History of the Tatars. Tatars History of modern Tatars

The history of Sarmatia is the most important issue in the history of Rus'. From the most primitive times in the center of Eurasia there were three kingdoms of White Rus', Blue Rus' (or Sarmatia) and Red Rus' (or Golden Scythia). They were always inhabited by a single people. And today we have the same thing - Belarus, Russia (Sarmatia) and Ukraine (Scythia). The Bulgarian kingdom is one of the forms of existence at the beginning of our era of Blue Rus'. And from it one should derive the genealogy of many peoples who today live in different parts of the world: Tatars, Jews, Georgians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Poles, Turks, Basques and, of course, Russians.

Where did the Bulgars come from?
Byzantine historians often do not distinguish between Bulgars and Huns. But it should be noted that many Greek and Latin authors, for example: Kosmas Indikopeustes, Ioannes Malalas, Georgius Pisides, Theophanes, treat Bulgars and Huns differently. This suggests that they should not be completely identified.
Ancient authors call the "barbarians" who lived along the banks of the Danube with the general word Huns, although among them there were many different tribes. These tribes, called the Huns, actually have their own names. The fact that the Greek and Latin authors considered the Bulgars as Huns suggests that the Bulgars and other tribes of the Huns were the same or similar in customs, languages, race. Our studies show that the Bulgars belonged to the Aryan race, spoke one of the military Russian jargons (a variant of the Turkic languages). Although it is possible that people of the Mongoloid type were also present in the military collectives of the Huns.
As for the earliest mentions of the Bulgars, this is the year 354, "Roman Chronicles" by an unknown author (Th.Mommsen Chronographus Anni CCCLIV, MAN, AA, IX, Liber Generations,), as well as the work of Moise de Khorene. According to these records, already before the Huns appeared in Europe in the middle of the 4th century, the presence of the Bulgars was observed in the North Caucasus. In the 2nd floor. IV century, some part of the Bulgars penetrated into Armenia. Proceeding from this, it can be decided that the Bulgars are not Huns at all. According to our version, the Huns are a religious-military formation, similar to today's Taliban in Afghanistan. The only difference is that this phenomenon arose then in the Aryan Vedic monasteries of Sarmatia on the banks of the Volga, the Northern Dvina and the Don.

Blue Rus' (or Sarmatia), after numerous periods of decline and dawn, in the fourth century AD began a new rebirth into Great Bulgaria, which occupied the territory from the Caucasus to the Northern Urals. So the appearance of the Bulgars in the middle of the 4th century in the region of the North Caucasus is more than possible. And the reason that they were not called Huns is obviously that at that time the Bulgars did not call themselves Huns, and Western people, of course, could not use the word "Huns" for a general designation of peoples who came from the east. The Huns called themselves a certain class of military monks, who were the keepers of a special Vedic philosophy and religion, experts in martial arts and bearers of a special code of honor, which later formed the basis of the code of honor of the knightly orders of Europe. But since all the Hunnic tribes came to Europe along the same path, it is obvious that they did not come at the same time, but in turn, in batches. The appearance of the Huns is a natural process, a reaction to the degradation of the ancient world. Just as today the Taliban are a response to the processes of degradation of the Western world, so at the beginning of the era the Huns became a response to the decay of Rome and Byzantium. It seems that this process is an objective regularity in the development of social systems.
Some believe that the works of Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum can be trusted. This means that at the beginning of the 5th century in the north-west of the Carpathian region, wars broke out twice between the Bulgars (Vulgars) and the Langobards. At that time, all the Carpathians and Pannonia were under the rule of the Huns. But this testifies that the Bulgars were part of the union of the Hunnic tribes and that together with the Huns they came to Europe. The Carpathian Vulgars of the beginning of the 5th century are the same Bulgars from the Caucasus in the middle of the 4th century. The homeland of these Bulgars is the Volga region, the Kama and Don rivers. Actually, the Bulgars are fragments of the Hunnic Empire, which at one time destroyed the ancient world, which remained in the steppes of Rus'. Most of the "people of long will", religious warriors who formed the invincible religious spirit of the Huns, went to the West and, after the emergence of medieval Europe, were dissolved in knightly castles and orders. But the communities that gave birth to them remained on the banks of the Don and Dnieper.
By the end of the 5th century, two main Bulgar tribes are known: the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs. The latter settle along the shores of the Sea of Azov in the area of the Taman Peninsula. The Kutrigurs lived between the bend of the lower Dnieper and the Sea of Azov, controlling the steppes of the Crimea up to the walls of the Greek cities.

