What do modern Tatars call themselves? How and when did the Bulgar people begin to be called "Tatars"? The use of the ethnonym Polovtsy

Until the end of the 16th century, the local Turkic people bore the common ethnonym Bulgars. In parallel with the ethnonym Bulgars, there were other names of this people: Burtas, Suas, Mishar, Kasan/Kazan, Bilyar, Biger and others. further adopted the name of their enemies? As a result of the victory of the Chingizids, four autonomous uluses of the Mongol-Tatars were formed: 1) the Jagatai ulus - in the western part of China, the southern part of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan; 2) Kublai Ulus in China; 3) Khulaguid ulus - in Iran, Iraq and Transcaucasia; 4) Ulus Jochi, later called the Golden Horde. In fact, this ulus turned out to be Kypchak, (Polovtsian, Kuman) and the presence of the Mongols in it was symbolic. The Golden Horde included the ancestors of modern Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Turkmens, Azerbaijanis, Kumyks, Karachay-Balkarians, Crimean and Romanian Tatars. And also Russians principalities and southern territories of Bulgaria. The northern lands and cities of Bulgaria retained their independence and at some time, with the permission of Saray, they took tribute from neighboring Russian principalities. Until the 15th century, Bulgaria was under strong pressure from the Jochid khans. In the era of the Third Emirate, when Bulgaria achieved complete independence peacefully, its capital was already New Bolgar - Kazan. Therefore, some science fiction writers and half-educated talk about a kind of "Kazan Khanate" and even about its "education" ..?! The Khanate is an elective monarchy, and Bulgaria has always been a hereditary monarchy and representatives of the Baltavar dynasty (a clone of the Dulo clan) have always ruled there. The indigenous population of all uluses hated the power of the Tatars and tried to get rid of it. On the part of the Europeans, they were all called Tartars (that is, in ancient Greek: people from hell). All these peoples - Turks, Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Medes, Caucasians, Slavs, Finno-Ugrians, subsequently got rid of this name, but Bulgars. .., No?! Why? All the heterogeneous population of the Golden Horde, and along with it Bulgaria (as an ally also took a tribute and participated in campaigns against Russia ..), the Russians traditionally began to call "Tatars", as an image of the enemy. After the annexation of the Bulgarian state, the Russians began to actively move to the east, while they also called all the eastern peoples Tatars. So, having reached the Pacific Ocean, Russian researchers called Tatars even the Paleo-Asiatic Orochs, who lived near the strait between the mainland and the island of Sakhalin, hence the strait was called Tatar. As they studied the eastern peoples, the Russians realized that all this population, called Tatars by the Russians, does not consist of one people, but of various peoples, namely the Bulgars, Kazanians, Mordovians, Chuvashs, Bashkirs, Cheremis (Mari), Voguls, Khanty, Yugorians, Nenets, Selkups, Samodeys, Buryats, Kalmyks, Eskimos, Yukaghirs, Chechens, Lezgins, and so on. The ethnonym Tatars among the Russians remained for a long time as a common name for the Turkic-speaking peoples. Later, the Russians realized that these Turkic-speaking Tatars also consisted of different peoples, so the Russians began to use the ethnonym Tatars with definitions consisting of the self-names of these peoples or from the names of their habitats; Azerbaijani Tatars, Bashkir Tatars, Bulgar Tatars, Budjak Tatars, Kyrgyz Tatars (Kazakhs and Kirghiz), Crimean Tatars, Kumyk Tatars, Turkmen Tatars, Uzbek Tatars, Khakas Tatars, Circassian Tatars, etc. Since the "Bulgarian Tatars" after the loss of their statehood, unlike other "Tatars", were in the closest connection with the Russian people and from generation to generation heard "Tatar" addressed to them, then gradually this nickname began to turn into a self-name for some. Crimean Kipchaks and Dobrujan Chitaks also adopted the ethnonym Tatars. As a result, the name of the Tatars was finally and forcibly fixed at the state level, in 1920 this ethnonym was legally assigned to the Bulgars in the Decree on the creation of the "Tatar Republic". The descendants of other peoples managed to get rid of the nickname Tatars during this period and restored their former self-names: these are peoples such as Azerbaijanis, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Kumyks, Turkmens, Uzbeks, Balkars, etc. This name has remained so far only for the Volga-Ural Bulgars. Following the example of these peoples, some part of the Tatar (i.e. Bulgar) people raises the problem of restoring their former ethnonym Bulgars. On this basis, the "Bulgarian National Congress" was formed with a program of abandoning the ethnonym Tatars, restoring the ethnonym Bulgars. But since the name "Tatars" has become, as it were, the self-name of our people, we are called so by close and not very close peoples. For this reason (or for some other reason?) the official national institutions of the Bulgar (or so-called Tatar) people do not yet dare to abandon the ethnonym "Tatars", thinking about whether all modern Tatars will accept this ethnonym "Bulgars"? Thus, Academician Zakiev Mirfatikh Zakievich, in turn, scientifically substantiated the concept that the modern so-called "Kazan Tatars" are the Volga Bulgars, and not the Mongol-Tatars who came to plunder. (I just made some additions to this text). The ethnonym "Tatars" should be replaced by our true name - "Bulgars", without calling us "Turkic-Tatars" or "Bulgaro-Tatars", for the reason that such peoples never existed. The book "True History of the Bulgar People" by academician Zakiev was sent to me from Ulyanovsk by an activist of the Ulyanovsk educational organization "BULGARIAN REVIVAL" Source: vkontakte.ru/bulgarlar

Comments:

Konstantin::

Tatars, Bashkirs, Uzbeks, Nogais, Chuvashs - these are all artificial names. The Turks lived and gave stars to those around them (such as Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.), they themselves did not rake badly. And then these Moscow people came up with a centralized state, an army, they sent different dudes (the Germans are called) from Europe with guns and away we go. To all who were given p. and imposed a tribute, yasak is called. Some Yermak came, broke in, imposed a tribute (then they will write your P-stan attached to Russia), or smart himself, there is no desire to rake, and your neighbor brazenly smiles, agreed with Moscow, they broke him together and now you pay yasak for yours and for him (you, not offended, you get more than without Moscow) (here they will write your P-stan voluntarily became part of Russia). You pay - well done, you are called a vassal, a brother of a lesser king. You do not pay - they will come, break in, take away. Who you are, who you yourself bend, on the drum, it’s not a matter of ethnography, the Russians (in the sense of the Tsar) in general didn’t care who you were, the main thing was to pay. You can bend over, Turk, you live east of Moscow and besides, a Muslim - that means a Tatar, Astrakhan, Nogai, Kazakh, Caucasian, Kazan, Siberian, Khakassian, Crimean or some other. Just like the Orthodox, human (the one in which the Tsar-father speaks), you understand the language - just Russian; you live in the north of Europe, you believe in Luthor - a German; in the south and a Catholic - Fryazin, with an accent, but it's clear, you say, a Catholic - a Pole. Here is an ethnography. Then the Bolsheviks came, they said to issue a passport with the nationality column, but national self-determination. Kazan Muslim Turks began to scratch their turnips who they are. Muslims, yes, but this is a religion, Kazan - but this is a city, Turks - but this is a language family. And they created a new identity - the Tatars. And to the south, those who served in the Bashkirs, under the Tsar, these are like Cossacks, only Muslims, became the Bakir people. Moksha and Erzya were recorded by the Mordovians, there are few of them for a separate autonomy. Teptyars, Kryashens, Kerzhaks did not fuss and they lacked autonomy. As a result, the Stalinist hierarchy of nations appeared, nations of the 1st grade allied (Urainians of the type), 2nd grade autonomous republics - Tatars, Bashkirs, 3rd grade - Ao - Chukchi, 4th grade - they just went out for a walk - Ngasans, Yukaghirs. And the Russians are such a non-national people, of course. It is immediately clear that if you are a Kryashen or a Mishar, then choose to be a 2nd grade person, study in your native language, a newspaper, a humorous magazine, a national theater, etc. or a person of the 4th grade - you can be proud that such people live in the USSR. Obviously, it's better to be second rate. But the national the elite was always afraid, afraid of being demoted to a lower grade. An example is Karelians. They were especially afraid in the BASSR that they would be attached to the Tatars and made of them as a joint-stock company.

