All talk about the origin of modern Tatars from the Bulgarians from the evil one is either a propaganda project

PSEUDODISCUSSION BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED "BULGARISTS" AND "TATARS"

“If, in the presence of their multitude, they had unanimity with each other, and not enmity, then other peoples from the Chinese and others, and in general, not a single creature would be able to resist them. And yet, with all the enmity and discord that reigned among them, they are already in ancient times most of the time they were conquerors and rulers of most of the tribes and regions, standing out for their greatness, power and full honor from others. Because of their extraordinary greatness and honorary position, other Turkic clans, with all the differences in their ranks and names, became known under their name and were all called Tatars.

The pseudo-discussion between the so-called "Bulgarists" and "Tatarists" is highly biased and has nothing to do with clarifying the origin of the Tatars. Its politicization is an old (since Stolypin's time) disease, the purpose of which is to divide the Tatars into separate peoples: Mishar, Kryashens, Nagaybaks, Siberian, Crimean, Astrakhan Tatars, Bulgars, and the Tatars' distance from the Bashkirs, Nogais, Balkars, Karachays, Kumyks, Kazakhs. During the 2000 census, another attempt was made to divide the Tatars into many ethnographic groups, and not to list them all. In parallel, in the Tatar language, an unthinkable, or rather, meaningless number of "dialects" is diligently sought out on a "scientific" basis.

WHAT IS THE FATE OF THE ETHNONYMS "BULGAR" AND "TATARS"?

Chuvash explorer N.I. Egorov writes: “Before the beginning of the era of enlightenment, neither the Tatars nor the Chuvash had any Bulgar identity. Ethnonym or, rather, ethnopolitonym Bulgar begins to occupy a special place in the history of the peoples of the Volga region in the second half or even at the end of the 19th century. The Bulgarian identity undoubtedly has a literary and literary origin, which can be guessed already from the external phonetic appearance of the ethnopolitonym Bulgar. It has been established that already in the language of the Volga Bulgars of the pre-Mongol era, the ethnopolitonym bulgar underwent some phonetic changes ( bulgar >* buljar > bü lä r) and took on a phonetic form bü lä r/buhler". Already from this quote it is clear that the self-name "Bulgar" or "Bilyar" for the 9th - 12th centuries can be spoken very conditionally, with reservations, indicating exactly which tribe in question. Written sources, by which we judge the language, do not give us the opportunity to resolve the issue of the ethnic origin of modern Tatars.

Without going into the phonetic subtleties of the pronunciation of the Bulgarians / Bilyar / Buhler, we will call the medieval tribes that lived on the Volga, Azov, the North Caucasus and the Danube, the Bulgarians. It should be taken into account that the population of the Volga Bulgaria was multi-ethnic, there lived Baranjars, Savirs, Barsils, etc. In other words, the name "Bulgarians" was not an ethnonym, it was a polytonym. If you try to divide the population of the Volga Bulgaria into some linguistic groups, then it is not clear what to rely on in such an assessment. Literary, epigraphic monuments, other inscriptions testify only to the "bookish" language. From this it is impossible to determine exactly what was actually colloquial and which tribe spoke which language. It can definitely be argued that both the Kypchak and the Oghuz groups existed.

Language in the Middle Ages did not perform such political functions as it does today, and therefore transferring our understanding to the 9th-12th centuries means deliberately confusing an already complex topic. In those days, the literary, as well as the state, languages ​​were jargon for a narrow circle of people, and folklore as an example of the folk language was rarely recorded in the sources, and, in any case, it was not of a national character, but reflected the characteristics of ethnographic groups. We can talk about the language of those times only in terms of linguistic, but not ethnic reconstruction, since the "bookish" and folk languages ​​do not coincide. In general, our understanding of language, people, citizenship carries a different meaning than in the past. The words sound the same, but in fact they are different terms.

TATARS HAVE DESCENTED FROM BULGARIANS BY THE DECISION OF THE CPSU Central Committee

All talk about the origin of modern Tatars from the Bulgarians ( bü lä r/buler) from the evil one, because they are a propaganda project. In 1944, the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a resolution prohibiting the study of the history and culture of the Golden Horde, the Kazan Khanate, as well as publishing the epic "Idegey". Noteworthy is the year the decree was issued - 1944. During the war, it was considered that questions of history were no less significant than victory on the fronts. The Tatars distinguished themselves in the war in the best way, the authority of the people began to grow. On the other hand, at the same time, Crimean Tatars, Balkars and others were evicted from their original territories. The question arose about the Kazan Tatars ... They were treated differently, deciding to deal not physically, but ideologically. The Bulgar concept of the origin of modern Tatars served this purpose, which was "approved", without shelving it, in 1946 at a specially convened all-Union conference. The question of the origin of the Tatars was considered by the leadership of the USSR as an important political step along with the post-war restoration of the national economy.

The Bulgarian civilization, of course, existed, as evidenced by the remarkable archaeological material, based on which one can confidently speak about the life of the tribes, their settlement and movement. The Bulgarian cultural (archaeological) layer can be traced throughout the Volga, the Caucasus, the Crimea, Bulgaria, and Hungary. It is not difficult to find traces of Bulgarian tribes in Bavaria and Northern Italy. One can say positively about various Bulgarian tribes in connection with the advance of the Western Huns from the Volga-Ural region to the Danube and beyond. If the Kutrigurs and Utigurs are considered Bulgarian tribes, then their mention dates back to the 6th century. Great Bulgaria on Azov arose in the 7th century. Until that time, the Tatars already had a long history, and they created a number of states. The emergence of the Volga Bulgaria dates back to the 9th century. Long before that, the Turkic Khaganate already existed on the Volga, and not only with a nomadic, but also a settled population. For example, the foundation of Tetyush as a military fortress can be attributed to 558-559. In other words, long before the mention of the Bulgarian tribes on the territory of modern Tatarstan, the ancestors of the Tatars were already building fortress cities.

The ethnonym "Turk" was formed as a result of ethnic mixing of tribes on the basis of a common language and culture at the end of the 5th century. In the Chinese historical chronicles "Suishu" it is written: "The ancestors of Tujue [Turks] were mixed hu[Huns] Pinlyan. Their family name was Ashina. When the Northern Ei Emperor Tai Wu-di destroyed Juqu, Ashina with five hundred families fled to the zhuzhu [zhuzhans]. They lived from generation to generation near the Jinshan [Altai] mountains and were engaged in the processing of iron. A group of tribes led by Asyan-shad, the “great yabgu” Tuu and Bumyn, in 551-555 dealt a crushing blow to the Zhuanzhuan Khaganate, which can be considered the time of the emergence of the Turkic Khaganate headed by the Ashina clan.

When the Tatars found themselves in the orbit of the stronger Turkic Khaganate, they already played a significant role in the relations between the Turks and Chinese empire. In the VIII century, the Tatars are mentioned in the sources as a union of tribes. In the Terkhinsky inscription it is reported that “when these letters were written - oh my khan! - the eminent ones of my Heavenly Khan were present, eight-tribe Tatars, seventeen Az’ Buyuruks, Senguns and a thousandth detachment from the (people) Tongra, the Uighur people along with my tegins ”(753). In other words, the Tatars were already part of the Khaganate. The subsequent entry specifies that Eletmish Bilge-kagan (probably in 742) “again subjugated and eight-tribe Tatars”, and a little lower it is stated that “in the year of the Pig (747), the three-tribal Karluks and nine-tribe Tatars... respectfully asked to become a khan. Tatars were originally one of the active historical subjects involved in the formation of the Turkic people.

ARE THE TATARS NOT RELATIVE TO THE JEWS?

After the collapse of the Western Turkic Khaganate in 658, the Khazar and Bulgar tribes appeared in the Azov region and the Caucasus in the historical arena. Great Bulgaria arises, headed by Kubrat Khan. In the middle of the 7th century, a “prince” from the Turkic clan Ashina fled to the Khazars, which gave the right to declare the territory of the Khazars a kaganate. Following this, the Khazars captured the Great Bulgaria. The sons of Kubrat fled to the Danube and the Volga, where they united the tribes living there. Volga Bulgaria falls under vassalage from Khazar Khaganate and pay tribute.

As a result of the Arab-Khazar wars in 737, the Khazar nobility was forced to convert to Islam, but not for long. Under the kagan Bulane(Bolan - "deer" in Turkic) the aristocracy began to profess Judaism. Soon the Khazar Khaganate became one of the most influential states in Eastern Europe. In a letter from the Khazar Khagan Joseph Jewish dignitary Hasdai ibn Shaprut, an adviser to the ruler of the Caliphate of Cordoba (mid-10th century), are described huge size states and population. About the peoples who lived near the Itil (Volga) River, he writes: “They are 9 peoples who cannot be (accurately) recognized and who have no number. They all pay tribute to me. From there the border turns (and reaches) to the G-rgan [Caspian]. All who live along the coast of (this) sea during one month of the journey pay tribute to me. On the south side live 15 peoples numerous and strong, who have no count, up to Bab al-Abvad [Derbent] ... On the western side live 13 peoples numerous and strong, located along the Kustantiniya [Black] sea ... ". From this passage it can be seen that the polytonym Khazars referred to many vassal peoples who spoke different languages and professed different religions. Such a conglomerate was difficult to keep in obedience. In 922, the Volga Bulgaria stopped paying tribute to the Khaganate, adopted Islam as the official religion and was recognized by the Caliph of Baghdad as an independent state, which was confirmed by the embassy ibn Fadlan. In 965, the prince of the Rus Svyatoslav defeated the weakened Khazaria.

Today, the question of the common genetic roots of Tatars and Jews is being discussed, in particular, with reference to the times of the Khazar Khaganate. It is difficult to determine the ethnicity of the population of Khazaria, because even Hagan Joseph could not give accurate information. The Khazars themselves in their mass were Turks, except perhaps for the ruling elite. According to the chronicles, the Bulgarian and Khazar tribes spoke related languages. The Karaites of Crimea still speak a language close to Crimean Tatar, which is also used in synagogue services. However, from all this it is difficult to draw far-reaching conclusions about the current proximity of certain peoples.

Recently, all over the world, genetic research has aroused increased interest, which made it possible to determine the ancestral home of all peoples. Based on the data obtained, some researchers are trying to compare haplogroups (groups that have common ancestors) with ethnic characteristics. Y-chromosomal haplogroups are statistical markers to understand the origin human populations, but in most cases such a marker says nothing about the ethnic or racial identity of an individual. Any modern ethnic group consists of representatives of several, at least two or three, haplogroups. It is not difficult to find the common ancestors of Jews and Tatars from the genetic tables, but this, apparently, should be attributed to an earlier period than the times of the Khazar Khaganate. The question of interpretation of haplogroups is complex and imperfect. It can be unequivocally stated that both among the Jews and among the Tatars there are a variety of haplogroups. Among the Tatars, they can be compared with the Aryan, Scandinavian, Finnish, Jewish (especially Ashkenazi) groups. My haplogroup does stand apart and belongs to the Altai region. What this means is still difficult to say.

WHO ONLY IS NOT RELATED TO THE TATARS

The ethnonym "Tatars" has a rather difficult fate. In written sources, runic inscriptions, the Tatars are mentioned in connection with the most important historical events in Eurasia. British historian Edward Parker, relying on Chinese chronicles, calls the Huns and Huns, Avars, Turks, Xianbeis Tatars. Chinese historical chronicles connect the homeland of the Tatars with the "Desht-i-Tatars" - the "Land of the Tatars", located to the north of the Great Wall of China between Gansu and East Turkestan. Due to the influence of the Tatars, the Chinese began to call all the peoples who lived north of China, Tatars, using as a collective term, that is, a polytonym. Some experts consider the early Tatars to be Mongol-speaking, but such authoritative medieval chroniclers as Rashid ad-Din and Mahmud of Kashgar, who were well aware of the Turkic languages, unambiguously attributed the Tatars to the Turks. The Mongols in historical chronicles are mentioned several centuries later than the Tatars.

