192

62. Who were called and who are called Tatars?

Before starting a discourse about the problems of the Tatars' origin, it is necessary to understand what are the Tatars we talk about. Frequently different peoples, at times ethnically not connected with each others, were called Tatars. Many historians and ethnologists in the 19th-20th centuries, following the Kazan missionaries, designate with the ethnonym Tatar (without definitions) the peoples who in the past were called Tatars by someone, for example, the ancient Tatars, and the Mongolo-Tatars, and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars and the modern Bulgaro-Tatars, all of them are just simply called Tatars. In the result these ethnically not connected or only partially connected Tatars were group identified. We find this identification in the monographs on the history of Tatars, and in the "Tatar" sections of the school and high school textbooks written by some Russian, and sometimes by foreign authors. It resulted in rude distortions in the study of the ethnogenesis for the specific Tatars, and as a result also suffered the study of the origin of the Bulgaro-Tatars, the modern Tatar nation formed in the Tatarstan and in Russia.

One of the main venues in the research of the leading Bulgaro-Tatar historians even then was their fight against identifying the modern Bulgaro-Tatars with the ancient Tatars, and the Mongolo-Tatars, and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars.

In the middle of the 1990ies, strangely enough, among the Tatar historians also appeared people who were identifying the modern Bulgaro-Tatars with the Kipchak Khanate Tatars, with the Mongolo-Tatars, or with the ancient Tatars. These so-called Tataro-Tatarists are as they are coming back from the concept of the Türko-Bulgarian origin of the modern Tatars to the out-of-date missionary concept of Mongolo-Tatars, or Kipchak Khanate origin, simultaneously addressing to the Russian historians with an ardent request to value positively the Mongolo-Tatar conquest of the Rus principality, and also the  Chingizids oppressing the local population. In the result, the Tatarian Tataro-Tatarists and some Russian historians unite all the Tatars in a single whole, and portray the Bulgaro-Tatars as direct descendants of the Mongolo-Tatars, Kipchak Khanate Tatars, even "Tartars".

Taking into account all this, the semantics of the ethnonym Tatars needs to be understoon from the beginning. Who were called and who are called now "Tatars"?

1. In the scientific research the ancient Tatars were called and are called now "Tatars". The following groups of Tatars belong to them.

As the historical sources allow to judge, the ethnonym Tatars was a self-name long before our era for a fairly advanced, well known then tribal union or people who were the northern neighbors and a contender of China. It is known that the Chinese even then handled them with fear and hostility, calling them Ta-ta ("dirty", "barbarians"). Chinese called with that name also their other northern neighbors. Even their Great Chinese Wall they started erecting for protection from the Tatars, i.e. from all their northern close and far neighbors [Mitford В., 1838, t. IV, 189].

Further, the ethnonym Otuz Tatars "Thirty Tatars" we meet in an inscription monument in honour of Kül-Tegin (8th century AD), the ethnonym Tokuz Tatars "Nine Tatars"  we meet in the inscription "Moün-Chur Monument" (8th century AD). Were these ethnonyms self-names (endoethnonyms) or the names of these tribes by the others (exoethnonyms) is not known, but the ethnonym Tatars recorded in the inscriptions tells that then in the Central Asia lived tribes called Tatars.

In the same 8th century the tribes under the name Tatars are recorded in the Kimak state, which existed in the 8th-11th centuries in the Western Siberia between the river Irtysh and the Ural mountains, in the Kazakhstan and Central Asia. This state played a significant role in forming the Kazakh nation and the Siberian Türks (Tatars) nation. The last then called themselves after the names of the locations, and in the 19th-20eth centuries accepted the ethnonym Tatars.

In the 2nd half of the 11th century Mahmud Kashgarly in the encyclopedic work "Divanu lugat it-Türk", listing the Türkic peoples, points to the Tatars  place next to Kirgizes. He writes that the Türks most close to the Byzantium are Besenyos (Badjinaks), further are located: the Kypchaks, Oguzes, Yemeks, Bashkirts, Basmyls, Kais, Yabaks, Tatars, Kirgizes; the Kirgizes are the most close neighbors of China [Kashgarly М., 1992, vol. 1, 28]. Per this list it is clear that the Tatars were located somewhere in the Central Asia.

All these Tatars, usually called ancient Tatars, did not become the direct ancestors of the modern Bulgaro-Tatars, for en mass they did not migrate to the territory of the formation of the Itil-Bulgarian state. If some insignificant number also had filtered to that territory, in the Bulgarian state they accepted the general ethnonym of the Bulgars. The ancient Tatars, during the spread of the general ethnonym Türk, gradually lost their ethnonym.