ubasi::

"Tatars and Chuvashs - one people?" Simply put, the Chuvash who converted to Islam became Tatars. Accordingly, Muslim Chuvashs live in the Tatar villages in the Komsomolsky and Batyrevsky districts, who, for their religious distinction, began to be called Tatars. Until the 19th century, most of the Chuvashs converted to Islam, which was the reason for the appearance of the patriarch of the Novo-Chuvash literature, Ivan Yakovlev - the tsarist government decided to stop this process and strengthen the introduction of Christianity into Chuvashia through Yakovlev. Here are the statistics for the former Kazan province: In 1826 in the Kazan province there were: Chuvash in total…………..371758 hours of Tatars…………………..136470 hours of Chuvash more than 235288 In 1897 according to The census was in the Kazan province: Chuvash………………….513044 hours Tatars…………………………………………………………744267 hours. That is, the proportion has drastically changed. There were more Tatars by 231223 hours. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF THE TATAR WITH THE CHUVASH. ACTUALLY THE CHUVASH IS ARGUING WITH THE CHUVASH, BUT THAT IS GOOD (that is, having a few drops of Kipchak blood). For all the time, 70% of the Chuvash adopted Islam. In fact, the dispute about the Bulgar heritage of the Tatar and the Chuvash is a dispute between the Chuvash and the Chuvash, but Tatarized, i.e. converted to Islam. And the Kipchak nobility (true Tatar "blue blood"), being in power, being a religious elite, imposed its language and culture on the Chuvash-Bulgars and Chuvash descendants of the Bulgars (after the fall of Bulgaria, the Islamization of the Chuvashs intensified). Today there are no pure Kipchaks left, they, of course, mixed with the Chuvash-Tatars (that is, the Tatarized Chuvashs). If we refuse these realities, then the Tatarstanians will receive the following axiom: Tatars and Bulgars are absolute opposites... Sincerely, Stanislav Ubassi Details in the note

timur::

yes, it's not clear!!!

Vyacheslav::

Previously, Russia was called Great Tartaria and there was no Mongol-Tatar invasion. History fabricated at the discretion of corrupt Jews. Europe until the 15th century was a province of Russia. The Moscow region was called Moscow Tartaria, Kazan - Kazan Tartaria. Then the Romanovs began to destroy the great culture of the Slavs. And the Russians (Romanovs) fought with the Russians (of great faith, the children of Svarog), this was the Tatar-Mongol invasion. And the Mongol is translated as great, and Tartarus is the children of Tara and Tarkh. I think from there they began to call the Bulgars - Tatars.

Victor::

I am Russian (Jewish mother, Pole father) brother of the Tatars (after my father) I call him Tatar, and he shouts Balgarin!))) And he is also very harmful! are Tatars really harmful?)) seriously, I have two Tatar friends and they don’t look like Tatars, very good people, better than many Russians. Yes, and why Tatars are called Tatars, this tribe has come, and there are Crimean Tatars. Siberian, Kazan. I'm from Novosibirsk

Ivan::

"If you have a bad head, if you do not understand geography and geographical economics" - 1. there is economic geography, etc., for example, political; 2. Studying the history of the "Bulgars" separately from other peoples and attributing it only to the Kazan Tatars is nonsense, this can be read on the websites of Ukrainian nationals about ancient ukrov, etc., who disown the common root with Russians and Belarusians, and are looking for it in kinship with pharaohs of Egypt; 3. Do not forget about Asparuh and modern Bulgarians; The history of the Bulgars, Slavs, Mordovians, Pechenegs and other peoples who inhabited the lands of Russia at that time is a common history, which, for the sake of one or another ruler, in different places and cases was "slightly" corrected and interpreted. Therefore, this issue should be studied in a complex, very well and intelligibly set out in the last book of L.N. Gumilyov. The modern term "Tatars", I think, should be treated as the term "Scythians" - "Scythians is an exoethnonym of Greek origin, applied to a group of peoples who lived in Eastern Europe in the era of antiquity. The ancient Greeks called the country where the Scythians lived, Scythia. Information about the Scythians comes mainly from the writings of ancient authors (especially the "History" of Herodotus) and archaeological excavations in the lands from the lower reaches of the Danube to Siberia and Altai.The Scythian-Sarmatian language, as well as the Alanian language derived from it, were part of the northeastern branch of the Iranian languages and was probably the ancestor of the modern Ossetian language, as indicated by hundreds of Scythian personal names, names of tribes, rivers, preserved in Greek records.Later, starting from the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, the word "Scythians" was used in Greek (Byzantine) sources to name of all peoples of completely different origins who inhabited the Eurasian steppes and the northern Black Sea region: in the sources of the III-IV centuries of our era "Scythians" are often called the Germanic-speaking Goths, in later Byzantine sources, the Eastern Slavs, Turkic-speaking Khazars and Pechenegs, as well as Alans related to the ancient Iranian-speaking Scythians. "And I want to tell Peter that the Russ are a Swedish tribe that oppressed the Slavs. Therefore, the Slavs - in all European (Aryan) languages ​​​​means slaves (slave). Therefore, your version is correct, if you look from the point of view of such-Slavs-Aryans- these are the slaves of the Aryans (that is, the Scythians or Germans), the Scythians were Iranian and Turkic-speaking, it is stupid to argue about this. The Slavs have never lived in such territories - the original place is limited to Mazovia (central Poland). You are funny Peter - you are looking for glory even among foreign peoples :) "burzum, it's not even funny, where are the Russians, and where are the Swedes, did not get lost, Dear? Definitely have not heard about separately existing "European" languages. For example, Finnish and French are European If "yes", what do they have in common? To date, the "Western" version of the origin of the Russians does not hold water. History must be studied and approached objectively, and not trying to find certain "advantages" of one over the other.

?: :

We are all Africans :)

Dina::

Full of jelly. So I don’t understand who are the Tatars who were with the Mongols?

Alexey Volgarin::

Can I, do not look for who the Bulgars are by nation, they, like everyone else in Europe, are a good good mixture of all local and not very tribes. It’s just that, in my opinion, under Peter I, Novgorod B and S were replaced by Rusyn B and C, so it’s not right to say Volga Bulgarians - butter, Volgars should sound like the name of the people living on the Volga, and only then who will read the first letter. And the Tatars, I'm sorry, in Russia and Lithuania they called the Moscow army (without any national coloring), it was already fierce. This is in brief, but how the name of the Tatars stuck to the Volgars, well, here the Muscovites have no equal in labeling and turning history upside down.

Bulgarian Egete::

The Mongols professed the religion "BON" and Nestorian Christianity. The Mongol yellow crusade is described by L.N. Gumilyov. Tengrianism was practiced by the Turks, not the Mongols. According to the Tengrian rite, Turks are buried today in China.

Abdullah::

We all know that the Russians used to call Tatars simply robbers, and then entire nomadic tribes. But I have long had one question, how could peoples with the same language, now called Tatars, end up in Northern China and Altai. I suspect that the Proto-Bulgarians, originating in the Urals, made migrations in pre-Mongolian times at least twice: to the Altai and then to China. Then their ancestors joined the army of Genghis Khan.

Michael::

Timuchin, come on with your favorite geography and many millennia ago. At a time when the horse had not yet been domesticated, arable farming was not known. So then it was convenient for people to hunt in the forests and collect fruits with roots. For the Mongoloids, it was warm Southeast Asia. For Europeans, the Great Russian Plain. What made part of the Mongoloid race move to the harsh northern regions? And how long ago did they settle on the southern spurs of Altai? For this, first of all, horses and camels were needed. When were they domesticated? The European race moved east through the forests. Who do you think reached Baikal, the spurs of the Sayan, Altai, Tien Shan earlier? Look at the map and you will see that it is much easier from Europe. Ancient people lived on the shores of Lake Baikal already 25,000 years ago. In order for the Mongoloids to get into the steppes of Central Asia, it was necessary to open the "Dzhungar Gate". When did the ancestors of the Tatars discover them?

