Tatars(self-name - Tat. Tatar, tatar, plural Tatarlar, tatarlar) - a Turkic people living in the central regions of the European part of Russia, in the Volga region, the Urals, Siberia, Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Xinjiang, Afghanistan and the Far East.
Tatars are the second largest ethnic group ( ethnicity- ethnic community) after the Russians and the most numerous people of Muslim culture in the Russian Federation, where the main area of their settlement is the Volga-Ural region. Within this region, the largest Tatar groups are concentrated in the Republic of Tatarstan and the Republic of Bashkortostan.
Language, writing
According to many historians, the Tatar people with a single literary and practically common spoken language emerged during the existence of the huge Turkic state - the Golden Horde. The literary language in this state was the so-called “idel terkise” or Old Tatar, based on the Kipchak-Bulgar (Polovtsian) language and incorporating elements of Central Asian literary languages. The modern literary language based on the middle dialect arose in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
In ancient times, the Turkic ancestors of the Tatars used runic writing, as evidenced by archaeological finds in the Urals and Middle Volga region. Since the voluntary adoption of Islam by one of the ancestors of the Tatars, the Volga-Kama Bulgars, the Tatars used Arabic writing, from 1929 to 1939 - Latin script, and since 1939 they have used the Cyrillic alphabet with additional characters.
The earliest surviving literary monument in the old Tatar literary language (Kul Gali’s poem “Kyisa-i Yosyf”) was written in the 13th century. From the second half of the 19th century V. The modern Tatar literary language begins to take shape, which by the 1910s had completely replaced the old Tatar language.
Modern Tatar language, belonging to the Kipchak-Bulgar subgroup of the Kipchak group of the Turkic language family, is divided into four dialects: middle (Kazan Tatar), western (Mishar), eastern (language of the Siberian Tatars) and Crimean (language Crimean Tatars). Despite dialectal and territorial differences, the Tatars are a single nation with a single literary language, a single culture - folklore, literature, music, religion, national spirit, traditions and rituals.
Even before the 1917 coup, the Tatar nation occupied one of the leading places in the world in terms of literacy level (the ability to write and read in its own language). Russian Empire. The traditional thirst for knowledge has survived in the current generation.
The Tatars, like any large ethnic group, have a rather complex internal structure and consist of three ethno-territorial groups: Volga-Ural, Siberian, Astrakhan Tatars and the sub-confessional community of baptized Tatars. By the beginning of the 20th century, the Tatars went through a process of ethnic consolidation ( Consolid tion[lat. consolidatio, from con (cum) - together, at the same time and solido - compacting, strengthening, merging], strengthening, strengthening something; unification, rallying of individuals, groups, organizations to strengthen the struggle for common goals).
The folk culture of the Tatars, despite its regional variability (it varies among all ethnic groups), is fundamentally the same. The vernacular Tatar language (consisting of several dialects) is fundamentally unified. Since XVIII -to the beginning XX centuries A national (so-called “high”) culture with a developed literary language emerged.
For consolidation Tatar nation The high migration activity of Tatars from the Volga-Ural region had a strong impact. So, by the beginning of the 20th century. 1/3 of the Astrakhan Tatars consisted of immigrants, and many of them were mixed (through marriages) with local Tatars. The same situation was observed in Western Siberia, where already by end of the 19th century V. about 1/5 of the Tatars came from the Volga and Urals regions, who also intensively mixed with the indigenous Siberian Tatars. Therefore, today it is almost impossible to identify “pure” Siberian or Astrakhan Tatars.
The Kryashens are distinguished by their religious affiliation - they are Orthodox. But all other ethnic parameters unite them with other Tatars. In general, religion is not an ethnic-forming factor. The basic elements of the traditional culture of baptized Tatars are the same as those of other neighboring Tatar groups.
Thus, the unity of the Tatar nation has deep cultural roots, and today the presence of Astrakhan, Siberian Tatars, Kryashens, Mishars, Nagaibaks has a purely historical and ethnographic significance and cannot serve as a basis for identifying independent peoples.
The Tatar ethnic group has an ancient and vibrant history, closely connected with the history of all the peoples of the Ural-Volga region and Russia as a whole.
The original culture of the Tatars has worthily entered the treasury of world culture and civilization.
We find traces of it in the traditions and language of the Russians, Mordovians, Mari, Udmurts, Bashkirs, and Chuvashs. At the same time, the national Tatar culture synthesizes the achievements of the Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Indo-Iranian peoples (Arabs, Slavs and others).
Tatars are one of the most mobile peoples. Due to landlessness, frequent crop failures in their homeland and the traditional desire for trade, even before 1917 they began to move to various regions of the Russian Empire, including the provinces of Central Russia, the Donbass, Eastern Siberia and Far East, North Caucasus and Transcaucasia, Central Asia and Kazakhstan. This migration process intensified during the years of Soviet rule, especially during the period of the “great construction projects of socialism.” Therefore, at present there is practically no federal subject in the Russian Federation where Tatars live. Even in the pre-revolutionary period, Tatar national communities were formed in Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and China. As a result of the collapse of the USSR, Tatars who lived in the former Soviet republics - Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and the Baltic countries - ended up in the near abroad. Already due to re-emigrants from China. In Turkey and Finland, since the mid-20th century, Tatar national diasporas have been formed in the USA, Japan, Australia, and Sweden.
Culture and life of the people
The Tatars are one of the most urbanized peoples of the Russian Federation. The social groups of the Tatars, living both in cities and in villages, are almost no different from those that exist among other peoples, especially Russians.
In their way of life, the Tatars do not differ from other surrounding peoples. The modern Tatar ethnic group arose in parallel with the Russian one. Modern Tatars are the Turkic-speaking part of the indigenous population of Russia, which, due to their greater territorial proximity to the East, chose Islam rather than Orthodoxy.
The traditional dwelling of the Tatars of the Middle Volga and Urals was a log hut, separated from the street by a fence. The external façade was decorated with multicolor paintings. The Astrakhan Tatars, who retained some of their steppe cattle-breeding traditions, used a yurt as a summer home.
Like many other peoples, the rituals and holidays of the Tatar people largely depended on the agricultural cycle. Even the names of the seasons were designated by a concept associated with a particular work.
Many ethnologists note the unique phenomenon of Tatar tolerance, which consists in the fact that in the entire history of the existence of the Tatars, they have not initiated a single conflict on ethnic and religious grounds. The most famous ethnologists and researchers are sure that tolerance is an invariable part of the Tatar national character.
Rafael Khakimov
History of the Tatars: a view from the 21st century
(Article from Ivolumes of History of the Tatars from ancient times. About the history of the Tatars and the concept of a seven-volume work entitled “History of the Tatars from ancient times”)
The Tatars are one of those few peoples about whom legends and outright lies are known to a much greater extent than the truth.
The official history of the Tatars, both before and after the 1917 revolution, was extremely ideological and biased. Even the most prominent Russian historians presented the “Tatar question” with bias or, at best, avoided it. Mikhail Khudyakov in his famous work “Essays on the History of the Kazan Khanate” wrote: “Russian historians were interested in the history of the Kazan Khanate only as material for studying the advance of the Russian tribe to the east. It should be noted that they mainly paid attention to the last moment of the struggle - the conquest of the region, especially the victorious siege of Kazan, but left almost without attention the gradual stages that the process of absorption of one state by another took place" [At the junction of continents and civilizations, p. 536 ]. The outstanding Russian historian S.M. Soloviev, in the preface to his multi-volume “History of Russia from Ancient Times,” noted: “The historian has no right from the middle of the 13th century to interrupt the natural thread of events - namely, the gradual transition of clan princely relations into state ones - and insert the Tatar period, highlight the Tatars, Tatar relations, as a result of which the main phenomena, the main reasons for these phenomena must be covered up” [Soloviev, p. 54]. Thus, a period of three centuries, the history of the Tatar states (Golden Horde, Kazan and other khanates), which influenced world processes, and not just the fate of the Russians, fell out of the chain of events in the formation of Russian statehood.
