441

142. Basic conclusions.

In the name of the second part of this book jumps to the attention the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars, where the word Tatars is clarified by the definition  Bulgars. The name Tatars has so many meanings that its application without definitions frequently results in historical confusion and misunderstanding. There are Crimean Tatars, Dobrudja Tatars and Bulgaro-Tatars. Tatars without definition, i.e. without a specific reference, can be applied as an ethnonym among these Tatars only, or in the cases when from the context is clear, what Tatars is the speech about. Besides, in a historical respect, there are: 1) ancient Tatars, for defense from whom the Chinese long before our era started erecting their Great Chinese Wall. They, apparently, are recorded later in the inscription monuments, and as a part of Kimaks and Kypchaks; 2) Mongolo-Tatars, the multilingual soldiers of Chingizids, the conquerors of many countries of Eurasia; 3) Tatars (Tartars) in the minds of the medieval Europeans were all the population of four uluses of the Chingizids: Khubilai, Chagatai, Khulagu Djuchi; 4) Tatars as meant by Ruses in the 13th-16th centuries, which was all the population of the Djuchi Ulus - Kipchak Khanate, including here all the population of the lands down to the Pacific Ocean. The semantics of the word Tatars in this case is "eastern non-Slavics", from there also came the name of the Tatar strait; these Tatars are called Kipchak Khanate Tatars; 5) Tatars as meant by Russians in the 17th-19th centuries were all the Moslem Türks; they were called in another way Turko-Tatar peoples. Such polysemy of the ethnonym Tatars, in turn, demands a specifying definition for the object of the ethnogenetical research, the modern Tatar nation, a proper definition.

In the second part of the book are reviewed the problems of the origin of the Bulgaro-Tatars, who in Russia after the Russians (i.e. supposedly Slavic Russians - Translator's Note) are the second in number.

The first chapter narrates the history of the studies of the Bulgaro-Tatars' ethnogenesis. A first attempt to define the ethnic descendancy of the Tatars and Bulgars was made by Mahmud Kashgarly in the 11th century. He classes Tatars as Türkic-speaking people, and specifies that they lived near Kirgizes, who in turn are located near Chinese. The Bulgars, in his opinion, are related and close to Suvars, and they also were common Türkic-speaking peoples without signs of rhotacism, and they lived next to Besenyos (Badjinaks) located next to Byzantium.

A further attempt to study the ethnogenesis of the Tatars belongs to the Indo-Europeans, who were interested in the population of all four uluses (empires) of Chingizids: Khubilai, Chagatai, Khulagu, and Djuchi. The populations of these extensive territories receive in Europe the name Tartar (i.e. People from the Hell), they are imagined as mostly Mongolians, some researchers did not pay any attention to the ethnic affiliation at all.

In Russia the first ethnogenetic research of the Tatars, i.e. non-Russian (i.e. non-Slavic Russians - Translator's Note) peoples were also done by the foreigners who started realizing that the Tatars are multi-lingual peoples.

The Russian scientists A.Lyzlov, V.N.Tatishchev and P.I.Rychkov perceive the Tatars in ethnic relation as all the Türks; they take the ethnonym Tatar in its scope reminds the word Scyth as a general name for many peoples too.

The further study of the ethnogenesis of the Tatars in a narrow sense of the word results in origination of various concepts for their origin.

The first appeared an amateuristic Tataro-Tatar concept. Its authors, because the ethnonym Tatars was a common ethnonym (in the lingo of the occupiers - Translator's Note) applied to both the Kazanian, and to the Mongolo-Tatarian Tatars, thought that the modern Kazan Tatars as the direct descendants of the Mongolo-Tatars.

The travelers and historians have perceived very quickly that the Kazan Tatars are the descendants of not the Mongolo-Tatars, but of the Bulgars in a broad sense of this word. So in the study of the ethnogenesis of the modern Tatars arose the Bulgaro-Tatar concept, accepted as reflecting the facts.

From the records of the Arabian travelers about the Türkic-speaking Madjgars of the, apparently, Northern Caucasus, some scientists drew a conclusion that these Madjgars ostensibly lived in the Middle Itil region and were the Hungarians (in their opinion, the Arabian travelers were mistaken noting their Türkic-speaking), most of which in the 11th century left to Pannonia, and the Mishar Tatars and Bashkir ostensibly formed of the remaining population of the Hungarians under the influence of the newcomer Türks. In the related paragraph of our book it is shown that this concept is built on misunderstanding.

In the 2nd half of the 19th century the missionaries purposefully regarded the Bulgars as Chuvash-speakings. A part of the representatives of the Russian and foreign Turkology supported that opinion. In the history textbooks, in the scientific research the Kazan Tatars were presented as direct descendants of the sometimes ancient Tatars, sometimes the Mongolo-Tatars, sometimes of the Tartars, sometimes of the Kipchak Khanate Tatars.

In the last years, strangely enough, among the Tatarian historians also appeared supporters of the Tataro-Tatar concept, who started asking the Russian historians (i.e. those in the orbit of Russian state-dominated historiography - Translator's Note) not to criticize the Mongolo-Tatars, for ostensibly their aggression was a positive development in the history. Nowadays in this spirit is also acting a part of the Russian historians, who by tradition continue identifying the Bulgaro-Tatars with the Mongolo-Tatars and with the Kipchak Khanate Tatars.