Michael::

Timuchin is advised to read "The Ancient Turks" by L. Gumilyov, as well as the historian Ilovaisky. In addition, at least a little study of anthropology. In the "Internet" to read about the ancient settlement "Sungir", about DNA research. Then it will become a little clearer where the name of the Tatars came from, who the Bulgars are. And briefly so. The Turks are the purest Mongoloids. Signs: flat face, black straight hair, almost beardlessness, disproportionately large head, high cheekbones, low bridge of the nose and, most importantly, the epicanthus. Since the Mongoloid dominant, in order for European facial features to appear, multiple mixing of races is necessary. Estonians are Finno-Ugric because of the presence of epicanthus. But their ancestors never directly mixed with the Mongoloids, but only with the neighboring Finno-Ugric peoples /Komi, Karelians, Vepsians/. Those, in turn, with the Meryans, Vesyas, Udmurts. And those, in turn, mixed with the Khanty and Mansi. There was this mixture of races 7000 years ago. The Turks appeared in the steppes of Central Asia in Europe only in the 6th century AD. It makes no sense to list the number of Turkic tribes. For all who encountered them, there was a name. In Russia, it was first the Pechenegs, the Polovtsians / Kipchaks / and then the Tatars. It was from the Bulgars that Russia learned "there is an unknown tribe recommended by the Tatars." Yes, Bulgarians / Russian / origin have nothing to do with the Turks. The Turkic language is a later acquisition. The Persians, who perfectly knew the Turks / Tatars / in the 5th-7th centuries, wrote that the language of the Bulgars is not similar to either the Turkic or the Khazar. That the Bulgars are subdivided into 2 peoples who barely understand each other. Which of the modern peoples of Russia best fits this description? That's right, Mordvin. In the Russian chronicles, according to the Volga Bulgarians, they understood precisely the Mordovians. Let's judge. Although Mordovians are classified as Finno-Ugric, their physiognomies are European. The language is not similar to any language of the peoples of Russia. They are divided into Moksha and Erzya, whose language differs so much that they barely understand each other. Look at the map of Mordovian settlement. They live exactly where the Bulgarians could pass from the shores of Azov to Kvma. How belligerent they were, read the "history of the Mordovians" in the "Internet". When they say that the Tatars were defeated by the Bulgars after the battle on the Kalka, they were the ancestors of the Mordovians. Kazan Tatars became after the capture of Kazan by the Tatars of Ulu-Mukhamed, where they were the ruling class for more than 100 years. Besermens were also called the Tatarized Udmurts. If blond children are born in Tatar families, then the ancestors were Besermen / Udmurts /. By the way, the Udmurts have always been easily assimilated. The lands between the Volga and Vyatka were previously inhabited by them. Toponymy confirms this. The Tatar name for the Udmurts is "ary". Arsk is the capital. The city of Kazan was founded by the Novgorodians by the name of the Kazan River. The diminutive "ka" appeared later. Under this name there is a river, a tributary of the Vyatka. The village of Kazan is in the Kirov region. After the fall of Kazan, the true Tatars entered the service of Moscow, while the Turkic indigenous agricultural population remained. Look at the map of Tataria. Interspersed arrangement of villages. Try to figure out who messed with who. But in those days there was no concept of "nation". Tatar speech and the use of horsemeat remained from the Tatars.

Burzum::

Timuchin beguiled Ramsy ^^ quote: "Besides, the Mongols were and remain Buddhists." at that time the Mongols were tengriists, learn the history of the smart guy LOL

bukinict::

Timuchin: you were directly born in those centuries. Only the Internet was added to you. But there is no mind!

bukinict::

Tatars are descendants of the Kipchaks. The people are very numerous. But at one time they were fragmented into clans. Therefore, they were pushed back from Siberia to the Urals and the Volga.

Unregistered user::

And I want to tell Peter that the Ruses are a Swedish tribe that oppressed the Slavs. Therefore, the Slavs - in all European (Aryan) languages ​​​​means slaves (slave). Therefore, your version is correct, if you look from the point of view of such a Slavic Aryan, these are the slaves of the Aryans (that is, the Scythians or Germans), the Scythians were Iranian and Turkic-speaking, it is stupid to argue about this. Even in Russian, the Slavs are not worded (Slovenian, Slovene, or just slaves - glory, words). The Slavs have never lived in such territories - the original place is limited to Mazovia (central Poland). You are funny Peter - you are looking for glory even among foreign peoples :)

Dilmar::

I fully agree that Kazan Tatars are more Bulgarians than Tatars. But you are making one unforgivable mistake. The Bashkirs have nothing from the neck to the Bulgarians. Chuvashs, perhaps, and the Bashkirs are closer to the Kazakhs, in terms of tribal composition, lifestyle, history and culture, as well as racial type. And they themselves will never want to unite with you. Concentrate better on changing the self-consciousness and the name of the Tatars themselves, rather than trying to embrace the immensity to discredit the very idea of ​​returning the Bulgar heritage

Dylov::

Timuchin agrees with you in many respects, but Timur is not Genghisid, but Barlas, Timur’s religion is Islam, Genghis Khan’s is paganism, the eternal blue sky, I’m sure that the atrocities of the Mongols are greatly exaggerated, and if Timur hadn’t stopped Bayazet near Angora (Ankora) then perhaps the whole of Europe would not exist. And as for the Bulgars, they courageously fought for about 15 years with the victorious Mongols and did not submit. The war ended in peace and they went camping together

Peter::

In order to understand this, you need to dig much deeper. And not for centuries. but for thousands of years. After all, before the Bulgars came to these lands, all this territory was controlled by the Slavs. From the Carpathians to the Volga, the Slavs - by the Rus, and from the Volga to the Slayano Ocean - by the Aryans. Therefore, the lands beyond the Volga were called Tataria, i.e. (TATA - ARIA). Tata - father (Old Slavic) Tyatya - father (Old Russian) Well, who are the Aryans, most people know.

Bulgar Malae::

As one historian said, Russians are the most deceived people...

Timuchin::

Sorry, a typo: Tartar, from the word Tartar, the underworld, that is, hell. But you understand: the papal scoundrels invented the yoke, and the Germans supported them under Peter the Great - it was necessary to write off the atrocities of the priests during the Christianization of Russia on someone. Here's Carpini's tale and came up nowhere better. So not only the Bulgars suffered from lies - the Russians more - they generally threw out 3 millennia of Vedic history and started with the no less mythical Rurik.

Timuchin::

Lord! I am the great Timuchin, better known as Timur, or Tamerlane, I responsibly declare that charlatans from science stole my name and assigned it to someone who is also called Genghis Khan. If you have a bad head, if you do not understand geography and geographical economics, then you can continue to listen to tales about the wild and bloodthirsty Mongols and about the Tatars, who swept the plague across Eurasia. But I must remind you that the Mongolian steppes could not feed so many people with their horses and bulls, provide so much wood and iron to arm them. In addition, the Mongols were and remain Buddhists. All claims - to the fool Carpini, who composed a horror movie about the "hellish" - Tatar inhabitants, so that the Europeans would unite under the Pope in the face of mortal danger (the Americans took this technique for constant use - first they scared the USSR, then terrorism, then chemical weapons in Iraq, now nuclear weapons from Iran). The situation in Europe has changed, the Pope "sent" Rubruk to compose a different fairy tale - they say that Christians live in Mongolia who need to be saved, and the Mongols themselves are primitive cattle and people not dangerous to conquer. Read the originals!