They periodically (in alliance with the Slavic tribes) raid the borders of the Byzantine Empire. So, in 539-540, the Bulgars carried out raids across Thrace and Illyria to the Adriatic Sea. At the same time, many Bulgars entered the service of the emperor of Byzantium. In 537, a detachment of the Bulgars fought on the side of the besieged Rome with the Goths. There are also known cases of enmity between the Bulgar tribes, which was skillfully kindled by Byzantine diplomacy.
Around 558, the Bulgars (mainly Kutrigurs), led by Khan Zabergan, invaded Thrace and Macedonia, approached the walls of Constantinople. And only at the cost of great efforts did the Byzantines stop Zabergan. The Bulgars return to the steppes. The main reason is the news of the appearance of an unknown militant horde to the east of the Don. These were the Avars of Khan Bayan.
Byzantine diplomats immediately use the Avars to fight against the Bulgars. New allies are offered money and land for settlements. Although the Avar army has only about 20 thousand horsemen, it carries the same invincible spirit of the Vedic monasteries and, naturally, turns out to be stronger than the numerous Bulgars. This is facilitated by the fact that another horde, now the Turks, is moving after them. The Utigurs are the first to be attacked, then the Avars cross the Don and invade the lands of the Kutrigurs. Khan Zabergan becomes a vassal of the Khagan Bayan. The further fate of the Kutrigurs is closely connected with the Avars.
In 566, the advanced detachments of the Turks reach the shores of the Black Sea near the mouth of the Kuban. The Utigurs recognize the authority of the Turkic Khagan Istemi over them.
Having united the army, they capture the most ancient capital of the ancient world Bosporus on the shore of the Kerch Strait, and in 581 appear under the walls of Chersonesos.

Rebirth under the Sign of Christ
After the departure of the Avars to Pannonia and the beginning of internecine strife in the Turkic Khaganate, the Bulgar tribes united again under the rule of Khan Kubrat. The Kurbatovo station in the Voronezh region is the ancient headquarters of the legendary khan. This ruler, who headed the Onnogur tribe, was brought up as a child at the imperial court in Constantinople and was baptized at the age of 12. In 632, he proclaimed independence from the Avars and stood at the head of the association, which received the name Great Bulgaria in Byzantine sources.
It occupied the south of modern Ukraine and Russia from the Dnieper to the Kuban. In 634-641, the Christian Khan Kubrat entered into an alliance with the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius.

The emergence of Bulgaria and the settlement of the Bulgars around the world
However, after the death of Kubrat (665), the empire fell apart, as it was divided among his sons. The eldest son Batbayan began to live in the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov in the status of a tributary of the Khazars. Another son - Kotrag - moved to the right bank of the Don and also fell under the rule of Jews from Khazaria. The third son - Asparuh - under Khazar pressure went to the Danube, where, having subjugated the Slavic population, laid the foundation for modern Bulgaria.
In 865, the Bulgarian Khan Boris converted to Christianity. The mixing of the Bulgars with the Slavs led to the emergence of modern Bulgarians.

Two more sons of Kubrat - Kuver (Kuber) and Alcek (Alcek) went to Pannonia to the Avars. During the formation of Danube Bulgaria, Kuver rebelled and went over to the side of Byzantium, settling in Macedonia. Subsequently, this group became part of the Danube Bulgarians. Another group led by Alcek intervened in the struggle for succession in the Avar Khaganate, after which they were forced to flee and seek asylum from the Frankish king Dagobert (629-639) in Bavaria, and then settle in Italy near Ravenna.
A large group of Bulgars returned to their historical homeland of the Volga and Kama regions, from where their ancestors had once been carried away by the whirlwind of the passionary impulse of the Huns. However, the population they met here was not much different from themselves.

At the end of the 8th century Bulgarian tribes on the Middle Volga created the state of Volga Bulgaria. On the basis of these tribes, the Kazan Khanate subsequently arose.
In 922 Almus, the ruler of the Volga Bulgars, converted to Islam. By that time, life in the Vedic monasteries, once located in these places, had practically died out. The descendants of the Volga Bulgars, in the formation of which a number of other Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes took part, are the Chuvash and Kazan Tatars. Islam from the very beginning was strengthened only in cities. The son of King Almus went on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and stopped in Baghdad. After that, an alliance arose between Bulgaria and Baghdad.
Citizens of Bulgaria paid the tsar tax in horses, leather, etc. There was a customs. The royal treasury also received a duty (a tenth of the goods) from merchant ships. Of the kings of Bulgaria, Arab writers mention only Silk and Almus; Fren managed to read three more names on the coins: Ahmed, Taleb and Mumen. The oldest of them, with the name of King Taleb, dates back to 338 BC.
In addition, the Byzantine-Russian treaties of the X century. mention a horde of black Bulgarians who lived near the Crimea.

Volga Bulgaria
Volga-Kama Bulgaria, the state of the Volga-Kama, Finno-Ugric peoples in the X-XV centuries. Capitals: the city of Bulgar, and from the XII century. city of Bilyar. By the 10th century, Sarmatia (Blue Rus') was divided into two Khaganates: Northern Bulgaria and southern Khazaria.
The largest cities - Bolgar and Bilyar - surpassed London, Paris, Kyiv, Novgorod, Vladimir of that time in terms of area and population.
Bulgaria played an important role in the process of ethnogenesis of modern Kazan Tatars, Chuvash, Mordovians, Udmurts, Mari and Komi.

By the time of the formation of the Bulgar state (beginning of the 10th century), the center of which was the city of Bulgar (now the village of Bolgari Tatarii), Bulgaria was dependent on the Khazar Khaganate, ruled by the Jews.
The Bulgarian king Almus turned to the Arab Caliphate for support, as a result of which Bulgaria adopted Islam as the state religion. The collapse of the Khazar Khaganate after its defeat by the Russian prince Svyatoslav I Igorevich in 965 secured the de facto independence of Bulgaria.