Another outstanding Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky divided the history of Russia into periods in accordance with the logic of colonization. “The history of Russia,” he wrote, “is the history of a country that is being colonized. The area of colonization in it expanded along with its state territory.” “...The colonization of the country was the main fact of our history, with which all its other facts stood in close or distant connection” [Klyuchevsky, p. 50]. The main subjects of V.O. Klyuchevsky’s research were, as he himself wrote, the state and the nation, while the state was Russian, and the people were Russian. There was no place left for the Tatars and their statehood.
Soviet period regarding Tatar history did not differ in any fundamentally new approaches. Moreover, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, with its resolution “On the state and measures to improve mass-political and ideological work in the Tatar party organization” of 1944, simply prohibited the study of the history of the Golden Horde (Ulus of Juchi), the Kazan Khanate, thus excluding the Tatar period from history of Russian statehood.
As a result of such approaches to the Tatars, an image of a terrible and savage tribe was formed that oppressed not only the Russians, but also almost half the world. There could be no talk of any positive Tatar history or Tatar civilization. Initially, it was believed that Tatars and civilization were incompatible things.
Today, each nation begins to write its own history independently. Scientific centers have become more independent ideologically, they are difficult to control and it is more difficult to put pressure on them.
The 21st century will inevitably make significant adjustments not only to the history of the peoples of Russia, but also to the history of the Russians themselves, as well as to the history of Russian statehood.
The positions of modern Russian historians are undergoing certain changes. For example, 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 non-Russian peoples who lived on the territory of what is now Russia. It contains characteristics of the Turkic, Khazar Khaganates, Volga Bulgaria, and more calmly describes the era of the Tatar-Mongol invasion and the period of the Kazan Khanate, but it is nevertheless Russian history, which cannot replace or absorb the Tatar one.
Until recently, Tatar historians in their research were limited by a number of rather strict objective and subjective conditions. Before the revolution, being citizens of the Russian Empire, they worked based on the tasks of ethnic revival. After the revolution, the period of freedom turned out to be too short to have time to write a full history. The ideological struggle greatly influenced their position, but, perhaps, the repressions of 1937 had a greater impact. Control by the CPSU Central Committee over the work of historians undermined the very possibility of developing scientific approach to history, subordinating everything to the tasks of the class struggle and the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Democratization of the Soviet and Russian society allowed us to reconsider many pages of history, and most importantly, to rearrange all research work from ideological to scientific ones. It became possible to use the experience of foreign scientists, and access to new sources and museum reserves opened up.
Along with general democratization, a new political situation arose in Tatarstan, which declared sovereignty, and on behalf of the entire multi-ethnic people of the republic. At the same time, quite turbulent processes were taking place in the Tatar world. In 1992, the First World Congress of Tatars met, at which the problem of an objective study of the history of the Tatars was identified as a key political task. All this required a rethinking of the place of the republic and the Tatars in a renewing Russia. There 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 existing Russian history cannot replace or exhaust it.
Methodological problems in studying the history of the Tatars were posed by scientists who worked on generalizing works. Shigabutdin Marjani in his work “Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahvali Kazan va Bolgar” (“Information drawn for the history of Kazan and Bulgar”) wrote: “Historians of the Muslim world, wanting to fulfill the duty of providing complete information O different eras and explanations of the meaning of human society, collected a lot of information about capitals, caliphs, kings, scientists, Sufis, various social layers, the ways and directions of thought of the ancient sages, past nature and everyday life, science and crafts, wars and uprisings.” And further he noted that “historical science absorbs the destinies of all nations and tribes, tests scientific directions and discussions” [Marjani, p.42]. At the same time, he did not highlight the methodology for studying Tatar history itself, although in the context of his works it is visible quite clearly. He examined the ethnic roots of the Tatars, their statehood, the rule of the khans, the economy, culture, religion, as well as the position of the Tatar people within the Russian Empire.
IN Soviet era ideological clichés required the use of Marxist methodology. Gaziz Gubaidullin wrote the following: “If we consider the path traversed by the Tatars, we can see that it is made up of the replacement of some economic formations by others, from the interaction of classes born of economic conditions” [Gubaidullin, p.20]. This was a tribute to the requirements of the time. His presentation of history itself was much broader than his stated position.
All subsequent historians of the Soviet period were under strict ideological pressure and their methodology was reduced to the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Nevertheless, in many works of Gaziz Gubaidullin, Mikhail Khudyakov and others, a different, non-official approach to history broke through. The monograph of Magomet Safargaleev “The Collapse of the Golden Horde”, the works of German Fedorov-Davydov, despite the inevitable censorship restrictions, by the very fact of their appearance had a strong influence on subsequent research. The works of Mirkasim Usmanov, Alfred Khalikov, Yahya Abdullin, Azgar Mukhamadiev, Damir Iskhakov and many others introduced an element of alternative into the existing interpretation of history, forcing us to delve deeper into ethnic history.
Of the foreign historians who studied the Tatars, the most famous are Zaki Validi Togan and Akdes Nigmat Kurat. Zaki Validi specifically dealt with the methodological problems of history, but he was more interested in the methods, goals and objectives of historical science in general, as opposed to other sciences, as well as approaches to writing common Turkic history. At the same time, in his books one can see specific methods for studying Tatar history. First of all, it should be noted that he described Turkic-Tatar history without distinguishing Tatar history from it. Moreover, this concerned not only the ancient common Turkic period, but also subsequent eras. He equally considers the personality of Genghis Khan, his children, Tamerlane, the various khanates - Crimean, Kazan, Nogai and Astrakhan, calling all this Turkic world. Of course, there are reasons for this approach. The ethnonym “Tatars” was often understood very broadly and included almost not only the Turks, but even the Mongols. At the same time, the history of many Turkic peoples in the Middle Ages, primarily within the framework of the Ulus of Jochi, was united. Therefore, the term “Turkic-Tatar history” in relation to the Turkic population of Dzhuchiev Ulus allows the historian to avoid many difficulties in presenting events.
Other foreign historians (Edward Keenan, Aisha Rohrlich, Yaroslav Pelensky, Yulai Shamiloglu, Nadir Devlet, Tamurbek Davletshin and others), although they did not set out to find common approaches to the history of the Tatars, nevertheless introduced very significant conceptual ideas into the study of various periods . They compensated for the gaps in the works of Tatar historians of the Soviet era.
The ethnic component is one of the most important in the study of history. Before the advent of statehood, the history of the Tatars largely boils down to ethnogenesis. Equally, the loss of statehood brings the study of ethnic processes to the fore. The existence of the state, although it relegates the ethnic factor to the background, nevertheless preserves its relative independence as a subject of historical research; moreover, sometimes it is the ethnic group that acts as a state-forming factor and, therefore, is decisively reflected in the course of history.
The Tatar people do not have a single ethnic root. Among his ancestors were the Huns, Bulgars, Kipchaks, Nogais and other peoples, who themselves were formed in ancient times, as can be seen from the first volume of this publication, on the basis of the culture of various Scythian and other tribes and peoples.