Tribes XI - XII centuries. They spoke the Mongolian language (the Mongolian language group of the Altaic language family). The term "Tatars" is first found in Chinese chronicles specifically to refer to the northern nomadic neighbors. Later it becomes the self-name of numerous nationalities speaking the languages ​​of the Tyuk language group of the Altai language family.

2. Tatars (self-name - Tatars), an ethnic group that makes up the main population of Tataria (Tatarstan) (1765 thousand people, 1992). They also live in Bashkiria, the Mari Republic, Mordovia, Udmurtia, Chuvashia, Nizhny Novgorod, Kirov, Penza and other regions of the Russian Federation. The Turkic-speaking communities of Siberia (Siberian Tatars), Crimea (Crimean Tatars), etc. are also called Tatars. The total number in the Russian Federation (excluding Crimean Tatars) is 5.52 million people (1992). The total number is 6.71 million people. Tatar language. Believing Tatars are Sunni Muslims.

Basic information

Auto-ethnonym (self-name)

Tatars: Tatar - the self-name of the Volga Tatars.

Main settlement area

The main ethnic territory of the Volga Tatars is the Republic of Tatarstan, where, according to the 1989 USSR census, 1,765 thousand people lived there. (53% of the population of the republic). A significant part of the Tatars live outside Tatarstan: in Bashkiria - 1121 thousand people, Udmurtia - 111 thousand people, Mordovia - 47 thousand people, as well as in other national-state formations and regions of the Russian Federation. Many Tatars live within the so-called. "near abroad": in Uzbekistan - 468 thousand people, Kazakhstan - 328 thousand people, in Ukraine - 87 thousand people. etc.

population

The dynamics of the number of the Tatar ethnic group according to the censuses of the country is as follows: 1897 -2228 thousand, (total number of Tatars), 1926 - 2914 thousand Tatars and 102 thousand Kryashens, 1937 - 3793 thousand, 1939 - 4314 thousand ., 1959 - 4968 thousand, 1970 - 5931 thousand, 1979 - 6318 thousand people. According to the 1989 census, the total number of Tatars was 6649 thousand people, of which 5522 thousand were in the Russian Federation.

Ethnic and ethnographic groups

There are several quite different ethno-territorial groups of Tatars, they are sometimes considered separate ethnic groups. The largest of them is the Volga-Urals, which in turn consists of the Tatars of Kazan, Kasimov, Mishars and Kryashens). Some researchers in the composition of the Volga-Ural Tatars highlight the Astrakhan Tatars, which in turn consist of such groups as the Yurt, Kundrov, etc.). Each group had its own tribal divisions, for example, the Volga-Urals - Meselman, Kazanly, Bulgarians, Misher, Tipter, Kereshen, Nogaybak and others. Astrakhan - Nugai, Karagash, Tatarlar yurt.
Other ethnoterritorial groups of Tatars are Siberian and Crimean Tatars.

Language

Tatar: There are three dialects in the Tatar language - western (Mishar), middle (Kazan-Tatar) and eastern (Siberian-Tatar). The earliest known literary monument in the Tatar language dates back to the 13th century; the formation of the modern Tatar national language was completed at the beginning of the 20th century.

writing

Until 1928, Tatar writing was based on the Arabic script, in the period 1928-1939. - in Latin, and then on the basis of Cyrillic.

Religion

Islam

Orthodoxy: Tatar believers are mostly Sunni Muslims, a group of Kryashens are Orthodox.

Ethnogenesis and ethnic history

The ethnonym "Tatars" began to spread among the Mongol and Turkic tribes of Central Asia and southern Siberia from the 6th century. In the 13th century During the conquests of Genghis Khan, and then Batu, the Tatars appear in Eastern Europe and make up a significant part of the population of the Golden Horde. As a result of complex ethnogenetic processes taking place in the 13th-14th centuries, the Turkic and Mongol tribes of the Golden Horde consolidated, including both the earlier Turkic aliens and the local Finno-speaking population. In the khanates that formed after the collapse of the Golden Horde, the top of society called themselves Tatars, after the entry of these khanates into Russia, the ethnonym "Tatars" began to pass to the common people. The Tatar ethnos was finally formed only at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1920, the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created as part of the RSFSR, since 1991 it has been called the Republic of Tatarstan.

economy

At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, the basis of the traditional economy of the Volga-Ural Tatars was arable farming with three fields in the forest and forest-steppe regions and a fallow-laying system in the steppe. The land was cultivated with a two-pronged plow and a heavy plow, a Saban, in the 19th century. they began to be replaced by more advanced plows. The main crops were winter rye and spring wheat, oats, barley, peas, lentils, etc. Animal husbandry in the northern regions of the Tatars played a subordinate role, here it had a stall-pasture character. They raised small cattle, chickens, horses, the meat of which was used as food, the Kryashens raised pigs. In the south, in the steppe zone, animal husbandry was not inferior in importance to agriculture, in some places it had an intensive semi-nomadic character - horses and sheep were grazed all year round. Poultry was also bred here. Horticulture among the Tatars played a secondary role, the main crop was potatoes. Beekeeping was developed, and melon growing in the steppe zone. Hunting as a trade was important only for the Ural Mishars, fishing was of an amateur nature, and only on the Ural and Volga rivers was it commercial. Among the crafts among the Tatars, woodworking played a significant role, leather processing, gold sewing were distinguished by a high level of skill, weaving, felting, felting, blacksmithing, jewelry and other crafts were developed.

traditional clothing

The traditional clothes of the Tatars were sewn from home-made or purchased fabrics. The underwear of men and women was a tunic-shaped shirt, men's almost knee-length, and women's almost floor-length with a wide gathering along the hem and an embroidered bib, and trousers with a wide step. The women's shirt was more decorated. Outerwear was oar with a solid fitted back. It included a camisole, sleeveless or with a short sleeve, the female one was richly decorated, over the camisole the men wore a long spacious robe, plain or striped, it was girded with a sash. In cold weather, they wore quilted or fur beshmets, fur coats. On the road, they put on a straight-backed fur coat with a sash or a chekmen of the same cut, but cloth. The men's headdress was a skullcap of various shapes; in cold weather they wore a fur or quilted hat over it, and in summer a felt hat. Women's hats were very diverse - richly decorated hats of various types, bedspreads, towel-like hats. Women wore a lot of jewelry - earrings, pendants to braids, breast jewelry, baldrics, bracelets, silver coins were widely used in the manufacture of jewelry. The traditional types of shoes were leather ichigi and shoes with soft and hard soles, often made of colored leather. Working shoes were Tatar-style bast shoes, which were worn with white cloth stockings, and Mishars with onuchs.

Traditional settlements and dwellings

Traditional Tatar villages (auls) were located along the river network and transport communications. In the forest zone, their layout was different - cumulus, nesting, disorderly, the villages were distinguished by crowded buildings, uneven and intricate streets, and the presence of numerous dead ends. The buildings were located inside the estate, and the street was formed by a continuous line of deaf fences. The settlements of the forest-steppe and steppe zones were distinguished by the orderliness of building. Mosques, shops, public grain barns, fire sheds, administrative buildings were located in the center of the settlement, families of wealthy peasants, clergy, and merchants lived here.
The estates were divided into two parts - the front yard with dwellings, storages and rooms for livestock and the back yard, where there was a garden, a threshing floor with current, a barn, chaff, a bathhouse. The buildings of the estate were located either randomly, or grouped U-, L-shaped, in two rows, etc. The buildings were built of wood with a predominance of log construction, but there were also buildings of clay, brick, stone, adobe, wattle construction. The dwelling was three-part - a hut-canopy-hut or two-part - a hut-canopy, the wealthy Tatars had five walls, crosses, two-, three-story houses with pantries and benches on the lower floor. The roofs were two- or four-pitched, they were covered with boards, shingles, straw, reeds, sometimes covered with clay. The interior layout of the northern-Central Russian type prevailed. The stove was located at the entrance, bunk beds were laid along the front wall with a place of honor “tour” in the middle, along the line of the stove, the dwelling was divided by a partition or curtain into two parts: the female one - the kitchen and the male one - the guest room. The stove was of the Russian type, sometimes with a cauldron, cast in or suspended. They rested, ate, worked, slept on bunks, in the northern regions they were shortened and supplemented with benches and tables. Sleeping places were fenced off with a curtain or canopy. Embroidered cloth products played an important role in interior design. In some areas, the exterior decoration of dwellings was abundant - carvings and polychrome paintings.