"White Tatars" were called nomads who lived south of the Gobi desert. Most of them were Turkic-speaking Onguts. "Black Tatars", including the Keraites, lived in the steppe far from cultural centers. At night they were surrounded by a ring of carts, that is, they created a hut. The "wild Tatars" of Southern Siberia hunted and fished, were ruled by elders, they did not have khans. Since various Tatar states arose (Chinese and Arabic chronicles number 6 of them), the ethnonym "Tatars" spread to many Mongol and Turkic-speaking tribes. Even later, when Genghis Khan became famous throughout the world as a Mongol conqueror, some of the historians called him a Tatar, and the Mongol Empire - Tataria. Munali, viceroy Genghis Khan in Northern China, he called himself "we, Tatars", which corresponded to the Chinese tradition, but did not correspond ethnic background. Over time, all of Eurasia began to be identified with "Tartaria", which is recorded on European maps.

One should not be embarrassed by the fact that sometimes the Tatars appeared in the historical arena under a different name. For example, the Kimaks, who together with the Kipchaks (Polovtsy) founded the Kimak Khaganate in 840, were one of the Tatar tribes. Ironically, the Kipchaks, whose language became dominant among a significant part of the Turks, themselves as a people ceased to exist. Al Omari about “Dasht-i-Kipchak” he writes: “In ancient times this state was the country of the Kipchaks, but when the Tatars took possession of it, the Kipchaks became their subjects. Then they mixed and intermarried with them, and the earth prevailed over the natural and racial qualities of them [Tatars], and they all became like Kipchaks, as if of the same kind. Kipchak roots can be found among Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Nogais, Bashkirs and even Russians (primarily Cossacks).

“To this day, in the regions of Khitai, Hind and Sind, in Chin and Machin, in the country of the Kirghiz, Kelars and Bashkirs, in Desht-i Kipchak, in the regions north of it, among the Arab tribes, in Syria, Egypt and Morocco, all Turkic tribes called Tatars. Those Tatar tribes that are known and glorious, and each individually has an army and its sovereign, are six.

Rashid al-Din. "Jami at-tavarih". 1300 - 1311 years

Linking the appearance of the Tatars on the Volga only with the aggressive campaigns of Batu Khan means deliberately shortening the history of our people. By the way, the ruins of the Bolgars that we can see today are the first capital of the Ulus Jochi (Golden Horde), built Batu Khan. Before that, Bolgar looked like a settlement. Legends about the destruction of the city by the troops of Batu Khan greatly exaggerate the grandeur of events. In the same way, stories about the heroic defense of the Bulgarian state from the Subudai expeditionary corps misinterpret events. Subudai did not intend to conquer the Volga Bulgaria, he collected information about the peoples, pastures, geography, roads, ford places. It was reconnaissance in battle, preparation for the future campaign of Batu Khan. Any defense of the territory is covered with legends that has independent meaning, regardless of victory or defeat.

ETHNONYMS LIVE THEIR LIFE

Their content has changed over the centuries, although the name of the people remains. We want to see today's nations in the ancient peoples, not considering that in those ancient times self-naming was not treated as strictly as today. Ethnonyms appeared and disappeared due to circumstances, but in reality there could be a simple shuffling of the same deck, in which one or another tribe dominated, or even a leader distinguished by outstanding abilities, whose name the people and the state received. The dominant name got into the chronicles or was knocked out in stone. The rest were biding their time. The ethnonyms "On-Oguz" or "Dokuz-Oguz" mean 10 or 9 tribes. The ethnonym "Uigur" came from the name of the corresponding clan, "Karluk" - from the name of the area. The Nogais received their self-name after Bek Nogai. In Russian chronicles they are called "Nogai Tatars". In some sources, Ulus Jochi in the 14th century was called the "Uzbek state", "Uzbek ulus", "Uzbekistan". On this basis, it would be wrong to call Tatars Uzbeks.

Fanatical Muslims of the Golden Horde in the fourteenth century adopted a new name - "Uzbeks" - in honor of the Khan Uzbek. In 1428, Tyumen moved away from the Horde, where Khan Abul-khair and his ulus began to be called "Uzbek people and ulus". Used them Timur in his struggle with the Golden Horde. In Central Asia itself in those days, the Uzbeks meant the nomadic population of the eastern "Desht-i-Kipchak" (present-day Kazakhstan). Isfahani about it in early XVI century wrote the following: “Three tribes are classified as Uzbeks, which are the most glorious in the possessions of Genghis Khan. Now one (of them) is the Shibanites... The second tribe is the Kazakhs, who are famous all over the world for their strength and fearlessness, and the third tribe is the Mangyts...” Himself Sheiban - son Jochi, according to his historian, meant by Uzbeks nomadic tribes ulus of Sheiban (Western Siberia), and under the Kazakhs - nomads of the ulus of Orda-Ichen, who ethnically differed little from each other. Only in the 16th century, the Sheibanids conquered the state of the Timurids, capturing Samarkand, Bukhara and extended the name "Uzbek" to the Central Asian Turks. Then the differences between the Tatars, Uzbeks and Kazakhs begin to take shape. The fate of an ethnonym is sometimes very mysterious.

Any nation is complex and is often connected by many threads with other ethnic groups. Tatars and Chuvash are united by the presence of the Bulgarian genetic line. It is difficult to separate the Bashkirs from the Nogais (after the collapse of the Golden Horde, the Bashkirs were ruled by the Nogais until the 1570s), at the same time, the Tatarized Magyars played a significant role in their formation. Plano Carpini even identified the Bashkirs with the Magyars: "The Bashkirs are the great Hungarians" (bas-gard id est Magna Hungaria). Guillaume de Rubruk reports that the population of Bashkiria still in the XIII century retained its own language, which was understandable to the Hungarians. The famous medieval historians Juvayni and Rashid ad-Din called the Hungarians of Eastern Europe "Bashgirds". “The princes conquered all the regions of the Bashgirds, Madjars and Sasans and, having put their sovereign, the Kelar [king], to flight, spent the summer on the Tisza River,” writes Rashid-ad-Din about the conquest of the Hungarians and Saxons. But sometimes chroniclers called both Hungarians and Turkic-speaking tribes Bashkirs.

TURKISH ARE ALL RELATIVE

Tatars and Nogays began to be considered different peoples only in Soviet times, but until now in Central Asia, according to tradition, Tatars continue to be called Nougays. Famous Russian historian V.V.Trepavlov writes: “The northern group of Crimean Tatars, who inhabited the steppes outside the peninsula, was called Nogai; for Kazakhs nougai- these are Bashkirs and Volga Tatars; for Bashkirs and Kazakhs in the past nogai- Siberian Tatars; for Kalmyks ishtig mangad(i.e. Ishtyak-Mangyts) - Bashkirs, and woolong mangad(mountain mangyts) - Balkars and Karachais, etc.”. Today we do not doubt the difference between Nogais and Tatars, but in the Middle Ages they were considered one people. In one of the Russian books of those years it is written: “He [Mukhammed-Girey] did not start to love the Crimean Tatars, but even more began to love the Nogai Tatars, he had a lot of them, and kept them close to himself and, like good-will, imputing them to himself.” As you can see, here the Nogais are perceived as Tatars living in the steppes. Even in the 19th century, a Crimean gardener and a plowman was called a Tatar, and a Zaperekop shepherd was called a foot. By the way, queen Syuyumbeki was a Nogai princess from the same tribe as the Yusupov princes, and her husband Safa Giray was a Crimean prince.

With the collapse of the Golden Horde and the emergence of numerous Turko-Tatar khanates, territorial differences become more pronounced. Kazakhs are formed on the basis of the White Horde, in Central Asia the Turkic language is influenced by Farsi, and a modern Uzbek language based on the Chagatai dialect, Crimean Tatars For a long time they are under the protectorate of the Ottoman Empire, assimilating many elements of the Turkish (Oguz) culture, while other ethnic groups find themselves in a situation of relative isolation and develop their local characteristics. Today they are called Azerbaijanis, Kumyks, Balkars, Karachays, etc.

We can agree that some people have more Kypchak "blood", and someone has a stronger influence of the Finns, somewhere the Khazar heredity affected, and somewhere - Ugric. All the Turkic peoples that exist today are a kind of fusion of these tribes. But by and large, they are all heirs of a common culture based on the amazing stability of the Turko-Tatar dialects.

Kalә m! Kalbeң dә nor ser bar - gayan it,

Kilep kichmeshlә Rә praised bә jan it.

Tү hep kү s yashlә reң don't boo kә gazgә ,

no moң ly uylaryң bar - withө yilә withoutә !

Babalar cabre yanynda kүң ate zar,

Atalar Ruhynyң armandә se bar…

Kara tuprak tuly mә evil nidasa,

Alar kemder?.. Alar kemnә r fidasy?

Dardmand

Feather! Reveal what secret you own

Describe the essence of fleeting life for me.

Your living tear is friendly with paper,

Tell me your sadness, your desires.

At grandfather's graves, my soul, sleeplessly

Annoyance of the fathers, breathe their bitterness!

Here the black earth is all of resentment and groans.

Whose victims are these? Who are they - tell me!

Translation by N. Belyaev

In the VIII century, a state arose on the Middle Volga and in the Kama region, the inhabitants of which called themselves Bulgars. For a long time this country peacefully coexisted with Russia. Tatarstan - this is the name of the republic, located now on the site of the Volga Bulgaria.

But not all residents of Kazan and neighboring cities agree with the ethnonym "Tatars". Many people remember their historical heritage, consider themselves Bulgars - the descendants of an ancient people who founded more than one state.

Who are the Bulgars?

The origin of the Bulgars (Bulgars - depends on the pronunciation) is still being debated among scientists. Some ethnographers and historians rank these people among the descendants of the Turkic-speaking tribes of Central Asia. Other experts have no doubt that the Bulgars were an Iranian-speaking people and lived in historical area which the Greeks called Bactria. And the inhabitants of these places, located to the west of the Hindu Kush mountain system, called their country Balkhara, as some scientists explain the emergence of the ethnonym.

The era of the great migration of peoples set in motion many tribes, including the Bulgars. In search of better lands, they went west. In the 4th century, this people settled in the steppes Northern Black Sea, also occupying the land North Caucasus up to the Caspian. The life of the Bulgars was restless, they were periodically attacked by either the Huns, or the Avars, or various Turkic-speaking tribes.

Like many other peoples whose lands bordered on the superpower of that time - the Byzantine Empire - the Bulgars were forced to build diplomatic relations with their powerful neighbor. Even their legendary ruler Khan Kubrat (605-665) was brought up in Constantinople. The Byzantines often forced the heads of neighboring states to give them their heirs in order to keep them under imperial court as hostages, and at the same time to instill in future rulers their own spiritual values.

In the history of every nation there is a person whose decisions determine the fate whole country. For the Bulgars, Khan Kubrat was such a person. In 632, he founded the state, which the Byzantines called Great Bulgaria. According to some researchers, its territories covered the Eastern Sea of ​​Azov and the Kuban, other experts believe that the lands of the Bulgars extended from the Southern Bug to the Stavropol Upland.

However, after the death of the legendary founder, the state fell apart, divided by his sons. The eldest of them, whose name was Batbayan, remained in the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov with part of the people. His Brother Kotrag took his people to the Don steppes. Another group of Bulgars, led by Alcek, after long wanderings, settled in the region of Italian Ravenna.

Under the leadership of the third son of Khan Kubrat, whose name was Asparuh, part of the people moved to the Danube. They founded modern Bulgaria, subsequently experiencing a strong influence of local Slavic tribes. Like many allies of Byzantium, the Bulgarians adopted Christianity. It happened in 865.

Volga Bulgaria

The Bulgars who remained in the Sea of ​​Azov faced frequent raids by the warlike Khazars. In search of a new haven, they moved to the territory of modern Tatarstan. Volga Bulgaria was founded in the second half of the 8th century.

For its time it was an advanced state. The Bulgars became the first of the European peoples who mastered the technology of making steel and smelting cast iron. And the fame of local leather craftsmen spread to Iran and Central Asia. Already in the 9th century, having fortified themselves in new lands, these people began to build stone palaces.

Thanks to their favorable location, the Bulgars established trade with Russia, Scandinavia, the Baltic states, and Byzantium. Goods were transported mainly along the Volga. Installed Bulgars economic ties and with eastern neighbors. Caravans from China, India and Persia regularly arrived here.