2. The Central Asian part of the ancient Tatars achieved a prevailing position among the Mongolo-speaking and Manchjuro-speaking peoples and transferred to the last their ethnonym Tatars as a general name. Precisely in a struggle against these Tatars, Timuchin - Chingiz-Khan succeeded in creating the mighty state, and under a general name Tatars in organizing a strong army with a system of precise subordination. This army is usually called Mongolo-Tatars. During conquest campaigns of Chingizids in these armies were poured the representatives of other defeated peoples: Türks, Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Caucasians, Slavs, Finno-Ugrians, etc. These multilingual Mongolo-Tatars settled in all Mongolian feudal empire, which included Mongolia, the most part of Siberia, Northern China, Korea, Central and Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, Southern Caucasus, Northern Caucasus, the Itil Bulgaria, a significant part of the Rus lands. The expeditionary armies of Chingizids were called as Tatar's also after the disintegration of the Mongolian feudal empire, during the existence and expansion of the independent Mongolian states of Batyi (Djuchi Ulus), Khulagu (who also conquered Mesopotamia, Arabian Caliphate, Syria), Chagatai and Hubilai (who conquered Southern China and other countries and called his empire Yuan). But the Mongolo-Tatars in all Mongolian states constituted an insignificant part of the population, and very quickly assimilated among the local Türks, Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Caucasians, Slavs, and also the Turkic-speaking Bulgars. For a long time Mongolo-Tatars or simply Tatars in these states were called the Chingizids who occupied the dominant position.

The Mongolo-Tatars, though are believed by some historians to be the ancestors of the modern Tatars, actually have no close ethnic relation to the Bulgaro-Tatars, they cannot be counted as the ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars, or of the Uzbeks, or of the Afghans, or of the Chinese, or of the Persians, etc. (Prominently missing among this etc. are the Ruses, who must have had the most admixture of the Mongolo-Tatars than all others listed - Translator's Note).

3. The scientists of the Western Europe in the 14th century counted as Tatars, or Tartars in their lingo (comers from the Hell), the population of all Chingizid Mongolian states. According to this understanding of the semantics of the ethnonym Tatars, the West-European scientists on the first European geographical maps placed the so-called Tartaria within the territories subordinated to Chingizids. They also started to write books about Tatars. Seeing these maps and the first works about the Tatars, our Tataro-Tatarists expressed a sincere surprise at the greatness of their "ancestors", alas, here are the Tatars, our ancestors, what the vast regions of Eurasia they occupied. In reality everybody understands that the descendants of the Tatars, i.e. the population of the Mongolian feudal empire and all four uluses of Chingizids, are not only the Bulgaro-Tatars, but and first of all are the Mongols, Türks, Manchurians, Chinese, Iranians, Arabs, Caucasians, Russians, Finno-Ugrians, etc.

4. The Russian scientists and the West-European scientists invited by them called "Tatars" all the population of the Dzhuchi Ulus (Kipchak Khanate, Altyn Orda, Kipchak Khanate). Later, studying the East up to the Pacific Ocean, they carried all eastern non-Russians to these Tatars. Even the  palaeoasiatic Oroches, who were living opposite the Sakhalin Island, the Russian researchers called "Tatars", from that the passage was also called "Tatar". This understanding of a situation could be accepted for a recognition of the people under the name Kipchak Khanate Tatars. In practice, the Kipchak Khanate did not have the necessary conditions to form a uniform ethnos from its multilingual, multiethnic population.

5. As the study of the eastern peoples progressed, the Russian scientists came to realize that the Kipchak Khanate Tatars consisted of many ethnoses with their ethnonyms, but they did not stop also using and their colloquial general name of Tatars, and started to applying it with the definitions consisting of self-names or dwelling place-names of these peoples: Abakan Tatars (Khakases), Azerbaijan Tatars, Barabin Tatars, Bashkir Tatars, Bulgarian Tatars, Budjak Tatars, Vogul Tatars (Mansi), Djagataj Tatars, Yenisei Tatars, Southern Caucasusn Tatars, Kazakh Tatars (Azerbaijanis), Kirgiz Tatars (Kazakhs and Kirgizes), Kumyk Tatars, Tatari-Taranchi, Turkmen Tatars, Uzbek Tatars, Khakass Tatars, Circassian Tatars, etc. During the colonization of the East the participants of the scientific expeditions found out that eastern peoples consist of Finno-Ugrians, Türks, Paleoasiats, etc. But they continued to call the Türks, and especially the Muslim part of them, by the name Tatars, dispersing this name also to the other Türks outside of the Kipchak Khanate territory. Later, to denote the Türks separately from the other Tatars, the Russian scientists started to applying a composite ethnonym of the Turko-Tatar peoples or Türko- Tatars. Only in the 1923 they resolved to apply a general ethnonym Türks or Turkic, and for the Anatolian Türks they left the ethnonym Turks. (This above paragraph refers to the exoethnonyms bestowed more by the Russian post-revolutionary apparatchiks with screaming ignorance credentials, like the People's Commissar for Nationalities comrade J.Stalin, than by the credentialed scientists or the representatives of the peoples being renamed themselves - Translator's Note).