Bulgaria becomes the most powerful state in Blue Rus'. The crossing of trade routes and the abundance of black soil - in the absence of wars, made this region prosperous. Bulgaria became the center of production. Wheat, furs, livestock, fish, honey, handicrafts (hats, boots, known in the East as "Bulgari", skins) were exported from here. But the main income was brought by trade transit between East and West. Here since the X century. minted its own coin - dirham.
In addition to Bulgar, other cities were also known, such as Suvar, Bilyar, Oshel, etc.
Cities were powerful fortresses. There were many fortified estates of the Bulgar nobility.
Literacy among the population was widespread. Lawyers, theologians, doctors, historians, astronomers live in Bulgaria. The poet Kul-Gali created the poem "Kyssa and Yusuf", widely known in the Turkic literature of its time. After the adoption of Islam in 986, some Bulgarian preachers visited Kyiv and Ladoga and offered the great Russian prince Vladimir I Svyatoslavich to accept Islam. Russian chronicles from the 10th century distinguish the Bulgars: Volga, Silver or Nukrat (according to Kama), Timtyuz, Cheremshan and Khvalis.
Naturally, there was a continuous struggle for leadership in Rus'. Clashes with princes from White Rus' and Kyiv were commonplace. In 969, they were attacked by the Russian prince Svyatoslav, who devastated their lands, according to the Arab Ibn Haukal, in revenge for the fact that in 913 they helped the Khazars to destroy the Russian squad, who undertook a campaign on the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. In 985, Prince Vladimir also made a campaign against Bulgaria. In the XII century, with the rise of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, which sought to spread its influence in the Volga region, the struggle between the two parts of Rus' intensified. The military threat forced the Bulgars to move their capital inland - to the city of Bilyar (now the village of Bilyarsk of Tatarstan). But the Bulgarian princes did not remain in debt either. In 1219, the Bulgars managed to capture and plunder the city of Ustyug on the Northern Dvina. It was a fundamental victory, since ancient libraries of Vedic books and ancient monasteries were located here from the most primitive times, patronized, as the ancients believed, by the god Hermes. It was in these monasteries that the knowledge of the ancient history of the world was hidden. Most likely, it was in them that the military-religious class of the Huns arose and a code of laws of knightly honor was developed. However, the princes of White Rus' soon avenged the defeat. In 1220 Oshel and other Kama towns were taken by Russian squads. Only a rich ransom prevented the ruin of the capital. After that, peace was established, confirmed in 1229 by the exchange of prisoners of war. Military clashes between the White Russ and Bulgars happened in 985, 1088, 1120, 1164, 1172, 1184, 1186, 1218, 1220, 1229 and 1236. The Bulgars during the invasions reached Murom (1088 and 1184) and Ustyug (1218). At the same time, a single people lived in all three parts of Rus', often speaking dialects of the same language and descended from common ancestors. This could not but leave an imprint on the nature of relations between the fraternal peoples. So the Russian chronicler preserved under the year 1024 the news that famine raged in Suzdal that year and that the Bulgars supplied the Russians with a large amount of bread.

Loss of independence
In 1223, the Horde of Genghis Khan, who came from the depths of Eurasia, defeated the army of Red Rus' (Kiev-Polovtsian army) in the south in the battle on Kalka, but on the way back they were badly battered by the Bulgars. It is known that Genghis Khan, when he was still an ordinary shepherd, met with the Bulgar Buyan, a wandering philosopher from Blue Rus', who predicted a great fate for him. It seems that he passed on to Genghis Khan the same philosophy and religion that gave rise to the Huns in his time. Now a new Horde has arisen. This phenomenon occurs in Eurasia with enviable regularity, as a response to the degradation of the social order. And every time, through destruction, it gives rise to a new life in Rus' and Europe.

In 1229 and 1232, the Bulgars managed to repel the Horde raids again. In 1236 Genghis Khan's grandson Batu began a new campaign to the West. In the spring of 1236, the Khan of the Horde Subutai took the capital of the Bulgars. In the autumn of the same year, Bilyar and other cities of Blue Rus' were devastated. Bulgaria was forced to submit; but as soon as the Horde army left, the Bulgars withdrew from the union. Then Khan Subutai in 1240 was forced to invade again, accompanying the campaign with bloodshed and ruin.
In 1243, Batu founded the state of the Golden Horde in the Volga region, one of the provinces of which was Bulgaria. She enjoyed some autonomy, her princes became vassals of the Golden Horde Khan, paid tribute to him and supplied soldiers to the Horde army. The high culture of Bulgaria became the most important component of the culture of the Golden Horde.
The end of the war helped revive the economy. It reached its peak in this region of Rus' in the first half of the 14th century. By this time, Islam had established itself as the state religion of the Golden Horde. The city of Bulgar becomes the residence of the khan. Bulgar attracted with many palaces, mosques, caravanserais. There were public baths, paved streets, underground water supply. Here, the first in Europe mastered the smelting of cast iron. Jewelry, ceramics from these places were sold in medieval Europe and Asia.