The formation of modern Tatars was influenced to a certain extent by the Finno-Ugrians and Slavs. Trying to look for ethnic purity in the person of the Bulgars or some ancient Tatar people is unscientific. The ancestors of modern Tatars never lived in isolation; on the contrary, they actively moved, mixing with various Turkic and non-Turkic tribes. On the other hand, state structures, developing an official language and culture, contributed to the active mixing of tribes and peoples. This is all the more true since the state has always played the function of the most important ethnic-forming factor. But the Bulgarian state, the Golden Horde, the Kazan, Astrakhan and other khanates existed for many centuries - a period sufficient to form new ethnic components. Religion was an equally strong factor in the mixing of ethnic groups. If Orthodoxy in Russia turned many baptized peoples into Russians, then in the Middle Ages Islam in the same way turned many into Turkic-Tatars.
The dispute with the so-called “Bulgarists”, who call to rename the Tatars into Bulgars and reduce our entire history to the history of one ethnic group, is mainly of a political nature, and therefore it should be studied within the framework of political science, and not history. At the same time, the emergence of this direction of social thought was influenced by the poor development of the methodological foundations of the history of the Tatars, the influence of ideological approaches to the presentation of history, including the desire to exclude the “Tatar period” from history.
IN last decades Among scientists there was a passion for searching for linguistic, ethnographic and other features in the Tatar people. The slightest features languages were immediately declared a dialect, and on the basis of linguistic and ethnographic nuances, separate groups were identified that today claim to be independent peoples. Of course, there are peculiarities in the use of the Tatar language among the Mishars, Astrakhan and Siberian Tatars. There are ethnographic features of Tatars living in different territories. But this is precisely the use of a single Tatar literary language with regional characteristics, the nuances of a single Tatar culture. It would be reckless to talk about language dialects on such grounds, much less to single out independent peoples (Siberian and other Tatars). If you follow the logic of some of our scientists, Lithuanian Tatars who speak Polish cannot be classified as Tatar people at all.
The history of a people cannot be reduced to the vicissitudes of an ethnonym. It is not easy to trace the connection of the ethnonym “Tatars” mentioned in Chinese, Arabic and other sources with modern Tatars. It is even more incorrect to see a direct anthropological and cultural connection between modern Tatars and ancient and medieval tribes. Some experts believe that the true Tatars were Mongol-speaking (see, for example: [Kychanov, 1995, p. 29]), although there are other points of view. There was a time when the ethnonym “Tatars” designated the Tatar-Mongol peoples. “Because of their extreme greatness and honorable position,” wrote Rashid ad-din, “other Turkic clans, with all the differences in their ranks and names, became known by their name, and all were called Tatars. And those various clans believed their greatness and dignity in the fact that they included themselves among them and became known under their name, similar to the way they are now, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his clan, since they are Mongols - different Turkic tribes, like Jalairs, Tatars, On-Guts, Kereits, Naimans, Tanguts and others, each of whom had a specific name and a special nickname - all of them, out of self-praise, also call themselves Mongols, despite the fact that in ancient times they did not recognize this name . Their present descendants, therefore, imagine that since ancient times they have been related to the name of the Mongols and are called by this name - but this is not so, for in ancient times the Mongols were only one tribe from the entire totality of the Turkic steppe tribes" [Rashid ad-din,
t. i, book 1, p. 102–103].At different periods of history, the name “Tatars” meant different peoples. Often this depended on the nationality of the authors of the chronicles. Thus, monk Julian, ambassador of the Hungarian king Béla IV to the Polovtsians in the 13th century. associated the ethnonym “Tatars” with the Greek “Tartaros” - “hell”, “underworld”. Some European historians used the ethnonym “Tatar” in the same sense as the Greeks used the word “barbarian”. For example, on some European maps Muscovy is designated as "Moscow Tartary" or "European Tartary", in contrast to Chinese or Independent Tartaria. The history of the existence of the ethnonym “Tatar” in subsequent eras, in particular in the 16th–19th centuries, was far from simple. [Karimullin]. Damir Iskhakov writes: “In the Tatar khanates formed after the collapse of the Golden Horde, representatives of the military-service class were traditionally called “Tatars”... They played a key role in the spread of the ethnonym “Tatars” over the vast territory of the former Golden Horde. After the fall of the khanates, this term was transferred to the common people. But at the same time, many local self-names and the confessional name “Muslims” functioned among the people. Overcoming them and the final consolidation of the ethnonym “Tatars” as a national self-name is a relatively late phenomenon and is associated with national consolidation” [Iskhakov, p.231]. These arguments contain a considerable amount of truth, although it would be a mistake to absolutize any facet of the term “Tatars.” Obviously, the ethnonym “Tatars” has been and remains the subject of scientific debate. It is indisputable that before the revolution of 1917, Tatars were called not only the Volga, Crimean and Lithuanian Tatars, but also Azerbaijanis, as well as a number of Turkic peoples of the North Caucasus and Southern Siberia, but in the end the ethnonym “Tatars” was assigned only to the Volga and Crimean Tatars.
The term “Tatar-Mongols” is very controversial and painful for the Tatars. Ideologists have done a lot to present the Tatars and Mongols as barbarians and savages. In response, a number of scientists use the term “Turkic-Mongols” or simply “Mongols,” sparing the pride of the Volga Tatars. But in fact, history does not need justification. No nation can boast of its peaceful and humane character in the past, because those who did not know how to fight could not survive and were themselves conquered, and often assimilated. The European crusades or the Inquisition were no less cruel than the invasion of the “Tatar-Mongols”. The whole difference is that Europeans and Russians took the initiative in interpreting this issue into their own hands and offered a version and assessment of historical events that was favorable to themselves.
The term “Tatar-Mongols” needs careful analysis in order to find out the validity of the combination of the names “Tatars” and “Mongols”. The Mongols relied on Turkic tribes in their expansion. Turkic culture greatly influenced the formation of the empire of Genghis Khan and especially the Ulus of Jochi. The historiography has so developed that both the Mongols and the Turks were often called simply “Tatars.” This was both true and false. True, since there were relatively few Mongols themselves, and Turkic culture (language, writing, military system, etc.) gradually became the general norm for many peoples. This is incorrect due to the fact that the 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 Eastern Turkestan and Mongolia. Even the Mongol element, which is minimal in Tatar culture today, influenced the formation of the history of the Tatars. In the end, the khans buried in the Kazan Kremlin were Genghisids and this cannot be ignored [Mausoleums of the Kazan Kremlin]. History is never simple and straightforward.
When presenting the history of the Tatars, it turns out to be very difficult to separate it from the general Turkic basis. First of all, we should note some terminological difficulties in the study of common Turkic history. If the Turkic Khaganate is quite unambiguously interpreted as a common Turkic heritage, then the Mongol Empire and especially the Golden Horde are more complex formations from an ethnic point of view. In fact, the Ulus of Jochi is generally considered to be a Tatar state, meaning by this ethnonym all those peoples who lived in it, i.e. Turko-Tatars. But will today's Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks and others who were formed in the Golden Horde agree to recognize the Tatars as their medieval ancestors? Of course not. After all, it is obvious that no one will particularly think about the differences in the use of this ethnonym in the Middle Ages and now. Today, in the public consciousness, the ethnonym “Tatars” is clearly associated with modern Volga or Crimean Tatars. Consequently, it is methodologically preferable, following Zaki Validi, to use the term “Turkic-Tatar history,” which allows us to separate the history of today’s Tatars and other Turkic peoples.
The use of this term carries another burden. There is a problem of correlating the common Turkic history with the national one. In some periods (for example, the Turkic Kaganate) it is difficult to isolate individual parts from the general history. In the era of the Golden Horde it is quite possible to explore, along with general history, separate regions that subsequently became independent khanates. Of course, the Tatars interacted with the Uighurs, and with Turkey, and with the Mamluks of Egypt, but these connections were not as organic as with Central Asia. Therefore, it is difficult to find a unified approach to the relationship between common Turkic and Tatar history - it turns out to be different in different eras and with different countries. Therefore, in this work we will use the term Turkic-Tatar history(in relation to the Middle Ages), it’s as simple as that Tatar history(applied to later times).
