approved by Decree of the VCIK and SNK of the Russian Federation on May, 27, 1920. The territory of Republic ended up much less than the actual national territory of the Tatar people. More than half of the Tatar population and accordingly the Tatar lands were divided between the neighboring Russian provinces [Ibid, 203].
In the 1922 during creation of the USSR there was a sorting of the nations into grades, which was completed in the 1936. The first-grade turned out to be, naturally, the Russians, the second-grade were the state-forming peoples of union republics, the third-rate were the autonomous republics, and further on were the autonomous regions and districts, and finally the the last were the peoples who did not have any national forms of a statehood. With such a gradation was easy to organize the Russification of the peoples. Under a pretext of supplying with labor of the so-called great projects began a resettlement of the peoples; with a view of promotion the Russian language as lingua franca, in the national republics the native people had to become a minority. This policy was considerably sped up by the execution of the assimilative national policy.
The creation of autonomous republics, on the one hand, had a huge impact in the development of non-Russian peoples, but on another, it was used for expropriation of the wealth of the republics with the hands of the national leaders.
With the purpose of creating more favorable conditions for the revival and development of Tatarstan peoples and of the Tatar nation, the leadership of the republic many times addressed the Central Committee of the party with a request to transform the autonomous republic into a union republic. The party always refused. The formal reason for this was the absence of the external borders of Tatarstan. Up to the end of 1934 there was a common border with Kazakhstan. But in December 1934 and it also was liquidated by the creation between the Kazakhstan, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan of the Orenburg province (i.e. creation and annexation to Russia of the Orenburg province - Translator's Note). After that, the first excuse for denying any further applications of the Tatars to the Central Committee of the party was the absence of the external borders.
The revival of the statehood of the Tatar people in the 1920 had a very large political, economic and cultural value. But in comparison with the peoples of the union republics, the Tatars, because of the constraining conditions of the autonomy on some positions, had lower rates of development. For example, in 20es of the 20th c. in the USSR Tatars numbered in the 4-th place, by the results of the census of the population of the 1959 and 1970 they numbered in the 5-th place, in the 1980 it was 6-th, and in 1989 it was 7-th place.
During the execution of the party policy for the creation of a uniform Soviet people (in the future monolingual and with a uniform culture), the quantity of the national schools (i.e. studying in the native language - Translator's Note) in the national republics was reduced more and more. By the 80es only 7 percent of the Tatar children were studying in the Tatar schools. The public functions of the Tatar language were narrowed to such a degree that it ceased to develop structurally too.
In the pre-perestroika time the measure of the Tatarstan sovereignty could not even be talked about. The Tatar government controlled only 1,6 percent of the production made in the republic, while 98,4 percent of the wealth of the republic were in hands of the union and Russian ministries.
This policy brought the country to a point that it was impossible to move any further without a reorganization in all spheres of the national life.
The reorganization impacted not only the social and economic regime in the country, but also the cultural sphere. The change of national (i.e. ethnic - Translator's Note) policy was a necessity. If before the reorganization the national policy was a creation of a uniform Soviet people, the reorganization demanded a serious revival, preservation and development of the peoples of the USSR.
141. Struggle for the state sovereignty of the Tatarstan, revival and development of the Tatar nation.
Per the Constitution of the USSR, the union republics were considered sovereign, and the autonomous ones did not have that status. Therefore Tatarstan many times tried to receive the status of a union republic, but all in vain. A decisive attempt in that direction was made in the 1990, on August, 30 was adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty. The declaration stated:
The Supreme Soviet of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic:
- Understanding the historical responsibility for the destiny of the multinational people of the republic;
- Testifying a respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples living in the Russian Federation and in the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics;
- Noting the discrepancy of the status of Autonomous Republic with the interests of the further political, economic, social and spiritual development of its multinational people;
- Carrying out an inalienable right of the Tatar nation, of the whole people to a self-determination;
- Aspiring to create a democratic state governed by laws:
1. Proclaims the state sovereignty of the Tataria and transforms her into the Tatar Soviet Socialist Republic - Tatarstan Republic.
2. The land, its mining rights, natural wealth and other resources in the territory of the Tatar SSR are a sole property of her people.
