What do historians of KFU and the Institute. Marjani, how Gumer Usmanov supported the TOC and what Tatar and Bashkir linguists argue about
What name should the second largest ethnic group in Russia really have? And why is the theory about the origin of modern Tatars from the Tatar-Mongols incorrect? 87-year-old eminent academician Mirfatykh Zakiyev, one of the best experts in the Tatar language, told BUSINESS Online about this.
Mirfatykh Zakiev: “Tatars are scolded both in the West and in the East. This hurts us too. Shaimiev was also able to inspire such an idea” Photo: Oksana Cherkasova
DOMESTIC TURCology IS FORMATED ON THE BASIS OF EUROPECENTRISM
Mirfatykh Zakiyevich, you are the greatest connoisseur of the Tatar language, at the same time you deeply study the history of the people. There is a strong opinion that Altai is the ancestral home of all Turkic peoples. You are one of the few who strongly disagree with this.
I currently have about 40 monographs. I b O Most of them are devoted not to language, but to history. Although I started my work as a linguist, the history of the language is closely intertwined with the history of the people. I have all the materials that our people are not some kind of alien, but formed here. After that, I entered into an argument with historians.
Now scientists from KFU and the Institute of History named after Marjani are actively discussing in BUSINESS Online. But both sides don't understand one important question. There is such a thing as Eurocentrism or Eurocentrism. What it is? European scholars, starting from the 18th century, believe that all of Europe and the most fertile lands of Asia were originally inhabited by Europeans. And the rest of the peoples living now were formed later as backward nomadic tribes. After they stopped providing food for themselves, they began to rob Europeans and settle down on these lands. Allegedly, our ancestors formed in the Altai in the 3rd-4th centuries AD, and later in the 7th-8th centuries they settled in the territories where the Turkic peoples now live. This is an unsubstantiated, erroneous opinion.
- Is Eurocentrism just one of the scientific hypotheses, or does it pursue some other goals?
I adhere to the theory expressed by the scientist Sergei Artanovsky, who studied the phenomenon of Eurocentrism and concluded that this is the essence of the desire of Europeans to conquer at least historically more territories, and then claim those territories where the Turks, Finno-Ugric peoples, etc. now live Allegedly, Europe should be the land of the indigenous people.
Modern Turkology, Russian Turkology, was also formed on the basis of Eurocentrism. Unfortunately, our scientists took it as a basis. They also say that our people formed in Altai and settled here a little later. In fact, there are studies by geologists. They took DNA from ancient bones and compared it with modern ones. It turned out that the results are the same. They also tried to bring not only us, but also our neighbors Mari, Mordovians and others under the theory of Eurocentrism, but they quickly refuted this. They have kindred peoples outside the USSR in Finland. And then they proved that the Finno-Ugric peoples are the indigenous inhabitants of these lands. Ours are lagging behind.
- Why, after all, Kazan has a traditionally strong historical school?
Artanovsky correctly writes that Eurocentrism must be overcome and the study of all the peoples who, from ancient times, communicated with each other and lived together, should begin. To study in linguistic terms, in archaeological terms, in ecological terms. All this needs to be re-learned. I completely agree with this, and it was strange for me that neither the university historians nor the staff of the historical institute of Rafael Khakimov even mentioned anywhere that all historical views historians-Turkologists were formed on the basis of the views of Eurocentrists. It looks like they haven't even heard of it. All of this needs to be revisited. It is necessary to reconsider the ecology of peoples, the ecology of national minorities. Such sections have now appeared. They propose to take measures for the development and preservation of both national minorities and the national majority.
- Do you want to say that the leading historians of Tatarstan do not know such elementary things?
When I worked as the director of IYALI ( Institute of Language, Literature and Art. Ibragimova- approx. ed.), then put a lot of effort into the development of the institute, increased the historical department. As a result, the Institute of History named after Marjani separated from us and became an independent structure. And there, individuals, for example, Damir Iskhakov, Marcel Akhmetzyanov put forward the theory that we are the descendants of the great conquerors of the Golden Horde. Allegedly separated from the Tatar-Mongols. They published many volumes on the history of the Tatars there, the book is good, but the first volume is based on Eurocentrism ...
"OUR PEOPLE IS FORMED FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF TWO DIALECTS"
- So, the hypothesis about the origin of modern Tatars from the Tatar-Mongols is incorrect. Then who are we?
Our nation was formed from representatives of two dialects. The first is the Bulgars. If you look, now Mishara live everywhere on these lands. And the second dialect is Kusan (White Suns). The Kusan empire was formed much earlier than the Bulgar one. The Volga-Kama region, Central Asia, Afghanistan and northern India, they take into their own hands and build big empire. In Russian history, it is called the Kushan Empire. Although the Russians call it Kushan, the people themselves called themselves Kusan or Kazan.
For example, at the beginning of our era, a city was built near Fergana as a place of rest for the leaders of the empire. It is still called Kazan, near this city the Kazansay River flows. Like ours, Kazan is a city, and Kazanka is a river. Kazan was formed thousands of years before the Bulgars. It should have been included in a book about the history of the Tatars. But they didn't turn it on. I included them in my history books, but they are looked at as books about language. And I'm moving from linguistics to history.
- That is, the Bulgars and Kusans or Kazanians are two different peoples?
Bulgars and Kazanians are two different peoples. When the Russians took Kazan, the Bulgars or Mishare did not consider themselves one people with the Kazanians. Mishara was helped to take Kazan, and after that two representatives of the Bulgars and Kusans were sent to Moscow. Yes, the languages are similar, the differences are insignificant.
But the word "Tatars" came to us later, after the unification of the Bulgars and Kazanians. So they began to call all non-Russian peoples. After the Great October socialist revolution all the so-called Tatars began to abandon this word and return their ancient names. The name "Tatars" before the revolution was more characteristic of Azerbaijanis. All this is in the works of Lermontov, Tolstoy, if not Russian, then Tatar.
Peter I begins to create an academy and invites German scientists to it. Although they are Germans, they are Jews by origin. And they begin to call all peoples, except for the Russian, Tatars. And in Europe they begin to call it the same way. Much later, Stralenberg, who studied Siberia, wrote that the people called "Tatars" had 32 languages. He begins to promote this idea, but the Eurocentric theory persists. I'll give you an example. Near Sakhalin there is Tatar Strait. Oroch people live there. They used to be called Tatars too. Therefore, the strait is so called.
- Why, then, do our scientists firmly adhere to the “Tatar” hypothesis?
The Institute of History named after Mardzhani does a lot for science - well done, I once separated them from iyali for this purpose. But they believe that we are coming from the Tatar-Mongols. We, they say, can subdue everyone. It was an individual initiative. Their goal is to show the Tatar-Mongols as great winners. They also conquered China. If we go from them, then we are winners. This is how you gain prestige. But this will not gain authority. Tatars are criticized both in the West and in the East. This hurts us too. They were able to instill such an idea in Shaimiev, but then Mintimer Sharipovich refused it.