After the disintegration of the Kipchak Khanate the same peoples that started forming before the Mongolo-Tatar conquests went on with their independent way of development: Bulgars, Russians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Karachay-Balkarians, Kumyks, Nogays, Chuvashes, etc. However, some of them experienced changes in their ethnonyms. So, the Sarts began to be called Uzbeks, Ases began to be called  Nogays, Bulgars dealing with Russians started to use episodically the ethnonym Tatars. Ignoring these facts, the Tatarian Tataro-Tatarists and some Russian historians ethnically identify the modern Bulgaro-Tatars with the so-called Kipchak Khanate Tatars, i.e. with the population of the Kipchak Khanate, and sometimes also with the ancient Tatars, Mongolo-Tatars, Türko-Tatars, even with Tartars.

Actually the direct ancestors of the modern Tatars of the Uralo-Itil region are not the ancient Tatars, not the Mongolo-Tatars, not Tartars, not the Kipchak Khanate Tatars as a whole, but the Bulgars in a broad sense this word, a part of the population of the Kipchak Khanate being (i.e. Kipchak Khanate Tatars), who were given a general ethnonym Tatars only at the end of the 19th century. Therefore to differentiate our people from the other Tatars, we speak not just about Tatars, but necessarily about the Bulgaro-Tatars.

In addition to these five groups of Tatars and Bulgaro-Tatars there are also the Crimea and Dobrudja Tatars.

The stated in the above paragraphs is summarized in the following table that shows the meanings of the ethnonym Tatars. (Note that the "20th century" statement reflects the global passportization of the Stalinist time bearing the "nationality" notation,  with the "nationality" being determined as defined by the Russian state apparatus that forced peoples into distorted classification pigeonholes and disfigured the ethnic continuums - Translator's Note)

 

63. Ethnonym Bulgar and its meaning.

Bulgars is a Russian pronunciation of the self-name ethnonym Bolgar. This name is accepted to designate the Itil Bulgars. But for a more ancient period the scientists also apply the form Bolgars, which ensconced as the name of other Bolgars: Caucasian, N.Pontic, Danube and the more ancient Central Asian.

This work as a general name accepted to apply the word Bolgars, and for the designation of the Itil Bulgars applies the word Bulgars.

About the etymology of the ethnonym Bulgar/Bolgar the scientists did not yet come to a common opinion. And there are a lot of opinions. A Danube-Bulgarian scientist Christo Todorov-Bemberski collected and systematized them in his detailed article "Attempt for thematic systematization of existing etymologies of the ethnonym Bogar(in)" [Todorov-Bemberski Ch., 1988, 175-219]. The classification suggested by him covers the following thematic sets of etymologies:

1. Etymologies according to which the ethnonym Bolgar(in) comes from the name of a biblical or historical person (eponymic etymologies): the word Bolgar ascends to the name of Yaphet's son, Noah's son; the word Bolgar comes from the name of the Khazar's and Kumans' leader Bulgarios [Ibid. 176; the word Bolgar comes from the name of the Scyth's son Bolgar; the word Bolgar becomes known from about 127 BC, and it comes from the name of their leader Blger [Ibid. 177], etc.

2. The etymologies considering the ethnonym the Bolgar(in) as a replica from other ethnonyms: Bolgars/Bulgars semantically coincides with the ethnonym Beshgur/Bashgur (Bashkir) "Five Ugrs", bul is the Bulgarian "five", -gar is Ugor, Bulgars is also "Five Ugrs " [Todorov-Bemberski H., 178-179]

3. Etymologies according to which the ethnonym Bulgar(in) comes from a toponym: Bolgar from the name of the river Itil/Bulga; Bolga-ar is "Itil People"; Bolgar  comes from toponyms Bug, Budjak, Bolgarchai, Bolkardag [Ibid. 180-186].

4. Etymologies from the viewpoint of location of Pra-Bolgars: Bolgar is "High Mountains" or "High Bank" from bylgaron (Ossetian) "People living in foothills"; bulag-er in Türkic "river lands", bulag-ar in Türkic "River People", etc. [Ibid. 1988, 187-192].

5. Etymologies from the point of social characteristics of Pra-Bolgars: Bolgar  "Mutineer, Rebel" or Bolgar(in) "Person (who) achieved wealth", Bulgar(in) "Scholar Man", Bolga-ar "Sable Hunter", for bulga - in Mongolian is "Sable", Bulgar "City Dweller", for in Türkic balyg is "city" [Ibid. 192-199].