The death of the Volga Bulgaria
From the middle of the XIV century. the struggle for the khan's throne begins, separatist tendencies intensify. In 1361, Prince Bulat-Temir seized from the Golden Horde a vast territory in the Volga region, including Bulgaria. The khans of the Golden Horde only for a short time managed to reunite the state, where everywhere there is a process of fragmentation and isolation. Bulgaria breaks up into two actually independent principalities - Bulgar and Zhukotinsky with the center in the city of Zhukotin. After the beginning of internecine strife in the Golden Horde in 1359, the army of the Novgorodians captured the Bulgar city of Zhukotin. Bulgaria suffered especially much from the Russian princes Dmitry Ioannovich and Vasily Dmitrievich, who took possession of the cities of Bulgaria and put their "customs officers" in them.
In the second half of the 14th - early 15th centuries, Bulgaria experienced the constant military pressure of White Rus'. Finally, Bulgaria lost its independence in 1431, when the Moscow army of Prince Fyodor Motley conquered the southern lands, which passed into the subordination of Moscow. Independence was preserved only by the northern territories, the center of which was Kazan. It was on the basis of these lands that the formation of the Kazan Khanate in the Middle Volga region and the degeneration of the ethnic group of the ancient inhabitants of Blue Rus' (and even earlier the Aryans of the country of seven fires and lunar cults) into Kazan Tatars began. At this time, Bulgaria had already finally fallen under the rule of the Russian tsars, but when exactly - it is impossible to say; in all likelihood, this happened under Ivan the Terrible, simultaneously with the fall of Kazan in 1552. However, the title of "sovereign of Bulgaria" was still worn by his grandfather, John III.
The mortal blow to the Khazar Khaganate, which put an end to its independent existence, was inflicted by Prince Svyatoslav, the son of Igor. Prince Svyatoslav is the most outstanding commander of Ancient Rus'. Russian chronicles dedicate surprisingly sublime words to him and his campaigns. In them, he appears as a true Russian knight - fearless in battle, tireless in campaigns, sincere with enemies, true to his once given word, simple in everyday life.
From the age of five, Prince Svyatoslav was on a war horse and, as it should be for a prince, he was the first to start a battle with the enemy. “When Svyatoslav grew up and matured, he began to gather many brave warriors. And he easily went on campaigns, like a pardus, and fought a lot. On campaigns, he did not carry carts or boilers with him, he did not cook meat, but, thinly slicing horse meat or beast, or beef and roasting it on coals, he ate it like that. He did not even have a tent, but he slept, spreading a sweatshirt with a saddle in his head. So were all his other warriors. And he sent them to other lands with the words: “I want to attack you” ([I], p. 244).
Prince Svyatoslav undertook his first campaigns against the Vyatichi and against Khazaria.
In 964, Prince Svyatoslav “going to the Oka river and the Volga, and the Vyatichi climbed, and the Vyatichi said: “To whom are you giving tribute?” They decide: “We give a roar by Kozar for a schlyag.”
In 965, “Svyatoslav went to the goats; Hearing the same kozars, izidosha opposed with his prince Kagan, and sypupishasya fights, and was fighting, overcoming Svyatoslav the kozar and their city and taking Bela Vezhya. And victorious jars and scythes” ([I], p. 47).
After the campaign of Svyatoslav Khazaria ceases to exist. Preparing an attack on Khazaria, Svyatoslav rejected the frontal onslaught through the Volga-Don interfluve and undertook a grandiose detour maneuver. First of all, the prince moved north and conquered the lands of the Slavic tribe of the Vyatichi, dependent on the kaganate, leading them out of the zone of Khazar influence. Having dragged the boats from the Desna to the Oka, the princely squad sailed along the Volga.
The Khazars did not expect an attack from the north. They were disorganized by such a maneuver and were unable to organize a serious defense. Having reached the Khazar capital - Itil, Svyatoslav attacked the army of the kagan, who was trying to save her, and defeated him in a fierce battle. Further, the Kiev prince undertook a campaign in the North Caucasus region, where he defeated the stronghold of the Khazars - the fortress of Semender. During this campaign, Svyatoslav conquered the Kasog tribes and founded the Tmutarakan principality on the Taman Peninsula.
After that, Svyatoslav's squad moved to the Don, where they stormed and destroyed the eastern Khazar outpost - the Sarkel fortress. Thus, Svyatoslav, having made an unprecedented campaign thousands of kilometers long, captured the main strongholds of the Khazars on the Don, Volga and the North Caucasus. At the same time, he created a base for influence in the North Caucasus - the Tmutarakan principality. These campaigns crushed the power of the Khazar Khaganate, which ceased to exist at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries. As a result of Svyatoslav's campaigns, the Old Russian state achieved the security of its southeastern borders and became at that time the main force in the Volga-Caspian region. Rus' opened a free road to the East.