- That is, the Eurocentrists literally imposed their name on the Tatars?
This was raised mainly by the Anglo-Saxons, who were studying China. They found tartar there, but ours translated this word as “Tatar”. It is not right. The Tartars, in their opinion, are peoples who have lagged behind all peoples, nomads, an undeveloped people, these are the people of hell, if literally translated. The Chinese used this word for nomads. There is not a single word about our Tatars. Nomads lived there north of China. I wrote about it a lot, but my writings are not considered historical. Since I am writing from linguistic data, historians do not pay attention to me. Someday they will understand this problem.
We are a people formed by the unification of the Kazan and Bulgar tribes. The basis is Kusans or Kushans, white suns. After the conquest of Afghanistan, they remained there and still call themselves the White Suns - these are the Khuns, the Huns. That is, we are the White Huns. There was academician Alexei Okladnikov, a historian, who wrote that for the first time the American Indians crossed to the mainland from the north, where the Bering Strait is. There was no flow then. They crossed over and now live like American Indians. There are many Turkisms in their language. Where did they come from? Consequently, 20 - 30 thousand years ago the mainland was inhabited by Eurasians. Even Americans themselves, mostly Spaniards, find 200 - 300 - 400 Turkic words in the languages of the indigenous peoples of the USA. Abrar Karimullin was the first to study this, then I followed in his footsteps. Based on this, a book appeared, subsequently translated into 27 languages.
- And how would it be correct for us, Tatars, to call ourselves?
From a historical point of view, one should write either mishara or kazan-kusan. This is the name of the people - White Suns. The first name of Kazan in Russian chronicles is given as Kusyan. Ku is the Turkic "white-faced", Xiang is the Suns. Now Mishare are embarrassed by the name "Tatars". The name "Tatars" hinders the development of the Tatar people. Why? Take the story Eastern peoples, Western nations. Everywhere they consider the Tatars a backward people. And the children come from school and say: I don't want to be a Tatar.
- And what then mutual language should be - kusanomisharsky?
Before the revolution, back in the 19th century, when Kayum Nasyri lived, after him there was a literary language similar to Turkish. It was common for us, and for Azerbaijanis, Kirghiz, Kazakhs. This language was understood by everyone. But then Ataturk began to rid the language of Arabisms, Persian words. At this time, our language separated from the common Turkic. Therefore, we now do not understand Turkish well. It will be hard to get back now. It will be impossible to use a common language now, I think.
“I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE THE ONE PEOPLE WITH THE BASHKIRS, JUST PRONECT THE WORDS DIFFERENTLY”
With regret, we have to state that in modern Russia the languages of small peoples are disappearing. What is it: the unwillingness of the native speakers themselves to preserve their native speech for posterity or the purposeful policy of the authorities?
This and that and another, there are natural processes. The Russian language is now replacing others. This process was started by Joseph Stalin. In 1931, at the 16th Congress, he said that all nationalities were given equal opportunities, now it is necessary to build a single Soviet people with a common language. Although it was not said that it would be Russian, it was clear what in question. But the war began, there was a need for small peoples. They began to flirt with them, and Stalin could not destroy the peoples.
After that came the era of Gorbachev, who put forward the thesis about the development of the languages of the peoples living in the USSR. In 1985, the question of the preservation of languages was raised. But then everything began to disappear, and in 2009 a law on education was adopted, which spelled out the obligatory nature of the Russian language, and began a policy of destroying national languages. There is such a policy of Russification. Under Stalin, when they said that after the unification of peoples there would be one common language, it was at least hidden, now it is not. The decision on the obligatory nature of the Russian language undermined national school. And training for national languages decreased many times. I myself am the author of textbooks for grades 8, 9, 10 in the Tatar language. He began to do this in 1965, if earlier in the 1960s 60 thousand textbooks were published, now there are about 7 thousand.
- Is it so bad?
It's hard to talk about it. If we do not make efforts, if we do not fight for the preservation of the Tatar people, if we do not develop the language, our people may gradually turn into Russian. But one thing is comforting. Although this policy has been carried out for centuries, our people have survived. After all, now we have not only state bodies, but also public organizations are dealing with this issue. I don't think so Tatar language disappear so quickly. Outside of Tatarstan, work is also underway. I often watch the Tatarlar program on TV, where you can see how worried people create their own national organizations. This work is carried out not by state organizations, but by representatives of the people themselves. In addition, there are also religious organizations.
But there is some misunderstanding. For example, we recently presented the Bible in the Tatar language. When I was the director of IYALI, we checked the texts translated by the Moscow Tatars. At the same time, there is no official translation of the Koran into Tatar. Why? Because there is such a theory that the reward from the Almighty for reading the Koran will be only if it is read on Arabic. Therefore, our language in Islam does not develop. But the Kryashens are not like that! They study the Christian religion according to the Bible translated by Ilminsky. They profess Christianity in Tatar. And this can be said to be the expansion of the use of the Tatar language.
The Tatar language is now widely represented on radio, television, and on the Internet. Many linguists, linguists love to criticize the media. They say that Tatar is far from literary there, the announcers pronounce certain words incorrectly. What do you think?
We teach people that this sentence can be written like this, like that. Critics, on the other hand, want to introduce forms that they themselves like. But the language must evolve. Such restrictions cannot be imposed. I think so. Let them use various options. I think that our language in the media - on television, radio - is not bad. It is being used correctly. You just need to figure out the terminology. I myself do not participate in such discussions. They say that they use dialect words, but this is our language. This is generally interesting. I believe that we are one people with the Bashkirs, we just pronounce the words differently. We have such a feature in the east of the republic. For example, I was born in the Yutazinsky district. They don't say "Yutazy", but "Zhutady". As if in Bashkir. So linguists from Bashkortostan come to us to study, as they say, the dialect of the Bashkir language. And our dialectologists travel around the villages of Bashkortostan, they say that they study the Tatars.
"TABEEV WAS NOT AN OTHER TARTAR!"
You were engaged in the preservation of the language and being the chairman of the Supreme Council of the TASSR. How did scientific and political activity Was it hard to put together?
Yes, I was there for two terms, from 1980 to 1990. Then the process of revival began. There was an opportunity to open the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan. Mintimer Shaimiev and others began to raise the issue that we should take the rights of the union republics. The declaration of sovereignty was an upliftment for all of us. New newspapers appeared, people began to help those living outside of Tatarstan.