Food

The basis of nutrition was meat, dairy and vegetable food - soups seasoned with pieces of dough, sour bread, cakes, pancakes. Wheat flour was used as a dressing for various dishes. Home-made noodles were popular, they were boiled in meat broth with the addition of butter, lard, sour milk. Baursak, dough balls boiled in lard or oil, belonged to the tasty dishes. Porridges made from lentils, peas, barley groats, millet, etc. were varied. Different meats were used - lamb, beef, poultry, horse meat was popular among the Mishars. For the future, they prepared tutyrma - sausage with meat, blood and cereals. Beleshi were made from dough with meat filling. Dairy products were varied: katyk - a special kind of sour milk, sour cream, kort - cheese, etc. They ate few vegetables, but from the end of the 19th century. potatoes began to play a significant role in the nutrition of the Tatars. Drinks were tea, ayran - a mixture of katyk and water, a celebratory drink was shirbet - from fruits and honey dissolved in water. Islam stipulated food prohibitions on pork and alcoholic beverages.

social organization

Until the beginning of the 20th century for the social relations of some groups of Tatars, tribal division was characteristic. In the field of family relations, the predominance of a small family was noted, while there was a small percentage of large families that included 3-4 generations of relatives. There was an avoidance of men by women, female seclusion. The isolation of the male and female part of the youth was strictly observed, the status of a man was much higher than that of a woman. In accordance with the norms of Islam, there was a custom of polygamy, more characteristic of the wealthy elite.

Spiritual culture and traditional beliefs

For the wedding rituals of the Tatars, it was characteristic that the parents of the boy and girl agreed on marriage, the consent of the young was considered optional. During the preparation for the wedding, the relatives of the bride and groom discussed the amount of bride price paid by the groom's side. There was a custom of kidnapping the bride, which saved them from paying bride price and expensive wedding expenses. The main wedding ceremonies, including the festive feast, were held in the bride's house without the participation of the young. The young woman stayed with her parents until the bride price was paid, and her move to her husband's house was sometimes delayed until the birth of her first child, who was also furnished with many rituals.
The festive culture of the Tatars was closely connected with the Muslim religion. The most significant of the holidays were Korban gaete - sacrifice, Uraza gaete - the end of the 30-day fast, Maulid - the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad. At the same time, many holidays and rituals had a pre-Islamic character, for example, related to the cycle of agricultural work. Among the Kazan Tatars, the most significant of them was sabantuy (saban - "plow", tui - "wedding", "holiday") celebrated in the spring before sowing time. During it, competitions were held in running and jumping, the national wrestling keresh and horse racing, and collective treats of porridge were made. Among the baptized Tatars, traditional holidays were timed to coincide with the Christian calendar, but also contained many archaic elements.
There was a belief in various master spirits: waters - suanases, forests - shurale, lands - fat of anase, brownie oy iyase, barn - abzar iyase, ideas about werewolves - ubyr. Prayers were made in the groves, which were called keremet, it was believed that an evil spirit with the same name lives in them. There were ideas about other evil spirits - genies and peri. For ritual help, they turned to yemchi - that was the name of healers and healers.
In the spiritual culture of the Tatars, folklore, song and dance art associated with the use of musical instruments - kurai (such as a flute), kubyz (mouth harp) were widely developed, and over time, the accordion became widespread.

Bibliography and sources

Bibliographies

• Material culture of the Kazan Tatars (extensive bibliography). Kazan, 1930./Vorobiev N.I.

General works

• Kazan Tatars. Kazan, 1953./Vorobiev N.I.
• Tatars. Naberezhnye Chelny, 1993. / Iskhakov D.M.
• Peoples of the European part of the USSR. T.II / Peoples of the world: Ethnographic essays. M., 1964. S.634-681.
• The peoples of the Volga and Ural regions. Historical and ethnographic essays. M., 1985.
• Tatars and Tatarstan: A Handbook. Kazan, 1993.
• Tatars of the Middle Volga and Urals. M., 1967.
• Tatars // Peoples of Russia: Encyclopedia. M., 1994. S. 320-331.

Selected aspects

• Agriculture of the Tatars of the Middle Volga and Ural regions of the 19th-beginning of the 20th centuries. M., 1981./Khalikov N.A.
• Origin of the Tatar people. Kazan, 1978./Khalikov A.Kh.
• Tatar people and their ancestors. Kazan, 1989./Khalikov A.Kh.
• Mongols, Tatars, Golden Horde and Bulgaria. Kazan, 1994./Khalikov A.Kh.
• Ethnocultural zoning of the Tatars of the Middle Volga region. Kazan, 1991.
• Modern rituals of the Tatar people. Kazan, 1984./Urazmanova R.K.
• Ethnogenesis and the main milestones in the development of the Tatar-Bulgars // Problems of linguoethnohistory of the Tatar people. Kazan, 1995./Zakiev M.Z.
• History of the Tatar ASSR (from ancient times to the present day). Kazan, 1968.
• Settlement and number of Tatars in the Volga-Ural historical and ethnographic region in the 18-19 centuries. // Soviet ethnography, 1980, No. 4. / Iskhakov D.M.
• Tatars: ethnos and ethnonym. Kazan, 1989./Karimullin A.G.
• Handicrafts of the Kazan province. Issue. 1-2, 8-9. Kazan, 1901-1905./Kosolapov V.N.
• Peoples of the Middle Volga and Southern Urals. An ethnogenetic view of history. M., 1992./Kuzeev R.G.
• Terminology of kinship and properties among the Tatar-Mishars in the Mordovian ASSR // Materials on Tatar dialectology. 2. Kazan, 1962./Mukhamedova R.G.
• Beliefs and rituals of the Kazan Tatars, formed without the influence of their Sunni Mohammedanism on the life // Western Russian Geographical Society. T. 6. 1880./Nasyrov A.K.
• Origin of the Kazan Tatars. Kazan, 1948.
• Tatarstan: national interests (Political essay). Kazan, 1995./Tagirov E.R.
• Ethnogenesis of the Tatars of the Volga region in the light of anthropological data // Proceedings of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. New Ser. T.7 .M.-L., 1949./Trofimova T.A.
• Tatars: problems of history and language (Collection of articles on problems of linguistic history, revival and development of the Tatar nation). Kazan, 1995./Zakiev M.Z.
• Islam and the National Ideology of the Tatar People // Islamic-Christian Borderlands: Results and Prospects of Study. Kazan, 1994./Amirkhanov R.M.
• Rural dwelling of the Tatar ASSR. Kazan, 1957./Bikchentaev A.G.
• Artistic crafts of Tataria in the past and present. Kazan, 1957./Vorobiev N.I., Busygin E.P.
• History of the Tatars. M., 1994./Gaziz G.

Separate regional groups

• Geography and culture of ethnographic groups of Tatars in the USSR. M., 1983.
• Teptyari. The experience of ethno-statistical study // Soviet ethnography, 1979, No. 4. / Iskhakov D.M.
• Mishari Tatars. Historical and ethnographic research. M., 1972./Mukhamedova R.G.
• Chepetsk Tatars (Brief historical essay) // New in ethnographic studies of the Tatar people. Kazan, 1978./Mukhamedova R.G.
• Kryashen Tatars. Historical and ethnographic study of material culture (mid-19th-early 20th centuries). M., 1977./Mukhametshin Yu.G.
• To the history of the Tatar population of the Mordovian ASSR (about the Mishars) // Tr.NII YALIE. Issue 24 (ser. source). Saransk, 1963./Safgaliyeva M.G.
• Bashkirs, Meshcheryaks and Teptyars // Izv. Russian Geographic Society.T.13, Issue. 2. 1877./Uyfalvi K.
• Kasimov Tatars. Kazan, 1991./Sharifullina F.M.