“History of the Tatars” as a relatively independent discipline exists insofar as there is an object of study that can be traced from ancient times to the present day. What ensures the continuity of this story, what can confirm the continuity of events? After all, over many centuries, some ethnic groups were replaced by others, states appeared and disappeared, peoples united and divided, new languages were formed to replace the ones that were leaving.
The object of the historian’s research in the most general form is the society that inherits the previous culture and passes it on to the next generation. In this case, society can act in the form of a state or an ethnic group. And during the years of persecution of the Tatars from the second half of the 16th century, individual ethnic groups, little connected with each other, became the main guardians cultural traditions. The religious community always plays a significant role in historical development, serving as a criterion for classifying a society as a particular civilization. Mosques and madrassas, from the 10th century until the 20s XX centuries, were the most important institution for the unification of the Tatar world. All of them - the state, the ethnic group and the religious community - contributed to the continuity of Tatar culture, and therefore ensured the continuity of historical development.
The concept of culture has the broadest meaning, which refers to all the achievements and norms of society, be it economy (for example, agriculture), the art of government, military affairs, writing, literature, social norms, etc. The study of culture as a whole makes it possible to understand the logic of historical development and determine the place of a given society in the broadest context. It is the continuity of the preservation and development of culture that allows us to talk about the continuity of Tatar history and its characteristics.
Any periodization of history is conditional, therefore, in principle, it can be built on a variety of foundations, and its various options can be equally correct - it all depends on the task that is assigned to the researcher. When studying the history of statehood there will be one basis for distinguishing periods, when studying the development of ethnic groups - another. And if you study the history of, for example, a home or a costume, then their periodization may even have specific grounds. Each specific object of research, along with general methodological guidelines, has its own development logic. Even the convenience of presentation (for example, in a textbook) can become the basis for a specific periodization.
When highlighting the main milestones in the history of the people in our publication, the criterion will be the logic of cultural development. Culture is the most important social regulator. Through the term “culture” we can explain both the fall and rise of states, the disappearance and emergence of civilizations. Culture determines social values, creates advantages for the existence of certain peoples, forms incentives for work and individual personality traits, determines the openness of society and opportunities for communication among peoples. Through culture one can understand the place of society in world history.
Tatar history with its complex twists of fate is not easy to imagine as a complete picture, as ups were followed by catastrophic regression, right down to the need for physical survival and preservation of the elementary foundations of culture and even language.
The initial basis for the formation of the Tatar or, more precisely, the Turkic-Tatar civilization is the steppe culture, which determined the appearance of Eurasia from ancient times until the early Middle Ages. Cattle breeding and horses determined the basic nature of the economy and way of life, housing and clothing, and ensured military success. The invention of the saddle, curved saber, powerful bow, war tactics, a unique ideology in the form of Tengrism and other achievements had a huge impact on world culture. Without steppe civilization, it would have been impossible to develop the vast expanses of Eurasia; this is precisely its historical merit.
The adoption of Islam in 922 and the development of the Great Volga Route became turning points in the history of the Tatars. Thanks to Islam, the ancestors of the Tatars were included in the most advanced Muslim world of their time, which determined the future of the people and its civilizational characteristics. And the Islamic world itself, thanks to the Bulgars, advanced to the northernmost latitude, which is 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 sedentary life. He was only an auxiliary tool in the household. What connected the Bulgarian state with other countries and peoples were the Volga and Kama rivers. In later times, the route along the Volga, Kama and Caspian Sea was supplemented by access to the Black Sea through the Crimea, which became one of the most important factors economic prosperity of the Golden Horde. The Volga route also played a key role in the Kazan Khanate. It is no coincidence that Muscovy's expansion to the east began with the establishment of the Nizhny Novgorod Fair, which weakened the economy of Kazan. The development of the Eurasian space in the Middle Ages cannot be understood and explained without the role of the Volga-Kama basin as a means of communication. The Volga still functions as the economic and cultural core of the European part of Russia.
The emergence of Ulus Jochi as part of the Mongol super-empire, and then an independent state, is the greatest achievement in the history of the Tatars. In the era of the Chingizids, Tatar history became truly global, affecting the interests of the East and Europe. The contribution of the Tatars to the art of war is undeniable, which was reflected in the improvement of weapons and military tactics. The system of public administration, the postal (Yamskaya) service inherited by Russia, the excellent financial system, literature and urban planning of the Golden Horde had reached perfection - in the Middle Ages there were few cities equal to Sarai in size and scale of trade. Thanks to intensive trade with Europe, the Golden Horde came into direct contact with European culture. The enormous potential for the reproduction of Tatar culture was laid precisely in the era of the Golden Horde. The Kazan Khanate continued this path mostly by inertia.
The cultural core of Tatar history after the capture of Kazan in 1552 was preserved primarily thanks to Islam. It became a form of cultural survival, a banner of the struggle against Christianization and assimilation of the Tatars.
In the history of the Tatars there were three turning points associated with Islam. They decisively influenced subsequent events: 1) the adoption of Islam as the official religion by the Volga Bulgaria in 922, which meant recognition by Baghdad of the young independent (from Khazar Khaganate) states; 2) isthe Lama “revolution” of Uzbek Khan, who, contrary to the “Yasa” (“Code of Laws”) of Genghis Khan on the equality of religions, introduced one state religion - Islam, which largely predetermined the process of consolidation of society and the formation of the (Golden Horde) Turkic-Tatar people; 3) reform of Islam in the second half of the 19th century, called Jadidism (from the Arabic al-jadid - new, renewal).
The revival of the Tatar people in modern times begins precisely with the reform of Islam. Jadidism outlined several important facts: firstly, the ability of Tatar culture to resist forced Christianization; secondly, confirmation of the Tatars’ belonging to the Islamic world, moreover, with a claim to a vanguard role in it; thirdly, the entry of Islam into competition with Orthodoxy in its own state. Jadidism has become a significant contribution of the Tatars to modern world culture, a demonstration of Islam's ability to modernize.
By the beginning of the 20th century, the Tatars managed to create many social structures: an education system, periodicals, political parties, their own (“Muslim”) faction in State Duma, economic structures, primarily trading capital, etc. By the revolution of 1917, the Tatars had matured ideas for restoring statehood.
The first attempt to recreate statehood by the Tatars dates back to 1918, when the Idel-Ural State was proclaimed. The Bolsheviks managed to forestall the implementation of this grandiose project. Nevertheless, the 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 formula of the Idel-Ural State, but it was undoubtedly a positive step, without which there would not have been the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Republic of Tatarstan in 1990.
The new status of Tatarstan after the declaration of state sovereignty put on the agenda the issue of choosing a fundamental path of development, determining the place of Tatarstan in the Russian Federation, in the Turkic and Islamic world.
Historians of Russia and Tatarstan are facing a serious test. The 20th century was the era of the collapse of first the Russian and then the Soviet empire and a change in the political picture of the world. The Russian Federation has become a different country and it is forced to take a fresh look at the path traveled. It faces the need to find ideological reference points for development in the new millennium. In many ways, it will be up to historians to understand the deep processes taking place in the country and to form an image of Russia among non-Russian peoples as “our own” or “foreign” state.
Russian science will have to reckon with the emergence of many independent research centers that have their own views on emerging problems. Therefore, it will be difficult to write the history of Russia only from Moscow; it should be written by various research teams, taking into account the history of all the indigenous peoples of the country.