I, for example, in the preservation of the Tatar community center took part. They were not allowed to open an account. Since, according to the laws of that time, it should have belonged only to official organizations. The first chairman of the TOC, Marat Mulyukov, turned to me, and on behalf of IYALI I helped him open an account. For this, I was criticized at the plenum of the regional committee. They said that Zakiev helped open a TOC account, he helps this nationalist organization. But then the first secretary, Gumer Usmanov, called me and said that they made this decision for Moscow, but you did everything right. That is, the leadership of the republic, publicly condemning, secretly supported the processes of the revival of the Tatar people.
- Did you also work together with Fikryat Tabeev?
No, but I studied with him. Now they say a lot that he fought against the Tatar language, but this is not true. I know that with all his heart he was for the preservation of everything Tatar. In those days, he had Murzagid Fatheevich Valeev, secretary for propaganda. They did a great job together. Tabeev's Tatar was imperfect, but he tried to study the language deeper. I had to mostly speak Russian. But he spoke well in his Kasimov dialect. No, Tabeev was not an opponent of the Tatar! After returning from Afghanistan, he was the first deputy prime minister of the RSFSR, I often visited him, went into his office. He always raised questions about the preservation of the Tatar language.
“Due to the fact that I am not a member of the Writers’ Union, the Ministry of Culture cannot allocate money to me, despite the fact that I have worked in the field of education all my life” Photo: Oksana Cherkasova
CREATING A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY IS AN UNREAL PROJECT
In perestroika times, the question of creating a Tatar national university. Do you think this is a real project?
I think this is an unrealistic project. When I headed the Pedagogical Institute, it became the best in Russia twice. Once went to the all-Union level. There were no problems for teachers. Now I hear that the problem of teachers has arisen again. University graduates are not particularly eager to go to school. Therefore, now there are people who advocate the revival of the Pedagogical University. They say that if we do not restore, we will be left without teachers. In Bashkortostan, having liquidated the pedagogical institute, the university was created in 1957. I just went there to give a lecture. It was then called Bashkir University named after the 40th anniversary of October. After the Pedagogical Institute was liquidated, 8 years passed, and there were no teachers. The college was reopened. Now the Bashkir Pedagogical University is one of the largest in Russia.
- Do you miss the teaching audience yourself?
Even at my respectable age, I continue to teach at KFU in the master's program. Now there are heated discussions about teaching the Tatar language there. Earlier at the university there was Tatar studies in the department of history. Philology teachers gave lessons there. Because of Tatar lessons stopped, which caused a noise. I think that it is not entirely right to stop teaching the Tatar language to people who study Tatar history. But, as I know, the university administration is taking steps to preserve the Tatar direction in KFU. I do not participate in disputes, let's see what happens.
In general, I do not sit without work. I have 1200 published scientific works. They say that if someone has 500 works, then we praise this person. There are more than 40 monographs. More than half of them are devoted to history. I would like to publish a multi-volume book by the 90th anniversary. I collected 8 volumes, now I am preparing them. Due to the fact that I am not a member of the Writers' Union, the Ministry of Culture cannot allocate money to me, despite the fact that I have worked in the field of education all my life. I turned to Minnikhanov, and Rustam Nurgalievich ordered the release of the collection for the 90th anniversary. But then Tartar envy intervened. In the academy itself, they tell me that one volume is enough. How to fit 1200 works there? But nothing, I do not lose heart, I hope that the dream will come true.
Mirfatykh Zakievich Zakiyev was born on August 14, 1928 in the village of Zaipy, Yutazinsky (now Bavlinsky) district of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Full member of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Lexicology and Dialectology of the IYALI named after I.I. Ibragimova of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan, Academician-Secretary of the Tatarstan Branch of the International Turkic Academy, Member of the Turkish Linguistic Society, Honorary Member of the Presidium of the International Center for Turkic Studies of the Eurasian National University named after. Gumilyov (Kazakhstan), Honorary Professor of the Tatar State Pedagogical University. Honorary Doctor of the Bashkir state university, Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Tatar ASSR (1980 - 1990).
Author of numerous studies on Tatar and Turkic linguistics, the history of the Tatars and other Turkic peoples. He headed the most important language commissions in the republic, wrote school and university textbooks on the Tatar language. The monograph Syntactic Structure of the Tatar Language (1963), for which he was awarded a doctorate, is one of the best studies on Turkic syntax. In works on the ethnogenesis of the Turkic peoples, he disputes the continuity between the Bulgar and Chuvash languages.
Honored Scientist of the TASSR (1970), Honored Scientist of the RSFSR (1976). Laureate of the State Prize of the Republic of Tatarstan (1994).
1946 - 1951 - study at Kazan State University
1960 - 1965 - head of the department of the Tatar language of KSU.
1965 - 1967 - Vice-Rector for Science of the Kazan State Pedagogical Institute.
1967 - 1986 - Rector of the Kazan Pedagogical Institute.
1968 - 1986 - Head of the Department of Tatar Linguistics at the Kazan Pedagogical Institute.
1986 - 1996 - Director of the Institute of Language, Literature and History of the KSC RAS (since 1992 - Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan).
1996 - 2000 - Director of the Institute of Language, Literature and Art of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan.
1992 - 2002 - academic secretary of the department humanities AN RT.
Since 1986 - Head of the Department of Linguistics, since 2007 - Head of the Department of Lexicology and Dialectology of the IYALI AS RT.
Married, has two sons, four grandchildren and three great-grandchildren
Upon learning that the famous scientist Alimzhan Orlov, whose works on the history of the Mishars I read with great interest, spends the summer in native village Kamkino Sergachsky district Nizhny Novgorod region, I could not miss the unique opportunity that presented itself to me to visit the scientist, as they say, at the hearth. Moreover, we were separated by some couple of tens of kilometers - it is at such a distance from Kamkino that the village of Shubino is located, where during July I visited relatives.
Armed with a voice recorder, I got into the car, and in a quarter of an hour I found myself on the most picturesque bank of the Pyana River near a small wooden house decorated with cheerful Tatar ornaments and immersed in flowers.
The hospitable hosts, not bothering to ask questions about the purpose of my visit, literally brought me into the house and began to treat me with tea. The very atmosphere in the house was conducive to a long and entertaining conversation...
The interview was recorded by:
Alimzhan-effendi, you are a well-known researcher, the author of a number of works on the history of the Mishars. What inspired you to study this topic?
Probably the usual interest of any person in the history of his people. I began to deal with this problem closely in 1960-70. Since then, I have been able to collect a lot of materials that indicate that the Tatars-Mishars are the descendants of an ancient cave, known in Rus' from archaeological sites from the 5th, and from the annals from the 9th century. On this account, there is a lot of scattered data, but there was no complete work on the history of the Mishars. My book "Meshchera, Meshcheryaki, Mishare", published in Kazan in 1992, was the first work in this direction, although in it I was not able to fully reveal the issues under study. In the future, while working on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod Tatars, I clarified many things for myself. Firstly, that our ancestors are the population of Ancient Meshchera. But we were portrayed as Cheremis or Mari, not Turks. This distortion began with Ivan the Terrible's campaign against Kazan. Ivan the Terrible called us "Cheremis Tatars", and the Tatars inhabiting Mordovia, "Mordovian Tatars".