6. Etymologies according to which the ethnonym Bolgar(in) reflects a mixed origin its carrier: Bolgar  is "a mix of Slavs and Turks", from the word bolg, bolgatmak "to mix" [Ibid. 199-203].

7. Etymologies according to which the ethnonym Bolgar(in) has a totem origin and totem contents: bulgar is "marten, sable", "pack of wolves" (idiomatic: "military unit") [Ibid. 203-208].

The forming system for the Turkic ethnonyms suggests that in the word Bolgar the final ar is the primary Turkic ethnonym with a meaning "Men, People", as its definition is the word bolak "river" or balyg "city". Bolgar as a whole means "River People" or "City People". Considering that Bulgars everywhere lived next to Suars, then the semantics of the word Bolgar as "River People" is more convincing, for Suar has the same semantics.

As to the connection of this ethnonym with the hydronym Itil it is possible to say with confidence that not the word Bulgar comes from Itil, but on the contrary, the hydronym Itil (older name Bolga) comes from the ethnonym Bolgar: the Ruses reckoned that the word Bolgar designates the inhabitants living by the river Bolga/Itil.

The ethnonym Bulgar/Bolgar is also multifaceted. In the Central Asia it is mentioned long before our era, with it were called the Central Asian or Hindukush (also spelled Hindu Kush, in Türk. "Indian Rockies" - Translator's Note) Bulgars.

In the region of N.Pontic in the 7th century BC the Bulgars are recorded under the name of their ancestors, Onogur/Hunogur. The settlement built by them was called Honogur/Phanagor, in the 7th century BC the Greek colonizers transformed it into a large city, in another1000 years under the name Phanagoria it became a capital of the Great Bulgaria, the Kubrat's (i.e Kurbat - Translator's Note) state. In this state the other Türkic-speaking tribes also adopt the general ethnonym Bolgar. Thus, the N.Pontic Bulgars are also called Bulgars. The Hindukush Bulgars and the N.Pontic Bulgars, naturally, are ethnically connected, but the answer where they lived earlier, from where, when and where they moved is not found yet.

After the disintegration of the Kubrat's state, were formed three nations under this ethnonym:

1) Asparuh's Danubian Bulgaria where the state-forming Bulgars after some generations were Slavisized, as a result there formed the Slavic-lingual Bolgarian people;

2) In the Northern Caucasus remained a part of the Türkic-speaking Bulgars, and from its basis formed the Balkar nation;

3) In the Central Itil was created a Bulgarian state, in which all the local Türkic tribes received the general name Bulgars/Bolgars. To differentiate these Bulgars from each other the ethnonym Bolgar is applied with definitions: Danube Bolgars, Caucasian Bolgars (later came another phonetic version: Balkars), Itil Bolgars (later was adopted a phonetic version: Bulgars).

The use of the ethnonym Bulgars/Bulgars does not entail such a confusion which is observed with the application of the ethnonym Tatars. No opponents object to the application of the ethnonym Bulgars/Blgars with the specific determining words. Only exist cases of non-discrimination of the Bulgars in a narrow sense versus Bulgars in a broad sense:

a) Bulgars in narrow sense are proper Bulgars who created the Itil-Bulgarian state;

b) Bulgars in a broad sense is the Itil-Bulgarian state populace including the Bulgars proper and all Türkic-speaking and Türkicized local tribes who later received the general ethnonym Bulgar. The failure to differentiate these two meanings frequently results in the scientists' erroneous reasoning about the ancestors of the Itil Tatars. Accepting the ethnonym Bulgar only in a narrow sense, some historians reason that the recognition of the Bulgars as the ancestors of the (present day - Translator's Note) Tatars would narrow the actual composition of the Itil Tatars, and therefore the origin of the Tatars ostensibly would be more favorable if connected with the Mongolo-Tatars. The supporters of such viewpoint simply do not take into account that the ancestors of the Itil Tatars are the Bulgars in a broad sense of that word.

64. The names Tatar and Bulgar as internal and external ethnonyms.

Studying the ethnogenesis of the peoples, scientists try to distinguish between the endoethnonyms (internal ethnonyms, self-name) and exoethnonyms (the athor's term is "ektoethnonyms", i.e. external ethnonyms, names used by aliens), and also their internal and external application.