* * *
The seven-volume work entitled “History of the Tatars from Ancient Times” is published under the stamp of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan, however, it is a joint work of scientists of Tatarstan, Russian and foreign researchers. This collective work is based on a whole series of scientific conferences held in Kazan, Moscow, and St. Petersburg. The work is of an academic nature and is therefore intended primarily for scientists and specialists. We did not set ourselves the goal of making it popular and easy to understand. Our task was to present the most objective picture of historical events. Nevertheless, both teachers and those who are simply interested in history will find many interesting stories here.
This work is the first academic work that begins to describe the history of the Tatars from 3 thousand BC. The most ancient period cannot always be represented in the form of events, sometimes it exists only in archaeological materials, nevertheless we considered it necessary to give such a presentation. Much of what the reader will see in this work is subject to debate and requires further research. This is not an encyclopedia, which provides only established information. It was important for us to document the existing level of knowledge in this field of science and to offer new methodological approaches, when the history of the Tatars is presented in the broad context of world processes, covering the destinies of many peoples, and not just the Tatars, to focus attention on a number of problematic issues and thereby stimulate scientific thought.
Each volume covers a fundamentally new period in the history of the Tatars. The editors considered it necessary, in addition to the author's texts, to provide illustrative material, maps, and also excerpts from the most important sources as an appendix.
This did not affect the Russian principalities, where the dominance of Orthodoxy was not only preserved, but also gained further development. In 1313, Uzbek Khan issued a label to the Metropolitan of Rus' Peter, which contained the following words: “If anyone blasphemes Christianity, speaks badly about churches, monasteries and chapels, that person will be subjected to the death penalty” (quoted from: [Fakhretdin, p.94]). By the way, Uzbek Khan himself married his daughter to the Moscow prince and allowed her to convert to Christianity.
In modern Russia, a very specific national policy is being pursued. Implicitly, it is aimed at the complete assimilation of non-Russian peoples. This is evidenced by the state policy in the field of education, culture, financing, statistics...
This policy is an example of the enviable continuity of the state strategy of the times Soviet Union and modern Russia. After perestroika and all sorts of upheavals, everything changed: bases, superstructures, ideology, education, economics, culture - only the pathological rejection of the existence of non-Russian peoples on the territory of the country remained unchanged.
Why am I writing this? And in order to report one interesting fact, which was once told by the popularly beloved Tatar writer Muhammet Magdeev at the turn of the 80-90s. At that time I was a student, and M. Magdeev lectured us on modern Russian literature. His continuous lectures always aroused the keenest interest; the audiences were so full of students that there was not even room left in the aisles. free seats. This is understandable: even those students who had disappeared into long-term hibernation in the bowels of stuffy dormitories came, not to mention students from parallel streams.
One day M. Magdeev told a story about his acquaintance with a certain high-ranking official from the State Statistical Service. It happened in one of the rest houses for the Soviet nomenklatura. The atmosphere in the rest home was conducive to confidential conversations and frankness. And so the statistics official told M. Magdeev that there are not 5-6 million Tatars in the Soviet Union, as official census data show, but 20 million. But the state policy is such that real data on the number of Tatars in the USSR is not supposed to be made public.
Just the other day I had a conversation with one of the modern Tatar writers, who back in Soviet times was summoned to a showdown at the Tatar Regional Committee of the CPSU for spreading rumors about twenty million Tatars living in Russia. Then the daredevil referred to the official academic publication of the works of the Tatar poet Gabdulla Tukay, where in one of the volumes G. Tukay, based on statistical data of his time (i.e., Tsarist Russia), reported about twenty million Tatars living in the territories from Moscow to the Urals and from Perm to Astrakhan. And if we add to this number the Tatars of Siberia, Turkestan and Central Asia, Crimea?
I feel sorry for the state, which is trying in every possible way to hide the true data on the number of my Tatar people. All Russian history will remain scanty and dishonest until official historical science recognizes its “Tatar component.”
The editors' opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion
A fascinating excursion by the famous scientist Edward Parker into the history of the nomadic tribes of East Asia will introduce you to the origin, formation and evolution of a conglomerate that emerged as a result of complex and contradictory historical processes. This unique book tells about life, traditions and social structure of the Tatar people, traces the dynastic ties of the ruling elite, talks about bloody battles and the creation of nomadic empires.
The true history of the nomadic tribes of East Asia dates back to approximately the same time and develops in almost the same way as history northern peoples Europe. The Chinese Empire, like the Roman Empire, owes its prosperity to discoveries and conquests, which resulted in closer contacts between peoples and their mutual assimilation, constant border conflicts and a global shift in political centers. Similar processes also occurred in Greece and Persia.
Unlike Chinese and Roman authors, Herodotus, when talking about the Scythians, focused more on recreating a picture of the life and customs of this people than on presenting them political history. And yet, Herodotus’ story corresponds to the portrait of the Xiongnu drawn by the Chinese, on the one hand, and the Roman idea of the Huns, on the other. Since the etymological connection between the Xiongnu of China and the Huns of the West can hardly be supported by irrefutable evidence, we will limit ourselves to a simple presentation of the facts recorded in Chinese sources, leaving the reader the right to his own point of view and trying not to put forward groundless hypotheses.
China's neighbors to the north
During the period to which the beginning of our story dates, the Chinese knew nothing about the Japanese, Burmese, Siamese, Indians, or Turkestanis. They had a very weak idea about Korea, the Tungus tribes, the peoples inhabiting the territory south of great river Yangtze, and Tibetan nomads. China's foreign relations were actually limited to contacts with the horse-riding nomads of the north. In ancient times they were known as different names, more or less similar in sound to the above-mentioned name adopted in general history.
However, it would be a mistake to assume, as many European authors do, that the name “Xiongnu” came into use only from the 2nd century BC. e. The historian MaDuan-lin, who lived six hundred years ago, himself refutes this fact and quotes from two sources, trying to prove not only that this name was in use long before the indicated time, but also that the community whose name is in question speech has already become quite significant. The Chinese themselves did not pay much attention to the Xiongnu until 1200 BC. e., when a member of the ruling family, who may have committed some misdeed, fled to the nomads of the north and founded something like a dynasty there.
Where did the name Tatars come from?
Despite the fact that for many centuries, until 200 BC. e., the northern states of the Chinese Empire were in conflict with these nomads, there was no written evidence left about their tribes and succession to the throne. As much is known about them as about the Scythians from the stories of Herodotus. Equally little was known about the Tungus, or the eastern branch of the nomads, with whom the Chinese came into close contact only two centuries later. The Chinese had much more information about the great nomadic people of the Xiongnu. Later, the words "Turkic" and "Turkic-Scythian" were used to designate the various homogeneous tribes that formed the Xiongnu empire. However, the word “Turk” was completely unknown until the 5th century AD. e., therefore, we cannot yet talk about the “Turks”, since this would be a chronological error. The same is true with the word “Tatars”.
Curiously, the Chinese used it, giving it the same vague meaning that we do. This word did not appear in history in any form until the 2nd century AD. e., but even after that, as subsequently with the “Turks,” it was used in relation to one small tribe. Thus, whatever we may think about the identification of the words "Xiongnu" and "Huns", it is quite clear that the Chinese had no other name for the horse-riding meat-eating and kumis-drinking nomads of North Asia, just as the Europeans had the name " Huns" was the only one for horse-riding nomads from Northern Europe who eat meat and drink kumiss.
The ways of the nomads
These nomads appeared in Europe after the ruling Xiongnu castes were expelled from China. Moreover, the Scythians of Herodotus, who encountered the Greeks and Persians, led exactly the same way of life as the Xiongnu from China and the Huns from Europe. Thus, we can come to the conclusion, supported by scattered evidence, that there was some kind of ethnographic connection between these three peoples.