Despite this, researchers Karamzin and Tatishchev subsequently dealt with this topic. The latter directly pointed out that the Meshchera, Meshchersky Tatars are the ancestors of the Don Cossacks. And Karamzin noticed that Meshchera is a freeman who does not have statehood, it is inhabited by very remote riders, and the Cossacks are just the Meshchera Tatars, despite their "Turkish lexicon".
- When did the Tatars-Mishars appear on the land of their current habitat and, in particular, in the Nizhny Novgorod Territory?
According to archaeological excavations, the Mishari Tatars settled on these lands in the 5th century, coming from the Angara River basin. I discovered interesting point: the name of the Oka River was brought with them by the Tatars-Mishars.
In my book "Nizhny Novgorod Tatars" I for the first time introduce into scientific circulation the results of a study of several large groups archaeologists who were engaged in excavation of mounds in the vicinity of Moscow, the Tula province, etc. They came to the conclusion that the Meshchera were the first settlers in these territories, followed by the Finno-Ugric peoples and only then the Slavs. But the results of this study, although they were published by major publishing houses, were not subsequently put into circulation anywhere, as if they did not exist. In the book "Nizhny Novgorod Tatars" I refer to this.
- There is an opinion that the Tatars came to the Nizhny Novgorod region from near Astrakhan?
It does not correspond to reality, being based on one single fact: 8 Tatars moved from the lower reaches of the Volga to the village of Safadzhay. The vast majority of Nizhny Novgorod Tatars are from Meshchera. These are Kadomsky, Temnikovsky transitioners, transitioners from the subordination of the Kasimov princes. Some authors try to assert that some of the local Tatars come from the Golden Horde. However, when modern Tatar villages were created, not a single Tatar remained here. Several existing villages, such as Safadzhay, Mangushevo, Kamkino, were evicted from here, since, according to the Russian authorities, they were unreliable. For example, the Safajays were exiled to the Arzamas district, only later, in the middle of the 17th century, they were transferred back to Safajay.
The Mishari Tatars were once subordinate to the Golden Horde, since all the places inhabited by the Tatars were directly subordinate to the Horde administration. But at the end of the XIV century, the places of settlement of the Tatars - Nizhny Novgorod, Murom, Meshchera, Tarusa were sold by the Golden Horde khans to Moscow. Thus, the Mishari Tatars found themselves in the zone of influence of the Russian principalities.
- What is the origin of the ethnonym of the Meshchera people?
Meshchera as a locality comes from the name of the people. As for the ethnonym, I cannot say for sure about its origin. This requires special study.
- It is known that one of the signs of the Tatar-Mishars is the so-called "clattering" dialect?
You're right. This dialect is also found in Siberia and the Angara region. It should be noted that confusion sometimes arises here due to the fact that both Temnikovsky and Kasymov Tatars are called Mishars. This is not entirely correct. More precisely, only Nizhny Novgorod Tatars are Mishars.
- And let's say, the Penza or Saratov Tatars, aren't they Mishars?
- Penza and Saratov Tatars are mixed. There are both clattering and clattering groups. According to the clattering dialect, one can trace such a process as the Russification of the Meshchera. There are many Russians who are ethnic Meshcheryak. Famous geographer Nikolai Semenov, author of a geographical dictionary Russian Empire, leads very interesting example: in a number of counties of the Penza province, he discovered a village of Tatar-Mishars speaking Russian. Semyonov notes that they are outwardly similar to the neighboring Mishars, but they speak Russian and with a clatter. According to him, in addition to the Penza province, Russified and converted to Orthodoxy Meshcheryak live in the Voronezh, Tambov and, apparently, Saratov provinces. Now inventories of ancient documents concerning the history of the Mishars Tatars have been published. At the beginning of the XVII century. they are all called minnows. As a special category of service people, they are attracted to participate in campaigns against Western invaders. At the same time, the territories of their settlement are indicated - Moscow, Vladimir provinces and a number of provinces, as well as Kolomna and Kashirsky districts, etc. In the 1970s. a number of philological expeditions were carried out, which confirmed that the Mishar clattering dialect was among the Krivichi Slavs.
- They say that the Mishars took part in the capture of Kazan by Russian troops?
Historical facts testify that they did not participate in this campaign. Otherwise, they would have been endowed with estates like the Temnikov and Kasimov Tatars. But the Tatars-Mishars turned out to be powerless. In addition, foreign travelers, in particular Fletcher, noticed that the Kadom Tatars were in a state of indignation in connection with the Russian campaign against Kazan.
- How were the relations of the Mishars Tatars with the Russian authorities?
Somewhere at the end of the 16th century, they began to be used on new lands in the fight against nomadic pastoral tribes. The Russian authorities were dual policy: either they were friends with the nomads, because they were interested in relations with the Nogai hordes, which could supply thousands of horse heads, or they waged military operations against them. From the second half of the 16th century, Russia switched to the tactics of capturing and ruining the inhabitants of the occupied territories. Therefore, the steppe in the late XVI-early XVII centuries. was still deserted. According to the will of Ivan the Terrible, the children of the boyars were first settled there, who were a rank of ordinary Russian soldiers who were supposed to serve from the earth. They settled mainly along the rivers, such as Piana, where there were fishing spots. They were not interested in fields and arable land, so the population of the region was extremely weak. In parallel, the displacement of the Tatars and their forced baptism began.
However, the Boyar Children, although they were endowed the best lands, were not ready to fulfill the function assigned to them: firstly, it was necessary to develop these lands, and, secondly, to fight. The Nogai detachments came, did whatever they pleased, and left with impunity. Only Tatars-Mishars, old competitors of the Nogais, were able to fight with them.
In troubled times, this turned out to be the most strategically weak link in the new Russia, which found itself in mortal danger. Russian troops and invited Cossacks were unable to resist the attacks of the Nogais. And the governors Dmitry Pozharsky and Dmitry Trubetskoy solved this problem. They, without the sanction of the tsarist authorities, by their decree decided to resettle the Mishars Tatars from the Kadom region to the Tatar Pripyana steppe. This was reflected in the documents of the history of the militia. Trubetskoy and Pozharsky created the Council of the whole earth, where they invited patriotic people. In November 1612, the Council decided to legalize the resettlement of the Mishars Tatars and turned to the future tsar with an order to provide them with a tarkhan charter, which gave them the right to a lifetime settlement and land use. In 1618, Tsar Mikhail Romanov, following the order of the Council, issued a tarkhan charter to the Mishars by his decree. The Tatars were immediately endowed with estates, and Murza Bayush Razgeldeev and Nayamash Mangushev received the title of princes. Thus, the Mishari Tatars became one of the most important links in the Russian defense system, not only in the east, but also in the west. In 1615, Dmitry Pozharsky took them on a campaign against the Poles.