In 922, Islam became the official religion of the Volga Bulgaria, spreading to these lands along with preachers from the Baghdad Caliphate. It so happened that the Danube Bulgars declared themselves Christians, and the Volga - Muslims. The once united people were divided by religion.

The first capital of the state was the city of Bulgar, and in the XII century Bilyar became the official center of the country. Kazan, founded in 1005, did not yet have the status of a capital.

In the XIII century, the Volga Bulgaria was captured by the Mongols. Once powerful and independent state turned into one of the provinces of the Golden Horde. From that moment, the gradual displacement of the ethnonym "Bulgars" began.

Kazan Khanate

After the collapse of the Golden Horde, the Bulgars had a hope to regain statehood. In 1438, on the territory of modern Tatarstan, the Bulgar Vilayat was formed, which in Russia was called the Kazan Khanate. But the head of this state was no longer the Bulgars, but the descendants of the legendary conqueror Genghis Khan. One of the Horde khans, whose name was Ulug-Mukhammed (Ulu-Mukhammed), together with his army captured Kazan and founded a ruling dynasty there.

In the second half of the 15th century, the Kazan Khanate occupied the entire Middle Volga and the Kama River basin, including the lands of the Bashkirs, Chuvashs, Mordovians, Cheremis and Votyaks. In addition to Kazan, there were many major cities: Bulgar, Alat, Kashan, Archa, Dzhuketau, Zyuri, Iske-Kazan, Tetyushi and Laesh. And the total population exceeded 400 thousand people.

The ethnonym "Bulgars" began to be gradually forgotten, people more often called themselves "Kazanly" (Kazan) or simply on a religious basis - Muslims. Perhaps the aristocratic elite of the khanate, who did not belong to the Bulgars, was interested in their subjects forgetting about their nationality, customs and traditions as soon as possible.

In the 16th century, Kazan began to feel the growing influence of Moscow. Russian princes have repeatedly tried to put a person loyal to them on the throne of a neighboring state. After numerous strife, military skirmishes and political intrigues in 1552, the khanate was captured by the troops of Tsar John IV Vasilyevich the Terrible. Kazan officially became part of Russia. From that moment on, the ethnonym "Bulgars" was completely lost.

Who are the Tatars?

Tatars - Turkic-speaking people living mainly in Russia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia. For the first time, representatives of some Manchurian-Mongolian tribes who roamed the Baikal region in the 6th-9th centuries began to call themselves that. It is clear that these people had absolutely nothing to do with the Bulgars. They joined the conquests of Genghis Khan. That is why the Russians called the Horde Mongols-Tatars.

Subsequently, the ethnonym "Tatars" spread to many peoples, often having nothing in common with each other. So they began to call some ethnic groups that were previously part of the Golden Horde. Therefore, a historical paradox arose: the descendants of the Bulgars, conquered by the Mongols in the 13th century, are now called the name of their invaders.

As genetic studies have shown, Kazan, Crimean, Astrakhan and Siberian Tatars are representatives of different nationalities. They do not have common ancestors, and their ethnogenesis occurred independently of each other. This fact may explain why the languages ​​of, for example, the Kazan and Astrakhan Tatars differ so much from each other that people simply do not understand each other.

When examining the Kazan Tatars, geneticists discovered their undoubted kinship with the inhabitants of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. And the contribution of people from Central Asia to the ethnogenesis of the population of modern Tatarstan is only 1-6% (depending on the region). Still, among the Bulgars there were mixed marriages with the Horde, although quite rarely.

Many indigenous people of modern Kazan do not agree that they are called Tatars. Not surprising. After all, this is almost the same if the Russians were confused with the Germans.

BULGARS: THE UNKNOWN HISTORY OF A VERY FAMOUS PEOPLE.
Batyrov U.F., Sobyanin A.D.
Editorial foreword: "As the experience of recent decades shows, conflicts in such a multinational country as Russia are most easily flared up not even on religious, but on national grounds. From the point of view of the enemy, it is more convenient to provoke interethnic conflicts, because they are usually involved local territories, which could not be achieved in the event of a major inter-religious strife in which the whole world would be drawn in. It does not matter that in Russia such territories may be larger than the countries of Europe. For our enemies, this is very convenient. and perverted information, which in right time is thrown into the correct edition. This is one of the types of information warfare. The editors begin a series of publications on the history of the peoples inhabiting the regions marked in previous editions of the journal, according to American forecasts, as possible "hot spots" - zones of interethnic conflicts.

THE STORY OF HOW THE PEOPLE WERE "BANNED"

It will be about one of largest nations Eurasia - Bulgars (Volga Tatars). Great Bulgaria stretched from the Volga and Kama to the Danube in the 7th century. After its fall, the Danube Bulgarians lost the ancient Bulgarian language (Turkic) and spoke Slavic - modern Bulgarian. On the Volga and the Urals, they retained the language, but lost their name.
No one now suspects that until 1917 only the descendants of the Kipchak and Tatar-Mongolian tribes living in the Polovtsian Steppe (Desht-i-Kypchak), scattered throughout Russia, were called "Tatars" - Lithuanian, Crimean, Caucasian Tatars ... Also Tatars were called "serving Tatars" - Nogais, Kasimov Tatars and other Turks, who since the time of Ivan the Terrible made up a significant part nobility. And on the Volga, as follows from the article "Russia" of the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron, the Volga Bulgars lived.
Then there was the Revolution. The Bulgars accepted it with joy, because the ideas of the Bolsheviks were consonant with the goal of the Movement of the Volga Bulgar Muslims (Vaisov movement). It was the Bulgar Muslims who established Soviet power in the Volga and the Urals. In gratitude for this and in memory of Sardar Vaisov, who died in 1918, the Bolsheviks allowed the Suyumbiki tower in the Kazan Kremlin to be decorated with a crescent moon. But after the death of Sardar Vaisov, whom the Bolsheviks completely trusted, the "Tatarists" managed to convince the People's Commissar for Nationalities I.V. Stalin that the Vaisov movement poses a threat to the integrity of the RSFSR. As a result, in 1923 the name "Bulgars" was banned, the leaders of the Movement were shot, and ordinary participants were exiled. The Tatar autonomy was formed as part of the RSFSR, and since then the population has been issued passports with the entries "Tatar / Tatar".

NO PEOPLE - NO PROBLEM...

There is nothing offensive in the word "Tatar" outside the context of the Bulgarian history. The same ethnonym as thousands of others: Uighurs, Chinese, Turks, etc. But for the Bulgars it is alien, because that was the name of those who drowned Bulgaria in blood, destroyed its capital Bilyar and the most ancient city of our people - Bulgar.
So, the Bulgarian people were given an alien name. And for some seventy years, the people began to disappear! According to statistics for this period: the Tatars in numerical terms from the fourth place in the country slipped to the seventh. The census statistics for 1979 and 1989 do not even record a quantitative increase at all - as it was about seven million, it remains. Although, at the then existing birth rates in the USSR, the population growth should have been about two million people. Where did the children who were born during this time in "Tatar" families go? They "left" to other nations, for the same reason - they did not want to be descendants of conquerors and destroyers.
But back in 1903, the outstanding writer Gayaz Iskhaki wrote the first fantastic story in Bulgarian literature - "Ike yoz eldansong inkyraz" ("Death in two hundred years"). This book predicts that the terrible disease "Tatarism", which the Bulgar people contracted in the second half of the 19th century, will lead to its complete disappearance in two hundred years. Then Gayaz Iskhaki sensitively caught the trend, however, he made a mistake in terms. We see that the process has gone much faster and may end with the death of the people sooner than in two hundred years. No, people will not go anywhere, they will simply call themselves Russians. The Russian people will not become stronger from these half-Tatars-half-Russians. No one gets stronger by turning on weak blood.
Only through the return of the name will we return the layers of culture hidden from us. Return native ancient culture will strengthen the largest Eurasian ethnic group after the Russians, the indigenous population of the Volga, Kama and Urals.

Reference 1. Ethnic roots of the Volga ethnos, tribes and peoples.
FINNO-UGRI: Mari, Besermen (Bishermen), Udmurts, Mordvins, etc.
TURKISH: Ases (Yases, Alans), Sönns (Hün-Khön-Hun-Huns), Suars, Bulgarians, Burtases (Bortases), Biars (Bilers-Bigers-Bilyars), Yskils (Skyds-Scythians), Bersuls, Kypchaks, Nokhrats , Temtede, Koshans, Sarmatians, Chelmats, Sabakule, Khazars, Mishers (Meshchers-Mazhgars-Magyars), Nugai (Nogai), Ishteks (Ostyaks), Bashkirs (Bashkyrds), Turks (Torks, Uzes), Kazanly (Kashan-Koshan- Kushan), Iyirki, Suaslamari (Chuvash), etc.

FALSE NAME - FALSE ETHNOS?

We have often encountered situations in life where strangers could not determine who we are by nationality. And when they heard: "Tatar", they were amazed. In the minds of many, a Tatar is a narrow-eyed, bony-bones nomad with Mongolian features. And looking at us, those who ask, see in front of them completely different people of a clearly non-Asian look.
Most of us are used to living under a false name. Although inner feeling the errors remain. It is this feeling of inadequacy of our inner essence the image that is associated with the name "Tatars" in weak people leads to the appearance of an inferiority complex, all kinds of concealment of their "Tatar" origin, up to a change in name (there was Zukhra Flyurovna, and Zinaida Yuryevna became). Strong people silently withdraw into themselves, although they understand that something needs to be changed. There is also a third group - those who, out of a sense of inferiority, stick out their Tatarness, are proud that "we, the descendants of Genghis Khan, kept Russia under our boots for three hundred years. Let us now be small and offended by the same Russians, but once we were" cool " and they took tribute from the Russians.
Until now, the false name forced to remake history in order to explain how the Bulgars turned into Tatars. Allegedly, there was some kind of pure, without impurities, the people of the Bulgars, then came the no less pure Kipchaks, that is, the Polovtsy. They formed, and in total the Tatars turned out. Terrible absurdity, which is calmly swallowed by people.
And the Kipchaks-Polovtsy, and the Tatar-Mongols, and other Turks poured into our blood at different times, but the basis remained the same - the Bulgar. Initially, the Bulgar people on their historical land, in the Volga region and in the Urals, consisted of different tribes - both living here and coming from outside. But some original Ural dominant was preserved, the spirit that shaped the people, making them different from others. Whoever joined our people - nomadic Turks, settled Finno-Ugric peoples - they perceived this spirit, our culture, and became part of the Bulgar people. The Kryashens and Mishars began to feel that they were not separate tribes, but part of a large people.
Not the last role in the struggle of forces within the Bulgar ethnos is played by the question of self-name - "Tatars" or "Bulgars". If "Tatars", then the basis national character nomadic (from the Tatar-Mongol who came in the 13th century) - Great Steppe. Therefore, the recommendations of A.G. Dugin are substantiated from the point of view of the stability of the Russian state. However, if we accept the name "Bulgars", everything changes dramatically. Even before Kievan Rus, the state of the Bulgars combined the tradition of the Forest (excavations in the Urals show millennia of metal smelting and agriculture) and the dynamics of the Steppe (constant recharge from the waves of nomads from Central Asia through the steppe neck between the Caspian and the Ural forests). No less important is the fact that the Volga-Ural ethnos existed without the forced unification of its constituent parts. This means that the Bulgars at the time of their heyday (in the 7th century) were not a nation in the European sense, but were a large community of Finno-Ugric and Turkic peoples.
When Great Bulgaria fell under the blows of the Khazar Khaganate, a smaller but more active part of the Bulgars went to the Middle Volga region. The Bulgars became the next ruling tribe of this region, like the Alans, Huns, Biars before them, but in the cultural sense they quickly dissolved among other settled Turkic-speaking tribes of the Itil and Ural regions. Modern Bulgars - first of all, Tatars and Bashkirs - are successive in their cultural and psychological characteristics to the indigenous settled population of the region.
It is characteristic that a sharp weakening of the control of the Volga Bulgaria over the Finno-Ugric lands of the Northern Urals and Western Siberia and the inability to fight the rapidly growing Muscovite state coincides with a large influx of the North Caucasian and Black Sea purely nomadic Turkic element, the rejection of the old Volga-Ural tradition of tolerance for religious, cultural and linguistic differences of peoples and with attempts to accelerate Islamization.