Publication of sources

• Sources on the history of Tatarstan (16-18 centuries). Book 1. Kazan, 1993.
• Materials on the history of the Tatar people. Kazan, 1995.
• Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and Council of People's Commissars on the formation of the Autonomous Tatar Soviet Socialist Republic // Collected. legalizations and orders of the workers' and peasants' government. No. 51. 1920.

Read further:

Karin Tatars- an ethnic group living in the village of Karino, Sloboda district, Kirov region. and nearby settlements. Believers are Muslims. Perhaps they have common roots with the Besermyans (V.K. Semibratov) living in the territory of Udmurtia, but, unlike them (speaking Udmurt), they speak a dialect of the Tatar language.

Ivka Tatars- a mythical ethnic group, mentioned by D. M. Zakharov on the basis of folklore data.

How do modern Tatars call themselves? It follows from this statement that the people known today under this name gave themselves this name themselves or adopted this name as a self-name, at their own discretion and desire, as an ethnonym that answers and reflects its ethnic origin. It turns out that "Tatars" are the true ethnonym of this people. How such a statement corresponds to the truth, the actual state of affairs, can be found out by referring to the facts of history, to the primary sources, as well as to the memory of the people themselves. The country of the Bulgars was called the Volga Bulgaria. Under this name, the country and its people were known not only in Russia, but also in the Far East, in the southern countries, in Europe. Despite the fact that they are now called Tatars, many peoples still know them not as Tatars, but under other names, for example, the Udmurts, their neighbors, and now they call them "bigers" - i.e. Bulgars, and the Kazakhs "nugays" ”or the northern Kipchaks. The Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan, who visited the Volga Bulgaria in 922, writes that poets and scientists lived here, who added to their names, as a surname, the name of their country - Bulgari. According to Ibn Fadlan and other Eastern travelers, historians Yakub ibn Nogman al-Bulgari, Ahmed al-Bulgari, philosopher Hamid ibn Kharis al-Bulgari and others worked here in those days. faradis” (written in 1357) by Mahmud ibn Gali Bulgari. The author of the historical work "Tavarikhi Bulgaria" (History of the Volga Bulgaria), written in the 18th century, was also Khisametdin Muslimi al-Bulgari. The poet of the same era, Mavlya Kuli, had the pseudonym Bulgari. In the 19th century, when the printing of Tatar books was widely developed in Kazan, the works of Tatar authors appeared one after another, many of whom call themselves Bulgari. This phenomenon continues into the early 20th century. During this period, textbooks, dictionaries, alphabets of the native language began to be published, which are already called works on the “Turkic” language, although, along with this, we also encounter the use of the name “Tatar language”. The fact is that the authors of their works, addressed to the Russian reader, the so-called self-instruction books, dictionaries of the native language, are forced to call them “Tatar” because the Russians had already forgotten the names “Bulgars” by that time, they already knew them as “Tatars”. A prominent Tatar educator of the second half of the 19th century, Kayum Nasyri, also calls his textbooks on his native language "Tatar" precisely on the basis of this situation, and in his historical, ethnographic, archaeological works he says that the "Tatars" are direct descendants of the Bulgars, and their origin is by genealogy brings his ancestors out of the Bulgars. Forced to reckon with the name "Tatars" common among Russians, many authors, against their will, used this name in their works, while noting that this name does not correspond to their self-name, their origin. The Bulgars had an unwritten law - to know orally their ancestors, the pedigree up to the ninth generation. Many families also kept such a pedigree in writing, passed down from generation to generation. These genealogies, compiled systematically, show the direct connection of modern Tatars with the Bulgars. “The name “Bulgar”, “Bulgari”, “Bulgarlyk” was used from the 12th to the 19th centuries (we would say: from the 8th-9th centuries. - A.K.) - hundreds of Old Tatar authors, which could be proved on the basis of a dozen of approved documents” - genealogies that speak more clearly about the people’s conscious understanding of their origin and self-name (M. A. Usmanov. Tatar historical sources of the 17th-18th centuries. Kazan, 1972, p. 139-140). The fact that the people clearly distinguished themselves from the Mongols, whom the Bulgars, like other peoples, knew as "Tatars", and did not confuse themselves with them, is vividly evidenced both in the memory of the people and in their poetic oral creativity. In the folklore of modern Tatars, proverbs and sayings have been preserved and live to this day, in which their attitude towards the Mongols, i.e. "Tatars", is extremely clearly expressed. Here are some of them: "Tatar atasyn satar" - "The Tatar will sell his own father"; “Tatar ture bulsa, chabatassh turge ele” - “If a Tatar becomes an official, he will hang his bast shoes in a red corner (in a conspicuous place)”; “Tatar atka mense, atasyn tanymas” - “A Tatar on a horse has no father (Sitting on a horse, a Tatar does not notice his father)”; "Tatar akyly teshten son" - "The mind of a Tatar awakens in hindsight"; “Tatar ashar da kachar” - “The Tatar will get drunk and leave, and he won’t say thanks”; “Tatar belan kaberen, yaneshe bulmasyn” - “Get rid of the neighborhood with the Tatar and in the next world”, etc. It is unlikely that history knows examples of people being able to ridicule themselves so evilly, sharply and invent such “flattering” proverbs about themselves and sayings. It would be unnatural. This assessment, given in oral folk art to the "Tatars", more and more clearly than any scientific treatises, characterizes the attitude of the people towards the "Tatars". After that, to assert that the name "Tatars" is a self-name, the true ethnonym of modern Tatars, at least, would be ignorant. In Tatar folk tales, myths and legends, songs, we often come across the image of Mount Kaf (Caucasian Mountains), in which these mountains are presented as a place of hostile forces and evil spirits, a place of battles. In our opinion, this is also a trace in the memory of the people about their distant past, experienced by them in the regions of the North Caucasus before their resettlement in the Middle Volga region. Russian scientists who were directly involved in the study of the past of the "Tatars" clearly saw that identifying them with the Mongols was a mistake. The 18th-century historian P. Rychkov, the author of The Experience of the Kazan History of the Ancient and Middle Ages (St. Petersburg, 1767), wrote that Kazanians are not Tatars, that this name in relation to them is a historical misunderstanding. This work, written according to the Russian chronicles, was the first attempt to establish the truth about the origin of the people, an attempt to put an end to the identification of the Tatars with the Mongols, which began to receive citizenship in Russian historiography. In his work, he gives many examples to prove his position, among them is the following fact: “The well-known Bashkir rebel Batyrsha, inciting the Bashkirs to rebellion, in his letter called all the local Mohammedans the Bulgarian people” (P. Rychkov. Decree, work., p. 18-19). The well-known Russian orientalist, a major Turkologist V. V. Grigoriev, who highly appreciated the ethnographic research of Kayum Nasyri, also emphasized in 1836 that “the current Kazan and Siberian Tatars, carrying robes along the streets of Russian cities, call themselves “Bulgarlyk”, “Bulgarism” (V. Grigoriev. The Volga Tatars "Library for Reading", 1836, vol. XIX, part III, p. 24), i.e., they are proud of their origin and know their ethnicity. In 1909, on the pages of Russian Thought, G. Alisov, giving an answer to the growing fabrications about the origin of the Tatars, noted that if you ask a Tatar "about his nationality, he will not call himself a Tatar and ethnographically he will be partly right, since this name is a historical misunderstanding" (G. Alisov. The Muslim Question in Russia. - Russian Thought, 1909, No. 7, p. 39). Russian scientists, who were interested in the origin of modern Tatars according to primary sources, never confused them with the conquerors. We could cite the statements and observations of many of these scientists, but we will confine ourselves to only one observation and conclusion. The great Russian revolutionary democrat N. G. Chernyshevsky, who knew the history, culture, life, customs of the Tatars well, knew the Tatar language and writing, studied their history from Tatar sources, emphasized that “out of the current Crimean, Kazan and Orenburg Tatars, there is hardly one person who came from Batu warriors that the current Tatars are the descendants of those tribes that lived in these places and were conquered by Batu, as the Russians were conquered. (N. G. Chernyshevsky. Anthropological principle in philosophy. - In the book: Selected Philosophical Works. T. 3, M., 1951, p. 245-246), And Western European scientists who knew the Tatars not only from literature, but directly, they emphasize that the views on the origin of the Tatars that prevail in their countries have nothing to do with the actual state of affairs, that they are Bulgars, a people of Turkic roots. The German scientist and traveler Adam Olearius, who visited the Volga region in the 30s of the 17th century, calls them "Bulgarian Tatars" (A. Olearius. Description of the journey to Muscovy and through Muscovy to Persia and back. St. Petersburg, 1905, p. 408). Sigismund Herberstein, a Polish diplomat who knew the Tatars personally even before the annexation of the Kazan Khanate to the Muscovite state, wrote: “If anyone wants to describe the Tatars, he needs to describe many tribes. For they bear this name by faith: and these are different tribes, far from each other ”(S. Herberstein. Notes on Moscow Affairs. St. Petersburg. 