In the historical plan the endoethnonym is a self-name of people, and an exoethnonym is its name used by aliens. For example, the ethnonym Tatar for a part of the ancient Tatars was, certainly, a self-name, and for their another part, the ancestors of the Mongols and Manchurians, it was applied as an exoethnonym, i.e. only Chinese called them Tatars, certainly identifying them with the Turkic-speaking Tatars. For the Mongolo-Tatars and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars the ethnonym Tatar was a self-name only partially, for their greater part it was an exoethnonym. It means that only the ruling clan called itself by the word Tatar, from there derives the name of the state, Tatarian. Among the Mongolo-Tatars, especially among the Mongolo-Tatar armies, neither Türks, nor Chinese, nor Koreans, nor Afgans, nor Persians, nor Arabs, nor Finno-Ugrians, nor Bulgars, nor Bashkirs, nor Ruses call themselves Tatars. For them the ethnonym Tatar was only an exoethnonym.

In fitting conditions the exoethnonym was also applied by the representatives of that people in presenting themselves to other peoples. For example, the representatives of the aboriginal Turkic tribes from the Uralo-Itil region, Crimea, N.Pontic etc., who resettled to Lithuania at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th centuries at the request of Vitautas, to fight against the German knights, presented themselves to the local population as Tatars. It meant that they came from the Tatar State of the Juchi Ulus (i.e. Kipchak Khanate), though earlier in the native land they had self-names: Bulgars, Nogays, Taurs , Kypchaks, etc. In due course the external ethnonym Tatars became a self-name for them, but in external application always with the definition Lithuania (Litva Tatarlary, i.e." Lithuanian Tatars").

As to the ethnonym Tartar, i.e. the West-European name of the peoples who fell under the Tatar states of Hubilai, Chagatai, Khulagu and Djuchi, it was never a self-name for them, i.e. not an endoethnonym, and was applied only as exoethnonym.

When the Russians called all, the Mongolo-Tatars, and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars, and all the eastern non-Russians, and all former Moslem Türks called, and do so now in their scientific research, Tatars, in this case the word Tatars was and remains only an exoethnonym. Precisely for that reason all the peoples whose ancestors lived in the territory of the Kipchak Khanate and had an exoethnonym Tatars, subsequently refused to accept this ethnonym as their self-name. The exceptions were only the Bulgars, the Crimean Nogays and the Dobrudjian Türks. For these Türks the ethnonym Tatars became a self-name and an internal ethnonym only at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries.

About the story and the reasons for acceptance of the ethnonym Tatars as a self-name for the Bulgaro-Tatars we shall discourse below, here we shall say a few words about the acceptance of this ethnonym by the Crimean and Dobrudjian Türks.

Before receiving the ethnonym Tatar, the population of all steppe part of the Crimea and adjoining continental areas, and also of the Kerch peninsula, was called Crimean Nogays or simply Nogays (Nog'ay, Nog'ayly). A part of the population of steppe Crimea called itself Kypchaks (Kyypshchak). The population of the foothill and mountain Crimea and its Southern coast was called among the Nogays with the ethnonym Tat (Tatlar). But during the establishment of the Crimean Khanate in the second half of the 15th century and during the 16th century, with a view for the restoration of the split Tatar State of the Juchi Ulus, the ethnonym Tatars was imposed onto the population of the Crimea. "The aboriginal Türkic population of the Crimea for a long time was rejecting the ethnic name Tatars. The poets of the 17th century called themselves and their people Kypchaks. Even in our days many natives of the Crimea, the senior generation, assert that they are not the Tatars, but Kypchaks, Nogays, Crimean Türks, Krymchaks" [Izidinova S.R., 1997, 299]. Now for the Crimean Tatars the ethnonym Tatars is a self-name, i.e. an internal ethnonym.

The Balkan Türks living in the Dobrudjian N. Pontic, which now is in the territory of Romania and Bulgaria, started transforming the former exoethnonym Tatars into an endoethnonym, for among these Türks the majority are the immigrants mostly from the Crimea (middle of the 19th century). As in the Crimea, there are three dialects too: Tat (Crimean-Tatarian of the southern coast), Tatar (Middle, or Central Crimean-Tatarian) and Nogay (northern, or steppe Crimean-Tatarian). These dialects now are under a strong influence from the neighboring Turkish dialects [Pokrovskaya L.A., 1997, 197]. As there is going the process of Turkization, accordingly there is no dispute about the ethnonym Tatars.

The ethnonym Bulgar/Bolg'ar not always was applied as a self-name only. It was a self-name for proper Bulgars, who succeeded in creation of a number of states. But for the other peoples in the population of these states, this ethnonym initially was applied as an exoethnonym, and only in a due course it was becoming a self-name. For example, for the Slavs subordinated to the Danube Bulgars, the ethnonym Bolgars gradually became a self-name. For the Bashkirs in the Itil-Bulgarian state, the ethnonym Bulgars served as an exoethnonym. But the expansion of the Mongolo-Tatars saved them from the adoption of the ethnonym Bulgar as a self-name.