The nomadic Xiongnu people lived on horseback. "Their country was the horse's back." They moved from place to place, driving their herds and flocks in search of new pastures. Horses, cattle and sheep are their usual possessions.
However, from time to time camels, donkeys, mules and other members of the equine family appeared in their herds, which could not be identified. Perhaps one of them was the onager (wild ass) from Assyria and Central Asia. The Xiongnu did not build cities or other settlements of this kind, but, although they did not stay long in one place, each tribe was assigned a certain territory. Since they did not engage in agriculture, each tent, or family, had its own personal plot of land. The Xiongnu did not have a written language, and therefore all orders and other administrative acts were transmitted orally.
From early childhood, the Xiongnu learned to ride sheep and hunt rats or birds with a tiny bow and arrow. As they grew older, the objects of hunting changed; now the hunters' goals were foxes and hares. Every adult man who could string a bow became a warrior. Everyone, old and young, ate meat and milk. They used the skins of killed animals as clothing, and felt capes were thrown over them. Warriors full of strength always received the best, the old and infirm were despised, they received crumbs.
For a thousand years, a custom flourished in Tataria, according to which the wives of the deceased father passed to the son (with the exception of his own mother), and the younger brothers inherited the wives of the elders. It is not known for certain who was given the right to choose - the son or the brother: perhaps the brother received the inheritance only in the absence of a son or a replacement. In peacetime, in addition to caring for livestock, the Xiongnu devoted a lot of time to hunting and shooting. Every man was ready for battle or raid. Retreating before the enemy was not considered a shame. In fact, the tactics of warfare consisted of sudden, poorly coordinated raids, feints and ambushes.
According to the Chinese, the Xiongnu were completely devoid of any sense of compassion or justice: they obeyed the only law - force. The Xiongnu used not only bows. In hand-to-hand combat, they demonstrated equally brilliant skill with a sword and knife. Some ancient sources mention the Xiongnu, who lived in caves in winter; however, this statement applies more likely to the Tungus tribes.
There is no need to consider early information about the Tatar wars, the description of which is rather vague. Suffice it to say that from 1400 BC. e. before 200 AD e. There are brief references to clashes between the Chinese and nomads. In each case, approximate dates are given, so this information can be considered historical. It should be remembered, however, that annual dating Chinese history begins only from 828 BC. e. The northern regions of the provinces now known as Shanxi, Shaanxi and Zhili 1 were then dominated by nomads.
For many centuries, during the so-called “warring states” period, the nomads were as powerful as China. The Emperor of China, like his restless vassal kings, at various periods entered into marriage alliances with the ruling families of the nomads, and at least one Chinese ruler deliberately adopted the Tatar costume and way of life. Now another etymological question arises, namely: does the Chinese word “tung-hu”, or “eastern Tatars” (a term as often applied to the ancestors of the Katai, Manchus and Koreans, as the name “Xiongnu” is used in relation to the ancestors of the Turks, Uyghurs) , Kyrgyz, etc.), any etymological connection with the European word “Tungus”.
If these two words are in no way related to each other, then we have an extremely curious coincidence, since both words have the same meaning in both Russian and Chinese. The sources also mention another case, which is intended to show that the border states of the Chinese Empire were deeply affected by Tatar influence. One of the vassal lords had a cup made from the skull of a rival ruler - a fact as contrary to Confucian ideas as it is consistent with everything we know about the customs of the Xiongnu and Scythians.
Defeat of the Tatars
At the end of the 3rd century BC. BC, just before the western kingdom of Qin succeeded in destroying the old feudal system and uniting China into a single empire, the vassal state, under whose rule were the present provinces of Shanxi, Shaanxi and Zhili, systematically resisted the invasions of the nomads and eventually forced the Tatar king engage in open battle, during which the Tatar troops were completely defeated. Tatar losses amounted to 100,000 people.
After this, Emperor Qin annexed this state to the others, and the famous military leader Meng Tian, at the head of several hundred thousand warriors, was sent on a campaign against the Tatars. He managed to recapture the Yellow River (Huang He) along its entire length, including the section of the bend now known as the Ordos Plateau. The Tatars were pushed north of the Great Steppe. Countless detachments of criminals and other unfortunates were sent north to build a military road and perform garrison duty. About forty fortresses and fortified cities were built along the border. Finally, from the outskirts of the modern capital of Gansu province - the city of Lanzhou - the Great Wall stretches to the sea.
Since it is marked on almost everyone modern maps China, the reader will make his task easier if he keeps such a map before his eyes. This will save us from having to cite numerous and bizarre Chinese geographical names- as well as names, which often vary depending on the location of each subsequent dynasty.
According to the author of the book, the Great Wall is a bloody trail along which millions of human skeletons whiten, marking a thousand-year struggle. It should be noted, however, that Meng Tian with half a million slaves only strengthened an already existing wall, since we know that the Chinese king, who adopted Tatar customs, had already built the Great Wall from the northeast of Shanxi to the westernmost point of the Yellow River bend. And shortly before this, the increasingly powerful Qin rulers further to the west built another wall.
To the east, the border kingdom of Yan, located in the territory of modern Beijing, built the Great Wall approximately at the longitude of Beijing to the sea, so that Meng Tian only had to complete or strengthen the existing fortifications. Later, various northern dynasties also contributed - they added new sections to the Great Wall or extended its line towards Beijing.
So the magnificent and almost perfect structure that modern travelers see at a distance of almost fifty kilometers from the capital has little in common with the ancient Great Wall, built two thousand years ago. Most of the ancient wall is now in a dilapidated state.
Look for the book on the Internet...
The Tatars are the second largest ethnic group and the largest people of Muslim culture in the Russian Federation.
The Tatar ethnic group has an ancient and vibrant history, closely connected with the history of all the peoples of the Ural-Volga region and Russia as a whole.
The original culture of the Tatars has worthily entered the treasury of world culture and civilization.
We find traces of it in the traditions and language of the Russians, Mordovians, Mari, Udmurts, Bashkirs, and Chuvashs. At the same time, the national Tatar culture synthesizes the achievements of the Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Indo-Iranian peoples (Arabs, Slavs and others).
There are also different interpretations of the ethnonym “Tatars”. This question is very relevant at the present time.
Some researchers deduce the origin of this word from “mountain inhabitant”, where “tat” means “mountain”, and “ar” means “resident”, “person” (A.A. Sukharev. Kazan Tatars. St. Petersburg, 1904, p. 22). Others are the etymology of the word “Tatars” to the ancient Greek “messenger” (N.A. Baskakov. Russian surnames of Turkic origin. Baku, 1992, p. 122).
The famous Turkologist D.E. Eremev connects the origin of the word “Tatars” with the ancient Turkic word and people. He associates the first component of the word “tat” with the name of the ancient Iranian people. At the same time, he refers to the information of the ancient Turkic chronicler Mahmud Kashgari that the Turks called “tatam” those who speak Farsi, that is, the Iranian language. The original meaning of the word “tat” was most likely “Persian”, but then this word in Rus' began to designate all eastern and Asian peoples (D.E. Eremeev. Semantics of Turkic ethnonymy. - Collection “Ethnonyms”. M., 1970 , p.134).
Thus, a complete deciphering of the ethnonym “Tatars” is still waiting for its researcher. In the meantime, unfortunately, even today the burden of established traditions and stereotypes about the Mongol-Tatar yoke forces most people to think in highly distorted categories about the history of the Tatars, about their true origin, about Tatar culture.
According to the 1989 census, about 7 million people lived on the territory of the USSR. Of these, in the RSFSR - more than 5.5 million or 83.1% of the indicated number, including in Tatarstan - more than 1.76 million people (26.6%).