1908, p. 138). The great Alexander Humboldt, who visited Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, was also interested in the origin of the Tatars. He had conversations about this with the Tatars themselves. I became friends with the Tatar scientist, geographer S. Seifullin, whose works and observations I used in describing the eastern outskirts of Russia. In his work, Humboldt emphasizes that, using the name "Tatars", he follows only the traditions of Western literature, and "under the Tatars" means, "like the Russians, not the Mongols, but the people of the great Turkish (Turkic - A. K.) tribe" (A. Humboldt. Journey of Baron Alexander Humboldt, St. Petersburg, 1837, p. 18-19). Unlike such scholars who visited the Tatars and knew them personally, other Western European authors, knowing about the Tatars only from literature, identify them with the Mongols, consider them to be fragments of the Mongols. Unfortunately, assertions of this kind also dominate Russian pre-revolutionary "official-patriotic" literature. Unlike Western-phile authors, prominent Russian historians Karamzin, Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and others do not confuse "Tatars" with the Mongols, they consider them descendants of the Bulgars. We see the same thing in the works of Russian Turkic linguists and historians who studied the language, culture, and ethnography of the "Tatars" directly. Thus, in the “Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary” (Volume with letters “S - P - T”), which summarizes the results of the study of Russian Turkologists, it is clearly emphasized that “there is no Mongolian element in the current remnants of the Turkish (Turkic - A.K.) tribes and trace." Another encyclopedia also says: “Tatars. (Historical). This term, as the name of a people, has a historical rather than an ethnographic meaning. Tatars, as a separate people, do not exist. (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. St. Petersburg, 1901, v. 64, p. 671). "Turkic-Tatars" or Turkish-Tatar peoples, the term is synonymous with the word. "Turks"... Until now, especially in the West, the word "Tatars" or "Tartars" is understood as a totality of peoples completely different in language and racial characteristics. Further we read: “In science, up to the present time, the name of the Tatars has been completely refuted when applied to the Mongols and Tunguz and is left only to those Turkic peoples in language, which are now almost entirely part of the Russian Empire, for which it has been preserved due to a historical misunderstanding, unlike others Turkic peoples bearing an independent historical name (Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Sarts, Uzbeks, etc.) "(Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. St. Petersburg, 1902, v. 67, p. 347). The beginning of the conscious identification of the Tatars with the Mongols in Russian historical literature acquires citizenship especially from the 18th century and intensifies in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. All this began to bear fruit. Under these conditions, Tatar scientists tried to explain the falsity of such a statement by appealing to the facts of the history of their people. But much of what was written did not see the light of day because of the persecution of the tsarist censorship. In the 19th century, the tsarist censorship missed, one might say, the only work on this issue, namely the work of the Tatar scientist-encyclopedist Shigabutdin Marjani, and even then because it was written, one might say, in Arabic, which was not available to the censor. Sh. Marjani is the author of a six-volume folio of the historical and bibliographic dictionary of almost all the outstanding figures of the Muslim East from the time of the emergence of Islam until the middle of the 19th century. This is a major work, constituting an encyclopedia of the East, written on the basis of a study of a huge number of oriental manuscripts stored in Central Asia, Arab countries, Turkey, and Kazan. He is also the author of many monographic studies on the history of the Uighurs, Seljuks, Khorezmians, and other Turkic peoples. A deep knowledge of the history of the Eastern peoples, scrupulous thoroughness and scientific conscientiousness of this scientist make his works a valuable source on the history of many peoples of the Volga region, Central Asia, Anatolia, and the Arab countries. Academician V. V. Radlov, who personally knew the author, was familiar with his works, at the IV archaeological congress in Kazan in 1877 personally outlined the results of one of the works of Sh. Marjani and called this study a new step in truthful coverage of the history of the “Tatars”. Sh. Marjani gave a detailed analysis of the history of the Bulgars, showed on a huge amount of factual material the direct, immediate succession of the modern Tatars with the ancient Bulgars. In one of his works devoted to the history of the Volga Bulgaria and the Kazan Khanate - "Moetafadel akhber fi ehvali Kazan ve Bulgar" (In 2 volumes. Volume I, Kazan, 1885) based on the study of ancient eastern sources and in the light of new ethnographic and other documents, Marjani showed the direct continuity of culture, language, ethnicity of modern Tatars with the Bulgars. (Unfortunately, many of the scientist’s works to this day remain only in manuscript. And the published part of his works is practically inaccessible to historians who do not speak Arabic and the high-style language of the Tatar language of the past.) An outstanding historian of our days, who is subject to both domestic and Eastern and Western sources, L. N. Gumilyov, speaking about the roots of the kinship of the peoples of Russia, touched upon the issue of the relationship between ancient Russia and the Bulgar Turks and the origin of the name "Tatars", which are fully consistent with the provisions we set forth here. He writes that “a thousand years ago, the two largest states of Eastern Europe - Kievan Rus and Volga Bulgaria signed a peace treaty, which, despite the fact that the Slavs adopted the Christian faith, and the Turks still honored Islam, had a beneficial effect on relations between peoples almost 250 years, up to Batyev defeat. By the way, the descendants of these Bulgarians, who make up a significant part of the population of the Middle Volga region, are ironically called the name “Tatars”, and their language is Tatar” (emphasized by us - A.K.). Although this is nothing more than camouflage!” (L. Gumilyov. The roots of our relationship. - Izvestia, 1988, April 13). At the beginning of the 20th century, especially after the first Russian revolution, new works on the history of the “Tatars” began to appear, which had previously been practically impossible to publish, because the tsarist censorship considered any work on the history of the Turkic peoples to be harmful, leading to the awakening of the national self-consciousness of the oppressed peoples. Among the works of this period, we point to the "History of the Bulgar people" (Bolgar tarihi. Kazan, 1910) by the democratic historian Gainutdin Akhmerov, where the history of the origin of modern Tatars is specially considered. Based on a comparative analysis of life, language, beliefs, rituals, ornaments, art, new archaeological and paleographic monuments, the author once again proves the complete continuity of the Bulgar ethnos with the "Tatars". The strengthening in Russian semi-official literature of identifications of "Tatars" with the Mongol conquerors caused a lively discussion of scientists in the Tatar periodical press about the origin of the people, especially on the pages of the Shura magazine, partially Ang and others. The overwhelming majority of the participants in the discussion, based on materials, facts and sources, testimonies of specialists, once again proved the reliability of Sh. Marjani's views on the origin of modern Tatars and raised the issue of the need to abandon the name Tatars imposed on them and accept the self-name "Bulgars". Another part of the historians, fully supporting the origin of the "Tatars" from the Bulgars, but proceeding from the fact that the name "Bulgars" resembles the ethnonym of the Danube Bulgarians, proposed to take the ethnonym "Türks" for the self-name (not to be confused with the ethnonym "Turks", as sometimes happens with individual authors). The adoption of the name "Turks", in their opinion, is justified, because this name emphasizes the proximity, kinship of the "Tatars" with the Turkic peoples and the term "Turks" is more understandable to other peoples than the name "Bulgars". Among the participants in the discussion there were also individuals who sought to find the Mongolian origins in the formation of the modern Tatar people and, at the same time, as evidence of their “theories”, referred to Russian official historical literature, where Tatars are identified and considered descendants of the Mongols. Supporters of such views were bourgeois nationalists, who, defending the name "Tatars", sought to "exalt" themselves by the deeds of the Mongol conquerors. These proposals, reeking of overt nationalism, built on sand, did not find any significant support. And the petty-bourgeois historians themselves did not have unanimity on the question of the origin of the Tatars. One of them, Khadi Atlasi, in his book on the history of Kazan (X. Atlasi. Kazan tarihi. Kazan, 1910) wrote that “Tatars are those invaders who destroyed the Volga Bulgaria”, that “Tatars (Kazan - A.K. .) they always called themselves Bulgars, in extreme cases, the Turkic people" or "on a religious basis - Muslims" (p, 15), so that they would not be identified with "Tatars", thus opposing the adoption of the name "Tatars".