Reference 2. Ethnocultural communities.
The following stable cultural zones of Eurasia can be distinguished, the population of which speaks Turkic languages:
* the Middle Volga and the Urals, formed by the mutual influence of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric peoples;
* Central Asian, formed under the influence of the Persian-Tajik culture;
* the zone of the Turkic dialects of the Lower Volga, the North Caucasus and the Black Sea region, largely coinciding with the zone of the Cossack dialects of the Russian language;
* South Siberian (from the Tien Shan to Altai), formed under the influence of the Kalmyk and Buryat-Mongolian peoples.
Total four is enough different groups Turkic peoples in the territory former USSR. With a single Turkic origin and constant interpenetration, the four groups have a rather different culture and stereotype of behavior. This selection of articles concerns only one zone - the Middle Volga and the Urals.

A LITTLE HISTORY

Part of our history has been “torn out”, we do not know the names of great ancestors, and knowledge of our native history is often limited to the feat of Queen Syuyumbike. For many of our people, the history of the Bulgar people begins with the capture of Kazan in 1552. What happened before?
According to the code of Bulgarian chronicles "Djagfar Tarihi", Russians and Bulgars are the descendants of the Volga-Ural Aryans - "Saklans" in Bulgarian. More than 15 thousand years ago, these Saklans strongly mixed with the Finno-Ugric peoples, who came to the Volga-Urals from the depths of Asia. After that, one part of the Saklans retained their language and the name "Saklans" (Sklavins / Saklabs / Slavs), and the other part adopted the Turkic language from the Turkic Ugrians and began to be called Bulgars. The Bulgarian nobility creates a common state for the Slavs, Bulgars and Finno-Ugric peoples Idel - "Seven" (ide) Tribes (el)", which in the 7th century receives the name of Great Bulgaria (Bulgaria).
The most ancient faith of the Bulgars before the adoption of Islam was Tengrianism (torah), and the favorite object of worship was Birgun (Buran/Perun). Birgun, the first spirit created in the Universe by Tengri-God, was considered the patron of hunters and warriors, which is why especially rich sacrifices were made to him.
In 737. part of the Bulgars converted to Islam, and in the 850s a war broke out between them and the Tengrian Bulgars. After several years of war, the Tengrians, led by the Bulgarian clan of the Berendeys (whose center was the city of Berendeichev / Berdichev), ousted the Muslim king Gabdulla Dzhilki from Ukraine to the Ural-Siberian part of Great Bulgaria. There Gabdulla Djilki founded in 865 Islamic state Volga Bulgaria (Bulgarian kingdom) and became its ruler-emir.
In 988 the Bulgar nobility of Russia accepts Christianity, but retains their family surnames.
Both Russia and Volga Bulgaria fought fiercely with the troops of the Tatar-Mongolian khans. The only thing that separated the feudal lords of Russia and Bulgaria was their state religions. The extremist parts of the church and the mosque tried to divide the Russian and Bulgarian peoples as much as possible. Not the bad character of Ivan the Terrible, but Christian extremist circles pushed him to conquer the Volga Bulgaria in 1552. But few people remember that Tsar Ivan the Terrible left the Bulgarian kings the right to rule the eastern part of the Volga Bulgaria with the capital in the city of Vasyl-Balik (Ufa), and only after his death in 1584 this part of Bulgaria was annexed to Muscovite Rus.
The pogrom during the capture of Kazan on October 2, 1552 and the forced baptism of thousands of Bulgars in 1552-1556 were organized by circles led by princes Vladimir Staritsky and Alexander Gorbaty-Suzdalsky. But by 1557 Ivan the Terrible managed to weaken his dependence on extremists and immediately made a sharp turn in his policy: he announced the end of forced baptism, the recognition of the rights of the Bulgar feudal lords. The Abyzs, elected by the Bulgar people themselves, became the administrators and judges of the Bulgars. At least 15 thousand Bulgars entered the Russian service and made up the striking force of the army. This Bulgarian corps crushed the Livonian Order in 1558, and during the Oprichnina period it became the guard of Ivan the Terrible. Tsar Ivan executed all the leaders of the Kazan campaign of 1552, and in 1575 he declared the Bulgar Bek Sain-Bulat the temporary ruler of Russia ("Grand Duke of All Russia").
For the Bulgars, the annexation of the Volga Bulgaria to Moscow Rus was not a conquest, but a reunification of the western and eastern parts of the former Great Bulgaria. Only now the newly united Great Bulgaria began to be called Russia. Therefore, already in the 16th century, from 1557, the Bulgars began to consider Russia their state.
But after the death of Ivan the Terrible, the Christian extremists of Russia again forcibly baptized the Bulgars and declared the Bulgars "Tatars". A stratum of persons was created (about 50 thousand) of those who agreed to call themselves "Tatars" and help them "Tatar" the Bulgars from within. Our people began to call these bribed people "Tatarcheks" (this word has two meanings - "gnathus / bloodsucker" and "pretending to be a Tatar").
Bulgars in the XVII-mid-XVIII centuries. several times they tried to secede from Russia, but when in the 1770s Catherine II announced the end of forced baptism, the Volga Bulgars immediately became the most devoted citizens of Russia. All the words of the "Tatarists" about the constant desire of the Bulgars to separate from Russia are lies. After the reforms of Catherine II, nothing else in Russia threatened the Bulgar ethnos, and the Bulgars again began to treat Russia as their native state.
The largest Bulgarian ideologist and poet of the 19th century. Gali Chokry Bulgari wrote, expressing the cherished feelings of his people: "The seventh part of the world, which is called Russia, is Bulgaria..." We call Gali Chokry the "Bulgarian Derzhavin", although Derzhavin himself is a distant descendant of the brave Bulgarian Bek Bagrim. A contemporary of Gali Chokrya - Leo Tolstoy - admired the Bulgar people, and called the leader of the Volga Bulgarians Sardar Gainan Vaisov his dear brother and personally met him in Yasnaya Polyana...
In 1918, J.V. Stalin brought the Tatarists M. Sultan-Galiyev and G. Ibragimov closer to him. These two "Tatars" intimidated Stalin with the threat of restoring an independent Bulgar state and persuaded him to form the Republic of Tatarstan. In 1923 all Bulgarian organizations in Russia were closed, and the self-name "Bulgars" was prohibited. In the 1930s, all the Bulgars of Russia were given passports with the inscription "Tatar", and those who protested against this were shot or imprisoned. Stalin did not have any special hostility towards the Bulgars - he only saved Russia from disintegration in his own way. However, a little later, Stalin realized that he was misled, and in the late 1940s he allowed to say: "Modern Tatars are the descendants of the Bulgars."
The "Tatarists" fell silent for a while. But in the 1970s, when the head of the Tatar ASSR F.A. Tabeev tried to officially return the historical name of the Middle Volga region - Bulgaria - the "Tatarists" again intimidated Moscow with the threat of "Bulgarian separatism" invented by them and achieved the removal of Tabeev.
When the thunder of Perestroika struck, "Tatar patriots" began to secretly prepare the destruction of Russia and the separation of Tatarstan from the Russian Federation. In the 1990s, their separatism ceased to be a secret, but a strange thing - federal center continues to support the "Tatar patriots"-separatists and with all its might suppresses the attempts of the Bulgars loyal to Russia to obtain passports with the inscription "Bulgar" / "Bulgar". A detachment of "federal Tatarists" has formed in Moscow!
People don't want to know about all this. But the ancestors are an example for us, which we focus on in our lives.

Reference 3. Some historical events of the Volga-Kama region.
8th century BC - agadirs (akatsir-agacheri); 1st-5th century AD - as part of the Hun empire; VI century - Turkic Khaganate; VII-VIII centuries - Biarym ("My country Biaria", Biarmia of Russian chronicles, Biarmland Scandinavian sagas); IX-XVI centuries - Bulgars (Volga Bulgaria); VII-X centuries - the lands are controlled by the Khazar Khaganate or the V-VIII centuries of Greater Hungary; XIII-XV centuries - Desht-i-Kipchak (Dzhuchiev Ulus of the Chinggisid Empire); 1552 - the capture of Kazan by Russian troops, the eviction of the Bulgar population from the banks of the Volga and Kama and the settlement of lands along the Kama and Volga by Russians; XVII-XVIII centuries - armed uprisings against the Russians and participation in the uprisings of Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev; 1920 - creation of the Tatar ASSR - the first in the history of the state of the new Tatar nation; August 30, 1990 - declaration of state sovereignty of Tatarstan, preparation of a special treaty between the Russian Federation and Tatarstan.

BULGARIA AND BULGARIANS

Most of all of us, including those who perfectly understand the need to return the name, are subconsciously waiting for the hour when Kazan or Moscow will announce: "tomorrow the exchange of passports begins with a change for everyone who wants the nationality" Tatars "to" Bulgars ". Until then since supposedly it is necessary to increase the number of supporters, to convince people, so that someday there will be so many of us that the authorities would decide to meet us halfway.
In the passport office they will tell you that the official list does not include such a people at all - the Bulgars. Righteousness can be defended through the courts, and more than one hundred and fifty people have already done it. But not everyone is capable of it. I understand that there can be no mass replacement of passports through the courts, this is a bluff. If you do not have enough determination to go to court - give up at least in your personal life from wrong name. You and I are Bulgars.
Several hundred Bulgars in 1991-1994 through the courts won the right to obtain passports with the entry "Bulgarin", but the entire 7 million Bulgarian people are not able to sue for two years. In 1995, the prosecutor of the Republic of Tatarstan Nafiev, following the order of the leadership of the Republic of Tatarstan, asked his Moscow colleague to officially ban the issuance of passports with the entry "Bulgarin" / "Bulgarians", and the federal prosecutor's office immediately banned the issuance of passports with such an entry throughout the Russian Federation!
Crossed out under Stalin from the "List of the Peoples of Russia", the Bulgars do not have any state educational, cultural and scientific institutions, do not receive any funds from the state for the development of their culture, the "Bulgar Turks" have completely forgotten their literary language (it has not been taught anywhere since 1923, and books written in Bulgarian were not republished) and holidays (they were also banned in the 1920s).
The Bulgars have neither their scientists nor their cultural figures - and as soon as they appear, they are immediately killed by "unknowns". Only in the last few years, the remarkable Bulgarian educator G. Khabibullin and the founder of the newspaper of the Volga Bulgarians - "Bolgar ile" ("Bulgaria") R. Sharipov (our bright memory!), were killed.
President Shaimiev's prohibition orders were recently published: "The history of the Tatars is complex. It cannot be reduced only to the Bulgars ... I would urge historians and all those who study the past not to reduce all cultural diversity to only one component ..." (Kazanskiye Vedomosti No. 167, 1997). M.Shaimiev's orders to "limit" the Bulgar "component" in the Republic of Tatarstan are blindly carried out. Everything Bulgarian in RT is called "Tatar". Instead of the Bulgarian history, the "Tatarists" force the Bulgars to study the history of the Tatar-Mongols of the 13th-15th centuries, passing it off as the "history of the Tatars", and Genghis Khan, the slayer of the Tatars, is declared a "Tatar national hero".
No one but ourselves will solve our problems and even more so will not return our name. Only through inner conviction that you are right can you regain your name. Let's show our will, let's break our silent movement towards death, disappearance. Let's embark on the path of rebirth and the return of the spirit, the spirit of a warrior, a farmer, a worker! Let's say to ourselves: "I am a Bulgarin!" Let's say to a friend and neighbor: "I beg you, don't call me by my Tatar nickname anymore, call me Bulgarin!" Let's say to the enemy: "Don't you dare call me a Tatar, I'm a Bulgarin and I'm proud of my ancestors!"