- How was the further development of these places by the Tatars?
Mishari Tatars were the first settlers in the Pripyana steppe on the territory of the modern Krasnooktyabrsky, Pilnensky, Sergachsky and Spassky districts, where Tatar villages are now located. There were no Russian settlements here, since the Russians settled mainly along the Pyana and used the fishing grounds. Subsequently, their settlements did not survive; some of them, such as Semyonovka, were later transferred to the Tatars. Then, around the Tatar villages, the so-called owner's villages were formed, such as Yanovo, Chufarovo, Obimovo, which were transferred to the newly baptized Tatars, who were assigned these villages along with their inhabitants.
As for the Tatars, they did not have serfdom as such - each serving Tatar was endowed with an estate, which was assigned to them for life and which he could inherit. According to the law, the Tatars did not have the right to keep Russian peasants, so they themselves performed peasant work, and had to be ready for military service. Therefore, the researchers note, they have developed a very strong attachment to the land, a sense of the owner, which are characteristic of the Tatars to this day.
IN late XVII century, an overabundance of population formed in the Tatar villages, and part of the Tatars began to move to the east, mainly in the Kama region, where many Tatar-Mishars still live. For example, there is also a village called Kamkino, whose inhabitants know that they come from the Nizhny Novgorod region.
When did the Mishari Tatars become Muslims? To what extent were they affected by the policy of forced Christianization carried out in Russia in relation to national minorities?
The Mishari Tatras adopted Islam relatively early, at the end of the 13th century. A certain Bakhmet Useinov came from the Great Horde to Meshchera, on the banks of the Oka, the Ryazan and Moscow principalities, and began to spread Islam. But he was immediately seized by the Russian authorities and forced to be baptized, after which all his descendants were considered baptized. At the same time, a conflict arose between the ordinary Tatars-Mishars and the baptized princes, who were widths by origin. And they were forced to flee to Zamoskvorechye, where many surnames are still preserved, indicating a Mishar origin. Somewhere in the XIII-XIV centuries. two Meshcheras were formed: Russian - in the vicinity of Moscow (Zamoskvorechye, Vladimir province) and Tatar (interfluve Mokhsha - Tsna - Oka). In the future, their fate turned out to be somewhat different.
In the second half of the 16th century, a church hierarch was appointed as the governor of the local Tatars, specifically to force them to be baptized. And for the Mishars of Moscow, the baptism campaign reached its peak in the middle of the 17th century.
WITH mid-eighteenth For centuries, the newly baptized office was engaged in the baptism of the Tatar-Mishars. The multiplicity of baptismal campaigns indicates that this was a constant practice for the Russian state. Newly baptized Tatars were constantly endowed with special rights and privileges.
- Did the Tatar-Mishars have cultural ties with Kazan?
- From Bulgaria, such crafts as leather dressing, soap making, etc. came to us. Trade relations also developed. However, these connections were not strong enough. Apparently, territorial disunity made itself felt.
“It is IMPORTANT TO REVEAL THE MISTAKE
ABOUT KRYASHENS AND TATARS»
KAZAN TATARS AND THEIR ANCESTORS
I. Introduction
There are a number of conflicting theories about the origin of our Kazan Tatars, none of which can claim to be reliable yet. According to the first of them, and apparently the oldest one, the Kazan Tatars are the descendants of the Tatar-Mongols, according to the other, their ancestors are the Volga-Kama Bulgars, according to the third, they are the descendants of the Kipchaks from the Golden Horde, who migrated to the Volga region, and according to the fourth, so far The latest, it seems, is that the Kazan Tatars are the descendants of the Turkic-speaking tribes that appeared in the Volga and Ural regions in the 7th-8th centuries and formed the people of the Kazan Tatars within the Volga-Kama Bulgaria. The author of this last hypothesis is the head of the archaeological department of the Kazan Institute. G.Ibragimova[i] A. Khalikov, although justified and rejects the first three theories, but also about his worknevertheless writes that it is only an attempt to summarize new data on the origin of the Volga Tatars and initiate further research in this area. It seems to us that the reason for such difficulties in resolving the issue of the origin of the Kazan Tatars is that they are looking for their ancestors not where their descendants now live, i.e. not in the Tatar Republic, but, in addition, they attribute the emergence of the Kazan Tatars not to the era when this took place, but in all cases to more ancient times.
II.Theory of the Tatar-Mongolian
According to this theory, the Kazan Tatars are the descendants of the Tatar-Mongols, who conquered many countries in the first half of the 13th century and left the sad memory of the “Tatar yoke” among the Russian people. The Russian people were sure of this when the Moscow army went on a campaign that ended with the annexation of Kazan to Moscow in 1552. Here is what we read in “The Tale of Prince Kurbsky about the Conquest of Kazan”: “And Abie, for the help of God, resisted the mighty Christian army. And against some sort of matchers? So great and formidable Ishmaelian language, once the universe trembled from the worthlessness, and not only trembled, but was also devastated”, i.e. The Christian army came out against the people, before whom the world trembled and not only trembled, but by whom it was also devastated.
This theory, based only on the same name of the ancient people and the modern one, had its supporters, but its fallacy is fully proved by the results of diverse scientific studies, which absolutely do not confirm any connection between the Kazan Tatars and the Tatar-Mongols. This hypothesis, perhaps, is still preserved in some places, as a philistine point of view of people who know something from the literature about the “Tatars” of ancient times and who also know that, for example, Kazan Tatars still exist.
III.Theory of the Kipchak-Polovtsian
origin of the Kazan Tatars
There is a group of Soviet scientists (M.N. Tikhomirov, M.G. Safargaliev, Sh.F. Mukhamedyarov), who, based on the fact that the Tatar language is included in the so-called Kipchak group Turkic languages, consider the Kazan Tatars to be the descendants of the Kipchak-Polovtsian tribes, which in the 13th and 14th centuries made up the bulk of the population of the Golden Horde. According to these scientists, the Kipchak tribes after the Mongol invasion, especially after the collapse of the Golden Horde, moved to the banks of the Kama and the Volga, where, with the remnants of the Volga Bulgaria, they formed the basis of the Kazan Tatars.
This theory, based only on the commonality of the language, is refuted by archaeological and anthropological materials, which do not confirm any significant changes either in culture or in ethnic composition of the population of the Kazan Khanate in comparison with the population and culture of the local region of the Golden Horde period.