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

Turkic origin of the ethnonym

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

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

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

Turko-Persian origin

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

Persian origin

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

We recommend reading

Ancient Persian origin

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

However, the Turks also called the Chinese and even the Uighurs tatami. And it could well be that tat meant "foreigner", "foreigner". However, one does not contradict the other. After all, the Turks could first call Iranian-speakers tatami, and then the name could spread to other strangers.

By the way, the Russian word "thief" may also have been borrowed from the Persians.

Greek origin

We all know that among the ancient Greeks the word "tartar" meant the other world, hell. Thus, the "tartarine" was an inhabitant of the underground depths. This name arose even before the invasion of Batu's troops on Europe. Perhaps it was brought here by travelers and merchants, but even then the word "Tatars" was associated among Europeans with eastern barbarians.

After the invasion of Batu Khan, Europeans began to perceive them exclusively as a people who came out of hell and brought the horrors of war and death. Ludwig IX was called a saint because he prayed himself and called on his people to pray in order to avoid the invasion of Batu. As we remember, Khan Udegei died at that time. The Mongols turned back. This assured the Europeans that they were right.

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

In fairness, it must be said that on some old maps of Europe, Tataria began immediately beyond the Russian border. The Mongol Empire collapsed in the 15th century, but European historians until the 18th century continued to call Tatars all the eastern peoples from the Volga to China.

By the way, the Tatar Strait, which separates the island of Sakhalin from the mainland, is called so because "Tatars" also lived on its shores - Orochs and Udeges. In any case, Jean-Francois La Perouse, who gave the name to the strait, thought so.

Chinese origin

Some scholars believe that the ethnonym "Tatars" is of Chinese origin. Back in the 5th century, a tribe lived in the northeast of Mongolia and Manchuria, which the Chinese called "ta-ta", "da-da" or "tatan". And in some dialects of Chinese, the name sounded exactly like “Tatar” or “Tartar” because of the nasal diphthong.

The tribe was warlike and constantly disturbed the neighbors. Perhaps later the name tartars spread to other peoples who were unfriendly to the Chinese.

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

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

I was interested in the question, who in Russia is called/was called Tatars and why? Wikipedia says the following peoples were called Tatars

Turko-Tatars, Transcaucasian Tatars, Azerbaijani/Aderbeijan Tatars (Azerbaijanis)
Mountain Tatars (Karachays and Balkars)
Nogai Tatars (Nogais)
Abakan Tatars (Khakasses)
Kuznetsk Tatars (Shors)
Kundra Tatars (Karagashi)
Kazan Tatars (Mishars, Volga Bulgarians, Teptyars)
Crimean Tatars (Crimeans)
Black Tatars (Tubalars)
Chulym Tatars (Chulyms)
Altai Tatars (Altaians)
Siberian Tatars

The most interesting point: apart from the Kazan and Crimean Tatars, none of these peoples call themselves Tatars. And one more interesting point: contrary to the established opinion in Azerbaijan, that the Russians, out of ignorance, called all the Turkic peoples they knew Tatars, it must be said that the Russians perfectly distinguished and distinguish the Turkic peoples. The Ottomans were called and are called Turks (although we Azerbaijanis and Turks are practically two branches of the same people), Kazakhs and Kyrgyz were called "Kyrgyz-Kaisaks", Uzbeks were called Uzbeks, Turkmen were called Turkmens ... but we are Tatars.

Particularly interesting is the moment why there is such a difference between us and the Turks. I understand that now it will start "yes, we are different" and they will give 1000 arguments. But this difference 300 years ago was minimal in contrast to today. So why?

Let's look at the political map of that time. The Golden Horde was the successor to the empire of Genghis Khan until the end of the horde. Then the Crimean Khanate (direct descendants of Genghis Khan and successors of his empire) took the baton, and Muscovy obeyed or paid tribute to the Crimean Khan. Even in history there is a period when the Crimean khans were considered higher in status than the Ottoman sultans. And the Crimean Khanate until the end of this statehood and joining Russia was considered the successor of the empire of Genghis Khan. But neither the Kazakhs, nor the Uzbeks, nor the Turkmens were considered to be them, since these peoples built new state formations on the site of the horde. ATTENTION: before you get offended that since when we Kazakhs or Uzbeks have nothing to do with the legacy of Genghis Khan, read carefully. This is not about the heritage of peoples, but about the continuity of state formations. In Central Asia, Timur put an end to the empire of Genghis Khan, creating his own empire in his place. Those. a new state formation, although at first he ruled on behalf of Genghis Khan. But after his death, he declared himself a "gurkhan" and his heirs ruled. The Mughals broke away from them, then the historical Uzbeks formed their own khanate, from the Uzbeks the Kazakhs, etc., etc. Those. new state formations with their own traditions.

But here's how to explain that we - Azerbaijanis were called Tatars, because we also had other state formations. Let's see. That part of the Chinggis empire that we had was called Ilkhanat. And Ilkhan Ghazan (Genghisid) ruled a huge empire. By the way, for those who hasten to declare them Mongols, I will simply say "ilkhan" is the title of the ancient Turks, not the Mongols.

And these ilkhans existed until the arrival of Timur, however, towards the end ... they were nominal rulers, when the real power was with the Jelairids and the Chobanids. But nominally the ruler was an Ilkhan from the clan of Ghazan Khan.

Timur conquered everything. Put an end ... and left. After him, there was a strife and the Jelairids wanted and partially managed to restore their rule, there were new khanates like Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu ... they even sometimes existed in parallel and were equal in status to the Ottomans, but no one succeeded in maintaining the integrity of power over empire of Ghazan Khan. Up to Shah Ismail. When they call him great and say "unified the empire", they do not mean the empire of Darius or something else, but precisely Ilkhanat Ghazan Khan. And all the succeeding dynasties kept that tradition and the same approach. Therefore, for the Russians, even the Qajars were "Tatars".

And most importantly, all those whom the Russians called Tatars were to the end parts of the empire of Genghis Khan and successors. Mountain Tatars were part of the Crimean Khanate. And the Khakass, Shors, Chulyms were not part of Timur's empire, they remained islands of the empire of Genghis. And the Uzbeks and Turkmens, under the leadership of the new Khan Sheibani, formed their new state structure. Or Kazakhs under the command of Abylai Khan. Those. despite their kinship with the "Mongols" of Genghis Khan, they are qualitatively new state formations. The Uzbeks generally consider Timur the founder of the state more, although Timur himself did not call himself an Uzbek, but a Turk.

Why am I... to the fact that the Safavids did not actually create a new one, but restored the old one. That is why we are "Tatars" for Russians.