3. The Tatar SSR guarantees to all citizens living in her territory equal rights and personal freedoms, irrespective of their nationality, social origin, faith creed, political convictions, and other distinctions.
In the Tatar SSR are guaranteed equal function for the Tatar and Russian languages as state languages, preservation and development of the languages of other nationalities.
Further it said: the 4th clause - the official name of the state, the 5th clause - that this Declaration is a foundation for all main documents of the republic, the 6th clause - jurisdiction of the Declaration (Is not it sweet that the first part of the composite "jurisdiction" is an ancient Türkic word jărăs/yasa/džoruq, see Türkic in Romance. What goes around, comes around - Translator's Note).
The sovereign Tatarstan Republic was considered as the factor promoting the further socio-cultural consolidation of the Tatar nation. The Republic found additional opportunities to serve as a cultural and spiritual center of the Tatar population that lives outside the territory of the national statehood [Sabirova D.K., Sharapov J.S., 2000, 292-993]. It became a determinative in the revival, preservation and development of the Tatar ethnos.
As is known, in the December of the 1991 the former union republics Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrghyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tadjikistan, and Azerbaijan, following the initiative of RSFSR, declared their official secession from the USSR. The Tatarstan had to defend its sovereignty within Russia. But fortunately, in the Russian Federation also, in continuation of the traditions of the reorganization period of the USSR, was developed and started a scientific program "Peoples of Russia: revival and development". That has enabled Tatarstan to raise and solve the problem "Tatar people and peoples of Tatarstan: revival and development".
In performing this program one of the decisive directions of revival and development of the Tatar nation in the Republic was the drafting of the RT bill "Languages of the RT peoples" (the project was developed by M.Zakiev), and after numerous deliberations by the deputies and incorporations of the modifications the Law was adopted by the Supreme Soviet of Tatarstan on July, 8, 1992.
The 2-nd article of RT Law "Languages of the RT peoples" proclaimed that "in the territory of the RT the state creates conditions for each nation and person for preservation and an comprehensive development of the native language, and provides freedom to choose and use the interaction language".
Article 3. Legal status of languages. The State Languages in the Tatarstan Republic are equal in rights Tatar and Russian languages.
The 7-th article especially noted the RT State Program for preservation, study and development of the languages of the RT peoples. The financing for the language development program for the peoples of the RT is included in all of budgets plans at all levels.
The main directions of the State Program for preservation, study and development of the languages were:
- Asistance in publishing the literature in the languages of the RT peoples,
- Financing scientific research in that area,
- Asistance to the scientific research institutes and universities which conduct research in the languages of the RT peoples,
- Creation of conditions for use of various languages in mass media,
- Preparation of the specialists in the field of preservation, study and development of the languages of the RT peoples,
- Development of a national education system with the purpose of improvement the linguistical culture of the RT peoples, etc.
The law defined that the State Program component is the section on the revival, preservation and development of the Tatar language, about its study and and development.
The section warrants opening of children's preschools with the Tatar language of training and education, development of school education in that language, preparation of the needed scientific and pedagogical staff, development of the literature, science and arts, TV, radio broadcasting, book publishing, newspapers and magazines in the Tatar language, publishing of dictionaries, educational and education-methodological literature, and also the resolution of other questions targeting the functional and structural development of the Tatar language mostly on the Türkic linguistic base.
There was also noted that the state is obligated to render to the Tatar population of other regions various assistance in the preservation and development of its native language, culture, traditions and the customs needed for harmonious spiritual development.
Based on the fundamental clauses of the law, on 20 July 1994 the Supreme Soviet of the Tatar Republic adopted the "State program of the RT for preservation, study and development of languages of the RT peoples". (Project was prepared in IJALI by F.A.Ganiev).
These state laws of the RT had a crucial significance for many governmental actions for the revival, preservation and development of the Tatar nation.
Each scientist engaged in the problems of the ethnogenesis, should simultaneously seriously think of the developmental prospects of their ethnos. It is not for nothing that it is said that the prospect of the development of a people can be determined only then when the history of its origin and development is clearly understood.
|Part 2 - ORIGIN OF TATARS · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Conclusion · Literature · Name and Ethnic Index|
Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
|© Çàêèåâ Ì.Ç., 2002|