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

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

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The history of the origin of the Tatars

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the theory is not without merit. For example, the anthropological type of Kazan Tatars, especially men, makes them related to the peoples of the North Caucasus and indicates the origin of facial features - a hooked nose, a Caucasoid type - precisely in mountainous areas, and not in the steppe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, rather, the Bulgar population, who learned about Islam in the 10th century, contributed to the Islamization of the Jochi Ulus, and not vice versa. Archaeological data supplement the factual side of the issue: on the territory of Tatarstan there is evidence of the presence of nomadic (Kipchak or Tatar-Mongolian) tribes, but the resettlement of such tribes is observed in the southern part of the Tatar region.

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

There is also an argument in favor of the kinship of the Kazan Tatars with the Kipchaks - the linguistic dialect belongs to the Turkic-Kipchak group by linguists. Another argument is the name and self-name of the people - "Tatars". Presumably from the Chinese "yes-tribute", as Chinese historians called part of the Mongol (or neighboring Mongols) tribes in northern China.

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

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

Tatar nation ethnic migration

The Turkic-Tatar theory of the origin of the Tatar ethnos emphasizes the Turkic-Tatar origins of modern Tatars, notes the important role in their ethnogenesis of the ethno-political tradition of the Turkic Khaganate, Great Bulgaria and the Khazar Khaganate, Volga Bulgaria, the Kypchak-Kimak and Tatar-Mongolian ethnic groups of the steppes of Eurasia.

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

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

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

After the middle of the 16th century and until the 18th century, the stage of consolidation of local ethnic groups within the Russian state is singled out. After the annexation of the Volga region, the Urals and Siberia to the Russian state, the processes of Tatar migration intensified (as mass migrations from the Oka to the Zakamskaya and Samara-Orenburg lines are known, from the Kuban to the Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces) and the interaction between its various ethno-territorial groups, which contributed to their linguistic and cultural rapprochement. This was facilitated by the presence of a single literary language, a common cultural and religious-educational field. To a certain extent, the attitude of the Russian state and the Russian population, which did not distinguish between ethnic groups, was also unifying. The general confessional self-consciousness - "Muslims" is noted. Part of the local ethnic groups that entered other states at that time (primarily the Crimean Tatars) further developed independently.

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

At the first stage, the attempts of various rulers to carry out Christianization played for the good. The policy of Christianization, instead of a real transfer of the population of the Kazan province from one confession to another, by its ill-conceivedness contributed to the cementing of Islam in the minds of the local population.

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

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

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

Note that the Turko-Tatar theory is the most extensive and structured of the theories considered. It really covers many aspects of the formation of the ethnos in general and the Tatar ethnos in particular.

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

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

There are also convincing arguments in favor of the fact that the Kazan Tatars arose, took shape as an original nationality and multiplied over a historical period, the duration of which covers the era from the founding of the Kazan Tatar kingdom by the Khan of the Golden Horde Ulu-Mohammed in 1437 and up to the Revolution of 1917. Moreover, their ancestors were not alien "Tatars", but local peoples: the Chuvash (they are the Volga Bulgars), the Udmurts, the Mari, and perhaps also not preserved to this day, but living in those parts, representatives of other tribes, including those who spoke the language close to the language of the Kazan Tatars.

All these nationalities and tribes apparently lived in those wooded lands from time immemorial, and partially possibly also moved from Zakamye, after the invasion of the Tatar-Mongol and the defeat of the Volga Bulgaria. In terms of the nature and level of culture, as well as the way of life, this heterogeneous mass of people, before the emergence of the Kazan Khanate, in any case, did not differ much from each other. In the same way, their religions were similar and consisted in the veneration of various spirits and sacred groves - kiremetii - places of prayer with sacrifices. This is confirmed by the fact that until the revolution of 1917, they were preserved in the same Tatar Republic, for example, near the village. Kukmor, a settlement of Udmurts and Maris, who were not touched by either Christianity or Islam, where until recently people lived according to the ancient customs of their tribe. In addition, in the Apastovsky region of the Tatar Republic, at the junction with the Chuvash ASSR, there are nine Kryashen villages, including the villages of Surinskoye and the village of Star. Tyaberdino, where part of the inhabitants, even before the Revolution of 1917, were "unbaptized" Kryashens, thus having survived until the Revolution outside both the Christian and Muslim religions. And the Chuvash, Mari, Udmurts and Kryashens who converted to Christianity were only formally listed in it, but continued to live according to ancient times until recently.

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

The above considerations allow us to assume that in the Bulgar state, the Golden Horde and, to a large extent, the Kazan Khanate, Islam was the religion of the ruling classes and privileged estates, and the common people, or most of them: the Chuvashs, Maris, Udmurts, etc., lived according to the old grandfather customs.

Now let's see how, under those historical conditions, the people of Kazan Tatars, as we know them at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, could arise and multiply.

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

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

The supreme state power belonged to the khan, but was directed by the council of large feudal lords (sofa). The top of the feudal nobility were Karachi, representatives of the four most noble families. Next came the sultans, emirs, below them - murzas, uhlans and warriors. The Muslim clergy, who owned vast waqf lands, played an important role. The bulk of the population consisted of "black people": free peasants who paid yasak and other taxes to the state, feudal dependent peasants, serfs from prisoners of war and slaves. The Tatar nobles (emirs, beks, murzas, etc.) were hardly very merciful to their serfs, to the same foreign and heterodox. Voluntarily or pursuing goals related to some kind of benefit, but over time, ordinary people began to adopt their religion from the privileged class, which was associated with the rejection of their national identity and with a complete change in life and way of life, according to the requirements of the new "Tatar" faith is Islam. This transition of the Chuvash to Mohammedanism was the beginning of the formation of the Kazan Tatars.