IV. Theory of the origin of the Kazan Tatars
from the Volga-Kama Bulgars
For quite a long time there was a controversy between supporters of the origin of the Volga-Kama Bulgars of Kazan Tatars or Chuvash. The dispute was resolved in favor of the latter, and with regard to the Kazan Tatars, this issue has now finally disappeared. In resolving this issue, the main role was played by the fact that the Tatar language is so different from the ancient Bulgarian that it is difficult to identify the ancestors of the Tatars with the Volga-Kama Bulgars. At the same time, “if we compare the language of the Bulgar tombstones with the current Chuvash dialect, then the difference between the two turns out to be very insignificant”,or else: “Monuments of the language of the Bulgars of the 13th century are most closely explained from the modern Chuvash language.”
v."Archaeological" theory of the origin of the Kazan Tatars
In a very solid work on the history of the Kazan Tatars, we read: AD began to penetrate from the southeast and south into the forest-steppe part from the Urals to the upper reaches of the Oka River”...According to the theory clarifying the above position, proposed by the head of the archeology sector of the Kazan Institute of Language, Literature and History of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. Khalikov, the ancestors of modern Kazan Tatars, as well as the Bashkirs, should be considered Turkic-speaking tribes that invaded the Volga and Ural regions in the 6th-8th centuries, who spoke the language of the Oghuz-Kipchak type.
According to the author, even in the pre-Mongolian period, the main population of the Volga Bulgaria probably spoke a language close to the Kipchak-Oguz group of Turkic languages, related language Volga Tatars and Bashkirs. There is reason to believe, he argues, that in the Volga Bulgaria, even in the pre-Mongolian period, on the basis of the merger of Turkic-speaking tribes, their assimilation of part of the local Finno-Ugric population, the process of adding up the ethno-cultural components of the Volga Tatars was going on. The author concludes that there will be no big mistake consider that during this period the foundations of the language, culture and anthropological appearance of the Kazan Tatars took shape, including their adoption of the Muslim religion in the 10th-11th centuries.
Fleeing from the Mongol invasion and raids from the Golden Horde, these ancestors of the Kazan Tatars allegedly moved from Zakamye and settled on the banks of the Kazanka and Mesha. During the period of the Kazan Khanate, the main groups of the Volga Tatars were finally formed from them: Kazan Tatars and Mishars, and after the region was annexed to the Russian state, as a result of supposedly forced Christianization, part of the Tatars was allocated to the Kryashens group.
Consider the weaknesses of this theory. There is a point of view that Turkic-speaking tribes with “Tatar” and “Chuvash” languages have lived in the Volga region since time immemorial. Academician S.E. Malov, for example, says: “Currently, two Turkic peoples live on the territory of the Volga region: Chuvash and Tatars ... These two languages are very heterogeneous and not similar ... despite the fact that these languages are of the same Turkic system ... I think that these two linguistic elements were here a very long time ago, several centuries before new era and almost exactly the same as it is now. If the current Tatars met the alleged “ ancient Tatar”, a resident of the 5th century BC, they would have fully explained themselves to him. Just like the Chuvash.”
Thus, it is not necessary to refer only to the VI-VII centuries the appearance in the Volga region of the Turkic tribes of the Kipchak (Tatar) language group.
We will consider the Bulgaro-Chuvash identity as indisputably established and agree with the opinion that the ancient Volga Bulgars were known under this name only among other peoples, but they themselves called themselves Chuvash. Thus, Chuvash language was the language of the Bulgars, a language not only spoken, but also written, accounting.In confirmation, there is the following statement: “The Chuvash language is a purely Turkic dialect, with an admixture of Arabic, Persian and Russian and almost without any admixture of Finnish words”, ...“ the influence of educated nations is visible in the language”.
So, in ancient Volga Bulgaria, which existed for a historical period of time equal to about five centuries, the state language was Chuvash, and the main part of the population was most likely the ancestors of modern Chuvash, and not the Turkic-speaking tribes of the Kipchak language group, as the author of the theory claims. There were no objective reasons for the merger of these tribes into an original nationality with features that were later characteristic of the Volga Tatars, i.e. to the emergence in those remote times as if their ancestors.
Due to the multinationality of the Bulgar state and the equality of all tribes before the authorities, the Turkic-speaking tribes of both language groups in this case would have to be in very close relations with each other, given the very great similarity of languages, and hence the ease of communication. Most likely, under those conditions, the assimilation of the tribes of the Kipchak language group in the old Chuvash people should have taken place, and not their merger with each other and isolation as a separate nationality with specific features, moreover, in a linguistic, cultural and anthropological sense, coinciding with the features of modern Volga Tatars .
Now a few words about the acceptance of the allegedly distant ancestors of the Kazan Tatars in the X-XI centuries of the Muslim religion. This or that new religion, as a rule, was accepted not by the peoples, but by their rulers for political reasons. Sometimes it took a very long time to wean the people from the old customs and beliefs and make them a follower of the new faith. So, apparently, it was in the Volga Bulgaria with Islam, which was the religion of the ruling elite, and the common people continued to live according to their old beliefs, perhaps until the time when the elements of the Mongol invasion, and subsequently the raids of the Golden Horde Tatars, forced the survivors flee from Zakamye to the northern bank of the river, regardless of tribes and language.
The author of the theory only casually mentions such an important historical event for the Kazan Tatars as the emergence of the Kazan Khanate. He writes: “Here, in the 13th-14th centuries, the Kazan principality was formed, which grew into the Kazan Khanate in the 15th century.”As if the second is only a simple development of the first, without any qualitative changes. In reality, the Kazan principality was Bulgarian, with Bulgarian princes, and the Kazan Khanate was Tatar, with a Tatar khan at the head.
Kazan Khanate was created former khan Golden Horde Ulu Mohammed, who arrived on the left bank of the Volga in 1438 at the head of 3,000 of his Tatar warriors and conquered the local tribes. In the Russian chronicles there is for 1412, for example, the following entry: “Daniil Borisovich a year before with a squad Bulgarian princes defeated Vasiliev's brother, Pyotr Dmitrievich, in Lyskovo, and Vsevolod Danilovich Kazan prince Talych robbed Vladimir. Since 1445, the son of Ulu Mohammed Mamutyak became the Khan of Kazan, having villainously killed his father and brother, which in those days was a common occurrence during palace coups. The chronicler writes: “The same autumn, King Mamutyak, Ulu Mukhamedov’s son, took the city of Kazan and patrimony of Kazan, killed Prince Lebei, and he himself sat down to reign in Kazan.” Also: “In 1446, 700 Tatars of the Mamutyakov squad besieged Ustyug and took furs from the city, but, returning, they drowned in Vetluga.”
In the first case, the Bulgars, i.e. Chuvash princes and Bulgar, i.e. Chuvash Kazan prince, and in the second - 700 Tatars of the Mamutyakov squad. It was Bulgarian, i.e. Chuvash, Kazan principality, became the Tatar Kazan Khanate.