BULGARIA AND RUSSIA

For Russians, the Tatar-Mongol yoke and the fight against it mean much more than just a fact of history. When we take the name "Tatars", for Russians we immediately become the descendants of those who passed with fire and sword through the Russian land. This is how our peoples become enemies. And this is my and your fault. If we do not need it, then who will need to correct the historical absurdity - the alien name of our people?
When we say that we want to return our name, our history, the question often arises from the Russian side: why do you need all this? Indeed, why? Maybe it's enough that we live honestly and work well? Labor, economy, house keeping have always been the main virtues that are revered by our people. But this is not enough.
The issue of the Volga region is not the most topical for the geopolitics of Heartland - Russia. For example, Russia's entry or non-entry into the war against NATO is much more topical.
A.G. Dugin in "The Geopolitical Future of Russia" is right that the Russians should become an ethnically cohesive and rapidly growing core ethnic group, holding the entire structure in the construction of the New Eurasian Empire, which in the future should take on the mission of establishing a new geopolitical order on the planet. Accordingly, the future of Tatarstan is covered only from the point of view of the interests of Russia and Russians regarding the Volga Bulgars (Tatars, Bashkirs). It turns out that these momentary interests may well contradict long-term ones.
The threat from the Volga and the Urals, about which A.G. Dugin, will arise "with the most unfortunate development of the geopolitical situation." Splitting the Bulgars by strengthening the "differences" is proposed now. What does the preventive weakening of the region and ethnic group mean. This is reminiscent of a very "non-Eurasian" consideration of the Bulgars not as a subject of relations with the Russian ethnos, but as an object of manipulation by Moscow.
The Bulgars as an ethnic group differ from the Russians in that they never had a single language (Finno-Ugric and various Turkic languages ​​\u200b\u200band dialects coexisted in one ethnic group), nor a single confession (pagan, Tengrian, Muslim and Christian groups). The weakest points of the Bulgar self-consciousness: the attitude towards the most ancient parts of the Bulgar people - the Chuvash and Mishars - as "less developed" in comparison with the Kazans and Bashkirs; reassessment of the importance of economic well-being and a strong economic way of life (from this a paradox arises - Tatars drink less than Russians, and work better and live more prosperously, while the ethnic group is smaller and more and more children from mixed marriages consider themselves Russians); the reduction of the whole complex of relations between Russians and Bulgars in history to armed confrontation and the dominance in literature and ideology of the theme of the capture of Kazan (1552).
With all this, Russians and Bulgars have almost absolute mutual complementarity. It would be possible to offer recommendations for overcoming the "genetically inherent weaknesses" of the Russian and Bulgar ethnic groups. It is necessary to stop arguing about the extent to which nationalism can be developed so that it does not turn into radical forms. In the current situation of national disgrace, when big Russia- The USSR - defeated and defeated by the Americans and their accomplices from Europe, any radicalism in the development and strengthening of a narrowly national (and Russian in the first place) spirit and national self-respect is insufficient in advance!
This will be opposite to the current tendency to unify, "blur" ethnic self-awareness, when Russians are not quite Russian, and Bulgars are not very Bulgars - a kind of "population in general". Strong Bulgars can really threaten the unity of the state, because there is a lot of slyness in the thesis "strong regions - strong center". In Russia, regionalism goes hand in hand with separatism and the destruction of the country's unity. However, this will only happen if the Bulgars are still perceived by the Russians as something alien (not native, not close). But if the Russian civilization is larger than the "Soviet" template, then it will be possible to realize kinship and cultural commonality with the Bulgars without forced assimilation and, on the part of the Bulgars, without fear of "Russification".

Reference 4. Russian surnames of Turkic origin.
They speak for themselves: the Atamanovs, the Abdulovs, the Adashevs, the Aksakovs, the Almazovs, the Alyabyevs, the Apraksins, the Arakcheevs, the Arsenyevs, the Artyukhovs, the Atlasovs, the Akhmadullins, the Akhmatovs, the Babichevs, the Bazhanovs, the Bazarovs, the Baklanovs, the Balashovs, the Baranovs, the Barsukovs, the Basmanovs, the Baturins, Bakhteyarovs, Bashkins, Bashmakovs, Bayushevs, Beketovs, Berdyaevs, Bichurins, Boborykins, Blokhins, Bogdanovs, Bulgarians, Bulgakovs, Bulgarins, Bunins, Burnashevs, Buturlins, Bukharins, Velyaminovs, Gogolis, Dashkovs, Davydovs, Derzhavins, Epanchins, Ermolaevs, Ermolovs, Zagoskins, Zamaleevs, Zlobins, Zubovs, Izmailovs, Insarovs, Kablukovs, Karamazovs, Karamzins, Karamyevs, Karataevs, Karaulovs, Karachaevs, Kamynins, Kantemirovs, Kashaevs, Kireevskys, Korsakovs, Kochubei, Kropotkins, Kurakins, Kurbatovs, Kuprins, Kutuzovs, Mazharovs, Mamins, Mamonovs, Mansurovs, Melikovs, Meshcherovs, Michurins, Minins, Muratovs, Musins, Molostovs, Naryshkins, Ogarevs, Ogarkovs, Peshkovs, Pozharskys, Prokudins, Rastopchins, Rachmaninovs, Sablukovs, Sadyrins, Saltykovs, Selivan ovs, Scriabins, Starkovs, Stroganovs, Suvorovs, Sundukovs, Syuyundyukovs, Tagantsevs, Taishevs, Talyzins, Tairovs, Taneevs, Tatishchevs, Tarkhanovs, Tevkelevs, Temirovs, Timiryazevs, Tretyakovs, Tulubeevs, Turgenevs, Tyutchevs, Uvarovs, Ulanovs, Urmanovs, Urusovs, The Ushakovs, Khitrovo, Khodyrevs, Khomyakovs, Khrushchevs, Chelyshevs, Churikovs, Shadrins, Shakimovs, Sharapovs, Shashurins, Chessmen, Sheremetyevs, Shishkins, Shcherbakovs, Yushkovs, Yaushevs, Yaushevs and hundreds of others.

GEOPOLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF INFORMATION WARS

Today, the main issue separating the Bulgarists and Tatarists is the self-name of the people. If the policy of Tatarization of the Volga Bulgars is correct, then the Tatars are the descendants of Mongol invasion, enemies and enemies of the Russians. If the Bulgarists are right, then the Tatars and Bashkirs, the original population of the Volga and the Urals, were enslaved by the Mongols in the same way as the Russians. Will the Bulgarian people unite? Will the false name "Tatars" imposed in the 1920s cease to exist? Or will only the enemy "Voice of America" ​​treat them as a single people - "Tatar-Bashkir"?
For Europe it doesn't matter - "Tatars" or "Bulgars". Europe needs one thing - to complete the destruction of Russia.
Where did the "federal Tatarists" come from, and who is now paying for the subversive work of the "Tatarists" of Moscow and Kazan? One "Tatarist" told me: "Certain circles of the West want to cut the whole of Russia in the central, Volga-Ural region with the" Tatar sword. with the Russians on the basis of the "historical hatred" of Russians and "Tatars" for each other. This can destroy Russia, and therefore the West does not spare money, sending them both to Kazan and Moscow."
Faina Grimberg cites the fact that the West played the "Bulgarian card" back in the 19th century. When in 1878 Russian troops defeated the Turks and occupied Danube Bulgaria, "Western Europe raises a scandal with its characteristic cunning - Russia declares that it has the right to liberate the Bulgarians, but what about its own Bulgarians, they are sitting unliberated ... That is, this what kind of Bulgarians, - rushes in response, - we don’t have any Bulgarians! We only have Tatars ... Meanwhile, the Kazan Tatars continued to remember that they were Bulgars, and Ivan the Terrible conquered the Bulgarian kingdom, and not the Kazan Khanate; and the movements are different socio-political for the return of the ethnonym rose ... But as soon as the West has achieved its real goal - the withdrawal of Russians from Danube Bulgaria, the "passion for the Bulgarians" inflated by it subsides.
Now it is beneficial for the West to pit the "Tatars" against the Russians in order to destroy Russia. And now the same West, which in 1878 shouted about the oppression of the Volga Bulgars by Russia, now sends money for the "Tatarization" of the Bulgars!
In order to disrupt the sabotage, it is necessary to enter the name of the Bulgars in the "List of the peoples of Russia" and ensure the receipt of passports with a record of their dear nationality "Bulgar" / "Bulgar". Within a few days, the people of "passport Tatars" will cease to exist, and the Middle Volga region will return its historical name - Volga Bulgaria. And then the threat to the unity of Russia will disappear forever - after all, the Bulgarian people consider the Cyrillic alphabet their national alphabet, and Russia their state, and will not allow anyone to destroy Russia - the new Great Bulgaria. Let the Russian brothers know about it!
Let the Russian people remember: as long as there is a Bulgar people, Russia will also exist. Together we will save our native Fatherland - our Russia, born by the will of God - Tengri!

Help 5. To date, there is no scientific agreement on the following issues:
* Iranian-speaking or Turkic-speaking Scythians and Sarmatians;
* History of the region under the Huns;
* Presence or absence in the Volga and Ural regions in the 5th-8th centuries. AD "Greater Hungary";
* Evaluation of the contacts of the Kipchak and Oguz groups of the Turkic population;
* Evaluation of Bulgar-Khazar contacts and the degree of influence of the Khazar culture on the culture of the Bulgars;
* Is it possible to talk about the "Altaic" relationship of the Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages;
* How to name (and accordingly evaluate) the region after the Tatar-Mongol conquest)

RUSSIA IS THREATENED BY "GREAT TURAN", NOT BULGARIA

The Russians do not have the usual European development along the path of Etat-Nation - Nation-States. Our people cannot be raised without returning self-respect and participation in great deeds and goals to people. The very return of Russian dignity is inextricably linked with the construction of a new empire. And for this future Empire, both narrow Russian nationalism with attempts to return to the "Aryan" East Slavic bosom, and the separatism of its strong non-Russian and non-Slavic components are equally dangerous. It is necessary to sensibly weigh and assess the second threat. The only "but": in the above geopolitical constructions, too much resembles staff war games. It has long been known that general staffs always late and Peaceful time prepare for military maneuvers of past wars. AT this case a geopolitical response is proposed to the challenge of the Volga Turks of past centuries or the beginning of this century.
The uniqueness of the moment is that the destruction of the Soviet social system was the first large-scale phenomenon in history, the significance of which in the life of both Russians and Bulgars turned out to be exactly the same. Now both peoples are constantly subjected to a kind of ideological violence, which has the goal of splitting a single ethnic group into separate, disunited people who do not feel their unity. Such people are then easier to easily dissolve in other peoples. At the same time, the pro-Turkish forces in Tatarstan are trying to fit the Bulgars into a certain conditional common Turkic template, turning them into "one of" in the Great Turan.
If the ethnonym "Bulgars" is adopted in a very short time, perhaps within the life of one generation, many false stereotypes of the perception of the Volga-Ural ethnos by the Russians and the Bulgars themselves will be destroyed.
This is all the more necessary because the modern challenge of History to the Russian people has no precedent. The thesis is the "Golden Horde" threat of separatism. The antithesis is the infliction of preemptive geopolitical blows by the Russians: the assimilation and Christianization of the Volga-Ural population, the fragmentation of the territory and the ethnic group, the imposition of the "Tatar-Mongolian heritage" on the Bulgars, the accentuation of the linguistic, cultural and religious differences between the various components of the Bulgar ethnic group. However, it would seem illogical to further historical expansion of the Eurasian geopolitical space and the strengthening of the Russian ethnos with a synchronized splitting, division, crushing of its heart - the region of the Middle Volga and the Urals, the Bulgar ethnos. This will threaten the new Empire with "fig in your pocket", hatred for new government agencies(only the place of the "damned Soviet of Deputies" will be taken by some other "-iya"), covert sabotage of activities useful to the state, separatism, etc.
Consequently, after the thesis/antithesis of the confrontation between the Russians and the Volga Bulgars, a synthesis should follow - the Tatar and Bashkir parts of the Bulgar ethnos unite and develop as the core of the common Eurasian space and part of a single Eurasian (Russian) civilization. In this case, the current situation would be impossible, in which the Tatar Public Center - by the way, the largest public organization of Tatarstan - sends volunteers to Chechnya and prepares to send people to help the Kosovo Liberation Army, flirts with the Turkish Atlantic project "Great Turan", imposes on the population the Volga -the Ural region, which has its own centuries-old tradition of Islamic thought, alien (Arab or Turkish) forms of organization of the Muslim community.
At the same time, you need calm analysis threats emanating from a possible rapprochement between Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. The threat will come only with a possible breakthrough to the sea in the Tyumen region (Bulgaria has a historical precedent of control over the West Siberian region between the Irtysh, Tobol and Ob rivers), with a theoretical unification of the territories of the Middle Volga and the Urals with the Northern Urals and access to Arctic Ocean, or in the transformation of Northern Kazakhstan into a land tightly controlled by pro-Turkish Muslim leaders. That is, there is only one danger - Tatarstan's access to the external borders of Russia through the surrounding Russian lands. Accordingly, the "Russian" isolation of the region by the Perm, Tyumen, Sverdlovsk and Ulyanovsk regions is quite sufficient.
As for the methodology - apparently, in order to find more effective solutions, it is necessary to supplement the dry German geopolitical thought with the Russian heritage, the Eurasian doctrine, which studies not only geographical, but also living dynamic features development of peoples.