The ethnonym Bulgars as an exoethnonym reached the Western Siberian Türks, but they did not have time to take it as their self-name, just exactly as the ethnonym Tatars they do not accept an their own endoethnonym till now. The name Bulgars also did not have time to stick for the ancestors of the  Astrakhan Tatars. It was the self-name for the ancestors of the Tatars of the Central Itil region and Ural, i.e. for those of our ancestors who for a long time lived in the Itil-Bulgarian state.

Now there is a whole social movement with many local branches which aims for the restoration of the former Bulgar self-name, so that having been called Tatars, they were not confused with the other Tatars.

In connection with above-stated a few words should be stated now about the internal and external application of the ethnonyms Tatars and Bulgars.

So, between themselves, the Crimean, and Dobrudjian, and Itil Tatars call their people with the word Tatars, for in its internal application it is clear for all what Tatars are told about. For the external and initial application (i.e. not among these Tatars), saying only Tatars without its definition makes the semantics completely unclear to the interlocutor or a reader, and therefore the word Tatars must be necessarily applied with a determinator word, as for example, the Crimean Tatars, Dobrudja Tatars, Itil Tatars, Siberian Tatars, Bulgaro-Tatars, etc.

Exactly like that, in the initial and external application the ethnonym Bulgar always needs a definition: Itil Bulgars (Bulgars), Danube Bulgars (Bolgars), Caucasian Bulgars (Balkars), Black Sea Bulgars, etc.

When we speak about different Tatars in an historical plan, we also use the ethnonym Tatars certainly with its respective definition: ancient Tatars, Mongolo-Tatars, Kipchak Khanate Tatars, Chagatai Tatars, Bulgaro-Tatars, etc.

65. Ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars and its semantics.

We saw that the ethnonym Tatar in diachronic and synchronic plans refer to different peoples, at times not connected ethnically with each other. Therefore the initial and external application of the ethnonym Tatars without definitions results in misunderstandings and serious confusion in the studies of the ethnogenesis for the so-called Tatar peoples.

Because of this circumstance, during initial and external application the ethnonym Tatar necessarily is used with proper definitions.

To designate the modern Tatars, three composite ethnonyms are used: Crimean Tatars, Dobrudja Tatars and Bulgaro-Tatars.

The Crimean and Dobrudja Tatars are named by the place of their location. And the Bulgaro-Tatars are called the Tatars whose origin is connected to the Bulgars. Some scientists instead of the name Bulgaro-Tatars tried to recommend other ethnonyms, reflecting the regions of their settlement: Kazan Tatars, Tatars of the Itil and Ural region, Itil Tatars etc. But none of them is capable to capture all Bulgaro-Tatars, leaving on the side the Western Siberian Tatars, Lithuanian Tatars, etc. Considering all this, still in the 19th century the scientists found a rather fortunate ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars. And the idea to apply this composite ethnonym was inspired still in the 17th century by a German scientist Adam Oleary. Visiting the Itil region, he called the local Turkic people not simply Tatars, but the Bulgarian Tatars, i.e. Bulgaro-Tatars [Oleary А., 1905, 408]. The application of this ethnonym became more active after publication in the 1877 of the S.M.Shpilevsky's book "Ancient cities and other Bulgaro-Tatar monuments in the Kazan province".

The application of the ethnonyms Crimean Tatars, Dobrudja Tatars do not cause any special discussions. Around the composite ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars the disputes arise constantly. Some say that it's enough to apply the ethnonym Tatar without definitions, that ostensibly it would give an image of a uniform great Tatar people. This childish approach is advocated by several not too young historians. Naturally, the existence of three different peoples called Tatars is a recognized fact [Rorlih А., 1993, 157-165]. Therefore to know what Tatars there are talked about, we have to apply the ethnonym Tatar with definitions.

Some people are mindful that if our people were called by the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars, then in due course it would result that the part Tatars would disappear, the former ethnonym Bulgars would settle as the name of people, and then, hence, we shall lose the ethnonym Tatars, which is also important to express the former greatness of our people. The supporters of this apprehension should be told that the Crimean Tatars, as a result of application of this composite ethnonym, have not lost the word Tatars, and did not restore their own former ethnonyms Krymchak or Nogay.

If there was a danger of loosing the word Tatar from the composite ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars, we woulf have lost it long ago, for the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars is anyway applied from the 17th century. Thus,  there are no basis to be alarmed with application of the specific ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars.