The second chapter reviews the ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars. As is known, the semantics of the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars includes the Bulgarian people of two periods in its development: the period of the ethnonym Bulgar, and the period of the ethnonym Tatar.

The Bulgarian people formed not by a growth of one Bulgarian tribe, but by consolidation of the various local, and to a some extent neophytic Türkic and Türkicized tribes into the Itil-Bulgarian state in the 9th-10th centuries AD, i.e. by the consolidation of their ancestors, including the earliest genuine Bulgarian tribes.

The Bulgarian people as their ancestors included parts of the known in history Türkic tribes of Subars Kumans, Khuarases (Suar+As, later: Kwarezmians), Huns (Süns), Bersuls, Skl (s'k'l > s'k'd' > Scythians), Pardys (Parthians), Kusans (Kashans/Kasans/Kazans), Usuns, Avars (Awars), Alans-Ases, Burtases, Ostyaks (Ishtyaks), Suases, Veds, Bilyars (Biars/Baylars), Bashkirs, Mishars (Madjgars), Kushans-Sarymans, Besermens and others.

In the second chapter is also made an attempt to pinpoint where the earliest genuine Bulgars lived prior to the formation of the Itil-Bulgarian state. It analyses the research of the Danube Bolgarian scientists, and also the contents of the Bulgarian annals "Djagfar Tarihy" and "Story of Shan's daughter" about the earliest Bulgars.

Our attempt to define the ethnic structure of tribes in the archeological cultures of the regions where the Bulgaro-Tatars formed, has shown that their Türkic-speaking ancestors lived in these regions long before our era.

The third chapter is called "Linguo-ethnical features of the Itil Bulgars",  it analyses all the "facts" that underlie the Bulgaro-Chuvash concept. The result finds that the Bulgaro-Chuvash concept does not match the reality.

The Chuvashes are the descendants of the former Finno-Ugrian-lingual Veds; they were formed during a close cohabitation and consolidation of the Veds with the Türkic-speaking Suases, the blending the Finno-Ugric and Türkic languages resulted in the Türkic prevalence, and the Türkic ethnonym Suas > Chuvash also took a root.

A part of the Türkic-speaking Suases that did not melt into the Chuvash nation took a part in the formation of the Bulgaro-Tatars. Therefore the direct neighbors of the Chuvashes and Bulgaro-Tatars, the Maris, in their ancient tradition call the Bulgaro-Tatars by the epithet Suases until now, and they call Chuvashes  by the epithet Suaslamari, i.e. "Suasian Maris".

There is also addressed the so-called Sakaliba problem. This ethnonym is the Arabian reflection from the word Kypchak ‘White Sakas’, which is a common name for all northern, white-faced Türks. Therefore it is no wonder that the Arab word Sakaliba "white-faced" was used (along with the name Kypchak) as a general ethnonym for the Bulgars, Bashkirs, etc.

The fourth chapter reviews the problems of the emergence and development of Bulgaro-Tatars statehood.

Among the ancient Türkic states contacting the ancestors of the Bulgars and the genuine ancient Bulgarian tribes are named the most ancient Near Eastern states of Sumers (Sumerians, their self-name: Kangars), Subars (Subartu), Medians, Turuks, Guties, Komans (Kumans), and also the Middle Asian states of Horasmis (Suar-as-m), Pardys (Parthians), Ars (Arians), Sogdians, Kangars, Baktrians (Tochars), Kushans, Ephtalites and Kimaks.

Some ancient states included the so-called Bulgarian areas. These the states of Scythians, Bosporians, Sarmatians, Alans, Western Huns and Khazars.

The ancient Biarmia is viewed at as a pre-Bulgarian state. It was created by the Biars (Bilyars), therefore it was called Biarm "My Biar". In the 9th century it passed into the Bulgarian hands, and began to be called Bulgar. The word Biarm has also lain in the toponym Perm.

In the fourth chapter is included a basic information about the Madjgar,  Bashkir, and Burtas states, who had a very close contact with the Bulgar.

From the viewpoint of defining the ethnic development of the Bulgaro-Tatars is described the process of emergence and disintegration of the Tatar states, the reasons for the loss of their statehood by the Bulgaro-Tatars.

A special place in the fourth chapter takes a narration of the complex matters in the Bulgaro-Tatarian aspiration to create their state. A brief conspectus describes the struggle of the Bulgaro-Tatars for a survival in the conditions of the Imperial Russia, the process of acquiring by the Tatars of a statehood in the 1920 as a result of the 1917 revolution, and also the struggle for the state sovereignty of Tatarstan, for the revival, preservation and development of the Bulgaro-Tatar nation.

The second part of the book allows to conclude that the Bulgaro-Tatars were formed on the basis of consolidation of the local Türkic and Türkic-speaking tribes, who assimilated very quickly the insignificant alien groups from other regions. Therefore we can confidently state that the Bulgaro-Tatars as an ethnos are aboriginal, and their modern ethnonym Tatars is a late acquisition .

445

LITERATURE