The new state that arose on the Volga lasted only about a hundred years, during which raids on the outskirts of the Muscovite state almost did not stop. In the internal state life, frequent palace coups took place and proteges appeared on the khan's throne: either Turkey (Crimea), then Moscow, then the Nogai Horde, etc.

The process of formation of the Kazan Tatars in the way mentioned above from the Chuvash, and partly from other peoples of the Volga region took place throughout the entire period of the existence of the Kazan Khanate, did not stop after the annexation of Kazan to the Muscovite state and continued until the beginning of the 20th century, i.e. almost to our time. Kazan Tatars grew in number not so much as a result of natural growth, but as a result of the Tatarization of other nationalities of the region.

Here is another rather interesting argument in favor of the Chuvash origin of the Kazan Tatars. It turns out that the Meadow Mari are now called the Tatars "suas". Meadow Mari from time immemorial closely coexisted with that part of the Chuvash people who lived on the left bank of the Volga and were the first to Tatar, so that in those places there was not a single Chuvash village left for a long time, although according to historical information and scribe records of the Muscovite state, they were there a lot of. The Mari did not notice, especially at the beginning, any changes in their neighbors as a result of the appearance of another god - Allah, and forever preserved their former name in their language. But for the distant neighbors - the Russians, from the very beginning of the formation of the Kazan kingdom there was no doubt that the Kazan Tatars were the same, the Tatar-Mongols who left a sad memory of themselves among the Russians.

During the entire relatively short history of this "khanate", continuous raids by "Tatars" on the outskirts of the Muscovite state continued, and the first Khan Ulu-Mohammed spent the rest of his life in these raids. These raids were accompanied by the devastation of the region, robberies of the civilian population and their hijacking "in full", i.e. everything happened in the style of the Tatar-Mongols. Thus, the Chuvash theory is also not without its foundations, although it presents us with the ethnogenesis of the Tatars in its most original form.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Bibliography

1. Akhmetyanov R. "From the deceived generation" P.20

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

3. Kakhovskiy V.F. Origin of the Chuvash people. - Cheboksary: Chuvash book publishing house, 2003. - 463 p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Cultural heritage and family values

Tatar traditions of housekeeping and family way of life are mostly preserved in villages and settlements. Kazan Tatars, for example, lived in wooden huts, which differed from Russians only in that they did not have a vestibule and the common room was divided into a female and male half, separated by a curtain (charshau) or a wooden partition. In any Tatar hut, the presence of green and red chests was obligatory, which were later used as a bride's dowry. In almost every house, a framed piece of text from the Koran, the so-called “shamail”, hung on the wall, it hung over the threshold as a talisman, and a wish of happiness and prosperity was written on it. Many bright juicy colors and shades were used to decorate the house and the adjacent territory, the interior was richly decorated with embroidery, since Islam forbids depicting humans and animals, mostly embroidered towels, bedspreads and other things were decorated with geometric ornaments.

The head of the family is the father, his requests and instructions must be carried out unquestioningly, the mother in a special place of honor. Tatar children are taught from an early age to respect their elders, not to hurt the younger ones and always help the disadvantaged. The Tatars are very hospitable, even if a person is an enemy of the family, but he came to the house as a guest, they will not refuse him anything, they will feed him, give him drink and offer him an overnight stay. Tatar girls are brought up as modest and decent future housewives, they are taught in advance to manage the household and prepare for marriage.

Tatar customs and traditions

Rites are calendar and family sense. The first ones are related to labor activity (sowing, harvesting, etc.) and are held every year at about the same time. Family ceremonies are held as needed in accordance with the changes that have taken place in the family: the birth of children, the conclusion of marriage alliances and other rituals.

The traditional Tatar wedding is characterized by the obligatory observance of the Muslim ritual nikah, it takes place at home or in the mosque in the presence of a mullah, the festive table consists exclusively of Tatar national dishes: chak-chak, kort, katyk, kosh-tele, peremyachi, kaymak, etc., guests do not eat pork and do not drink alcohol. The male groom puts on a skullcap, the female bride puts on a long dress with closed sleeves, a headscarf is obligatory on her head.

Tatar wedding ceremonies are characterized by a preliminary agreement between the parents of the bride and groom to conclude a marriage union, often even without their consent. The groom's parents must pay a dowry, the amount of which is discussed in advance. If the size of the kalym does not suit the groom, and he wants to "save", there is nothing shameful in stealing the bride before the wedding.

When a child is born, a mullah is invited to him, he performs a special ceremony, whispering prayers in the child's ear that drive away evil spirits and his name. Guests come with gifts, a festive table is set for them.