Bulgaro-Tatars is the name for the Astrakhan, Kazan, Kasimov, Nizhny Novgorod, Siberian, Lithuanian, and Orenburg Tatars, for all of them are the descendants of the native Türkic tribes, which, being in the Bulgarian state, or being subjected to its hegemony, were called by a general ethnonym Bulgars. Only at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century they started applying the ethnonym Tatars. Therefore it is possible to call the Bulgaro-Tatars as Tatars only from the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, before that they were Bulgars, and for the whole period they are Bulgaro-Tatars.

Such sequence in the development of the Bulgaro-Tatars was brilliantly proved by S.Mardjani. Following his doctrine, all leading Tatar historians and politicians, G.Ahmerov, Riza Fahreddinov, Dj. Validi, G.Sagdi, G.Gubaydullin, Ü.Akchura, S.Maksudi, G.Ishaki, M.Hudyakov, H.Atlasi, H.Gimadi, G.Üsupov, M.Safargaliev, T.Davletshin, J.Abdullin, A.Halikov, A.Karimullin, R.Nafigov, I.Tagirov, S.Alishev and many others freely use the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars.

Even though in the 17-20es of the 20th century was also used the ethnonym Türko-Tatars, but the former Russian scientists named with this term all the Türks, and now  in its semantics are included not only the Bulgaro-Tatars, but also the Crimean, and the Dobrudja Tatars. For that reason the ethnonym Türko-Tatars to designate the Bulgaro-Tatars is not used now.

The ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars separates the modern Tatars from the ancient Tatars, Mongolo-Tatars, Tartars, and Kipchak Khanate Tatars. The Mongolo-Tatars, with a help of a strong army organized from the representatives of local conquered peoples, created four empires: Chagatai Ulus, Djuchi Ulus, Hubilai  Ulus, and Khulagu (Ilhanids)  Ulus, whose population the Europeans and Persians called Tartars.

Only an insignificant part the Mongolo-Tatars settled in the territory of the Djuchi Ulus, and they very quickly assimilated among the local Türks, including among the Bulgars, accepting the ethnonym Bulgar. But as the state was called Tataria, its population was also called Tatars by the other peoples, which also impacted the part of the population that later accepted the ethnonym Tatar.

It should be also noted that in the semantics of the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars we also include our pre-Bulgarian ancestors who were carrying the ethnonyms: Suvar, Biar (Bilyar/Biger), Kashan (Kasan), As, Kasar (Khazar), Alan, Akatsir, Majgar, Pardy, Kangar, etc.

Thus, the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars unites in one nation the modern Itil-Ural, Western-Sibrian and Lithuanian Tatars, and discriminates these Tatars from the ancient Tatars, Mongolo-Tatars, Kipchak Khanate Tatars, Tartars, Crimean and Dobrudja Tatars.

66. Composition of the Bulgaro-Tatars and their quantity.

The Bulgaro-Tatars are classed by the modern and historical regions of settlement, by the language distinctions, by the confessional affiliation, by their aboriginality and non-aboriginality, etc. It would be enough to study the scheme illustrated here with attention to clearly discern this classification.

The scheme shows that Bulgaro-Tatars consist of Itil Tatars, Siberian Tatars and Lithuanian Tatars.

The Itil Tatars in another way are also called as Ural-Itil Tatars, sometimes Tatars of the Itil region and Ural. There live the carriers of the main (Central and Western) dialects of the Tatar language.

Siberian (more often: Western Siberian) Tatars also belong to the Bulgaro-Tatars in the historical aspect: together with the Bashkirs prior to the Mongolo-Tatar conquests they were under economic, political and cultural influence of the Bulgars. Apparently, this historical fact also mattered in the consolidation of the Siberian Tatars with the Itil Tatars. The Siberian Tatars are the carriers of the third, Eastern dialect of the Tatar language. By the language attributes the dialectologists divide the Western Siberian Tatars into Tobol-Irtysh, Barabin and Tomsk Tatars.

After the dismemberment of the Lithuania, the Lithuanian Tatars found themselves in the territories of Poland, Belarus, and Baltic principalities, therefore they sometimes are called Polish, Byelorussian and Baltic Tatars. Having lost their Bulgarian language, and their own ethnonym Bulgar, they retained the external ethnonym Tatars and the Islamic religion.

In respect to the historical regions the Bulgaro-Tatars are usually divided into:

1) Kasimov and Nizhny Novgorod,

2) Tambov and Penza,

3) Perm,

4) Kazan,

5) Basin of river White (Bashkir),

6) Astrakhan,

7) Orenburg.

By the confessional affiliation the Bulgaro-Tatars are Moslem Tatars and Christianized Tatars (Greek Orthodox denomination called Kryashens).

By the modern location Tatars separate to aboriginal and non-aboriginal (diaspora).

The aboriginal Tatars are the Tatars of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Saratov, Samara, Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka area, Chuvashstan, Penza, Ryazan, Western Siberia and others who now live in their historical regions.