What was the significance of this event for the population of the local region, how did historical process after that, what changes occurred in the ethnic and social composition of the region during the period of the Kazan Khanate, as well as after the annexation of Kazan to Moscow - there is no answer to all these questions in the proposed theory. It is also not clear how the Mishar Tatars ended up in their habitats, with a common origin with the Kazan Tatars. A very elementary explanation is given for the emergence of the Tatar-Kryashens “as a result of forced Christianization”, without giving a single historical example. Why did the majority of Kazan Tatars, despite the violence, managed to keep themselves Muslims, and a relatively small part succumbed to violence and converted to Christianity. The reason for what has been said to some extent must be sought, perhaps in the fact that, as the author of the article himself points out, up to 52 percent of the Kryashens belong, according to anthropology, to the Caucasoid type, and only 25 percent of Kazan Tatars are like that. Perhaps this is due to some difference in origin between the Kazan Tatars and the Kryashens, from which their different behavior also follows during “forced” Christianization, if this really happened in the 16th and 17th centuries, which is very doubtful. We must agree with the author of this theory, A. Khalikov, that his article is only an attempt to summarize new data that makes it possible to raise the question of the origin of the Kazan Tatars again, and, I must say, an unsuccessful attempt.
VI."Chuvash" theory of the origin of the Kazan Tatars
Most historians and ethnographers, as well as the authors of the four theories discussed above, are looking for the ancestors of the Kazan Tatars not where this people currently lives, but in places far from there. In the same way, their emergence and formation as an original nationality are attributed to the wrong historical era when it took place, but to more ancient times. Therefore, the proposed theories of the origin of the Kazan Tatars turn out to be either erroneous or unconvincing. In reality there is full foundation consider that the cradle of the Kazan Tatars is their real homeland, i.e. region of the Tatar Republic on the left bank of the Volga between Kazanka and Kama.
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 former Khan of the Golden Horde Ulu Mohammed in 1438 until 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, who have not survived to this day, but lived in those parts, representatives of other tribes, including those who spoke in a language close to the language of the Kazan Tatars.
All these peoples and tribes, apparently, lived in those wooded lands from time immemorial, and partially, perhaps, also moved from Zakamye, after the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols 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-kiremets - places of prayer with sacrifices. We are convinced of this by the fact that, until the revolution of 1917, they were preserved in the same Tatar Republic, for example, near the village. Kukmor, Udmurt and Mari villages, which were not touched by either Christianity or Islam, where until recently people lived according to the ancient customs of their tribes.
In addition, in ApastovskyIn the region of the Tatar Republic, at the junction with the Chuvash Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, there are nine Kryashen villages, including the villages of Surinskoye and the village of Staroe Tyaberdino, where some of the inhabitants were “unbaptized” Kryashens even before the 1917 revolution, thus surviving until the revolution outside as a Christian and Muslim religions. Yes, 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 widespread point of view that the Kryashens arose as a result of the forced Christianization of the 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 Chuvash, Mari, Udmurts and others - lived according to the old grandfather customs.
Now let's see how historical conditions could arise and multiply the people of the Kazan Tatars, as we know them in late XIX and the beginning of the 20th century.
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 one pre-revolutionary historical work on the same issue, we read this: “The aristocratic Kazan kingdom was formed, in which the military class consisted of Tatars, the merchant class consisted of Bulgars, and the agricultural class consisted of Chuvash-Suvars. The power of the tsar extended to the foreigners of the region, who began to convert to Mohammedanism”,in other words, slacking off. It's very believable and specific.
In the latest edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in more detail about the internal structure of the state in its finally formed period, we read the following: “Kazan Khanate, a feudal state in Wed. The 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 Mohammed (ruled from 1438-45). Higher government 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 and others) were hardly very merciful to their serfs, besides foreigners and infidels. 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 requirement 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 a hundred years, during which raids on the outskirts of the Muscovite state almost did not stop. In the internal state life there were frequent palace coups and proteges of Turkey (Crimea), then Moscow, then the Nogai Horde, etc. turned out to be on the khan's throne.
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.
The Tatarization of the dark masses of the Volga peoples was the result of energetic and systematic activity among them of the Muslim clergy, who often received theological, and at the same time political training, mainly in sultanist Turkey. Along with preaching the “true” faith, these “theologians” instilled in the Tatar people, who remained in darkness and ignorance, hostility and hostility towards the Russian people. Ultimately, the Tatar people until the XX century. continued to stay away European culture, in alienation from the Russian people and was in complete ignorance and darkness. On the other hand, all the Volga peoples (Chuvash, Mordovians, Mari, Udmurts and Kryashens) by the middle of the 19th century. turned out to be on the verge of complete disappearance from the historical scene as a result of the Tatarization and absorption of them by the very Arab-Muslim culture frozen at the level of the Middle Ages.
Thus, the formation of the Kazan Tatars began after the emergence of the Kazan Khanate and lasted for several centuries, precisely through the Tatarization of the Chuvash, they are also the Bulgars, who should be considered primarily the ancestors of the Kazan Tatars. The foregoing is confirmed by recent research.
In materials on history Chuvash people(in the article by V.D. Dimitriev - ed.) we read: “A huge number of left-bank Suvars (Chuvashs) in the 13th-14th centuries. and the beginning of the fifteenth century. moved to the northern regions of the left bank of the Volga in the Order. Despite the Tatarization of a significant part of these Chuvashs, there were many of them in the Kazan district, even in the 16th-18th centuries. In the acts of the XVI - early XVII centuries. in the Kazan district, I managed to record up to 100 Chuvash villages.
“The left-bank Chuvashs gradually fledged. Archival documents show that in the first half of the seventeenth century. in the Kazan district, many Chuvashs converted to Islam and began to call themselves Tatars.“The rapid growth in the number of Kazan Tatars was due, first of all, to the Tatarization, mainly of the Chuvash, as well as the Mari, Udmurts and others.”
“In the sixteenth century. The Tatars were numerically less than the Chuvash. The number of Tatars subsequently grew, to a large extent due to the Muslimization mainly of the Chuvash, as well as the Mari, Udmurts, and others. Numerous Chuvash population Kazan district was absorbed by the Tatars.
Academician S.E. Malov says: “... When anthropologists used to come to Kazan from abroad, they were surprised that in some districts of the former Kazan province, according to their measurements, the population consisted of Mari. But these anthropometric Maris were at the same time completely Tatars in terms of language and life ... In this case, we have a Tatarization of the Maris.
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 Tatars “suas”. N.I. Ashmarin considers this circumstance one of the proofs of the Bulgar origin of the Chuvash on the grounds that the name of the ruling people in the Bulgar period was automatically transferred by the Mari to the new conquerors who arrived from the Golden Horde.It's not particularly convincing. Another more reliable and simpler explanation suggests itself.