Islam has a huge impact on the social life of the Tatars and therefore the Tatar people divide all holidays into religious ones, they are called “gaeta” - for example, Uraza Gaeta - a holiday in honor of the end of fasting, or Korban Gaeta, a feast of sacrifice, and secular or folk “Bayram”, meaning "spring beauty or celebration."

On the holiday of Uraza, believing Muslim Tatars spend the whole day in prayers and conversations with Allah, asking him for protection and removal of sins, you can drink and eat only after sunset.

During the celebrations of Eid al-Adha, the feast of sacrifice and the end of the Hajj, also called the holiday of goodness, every self-respecting Muslim, after performing the morning prayer in the mosque, must slaughter a sacrificial ram, sheep, goat or cow and distribute the meat to those in need.

One of the most significant pre-Islamic holidays is considered the holiday of the plow Sabantuy, which is held in the spring and symbolizes the end of sowing. The culmination of the celebration is the holding of various competitions and competitions in running, wrestling or horse racing. Also, a treat for all those present is obligatory - porridge or botkasy in Tatar, which used to be prepared from common products in a huge cauldron on one of the hills or hillocks. Also at the festival, it was obligatory to have a large number of colored eggs in order for children to collect them. The main holiday of the Republic of Tatarstan Sabantuy is recognized at the official level and is held every year in the Birch Grove of the village of Mirny near Kazan.

Rafael Khakimov

The history of the Tatars: a view from the XXI century

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

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

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

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

The Soviet period in relation to Tatar history was not distinguished by any fundamentally new approaches. Moreover, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, by its resolution “On the State and Measures for Improving Mass-Political and Ideological Work in the Tatar Party Organization” of 1944, simply banned the study of the history of the Golden Horde (Ulus Jochi), the Kazan Khanate, thus excluding the Tatar period from history of Russian statehood.

As a result of such approaches about the Tatars, an image was formed of a terrible and wild tribe that oppressed not only Russians, but almost half the world. There was no question of any positive Tatar history, Tatar civilization. Initially, it was believed that the Tatars and civilization are incompatible things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodological problems of studying the history of the Tatars were raised by scientists who worked on generalizing works. Shigabutdin Marjani in his work “Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahvali Kazan va Bolgar” (“Information used for the history of Kazan and Bulgar”) wrote: “Historians of the Muslim world, wishing to fulfill the duty of providing complete information about various eras and explaining the meaning of human society, have collected many information about the capitals, caliphs, kings, scientists, Sufis, different social strata, ways and directions of thought of the ancient sages, past nature and everyday life, science and crafts, wars and uprisings. And then he noted that "historical science absorbs the fate of all nations and tribes, checks scientific directions and discussions" [Marjani, p.42]. At the same time, he did not single out the methodology for studying the Tatar history proper, although in the context of his works it can be seen quite clearly. He considered the ethnic roots of the Tatars, their statehood, the rule of the khans, the economy, culture, religion, as well as the position of the Tatar people in the Russian Empire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The use of this term carries another connotation. There is a problem of correlating the history of the common Turkic with the national one. In some periods (for example, the Turkic Khaganate), it is difficult to single out separate parts from the general history. In the era of the Golden Horde, it is quite possible to explore, along with a common history, individual regions, which later separated into independent khanates. Of course, the Tatars interacted with the Uighurs, and with Turkey, and with the Mamluks of Egypt, but these ties were not as organic as with Central Asia. Therefore, it is difficult to find a unified approach to the correlation of the general Turkic and Tatar history - it turns out to be different in different eras and with different countries. Therefore, in this work will be used as a term Turko-Tatar history(in relation to the Middle Ages), and simply Tatar history(referring to more recent times).

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

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

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

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

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

Tatar history, with its complex twists and turns of fate, is not easy to present as a whole picture, as ups and downs were replaced by catastrophic regression, up to the need for physical survival and the preservation of the elementary foundations of culture and even language.

The initial basis for the formation of the Tatar or, more precisely, the Turkic-Tatar civilization is the steppe culture, which determined the face of Eurasia from ancient times until the early Middle Ages. Cattle breeding and the horse determined the basic nature of the economy and lifestyle, housing and clothing, and ensured military success. The invention of a saddle, a curved saber, a powerful bow, tactics of warfare, a peculiar ideology in the form of Tengrism and other achievements had a huge impact on world culture. Without the steppe civilization, it would be impossible to develop the vast expanses of Eurasia, and this is precisely its historical merit.

The adoption of Islam in 922 and the development of the Great Volga Road became a turning point in the history of the Tatars. Thanks to Islam, the ancestors of the Tatars were included in the most advanced Muslim world for their time, which determined the future of the people and its civilizational features. And the Islamic world itself, thanks to the Bulgars, advanced to the northernmost latitude, which is an important factor to this day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first attempt to restore statehood by the Tatars dates back to 1918, when the Idel-Ural State was proclaimed. The Bolsheviks were able to pre-empt the implementation of this grandiose project. Nevertheless, a direct consequence of the political act itself was the adoption of the Decree on the creation of the Tatar-Bashkir Republic. The complex vicissitudes of the political and ideological struggle culminated in the adoption in 1920 of the Decree of the Central Executive Committee on the creation of the "Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic". This form was very far from the Idel-Ural State formula, but it was undoubtedly a positive step, without which there would have been no Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Republic of Tatarstan in 1990.