Currently, Tatars make up just over half the population of Tatarstan, their national republic. At the same time, the number of people living outside Tatarstan is -1.12 million people in Bashkortostan, -110.5 thousand in Udmurtia, 47.3 thousand in Mordovia, 43.8 thousand in Mari El, 35.7 thousand in Chuvashia. In addition, Tatars also live in the regions of the Volga region, the Urals and Siberia.
Tatars are one of the most mobile peoples. Due to landlessness, frequent crop failures in their homeland and the traditional desire for trade, even before 1917 they began to move to various regions of the Russian Empire, including the provinces of Central Russia, the Donbass, Eastern Siberia and the Far East, the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia, Central Asia and Kazakhstan. This migration process intensified during the years of Soviet rule, especially during the period of the “great construction projects of socialism.” Therefore, at present there is practically no federal subject in the Russian Federation where Tatars live. Even in the pre-revolutionary period, Tatar national communities were formed in Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and China. As a result of the collapse of the USSR, Tatars who lived in the former Soviet republics - Uzbekistan (467.8 thousand), Kazakhstan (327.9 thousand), Tajikistan (72.2 thousand), Kyrgyzstan (70.5 thousand) - ended up in the near abroad. ), Turkmenistan (39.2 thousand), Azerbaijan (28 thousand), Ukraine (86.9 thousand), in the Baltic countries (14 thousand). Already due to re-emigrants from China. In Turkey and Finland, since the mid-20th century, Tatar national diasporas have been formed in the USA, Japan, Australia, and Sweden.
According to many historians, the Tatar people with a single literary and practically common spoken language emerged during the existence of the huge Turkic state - the Golden Horde. The literary language in this state was the so-called “idel terkise” or Old Tatar, based on the Kipchak-Bulgar (Polovtsian) language and incorporating elements of Central Asian literary languages. The modern literary language based on the middle dialect arose in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
In ancient times, the Turkic ancestors of the Tatars used runic writing, as evidenced by archaeological finds in the Urals and Middle Volga region. Since the voluntary adoption of Islam by one of the ancestors of the Tatars, the Volga-Kama Bulgars, the Tatars used Arabic writing, from 1929 to 1939 - Latin script, and since 1939 they have used the Cyrillic alphabet with additional characters.
The modern Tatar language, belonging to the Kipchak-Bulgar subgroup of the Kipchak group of the Turkic language family, is divided into four dialects: middle (Kazan Tatar), western (Mishar), eastern (language of the Siberian Tatars) and Crimean (language of the Crimean Tatars). Despite dialectal and territorial differences, the Tatars are a single nation with a single literary language, a single culture - folklore, literature, music, religion, national spirit, traditions and rituals.
Even before the 1917 coup, the Tatar nation occupied one of the leading places in the Russian Empire in terms of literacy (the ability to write and read in its own language). The traditional thirst for knowledge has survived in the current generation.
The ethnonym “Tatars” is of ancient origin, but it was adopted as the self-name of modern Tatars only in the 19th century, and the Ancient Tatars, Turkic tribes, lived on the territory of today’s Eurasia. The current Tatars (Kazan, Western, Siberian, Crimean) are not direct descendants of the ancient Tatars who came to Europe along with the troops of Genghis Khan. They formed in one nation called Tatars, after they were given that name European peoples.
There is an opinion among historians that the name “Tatars” comes from the name of the large influential family “Tata”, from which many Turkic-speaking military leaders of the state “Altyn Urta” (Golden Mean), better known as the “Golden Horde”, came from.
The Tatars are one of the most urbanized peoples of the Russian Federation. The social groups of the Tatars, living both in cities and in villages, are almost no different from those that exist among other peoples, especially Russians.
In their way of life, the Tatars do not differ from other surrounding peoples. The modern Tatar ethnic group arose in parallel with the Russian one. Modern Tatars are the Turkic-speaking part of the indigenous population of Russia, which, due to their greater territorial proximity to the East, chose Islam rather than Orthodoxy. 99% of Tatar believers are Sunni Muslims of moderate Hanafi persuasion.
Many ethnologists note the unique phenomenon of Tatar tolerance, which consists in the fact that in the entire history of the existence of the Tatars, they have not initiated a single conflict on ethnic and religious grounds. The most famous ethnologists and researchers are sure that tolerance is an invariable part of the Tatar national character.
The traditional food of the Tatars is meat, dairy and vegetable - soups seasoned with pieces of dough (tokmach noodles, chumar), porridges, sour dough bread, kabartma flatbreads. National dishes - bialyesh with various fillings, often made from meat (peryamyach), cut into pieces and mixed with millet, rice or potatoes, baked goods from unleavened dough widely presented in the form of bavyrsak, kosh tele, ichpochmak, gubadia, katykly salma, chak-chak (wedding dish). Dried sausage - kazylyk or kazy - is prepared from horse meat (the favorite meat of many groups). Dried goose (kaklagan kaz) is considered a delicacy. Dairy products - katyk ( special kind sour milk), sour cream, cottage cheese. Drinks - tea, ayran (tan) - a mixture of katyk with water (used mainly in summer).
The Tatars always took an active part in all defensive and liberation wars. In terms of the number of “Heroes of the Soviet Union”, the Tatars occupy fourth place, and in terms of the percentage of the number of heroes for the entire nation - first. In terms of the number of Heroes of Russia, the Tatars have second place.
From the Tatars came such military leaders as Army General M.A. Gareev, Colonel Generals P.S. Akchurin and F.Kh. Churakov, Vice Admiral M.D. Iskanderov, Rear Admirals Z.G. Lyapin, A.I. Bichurin and others. Outstanding scientists - academicians R.Z. Sagdeev (physical chemist), K.A. Valiev (physicist), R.A. Syunyaev (astrophysicist), and others.
Tatar literature is one of the most ancient in the Russian Federation. The most ancient literary monument- the poem “The Tale of Yusuf” by the Bulgarian poet Kul Gali, written in 1236. Among famous poets the past can be called M. Sarai-Gulistani (XIV century), M. Muhammadyar (1496/97-1552), G. Utyz-Imeni (1754-1834), G. Kandaly (1797-1860). From the poets and writers of the 20th century - classics of Tatar literature Gabdulla Tukay, Fatih Amirkhan, writers of the Soviet period - Galimzyan Ibragimov, Khadi Taktash, Majit Gafuri, Hasan Tufan, patriotic poet, Hero of the Soviet Union Musa Jalil, Sibgat Hakim and many other talented poets and writers.
One of the first among the Turkic peoples, the Tatars arose performing arts. The most outstanding artists are: Abdulla Kariev, artist and playwright Karim Tinchurin, Khalil Abjalilov, Gabdulla Shamukov, actors: Chulpan Khamatova, Marat Basharov Renata Litvinova, actor and director Sergei Shakurov, director Marcel Salimzhanov, opera singers - Khaidar Bigichev and Zilya Sungatullina, folk singers Ilgam Shakirov and Alfiya Afzalova, popular artists- Rinat Ibragimov, Zemfira Ramazanova, Salavat Fatkhutdinov, Aidar Galimov, Malika Razakova, young poet and musician Rustam Alyautdinov.
Fine art of the Tatars: First of all, this is the artist-patriarch Baki Urmanche, and many other outstanding Tatar artists.
The sporting achievements of the Tatars also constantly make themselves felt:
Fight - Shazam Safin, champion Olympic Games 1952 in Helsinki in Greco-Roman wrestling.
Rhythmic gymnastics - Olympic champion and multiple world champion Alina Kabaeva, world champions Amina Zaripova and Laysan Utyasheva.