From time immemorial, the Meadow Mari have been close neighbors with that part of the Chuvash people who lived on the left bank of the Volga and were the first to Tatar, so that not a single Chuvash village remained in those places for a long time, although historical information and there were many of them in the scribe records of the Muscovite state. The Mari did not notice, especially at the beginning, any changes in their neighbors as a result of the appearance of another god in them - Allah - and forever preserved their former name in their language. But for distant neighbors - Russians - from the very beginning of the formation of the Kazan kingdom there was no doubt that the Kazan Tatars were the same Tatar-Mongols who left a sad memory of themselves among the Russians.
Throughout the 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. His raids were accompanied by the devastation of the region, the robberies of the civilian population and their hijacking in full, i.e. everything happened in the style of the Tatar-Mongols.
So, the modern Kazan Tatars descended mainly from the Chuvash people, and the Tatarization of the Chuvash took place over a long period of time. historical period. First of all, the ancestors of the Tatars should be considered that part of the Chuvash people that lived on the left bank of the Volga and was the first to fall under the rule of the Tatars from the Golden Horde, whom Khan Ulu Mohammed brought with him. Then the point of view of some Tatar historians about the origin of the Kazan Tatars from the Volga-Kama Bulgars also finds justification, since it is the Chuvashs who are the descendants of this ancient people.
When trying to establish the ancestors of the Kazan Tatars, the researchers of the issue were always fundamentally mistaken for the following reasons:
1. They searched in the distant past for ancestors with characteristic national features of modern Kazan Tatars.
2. They were not more deeply interested in the course of the Muslimization of the peoples of the Volga region during the previous several centuries.
3. They did not see the difference between assimilation when any nationality or ethnic group gradually, sometimes over a number of generations, completely adopts the characteristic features of another people, and the Tatarization of the Volga peoples, when individual representatives or groups of the latter, along with Islam, immediately adopted completely Tatar image life, language, customs, etc., renouncing their nationality.
4. They did not show interest in archival documents and literature, confirming the transformation of large masses of the Volga peoples into Kazan Tatars in a relatively recent time from a historical point of view.
conclusions
1. All four theories considered here about the origin of the Kazan Tatars from the Tatar-Mongols, or from the Volga-Kama Bulgars, or from the Kipchak tribes, or, finally, from the people that arose back in the pre-Mongol period within the Volga-Kama Bulgaria, as a result of mergers of different Turkic tribes of the Kipchak language group are untenable and do not stand up to scrutiny.
2. Kazan Tatars descended from common ancestors with other Volga peoples, mainly with the Chuvashs, and partly with the Mari, Udmurts and others as a result of the Muslimization of these peoples. The participation of Russian “Polonians” in the ethnogenesis of the Kazan Tatars is not ruled out.
3. The spread of Islam with the Tatarization of the mentioned peoples took place in a relatively recent historical period, starting with the creation of the Kazan Khanate in 1438 by Muslim Tatars who arrived from the Golden Horde and conquered the local tribes of the left bank of the Volga until the 20th century. end period this process could be observed by the fathers and grandfathers of contemporaries.
4. The Volga peoples, and mainly the Chuvashs, are by origin the blood brothers of our Kazan Tatars, who in this sense are with other Turkic-speaking peoples, for example, Central Asia, Caucasus, Siberia and others have nothing in common.
5. Local Turkic tribes with a Tatar or similar language can be considered the ancestors of the Kazan Tatars on a par with others only to the extent that they accepted Islam, at the same time abandoning everything that had previously been their national identity.
A handful of unbaptized Kryashens who survived until the 20th century, which were discussed on another occasion, apparently can give an idea of how said tribes were before turning into Kazan Tatars as a result of Muslimization. The origin of the Kazan Tatars: Materials of the session of the Department of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, organized jointly with the Institute of Language, Literature and History of the Kazan Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, April 25-26, 1946 in Moscow (according to the transcript). - Kazan: Tatgosizdat, 1948. - P. 118. Scientific notes of the Kazan Pedagogical Institute. Issue. VIII, Sat. I; Khanbikov Ya.I. Social and pedagogical activity and pedagogical views of Galimdzhan Ibragimov / Ya.I.Khanbikov. - S. 76, 91, 92.
Origin of the Kazan Tatars: Materials of the session of the Department of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, organized jointly with the Institute of Language, Literature and History of the Kazan Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, April 25-26, 1946 in Moscow (according to the transcript). - Kazan: Tatgosizdat, 1948. - P. 119.
Tatars and Chuvashs claim origin from the Sumerians. At the same time, the peoples rely on the similarity of their languages \u200b\u200bwith the Sumerian. Literary critic Olzhas Suleimenov found 60 Sumerian words that are similar to Turkic. These are the main words that vary slightly in different languages: hell - father, ama - mother, ere - husband, me - I, ze - you, kir - earth, ud - fire, udun - tree, dingir - sky, tengir - god . He believes that the Sumerian and Turkic languages influenced each other or had common roots. Perhaps the peoples lived side by side and could mix. Even the Russian "hero" can have Sumerian roots, because one of the heroes of the Gilgamesh epic bears the name Birkhurtur. And the name of Bohodir and Bohodur is still carried by many Uzbeks and other inhabitants of Asia.
5,310,649 Tatars, 1,435,872 Chuvashs, 289,862 Uzbeks live in Russia.
In Central Asia, the Sumerians could escape from wars. In Turkmenistan in Soviet time a number of artifacts were found identical to those of the Sumerians, which date back to the 4th century BC. the military helmet found in Kara-Tepe repeats the Sumerian helmets of the early dynasty. The data of modern excavations indicate that in 2300-2250 BC. the peoples of Mesopotamia migrated to Turkmenistan and to the territory of modern Xinjiang (China), that is, the territory of Central Asia was seriously influenced by the Sumerians.
What do geneticists say? There is no unity in their ranks. According to the hypothesis of Professor Anatoly Klesov, the Sumerians are a people that is part of the ancient Erbs that lived in the Caspian steppes 6,500 years ago. Their descendants carry the haplogroup R1b or R1b1a2 in their genes. Such haplogroups are found among Armenians (up to a quarter of the population), Jews, Slavs, Arabs, inhabitants of the Mediterranean and Western Europe. Other geneticists believe that these haplogroups do not belong to the Sumerians, but to the Hurrians. And the descendants of the Sumerians must be calculated according to the J2 haplogroup, which is common among Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians and some peoples of Western Europe.
Thus, 1,182,388 Armenians, 156,801 Jews and 111,016,896 Russians now live in Russia - and all of them are potential descendants of the Sumerians.
But scientists admit that the studies are very incomplete and can be supplemented only by conducting large-scale studies of the Sumerian burials. In the meantime, the Sumerians can be searched for in other ways. Including comparing languages, cultures and artifacts. They could not disappear, which means they live among us.