POWER SHOULD BE ONE

The key to solving the Bulgar question lies not in the Kazan Kremlin, but in the Moscow one. Secondly, the now fashionable A.G. Dugin is faithful to his French and German teachers. It projects onto the entire globe the concept of the European "new right" - the concept of Europe of regions. If some madman tries to implement Dugin's recommendations in practice, then instead of a strong Russian state, he will get a "Eurasia of regions", regions so independent that there will be no question of any power. Geopolitical lunatic will get pro-Iranian Central Asia, the pro-German Baltic, etc. And there, you see, he will share priceless Siberia with the Japanese.
It is impossible to pull Russia apart into national apartments.

In 453, the greatest Turkic state, the Hun Empire, collapsed, covering huge territories from the Idel (Volga) to the Rhine. This led to the formation of new tribal unions and states, various Turkic ethnic groups emerged, one of which was the Bulgars, a people of Oguz origin who migrated to Eastern Europe from Central Asia in the 5th century as part of the Hunnic union.

The Bulgars populated the vast steppes of the Sea of ​​Azov and Ciscaucasia, engaging in predominantly nomadic cattle breeding on their new possessions. From the first decades of its inception, the Bulgar tribal union entered the struggle for the establishment of Turkic hegemony in the Balkans and Central Europe. So, from the end of the 5th century, the Bulgars quite often disturbed the Byzantine provinces. In particular, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia suffered from their raids. The Bulgar hordes reached Constantinople. Despite these successes, the Bulgars in the second half of the 6th century were forced to retreat to the Black Sea and Azov regions due to the strengthening of another Turkic ethnic group - the Avars, who created a powerful state formation on the territory of Pannonia (now Hungary), which extended its power to the Bulgar steppes.

At the beginning of the 7th century, the Avars lost their possessions in the Black Sea region, which allowed the Bulgars in 632 to create the state of Great Bulgaria, headed by Khan Kurbat. Great Bulgaria covered vast territories in the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and the Kuban region, having previously ousted the Khazar Turks from there. The Bulgar state became the strongest Turkic state formation of that period, but the flourishing did not last long. In 665, Khan Kurbat died and his empire fell apart, being divided between his sons. The Khazars, oppressed by the Bulgars under Kurbat, took advantage of the disintegration of Bulgaria. The Khazar Khaganate managed to inflict a strong blow on the Bulgar hordes, which led to new migrations.

The central tribes headed by Khan Asparuh went to the banks of the Danube and created the Turkic state of Danube Bulgaria. The Bulgar khans ruled in this country for about 200 years, but from the middle of the 9th century, Christianization intensified there, which led to the assimilation of the Danube Turks among the southern Slavs.

Another group of Bulgars, led by Khan Batbay, remained on their lands, submitting to the intensified Khazars. With this group of Bulgars, also known as the "Kara-Bulgars", the current Balkars and Karachays are associated.

The third part of the Bulgars and related tribes moved to the Middle Volga region. However, this event did not occur immediately after the death of Kurbat, but later - at the end of the 8th century. Like the Kara-Bulgars, the Volga Bulgars submitted to the Khazars and took part in the formation of the Khazar Khaganate, but soon moved to the north, to the Volga region. Here they entered into close political and ethno-cultural contact with the local kindred Turkic population, as well as the Finno-Ugric peoples. Many traces of the early presence of the Bulgars in the Middle Volga have been preserved, especially a large number of early Bulgar burial grounds (VIII-IX centuries), among which Tankeevsky and Bolshetigansky stand out.

At the turn of the 9th-10th centuries, the Bulgars created a new Turkic state in the Volga region, known to historiography as the Volga Bulgaria. Its border in the north was the right bank of the Kama, in the west - the Sviyaga with its left tributaries, in the east - the Sheshma, and the southern border reached the Samarskaya Luka - a large bend of the Volga in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe modern Zhiguli mountains.

Bulgaria was an early feudal state. From the 20-30s of the 10th century, its population gradually shifted to settled life, began to engage in agriculture. The first cities appear - Bulgar and Suvar, in which the minting of their own coins begins. A little later, such cities as Bilyar, Oshel, Kashan, Dzhuietau, Nukhrat, Tortsk, Tukhchin and many others appear. In the same period, the Volga Bulgars got rid of the power of the Khazars, who had significantly weakened by that time.

The development of the Bulgar state is largely connected with the adoption of Islam, which took place in 922. Then, at the request of the Bulgar ruler Almas (Almysh Khan), an embassy of the Caliph arrived from Baghdad, headed by Susan al-Rassi and secretary Ahmed ibn Fadlan, who converted the Bulgars to Islam. With the adoption of Islam, the Bulgars replaced the ancient Turkic writing with Arabic graphics. Following this, the establishment of close relations between the Volga Bulgaria and the Muslim world began, which had a great political, economic and cultural significance for the Bulgarian people. It should also be noted that the first schools (madrasahs) began to appear in the Bulgarian cities and villages, what can you say about the high level cultural development Bulgarian people.

Since the 10th century, trade relations between Bulgaria and other countries have been established. So, the Bulgars traded with Russia, Byzantium, Arab East, Central Asia, where furs, timber, leather, shoes, weapons and other handicrafts were supplied. The capital of Bulgaria developed - the city of Bulgar, which was built up with stone and brick buildings, a water pipe was located in the city. The ruins of the "Black Chamber", the Small Minaret, the Northern Mausoleum, the Khan's tomb, the Cathedral Mosque and other monuments of Bulgarian architecture have survived to this day.

The characteristic elements of the Bulgarian everyday culture were jewelry made of gold, silver, bronze, copper; pottery with carved ornaments; metal openwork jewelry; bronze castles in the form of animals; clothes embroidered with beads and silver. All this was sold to other countries, which brought a significant profit to the economy of the Volga Bulgaria.

AT XI-XII centuries as a result of the socio-economic and political flourishing, the territory of Bulgaria increased. Its northern limits reached the Kazanka River, in the basin of which archaeologists discovered a number of ancient settlements that presumably arose during this period. In the same decades, the border in the southeast direction increased. This is evidenced by the Tatar historical narrative "Defter-i Chingiz name" ("The Book of Chingiz"), where all the lands from the Volga and Kama to Yaik are called Bulgar, but the zone of residence of the Bulgars was limited in the south to Sheshma, Yaik was state border. Bulgar settlements arose there only in the Golden Horde period.

The ethnic composition of the population of the Volga Bulgaria was quite diverse. The Bulgar people were actually Bulgars, Suvars, Bersuls, Baranjars, and also Eskels. All these ethnic groups were of Turkic origin and, accordingly, significant difference was not between them. With the names of some of these Turkic groups related titles individual cities Volga Bulgaria, for example, the Bulgars - the city of Bulgar, the Suvars - Suvar, and the city of Bilyar (in the Turkic transcription Bulyar), according to the Russian historian V.N. Tatishcheva was founded by the tribe of Bilyars, who were known from Western European sources (presumably, part of the Bilyars at the end of the 10th century, led by Prince Hasan, moved to Hungary and founded the city of Pest there). Tatishchev also wrote about the presence of the Chalmata tribe, which is associated former name Kamy - Chulman. In the XII century, all the above tribes presumably merged into a single Bulgar ethnic group.

Under the influence of the Volga Bulgaria was not only its own population, but also neighboring tribes. So, the Volga Finno-Ugric peoples (ancestors of the present Maris, Mordovians, Udmurts and others), as well as the Turkic tribe Madjars (there is a version that they are the ancestors of the Bashkirs) fell into vassal dependence on the Bulgars. Also, Bulgaria was subject to a distant tribe, the Visu, which is reported by Arab sources. Visu is associated with the people of the Finno-Ugric group indicated in the Russian chronicles, whose descendants are the Vepsians - the inhabitants of Karelia. The vassals of the Bulgars were also the Yura tribes - the current Ugrians, i.e. Khanty and Mansi.

In addition to collecting tribute, the Bulgars entered into trade relations with these peoples, although they were mainly barter.

Kievan Rus was located to the west of Bulgaria. The relations of these states were mostly good-neighbourly, but they could not do without military conflicts. So, in 964, Svyatoslav made a campaign against Bulgaria, and in 985, Prince Vladimir made another campaign against Bulgaria, which ended with the signing of a peace treaty. In 1088 the Bulgars occupied Murom for a short time, and in 1107 they laid siege to Suzdal.

In subsequent years, the war with the Volga Bulgaria was waged by Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod Big Nest, and they went with mixed success. At the same time, Kievan Rus was one of the main trading partners of the Volga Bulgaria and there were close economic ties between them.

In the XIII century, Eastern Europe was under the threat of enslavement from the side of new conquerors - the Mongol-Tatars. The danger did not bypass the Volga Bulgaria either. In 1224 the Mongols, after the defeat of the Russians and Polovtsian troops on Kalka, attacked the Bulgar territories, but were utterly defeated by the Bulgar troops in the battle of Samarskaya Luka, but the clashes of Bulgaria with the Mongol-Tatars did not end there. In 1229, the Mongols defeated the combined army of the Bulgars and Polovtsians on the Yaik, and in 1232 they reached the Zhukot River. In 1236, the Mongol-Tatars, led by Subedei (Sabutai-bahadur, the commander of Genghis Khan himself, and later of his grandson Batu Sain Khan) attacked the Volga Bulgaria and subjected it to complete destruction, which led to the death of the Bulgarian state. The Bulgarian army was finally defeated in 1239.

Volga Bulgaria became part of the ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde). The local Turkic statehood was continued, as a result of which the entire Middle Volga region was under the control of the new Turkic state - the Golden Horde. From that moment, on the Bulgarian historical soil, the formation of a single Turkic-Tatar ethnic group began, which later became the creator of another Turkic state in this region - the Kazan Khanate.

VOLGA BULGARS. Origin mysteries

1. Who are the Volga Bulgars?

Who are the Volga Bulgars? Where do the origins of the culture of the people lie? These questions have been on the minds of people for many years. This issue is particularly acute today, when the government of "Tatarstan" is making great efforts to raise the "Tatar" culture and national identity. There is an official version according to which the Volga Bulgaria was formed on the basis of the Turkic tribes, united by the Bulgar tribes (also Turkic), who migrated here from the Azov region, after the defeat of Great Bulgaria, destroyed in the 7th century by the Khazars.

But relatively recently, there were other versions of the origin of the Bulgar state, which are now undeservedly forgotten. A few years ago, I became interested in this issue and started collecting material on the culture of Bulgaria. Not much has been collected, but this information makes you think. Are the Bulgars nomads?

This question is very important, because by the way of life of the people it is possible to determine its roots. It is known that in the III century BC - II century AD nomadic tribes of the Turks moved from Central Asia to the West. There is a version that the Bulgars are also relatives of these tribes. But if you look with an open mind, it turns out that the Bulgars are a settled people. Not nomads at all. There are many facts that prove this.

First of all , already in the 9th century, the Bulgars had a developed system of agriculture.

Secondly , although the calendar of the ancient Bulgars is forgotten, there are folk holidays that prove that this calendar was solar, not lunar, like among the nomads, and was associated with agriculture. For example, even today in "Tatarstan" they widely celebrate Sabantuy - the holiday of the end of spring field work, and Sambele - the harvest festival. Nowruz is also widely celebrated - the holiday of the spring equinox.