Football - Rinat Dasaev, goalkeeper No. 1 in the world in 1988, goalkeeper of the Spartak team, members of the 2002 World Cup football team, attacking midfielder of the Russian national team Marat Izmailov (Lokomotiv-Moscow), winner of the Russian Cup 2000/01; silver medalist of the 2001 Russian Championship, and goalkeeper of the Russian national team, KAMAZ (Naberezhnye Chelny); "Spartak" (Moscow); "Lokomotiv" (Moscow); "Verona" (Italy) Ruslan Nigmatullin, Hockey-Irek Gimaev, Sergei Gimaev, Zinetula Bilyaletdinov, Tennis-world champion Marat Safin, and many many others.
Famous Russians come from Tatar clans
Many famous noble families of Russia have Tatar roots. Apraksins, Arakcheevs, Dashkovs, Derzhavins, Ermolovs, Sheremetevs, Bulgakovs, Gogols, Golitsyns, Milyukovs, Godunovs, Kochubeis, Stroganovs, Bunins, Kurakins, Saltykovs, Saburovs, Mansurovs, Tarbeevs, Godunovs, Yusupovs - it’s impossible to list them all. By the way, the origin of the Sheremetev counts, in addition to the surname, is also confirmed by the family coat of arms, which has a silver crescent. The Ermolov nobles, for example, where General Alexey Petrovich Ermolov came from, begin their genealogy as follows: “The ancestor of this family Arslan-Murza-Ermola, and at baptism named John, as shown in the presented pedigree, in 1506 went to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich from the Golden Horde " Rus' became fabulously rich at the expense of the Tatar people, talents flowed like a river. The Kurakin princes appeared in Rus' under Ivan III, this family comes from Ondrei Kurak, who was the offspring of the Horde khan Bulgak, the recognized ancestor of the Great Russian princes Kurakin and Golitsyn, as well as noble family Bulgakov. Chancellor Alexander Gorchakov, whose family descended from the Tatar ambassador Karach-Murza. The Dashkov nobles also came from the Horde. And the Saburovs, Mansurovs, Tarbeevs, Godunovs (from the Murza Chet, who left the Horde in 1330), the Glinskys (from Mamai), the Kolokoltsevs, the Talyzins (from the Murza Kuchuk Tagaldyzin)... A separate discussion is desirable about each clan - a lot, a lot they did for Russia. Every Russian patriot has heard about Admiral Ushakov, but only a few know that he is a Turk. This family descends from the Horde Khan Redeg. The Princes of Cherkassy descend from the Khan's family of Inal. “As a sign of citizenship,” it is written in their genealogy, “he sent his son Saltman and daughter Princess Maria to the sovereign, who was later married to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, and Saltman was named Mikhail by baptism and granted a boyar status.”
But even from the named surnames it is clear that Tatar blood greatly influenced the gene pool of the Russian people. Among the Russian nobility there are more than 120 famous Tatar families. In the sixteenth century, Tatars predominated among the nobles. Even by the end of the nineteenth century in Russia there were approximately 70 thousand nobles with Tatar roots. This accounted for more than 5 percent of the total number of nobles throughout the Russian Empire.
Many Tatar nobility disappeared forever for their people. The genealogical books of the Russian nobility tell a good story about this: “General Armorial of the Noble Clans of the All-Russian Empire”, begun in 1797, or “History of the families of the Russian nobility”, or “Russian genealogical book”. Historical novels pale before them.
Yushkovs, Suvorovs, Apraksins (from Salakhmir), Davydovs, Yusupovs, Arakcheevs, Golenishchevs-Kutuzovs, Bibikovs, Chirikovs... The Chirikovs, for example, came from the family of Khan Berke, Batu’s brother. Polivanovs, Kochubeis, Kozakovs...
Kopylovs, Aksakovs (aksak means “lame”), Musins-Pushkins, Ogarkovs (the first to come from the Golden Horde in 1397 was Lev Ogar, “a man of great stature and a brave warrior”). The Baranovs... In their genealogy it is written as follows: “The ancestor of the Baranov family, Murza Zhdan, nicknamed Baran, and named after baptism Daniil, came in 1430 from Crimea.”
The Karaulovs, Ogarevs, Akhmatovs, Bakaevs, Gogol, Berdyaevs, Turgenevs... "The ancestor of the Turgenev family, Murza Lev Turgen, and at baptism called John, went to Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich from the Golden Horde..." This family belonged to the aristocratic Horde tukhum , as well as the Ogarev family (their Russian ancestor is “Murza by honorable name Kutlamamet, nicknamed Ogar”).
Karamzins (from Kara-Murza, a Crimean), Almazovs (from Almazy, named after baptism Erifei, he came from the Horde in 1638), Urusovs, Tukhachevskys (their ancestor in Russia was Indris, a native of the Golden Horde), Kozhevnikovs (come from Murza Kozhaya, since 1509 in Rus'), Bykovs, Ievlevs, Kobyakovs, Shubins, Taneyevs, Shuklins, Timiryazevs (there was one Ibragim Timiryazev, who came to Rus' in 1408 from the Golden Horde).
Chaadaevs, Tarakanovs... but it will take a long time to continue. Dozens of so-called “Russian clans” were started by the Tatars.
The Moscow bureaucracy grew. Power was gathering in her hands; Moscow really did not have enough educated people. Is it any wonder that Tatars also became bearers of more than three hundred simple Russian surnames. In Russia, at least half of Russians are genetic Tatars.
In the 18th century, the rulers of Russia tailored the current ethnographic map, tailored it in their own way, as they wanted: entire provinces were recorded as “Slavs”. So Russia became the kind about which the Kipchak from the Tukhum (clan) Turgen said: “Russia is thousands of miles around.”
Then, in the 18th century - just two hundred years ago - the inhabitants of Tambov, Tula, Oryol, Ryazan, Bryansk, Voronezh, Saratov and other regions were called “Tatars”. This is the former population of the Golden Horde. Therefore, ancient cemeteries in Ryazan, Orel or Tula are still called Tatar.
Defenders of the Fatherland
Tatar warriors served Russia honestly. “Be not only the son of your father, but also be the son of your Fatherland,” says the Tatar folk proverb. The fact that Tatars and Russians have always opposed each other in religious terms is a myth invented by our common enemies. During the War of 1812, 28 Tatar-Bashkir regiments were formed in the Kazan province. It was these regiments, under the command of Kutuzov’s son-in-law, the Tatar prince Kudashev, an active participant in the Battle of Borodino, that terrified Napoleonic soldiers. The Tatar regiments, together with the Russian people, liberated the European peoples from the occupation of Napoleonic troops.
In the army, due to their national and religious characteristics, the Tatars were given a number of concessions, which were based on respect for the religion they professed. The Tatars were not given pork and were not subjected to corporal punishment, were not drilled. In the navy, Russian sailors were given a glass of vodka, and the Tatars were given tea and sweets for the same amount. They were not forbidden to bathe several times a day, as is customary among Muslims before each prayer. Their colleagues were strictly forbidden to mock the Tatars and say bad things about Islam.
Great scientists and writers
The Tatars served their Fatherland faithfully, not only fighting for it in countless wars. In peaceful life they gave him a lot famous people- scientists, writers, artists. It is enough to name such scientists as Mendeleev, Mechnikov, Pavlov and Timiryazev, researchers of the North Chelyuskin and Chirikov. In literature, these are Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Yazykov, Bulgakov, Kuprin. In the field of art - ballerinas Anna Pavlova, Galina Ulanova, Olga Spesivtseva, Rudolf Nureyev, as well as composers Scriabin and Taneyev. All of them are Russians of Tatar origin.