The Tatar diaspora are the Tatars of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Ukraine (Shahtinian), Moscow, St.-Petersburg, Chelyabinsk, and also the Tatars of the far abroad (the "far abroad" is a very colloquial term that could only arise in the Stalinist-type country where people are contained behind an iron curtain, and have an ingrained mindset of our sphere and their sphere - Translator's Note): American, Turkish, Finnish, Australian, etc.

As to population of the Bulgaro-Tatars,  no common opinion exist despite the results of the censuses. Some scientists, challenging the counts of the official censuses, assert that the total number of the Bulgaro-Tatars is not 6 million 645 thousand (the results of 1989 census), but much more than that. But because we do not have other information, we use the results of the censuses done in 1979 and in 1989, and would try to find a growth trend.

In the 1979 Tatars totaled 6 million 185 thousand, in the 1989 the total came to 6 million 645 thousand. In 10 years the gain was 7,4 percent, while across the USSR an increase in population was 9 percent. In growth rates the Bulgaro-Tatars lag behind the increase in the population of the USSR by 1,6 percent.

The share of the Tatars in the population of Tatarstan in the 1979 was 47,8 %, in the 1989 it was 48,5 %, the share of the Russians was in the 1979 44,1 %, and in the 1989 it was 43,3 %. Unofficially stated data for the 2000 was that the share of the Tatars reached 51 % of the population of Tatarstan.

By the results of the 1979 census, 14,9 % of all Tatars lived in Bashkortostan, 10,3 % lived in Uzbekistan. In 10 years is observed a sharp growth of the Tatars in the Bashkortostan, and the reduction of their numbers in the Uzbekistan: the census results for 1989 17 % of all Tatars live in Bashkortostan, and live in 7 % in Uzbekistan. Such sharp changes, apparently, also occurred because in Bashkortostan some part the Tatars who were listed earlier as Bashkirs took an advantage of the benefits of democratization and chose the Tatar ethnonym; as to Uzbekistan, the democratization  benefited the indigenous population: some part of the Tatars, trying to avoid a negative image of the word Tatars in the (state run - Translator's Note) media, in the census called themselves Uzbeks. Such ethno-political flutters are usual in all multinational countries (this last comment is also an indicator of a specific ingrained mindset that could only arise in the Stalinist-type country, where minorities are demonized, discriminated against, and subjected to cultural and even physical genocide,  as a step in the process of "solidification" of the country by ignorant dictators. The propaganda wants you to think that fascism is a norm for all countries  - Translator's Note).

What is the status with alienation of the Tatars from the native language? In the 1979 85,9 % of all Tatars considered the Tatar language as their native language, in the 1989 this factor decreased to 83,2 percent. In 10 years the share of the Bulgaro-Tatars alienated from their native language has reached 1 million 116 thousand (in 1979 it was 872 thousand). Thus, the total gain in the number of the Tatars for 10 years was 7,4 %, while the increase in the number of the people weaned from their own native language was almost 28 %.

Hence, the process of assimilation of the Tatar people among the Russians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, etc. goes at a faster pace than its total growth. From the modern newspapers it is known that the number of the Russians in Russia falls, and together with them fall the total Tatar population.

Thus, the quest arose for taking urgent effective measures to revive and develop our people. By now in a general plan these measures have taken shape. Among them are:

- Preservation and fortification of the national statehood of the Tatarstan Republic;

- Creation of a united ethno-cultural autonomy of the Tatars who are dispersed in many regions;

- Preservation and improvement of the social and economic environment for all Tatars that would provide proper reproduction of the Tatar population;

- Preservation and improvement of the environment for the people in the spheres: a) natural, b) cultural, c) confessional, d) language, d) pedagogical and educational;

- Resolution of the nations' rights defense problems at the level of ensuring the human rights;

- Resolution of the problems of revival and development of the nation, not at the expense of the others (in the spirit of friendship of peoples);

- Preservation and development of rural settlements and working and living standards of rural population.

The successful resolution for the problems of revival and development of the nations in many respects depends on a correct, adequate reconstruction of the national history of the people. As it's known, the (here: Russian  - Translator's Note) historians studying the national history of their people, for a fuller picture, are also interested in the marginal problems, and quite often they try to show the other ethnoses as newcomers, strangers, even former conquerors of the territory. Therefore our (here: Tatar, and generally Türkic "minority"  - Translator's Note) historians in the reconstruction of their national history have to also perform a delicate work for elimination of the mistakes unintentionally made by the historians of the neighboring peoples. (Is not this a sweet language to use talking under a stare of, and about the neighboring big gorilla with quite a service record?  - Translator's Note)

211