Thirdly , pottery is well developed among the Bulgars, which is typical for settled tribes, because. ceramics are not convenient when moving from place to place. Too fragile and heavy.

Fourth , well-developed metallurgy also indicates a sedentary lifestyle. One can argue with this, but it is difficult to dispute this fact: among the products of Bulgarian blacksmiths, locks occupy an important place. They, in fact, lock the doors of houses and barns, but not yurts.

Fifth , the remnants of the pagan cults of the Bulgars clearly indicate a connection with the worldview Indo-European peoples.

At sixth , the Bulgars do not have koumiss, which is characteristic of all nomadic Turks, but they use an intoxicating drink made from honey, beer from barley, and birch sap. Special mention should be made of the first two. The fact is that the Slavs and related peoples had a custom according to which, during rituals dedicated to the solar gods, they used surya, a drink infused with honey and herbs, and during rituals dedicated to the night and underground gods, they used homa - barley beer.

What happens? If the Bulgars are not nomads, not Turks, then who are they? Related tribes tend to live nearby. Which of the neighbors of the Bulgars are their relatives? Let's look at history.

In the 7th century, Great Bulgaria, located in the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov, disintegrated. During its dawn, it covered a large territory. It included lands around the Sea of ​​Azov, including modern Voronezh region, Dnieper. Among the Bulgarian cities there was also a small border fortress - the future Kyiv. Great Bulgaria did not last long. It was created by Khan Kurbat (632 - 642), and with his death it fell apart. In 675 Kurbat's son Asparukh led his hordes to the Danube, where Bulgaria was founded. Oddly enough, but already in the VIII - IX centuries there were no tribes in Bulgaria, except for the Slavic ones. The same thing happened in the Itil region, where the Bulgars also merged with the Slavs, which is discussed below. Maybe the Bulgars Slavic tribes?

2. The mystery of the Bulgar "earring"

They say that Empress Catherine was once presented with an ancient Bulgarian earring made of gold. The empress liked her so much that she wished to have another one of the same so that she could wear them. But the granulation technique used by the Bulgarian jewelers was so complicated that no one undertook to fulfill the royal order. After all, it was instructed Tula masters, who, after a series of unsuccessful attempts, managed to make a second earring. That's how skillful the ancient Bulgar masters were.

Today it is known that this is not an earring at all, but a temporal ring. They were not put into the ears, but attached to the headdress on the sides of the head at the temple, or woven into the hair. Such decorations were widespread among the Finnish and Slavic peoples of Europe. But the plot of the ring is especially important. It depicts a stylized duck holding a pebble in its beak, and three acorn-shaped pendants are attached to chains below. A person not familiar with Slavic mythology this story says nothing. Meanwhile, an ancient myth says: “At the dawn of time, the god Rod, the creator of the world, created Heaven, Earth and Water. But the Earth was heavy and sank into the Water. Then a gray duck was created from the foam, which swam in the sea, finding no place for a nest anywhere. And Rod ordered the duck to dive into the sea and get the land. The duck dived three times, and finally got the earth and the magical Alatyr stone. The stone began to grow, and the earth was formed. And Alatyr turned into a magical mountain. The duck made a nest and laid three eggs - bronze, iron and gold. The forces of Reveal (the world in which we live) hatched from the bronze, the forces of Navi (the other world) hatched from the iron, I from the gold - the forces of Rule - omnipotent gods that maintain the balance of the world ".

Isn't it true that the plot of the ring is fully consistent with the myth? Here we see a duck, a pebble in its beak, and three eggs. By the way, the ring is a symbol of the Family, like a duck.

The myth of the duck is also common among Finnish peoples. It is not for nothing that duck feet are depicted on the noisy pendants of the ancient Finno-Ugric tribes of the Kama region. I agree that the myth could be borrowed from neighboring peoples. Let's turn to other facts.

3. What Gabdulla Tukay told about.

Of all the tales of the "Tatar" people, the most popular today is the tale "Shurale", narrated by the famous poet Gabdulla Tukay. The plot in a nutshell is: “A certain savvy horseman went to the forest at night on a full moon for firewood. There he met Shurale, who decided to tickle this guy to death. But the guy, don’t be a mistake, asked the unclean one to help transfer the log to the cart, and when the naive forest dweller put his fingers into the slot of the log, the horseman knocked out a wedge, pinching Shurale’s fingers in the block..

The tale is unusual, and at first glance it has nothing to do with Slavic mythology. But this is only at first glance. The fact is that Shurale is the Russian Churila, the god of borders. Features of the "Tatar" speech are such that there are no sounds "Ch" and "C" in it. Ask a village Tatar grandmother, who does not speak Russian well, to pronounce the word "Churila", and she will pronounce it exactly like "Shurale", or very close to it. But the point, in general, is not in the word itself, but in the fact that Shurale fully retains the functions of Churila.

The jigit went to the forest. A clear violation of the border. I went to the forest at night for firewood - a doubly violation. Of course there must be punishment. And who will carry it out if not Churile? Yes, and the original punishment - to tickle to death. Very, by the way, characteristic of the Slavic evil spirits. This is how kikimoras and mermaids killed their victims. Like it or not, but again there is a Slavic trace. Borrowing again? Not at all. Let's analyze all the evil spirits that are mentioned in the folklore of the Kazan "Tatars". Most of these spirits belong to the pre-Islamic period.

We have already dismantled Shurale. We won't be returning.

Albasty - the Slavs also have albasty. These are former mermaids. If people pollute a pond and it turns into a swamp, then mermaids, who, in general, treat people well, turn into albasts - ugly evil old women who drown careless travelers, lying in wait for them in the reeds.

Ubyr is a blood-sucking witch. The Slavs have a ghoul.

Diyu, peri - female evil spirits. I could not determine what its functions are, but judging by the name, these are the companions of Dyy - the ancient Slavic god of the night and the night sky, the father of the underground gods. Perhaps the name is borrowed from Iran.

There are also spirits, the names of which, apparently, are either a direct translation from another language, or the original Turkic name. Either way, they won't help us. Such, for example, are Su anases - the mother of waters, watery; Su kyzy - water girl, mermaid; Agach Khuzhasy - the owner of a tree (forest), goblin, etc.

There is, in addition, evil spirits that have passed into the "Tatar" language from Arabic or Persian along with Islam. Such, for example, are wives (jin) and shaitan. Shaitan, in fact, is an Arabic word, and everywhere accompanies Islam. Corresponds to Christian Satan. As, for example, the word Shabbot turned into Saturday, so Shaitan turned into Satan (in Lithuanian - Satten).

Finally, let us recall the fairy tale (“Altynchech”?), where Shurale kidnaps a beauty. By the way, there is a similar Slavic myth, according to which Churila seduces Tarusa, the wife of the god Barma, and suffers a well-deserved punishment for this from Barma's son, Man. According to witnesses.

When disputes arise about an event, witnesses are called. Let us also turn to those people who saw the ancient Bulgars with their own eyes. Arab travelers of that time left a lot of written evidence about the Volga Bulgaria, and about other countries of Eastern Europe.

Most Full description Volga Bulgaria was left by Ibn-Fadlan, secretary of the Arab embassy, ​​who visited Bulgaria in May 922 and left a report on this campaign. It is curious that he uses the words "Bulgars" and "Slavs" as synonyms: "... when a letter arrived from Almush, the son of Shilka Yiltyvar, the king of the Slavs..."

“On his minbar, even before my arrival, the khutba was already proclaimed in his name: “O Allah! Save the king of Yiltyvar, the king of the Bulgars!

"The son of the king of the Slavs (Bulgars) is his hostage with the Khazars."

These passages clearly state that BULGARS AND THERE ARE SLAVES . However, many modern researchers put forward the following version: Ibn Fadlan, being an Arab, did not distinguish northern peoples. They, they say, for him were all the same person. Indeed, if we go to Central Asia, for example, we will not be able to distinguish a Turkmen from a Tajik in appearance. However, one should not forget that Ibn Fadlan did not fly to Bulgar by plane. The embassy from Baghdad, having wintered in Khorezm, continued its journey on March 4, 922, and on May 12 it entered the lands of the Volga Bulgaria. On horses and camels, passing an average of 32 kilometers a day, spending the night in the villages that come across on the way. And so for 69 days. You know, you have to be blind and deaf not to notice the difference between Turks and Slavs in two months. Or do you still disagree? Then I will give one more passage: "... the merchants of the Bulgars go to the land of the Turks and bring sheep." This means that the Arab clearly distinguished between the Bulgar-Slavs and the Turks. Just as clearly, he distinguishes between the Rus (Scandinavians) and Slavs. If someone still believes that the Rus are Russians who sailed to trade with the Bulgars, then I will give another passage, but by another Arabic author: “The Russ live on an island in the middle of a lake. The island can be traveled around in three days, and it is covered with forest and dense growth. They fight with the Slavs and use ships to attack ... ". The Russians are fighting the Slavs. What is it? Do you still believe that Russians and Russians are one and the same? Then I will continue: “... They have no villages, no farms, no fields. At the birth of a son, the father approaches the newborn with a sword in his hand; lowering the sword, he says: “I will leave you nothing. Everything you need, you will conquer with the sword! Their only occupation is trading in sables, squirrels and other furs, which they sell to anyone who agrees to buy it. (Ibn Rustakh, X century)

Perhaps Ibn Rustakh knew this, but Ibn Fadlan did not? Not at all. Here is an excerpt from Fadlan's book.

“If a ship arrives from the country of the Khazars to the country of the Slavs, then the king will ride out and count what is in it, and take a tenth of it. And if the Russians or some other tribes with slaves arrive, then the king, really, chooses one head for himself from every ten heads. And again, the Rus and other tribes arrive in the country of the Slavs.

Is there any other information that allows us to assert that the Slavs and the Bulgars are one and the same? This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that Bulgaria and Kievan Rus had a single economy. As in Russia, skins were used instead of money. Here is what Ibn-Rustakh writes about the Bulgars: “They do not have their own minted coins, voiced coins replace marten furs for them. Each fur is equal to two dirhems and a half. White round dirhems are brought to them from Muslim countries through exchange for goods.

Perhaps the Volga Bulgaria was just one of the Slavic principalities that were subordinate to the Khazar Khaganate in the 8th century? By the way, this assumption can be indirectly confirmed by the following passages:

“Outer Bulgar is a small town that does not occupy a large area and is known only for being the main trading point of this state.” Al Balkhi, X century.

“… internal Bulgars are Christians” (al-Istakhri).

“…between the internal Bulgars there are Christians and Muslims” (Ibn-Khaukal).

The king of the Rus tribe lives "in the city of Kuyaba, which is larger than Bulgar" (al Balkhi).

“Bulgar is the city of the Slavs, lies in the north” (Yakut, XIII century).

If we summarize all these passages, it turns out that the Volga Bulgaria is a Slavic principality that performed a customs function on the Volga-Kama waterway. And the internal Bulgars are the Slavic population of the more western territories located between the Bulgar and Kuyaba (Kyiv), because. the existence of Christian burial grounds on the territory of Bulgaria is unknown.

4. Too rich to pay.

Many riddles are caused by the campaign of Prince Vladimir in 985 against Bulgar. This, in fact, is one of the first mentions of the Russian-Bulgarian wars:

“Ide Volodimer to the Bolgars with Dobrynya with his howl in the boats, and bring the torches to the horses by the shore, and defeat the Bulgarian speech Dobrynya Volodimer looks like a convict, or the essence is in boots, they don’t give us tribute, let’s go look for lapotniks” (PSRL T1 stb 84) .

It turns out an interesting situation, Volodimer with Dobrynya leads an army along the river on boats, and the cavalry army of the Turks gallops along the shore. Vladimir won. Dobrynya examined the prisoners, noted that they were all in boots, i.e. quite rich, and said to Vladimir, let them say, they don’t pay tribute to us. Let's go look for lapotniks, those who are poorer.

Strange affair. Always the conquerors sought to conquer rich countries in order to gain wealth and glory. And here the winner explicitly states that they are too rich to pay tribute. What do other chroniclers say?