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

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

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

* * *

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

This work is the first academic work that begins the description of the history of the Tatars from 3000 BC. The most ancient period can not always be represented in the form of events, sometimes it exists only in archaeological materials, nevertheless, we considered it necessary to give such a presentation. Much of what the reader will see in this work is the subject of controversy and requires further research. This is not an encyclopedia, where only established information is given. It was important for us to fix the existing level of knowledge in this field of science, to propose new methodological approaches, when the history of the Tatars appears in the broad context of world processes, covers the fate of many peoples, and not just the Tatars, to focus on a number of problematic issues and thereby stimulate scientific thought. .

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

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

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

Turkic origin of the ethnonym

The first time the name "Tatars" occurs in the VIII century in the inscription on the monument to the famous commander Kul-tegin, which was established during the Second Turkic Khaganate - the state of the Turks, located on the territory of modern Mongolia, but had a larger area. The inscription mentions the tribal unions "Otuz-Tatars" and "Tokuz-Tatars".

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

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

Turko-Persian origin

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

Persian origin

The Soviet researcher Olga Belozerskaya connected the origin of the ethnonym with the Persian word "tepter" or "defter", which is interpreted as "colonist". However, it is noted that the ethnonym Tiptyar is of later origin. Most likely, it arose in the 16th-17th centuries, when the Bulgars who moved from their lands to the Urals or Bashkiria began to be called that.

Ancient Persian origin

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

However, the Turks also called the Chinese and even the Uighurs tatami. And it could well be that tat meant "foreigner", "foreigner". However, one does not contradict the other. After all, the Turks could first call Iranian-speakers tatami, and then the name could spread to other strangers.
By the way, the Russian word "thief" may also have been borrowed from the Persians.

Greek origin

We all know that among the ancient Greeks the word "tartar" meant the other world, hell. Thus, the "tartarine" was an inhabitant of the underground depths. This name arose even before the invasion of Batu's troops on Europe. Perhaps it was brought here by travelers and merchants, but even then the word "Tatars" was associated among Europeans with eastern barbarians.
After the invasion of Batu Khan, Europeans began to perceive them exclusively as a people who came out of hell and brought the horrors of war and death. Ludwig IX was called a saint because he prayed himself and called on his people to pray in order to avoid the invasion of Batu. As we remember, Khan Udegei died at that time. The Mongols turned back. This assured the Europeans that they were right.

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

In fairness, it must be said that on some old maps of Europe, Tataria began immediately beyond the Russian border. The Mongol Empire collapsed in the 15th century, but European historians continued to call Tatars all the eastern peoples from the Volga to China until the 18th century.
By the way, the Tatar Strait, which separates the island of Sakhalin from the mainland, is called so because "Tatars" also lived on its shores - Orochs and Udeges. In any case, Jean-Francois La Perouse, who gave the name to the strait, thought so.

Chinese origin

Some scholars believe that the ethnonym "Tatars" is of Chinese origin. Back in the 5th century, a tribe lived in the northeast of Mongolia and Manchuria, which the Chinese called "ta-ta", "da-da" or "tatan". And in some dialects of Chinese, the name sounded exactly like “Tatar” or “Tartar” because of the nasal diphthong.
The tribe was warlike and constantly disturbed the neighbors. Perhaps later the name tartars spread to other peoples who were unfriendly to the Chinese.

Most likely, it was from China that the name "Tatars" penetrated into Arabic and Persian literary sources.

According to legend, the warlike tribe itself was destroyed by Genghis Khan. Here is what the Mongol scholar Yevgeny Kychanov wrote about this: “So the tribe of Tatars died, even before the rise of the Mongols, which gave its name as a common noun to all Tatar-Mongolian tribes. And when in distant villages and villages in the West, twenty or thirty years after that massacre, alarming cries were heard: "Tatars!" ("The life of Temujin, who thought to conquer the world").
Genghis Khan himself categorically forbade calling the Mongols Tatars.
By the way, there is a version that the name of the tribe could also come from the Tungus word "ta-ta" - to pull the bowstring.

Tocharian origin

The origin of the name could also be associated with the people of the Tokhars (Tagars, Tugars), who lived in Central Asia, starting from the 3rd century BC.
The Tokhars defeated the great Bactria, which was once a great state, and founded Tokharistan, which was located in the south of modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and in the north of Afghanistan. From the 1st to the 4th centuries AD Tokharistan was part of the Kushan kingdom, and later broke up into separate possessions.

At the beginning of the 7th century, Tokharistan consisted of 27 principalities, which were subject to the Turks. Most likely, the local population mixed with them.

All the same Mahmud Kashgari called the vast region between Northern China and Eastern Turkestan the Tatar steppe.
For the Mongols, the Tokhars were strangers, "Tatars". Perhaps, after some time, the meaning of the words "Tochars" and "Tatars" merged, and so they began to call a large group of peoples. The peoples conquered by the Mongols took the name of their kindred strangers - Tochars.
So the ethnonym Tatars could also pass to the Volga Bulgars.