“... And Volodimer create peace from the Bulgarians, and you want companies among themselves, and the Bulgarians decide: if there will be no peace between us, and when the stone starts to float, and the hops get dirty on the water, then take tribute to you” (Nikon Chronicle).

It is clear that the defeated Bulgarians agree to make peace with the winner. And the world, according to them, is eternal, until the stone begins to swim, and the hops sink. But how does the winner look at the last phrase "...then take tribute to you ..."? So you never take it? And the winner puts up with it? It is very similar to the situation described in the World History, revised by the Satyricon. Tatar ambassadors come to Prince Dmitry and demand tribute. Dmitry replies: “If the Khan needs money, let him go to work. You can't feed all the poor." Why would Vladimir have such an attack of altruism? So it was not at all for tribute that the Red Sun came to a foreign country. It turns out that for other reasons. It is known that wars start either for economic, or political, or religious reasons. But the economic benefit is always present. What events preceded this war?

In 965, Prince Svyatoslav undertook a campaign against Khazaria. Under the blows of the troops of Svyatoslav, the Khazar state fell. The cities of Itil, Semender and Sarkel were plundered and destroyed. After that, the Russian princes are trying to subjugate the Khazar possessions. The Kyiv Khaganate is created. The son of Svyatoslav Vladimir declares himself a kagan, and demands obedience from neighboring peoples. Kievan Rus was called the Kyiv Khaganate and in more late period. In 1051 - 1054, Metropolitan Hilarion wrote "The Teaching on the Old and New Law", which included "Praise to our kagan Vladimir": "... the great and wondrous deeds of our teacher and mentor, the great kagan of our land, Vladimir ...".

Apparently, the ruler of the Volga Bulgaria did not want to join the great and wondrous deeds of Khagan Vladimir, having converted to Islam, he was already reoriented and sought to get closer to the Caliph of Baghdad. As a result, our teacher and mentor came to Bulgaria and explained to the Bulgars all the perniciousness of such actions. The result was a peace treaty in which the vanquished swore eternal peace. Satisfied, Vladimir returned home, and there were no further serious military clashes.

5. Where did the Bulgars come? Bulgaria 500 years before the Bulgars.

Indeed, where? Whose lands did they settle on? Who lived here before them?

In the 4th century, during the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, tribes of the Imenkovo ​​culture penetrated into the Volga region. They occupy the territories of the Left Bank of the Kama and the Volga, displacing the Azelin tribes from there. Today, many scientists agree with the version that the Imenkovtsy were Slavs, or related tribes. Under the onslaught of the Imenkovites, the Azelin tribes retreated to the north, to the Volga-Vyatka interfluve. The Imenkovtsy entrenched themselves in the Right Bank of the Kama, populating the bank from the area of ​​modern Elabuga to the Volga, as well as the Volga-Sviyazh interfluve, in a narrow strip. According to some scientists, the Imenkovskaya culture existed until the 5th - 6th centuries, and then disappeared, and the population left somewhere. And the fault was the nomadic Turkic tribes who defeated the Imenkovites. But let me disagree with this statement. A holy place is never empty. If the Imenkovtsy were defeated and left, their territory would immediately be occupied by the Azelins, or other tribes. That did not happen. Later the Bulgars came and founded the Volga Bulgaria. And the main population was precisely the Slavs - the Imenkovtsy. And the best proof of this is the maps of the Imenkovsky and Bulgar lands. Look, the borders of Bulgaria exactly correspond to the borders of the settlement of the Imenkovtsy. Consequently, we have before us an unread page in the history of our people, which, due to an oversight or intentionally, official science. Apparently, another 500 years should be added to the history of the Bulgar state. And we knew nothing about this. However, we didn't know much. Reading a textbook on the history of "Tatarstan" for secondary school, one gets the impression that after the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate in Eastern Europe there were no other states, except for Kievan Rus, Novgorod land and Volga Bulgaria. Meanwhile, at least two more are mentioned in the annals - Arsania and Biarmia.

Arsania is mentioned in the reports of Arab travelers of the 9th - 13th centuries. The capital is the city of Arsy (Artab, Atra, Arsay). The location of this region is vague, it is only known that it was located north of the Volga Bulgaria. Many scientists believe that this is the Arsk land of Russian chronicles. The city of Arsk is mentioned in the 13th century. This territory was inhabited by Ars (southern Udmurts).

The kingdom of Biar (Barmaland of Scandinavian chronicles) occupied the north Perm region and Komi ASSR. The capital was the city of Chardyn. It was an important center for the fur and leather trade. In ancient times, it had connections with Barmaland, they often attacked and robbed it. In 920 King Erich of Norway ravaged the lands of the kingdom of Biar. The Vikings plundered the temple of Bor Barma on the Yamal Peninsula, where they captured so much booty that they could not load everything onto their ships.

In 1236 Biar was destroyed by the Mongols. Only scientists know about these two states. They are not taught in school. Only Magna Hungaria is mentioned in passing ( Greater Hungary), located to the east of the Volga Bulgaria. It turns out that Bulgaria was not the only state, but one of many. From the west, it was bordered by Russian principalities, from the north - Arsania, from the east - Biar and Magna Hungaria, from the south - Khazaria.

6. Version.

So, let's try to restore the history of the Volga Bulgaria in the light of the above facts. In the 3rd century AD, all of Eastern Europe is a single economic system, similar to Western Europe in the 13th century. All of it was inhabited by kindred tribes who spoke Indo-European languages, and was a network of principalities, which either united under the rule of one kagan, or again declared their independence. Vigilantes often passed from one prince to another, creating a special, vigilante culture. One of the major state formations of the Slavs in the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov was Ruskolan, which occupied the territory that would later become part of the Great Budgaria of Kurbat. The ruler of Ruskolani was Bus Beloyar (God in the Byzantine chronicles). Ruskolan fought with the Goths of Germanarich. In this war, Germanaric was killed, and his son took his place. As a result of many years of war, Ruskolan was defeated, and Bus was crucified. This happened in 382. After that, Avars and Khazars passed through the lands of the weakened Ruskolani. But the territory of Ruskolani, Tamatarkha, Tmutarakan, Taman were still considered Slavic principalities. Except for the period of Great Bulgaria. Most likely, after all, Great Bulgaria was inhabited by Slavic and related tribes. It is possible that official language and was Turkic, but the customs and way of life were preserved. AT Time of Troubles, in the IV century, when the invasion of the Huns, Avars, Khazars swept across the steppes of Eastern Europe, part of the Slavic tribes from the forest-steppe zone moved to the Volga region, occupied the lands of the Finno-Ugrians inhabiting the Lower Kama and the Middle Volga. The Slavs captured the Finno-Ugric fortresses, settling in them, and pushing the local population into the forests. Apparently, the natives were in no hurry to leave the invaders alone, so the fortresses of the Imenkovites have impressive fortifications. In the 7th century, Bulgarians came here, immigrants from Great Bulgaria, defeated by the Khazars. It is quite possible that the prince is with a retinue. Or maybe he was called to reign as Rurik? This practice was very common at the time. Several clans, or even a union of tribes, on general meeting they choose a prince from those living in the neighborhood, and they called him to reign. Concluding an agreement, according to which the prince with his retinue ensures the safety of the population, and the population, in turn, provides the prince and the retinue with food. The contract could be terminated or extended at any time. This practice existed in Novgorod for quite a long time. Greek authors point out that it existed from ancient times throughout Eastern Europe. Be that as it may, in the Itil region the Bulgars merged with the local Slavs without any special complications, and the Slavic tribes easily recognized the power of the Bulgars. That is why the borders of the Volga Bulgaria exactly coincide with the borders of the settlement of the Imenkovsky tribes. At this time, in the south there is a powerful state - the Khazar Khaganate, which, as the strongest, demands obedience from neighboring principalities. You should make a small digression. The fact is that Eastern Europe has long developed its own feudal ladder, which is little known to the modern reader. Boyars ruled over large families. Tribes - princes. Unions of tribes, as well as small state formations - the Grand Dukes. Above were only kings and kagans. That is why the Russian rulers were in no hurry to assign themselves the royal title, but were called Grand Dukes. Title is serious business. The right to it must be earned.

So, the Khazar Kagan rightfully demanded obedience from the Kievan and Bulgarian princes. But, apparently, the Bulgars and Kievans already felt their strength, and perhaps the weakness of the Khazars, and strove for independence. It was then that Almas, the son of Shilka, decided to go over from the Khazar Kagan to Caliph of Baghdad. It seems that the Khazars did not have the strength to bring Almas to submission, or solved more important issues, so the Bulgars managed to receive a blessing from the ruler of the faithful and converted to Islam. This, of course, affected relations with the Khazaria, but did not lead to serious conflicts. However, disagreements arose in Bulgaria itself. Not all Bulgars wanted to accept Islam. Because of this, relations between Bulgar and Suvar worsened. The conflict dragged on for almost 50 years. During this period, pagan sanctuaries continued to function, and Suvar, in contrast to Bulgar, even minted his own coins.

In 965, under the blows of the troops of the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav, the Khazar state fell. This freed the hands of the rulers of the Bulgar, and they pursued a tougher policy towards convinced pagans. In 976, the Muslimization of the country was basically completed. Suvar stopped minting its coins and recognized Bulgar political center. From that moment, Bulgaria stood in front of Baghdad, backwards to Kyiv. From Kyiv, Vladimir Yasno Solnyshko looked disapprovingly at this maneuver, who in 980 declared himself a kagan and successor to the Khazar Khaganate. In 985, Vladimir, most likely at the suggestion of pagan priests, undertook a campaign against Bulgaria, obviously with political goals. Apparently he wanted to force the Bulgars "to become the old way, as the mother put." Bulgar reluctantly turned a quarter turn towards Kyiv. Eternal peace was concluded, with the obligation of Kyiv not to take tribute. Vladimir was satisfied. He was already thinking of reorienting his policy himself. AT next year Bulgars send Muslim preachers to Kyiv to persuade Vladimir to their faith. But the winner is in no hurry to go on about the vanquished. And why, because they are not going anywhere anyway. The world is eternal. And if they violate it, then it will be possible to “take tribute”.

Whatever thoughts Vladimir was guided by, two years later Russia adopted Christianity. Since that moment, Bulgaria has been getting closer to the countries Muslim East. And the Turkic language is becoming more and more important. Teaching is conducted on it, books and poems, scientific works and baits are written on it. For several centuries, the Slavic language is unclaimed, and the population forgets it. The period of bilingualism ends. The Bulgar people become Turkic. If anyone doubts my words, look around. Today the situation is exactly the opposite. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the "Tatar" language has become unclaimed. With the rejection of the Arabic script, the "Tatars" lost their centuries-old heritage. In universities, teaching was conducted in Russian. True, there were national schools, as well as lessons of the "Tatar" language for the children of the "Tatars". But where to enter the graduates of the national school? Today, many "Tatars" do not know the "Tatar" language. And although "Tatar" groups are open in kindergartens and "Tatar" classes in schools, parents are in no hurry to send their children there. Children in them do not receive proper development. And why be surprised? Are there many books in the "Tatar" language? How many TV channels broadcast their programs in the "Tatar" language? How many universities teach in the "Tatar" language? And where will their graduates be able to work? Apparently, a similar situation has developed with the Slavic language in the Volga Bulgaria. And he disappeared. Or maybe it didn't completely disappear. Bulgar merchants were active in trade in all corners of Eastern Europe, and probably spoke Slavic with the Slavs. Yes, and Arab authors up to the XIII century indicate that Bulgar is a city of Slavs. The situation changed dramatically after the inclusion of Bulgaria and Russia in the Golden Horde. During this period flourished Turkic culture. Russia was also under its influence. Afanasy Nikitin, describing his journey, used Turkic words and expressions. Russian coins were bilingual. The princes knew the Turkic language very well, because. they often had to communicate with the Tatars, traditionally dynastic marriages were concluded. However, the description of the history of Bulgaria as a whole is not the purpose of this work. I just wanted to draw the reader's attention to the early Bulgarian period, and to the connection between the culture of the Slavs and the Kazan Tatars. Assessing these facts, the phrase of the ancient author “... the Volgars or Bulgarians named from the Volga River, which originated from the glorious and multinational Slovenian people” looks not so fantastic.