LIAISAN ŞAHIN

EVOLUTION OF THE MEANING OF THE ETHNONYM : A LOOK FROM A SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE

Liaisan Şahin, Marmara University, 34722 Göztepe Campus, Istanbul, , [email protected].

The ethnonym “Tatar” has a very long and extremely complicated history. It is inseparably linked with broad historical changes across vast geographic spaces. Tracing the spatial dimension of the changes in the meaning of the “Tatar” sheds light on the long-term evolution of geographical imaginations in large parts of Eurasia as well as provides useful insights into the politics of modern Tatar nationalism. The article describes the history of the ethnonym “Tatar” from a spatial perspective, focusing first on the evolution of its meaning from medieval times to the 20th century, then considering the use of the name in the context of modern nationalist practices. The latter issue is examined through the developments in the Tatar historiographical thought: the author traces how spatial visions of Tatar history have been transformed from the beginning of the 19th century to the present. In the Tatar historiography the two confronting viewpoints have clashed and interacted (the Bulgarist-Tatarist debate). The article considers this confrontation from the spatial perspective and within the related context of the identity formation process among the - Turkic population, which was profoundly impacted by the Soviet historiography.

Key words: Tatar history, Tatar historiography, the name “Tatar”, national spatial imagination, the Bulgarist-Tatarist debate, Soviet historiography.

Time and space are inseparable phenomena: this research, place has been redifined “away from one cannot exist without the other. However, until the traditional, static definiton as a bounded land recently there was a tendency in the social sciences area toward a reconceptualization as a more dy- to differentiate between them and often neglect namically constituted, historically contingent net- space. In 1980, Foucault complained about the he- work of social interaction” [12: 2]. Especially in gemony of time over space: regard to nationalist practices, scholars have Space was treated as something dead, fixed, started to pay attention to the role of territory and undialectical, and immobile. Time, on the contrary, territoriality in nationalization projects. The ways, was richness, fecundity, life, and dialectics [5: 70]. in which homeland images, myths and symbols Since 1980s, the role of space (place) and geo- have been used to nationalize space and territorial- graphic imagination have received increasing at- ize national identity, have come to the fore [11: tention from many scholars. As a consequence of 229-230].

90 TATARICA: HISTORY AND SOCIETY

The ethnonym Tatar has a very long and ex- 19th century, the name “Tatar” had acquired certain tremely complicated history. It is inseparably ethnic meaning in the context of the Russian Em- linked with broad historical changes across vast pire as it came to exclusively refer to Turkic popu- geographic spaces. Tracing the spatial dimension lations of the Volga, , Crimean, Siberian of the changes in the meaning of the name Tatar and Caucasian regions. At the end of the 19th cen- sheds light on the long-term evolution of geo- tury, the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brokgauz and graphical imaginations in large parts of Eurasia as Efron listed the following ethnic groups under the well as provides useful insights into the process of category of the : 1) Asian or ; homeland making of modern Tatar nationalism. 2) European Tatars (, Astrakhan and Cri- History of the Name “Tatar” from Medieval mean Tatars); 3) Caucasian Tatars (, Times to the 20th Century. Between the 7th and 12th Kabarda and Tatars) [1: 672]. The ency- centuries certain Tatar tribes lived to the north of clopedia noted the fact that the ethnic communities Chinese lands. It is not known for sure if the tribes referred by as “the Tatars” had not used – who appear under the name of “Ta-Ta” in Chi- this name as their ethnic identification and the use nese sources of the 9th century – had Mongol or of the name Tatar in the case constituted a “his- Turkic roots. In the 12th century, they were con- torical mistake” [2: 347]. quered by neighboring Mongol tribes. Some histo- In the Soviet period, Soviet nationality policies rians have noted that, for some reason, since the resulted in serious transformations in ethnic identi- 10th century Chinese sources started to use the ties. In some cases, the adoption of new ethnic name “Ta-Ta” for all non-Chinese tribes, living to accompanied the process. Considering the north of Chinese lands. Later, this usage became Tatar case, the name became associated mainly common in Islamic sources of the 11th-12th centu- with four groups: Kazan (Volga) Tatars, Crimean ries. Meanwhile, the original Tatar tribes are con- Tatars, Astrakhan Tatars and Siberian Tatars. All sidered to have lost their collective identity and the groups were counted within the single category their remainers to have become assimilated by the of “the Tatars” in Soviet censuses [21: 45; 301; by the time the Mongol conquerors were 516]. After the establishment of the Tatar Autono- advancing towards [21: 566]. mous Soviet Socialist Republic on the historical The of Genghis , which land of the Kazan Tatars, the name “Tatar” became extended in the 13th century across associated mainly with them. Thus, the name of from Manchuria in the east to European in some nomad tribes of Mongolia, whose physical the west, was comprised of an extremely mixed existence ended long before the modern times, population. Mongol rulers were in minority and eventually has become to identify a Turkic com- they were rapidly assimilated by local communi- munity of , which had only a re- ties. For some reason – perhaps, because of the re- mote relation – if any – to the original name- semblance of the name “Tatar” to “Tartarus” (the bearers. underworld; Hades) – the terrifying warriors of In this connection, it will be particularly inter- ’s empire became known in Europe esting to analyze how the process of self- and Russia as Ta(r)tar-Mongols or just “Ta(r)tars”. identification of the Kazan (Volga) Tatars – who Then the name “Tatar” was transferred to the have become the ultimate bearers of the name – mostly Turkic population of the , the progressed and how the process was influenced by westernmost part of the Mongol Empire. During Soviet nationality policies. the existence of the Golden Horde, even the Mos- Processes of Self-Identification among the cow State was identified on European maps as a Turkic population of the Volga-Ural Region from part of “Tartaria” [13: 20]. After the disintegration Medieval Times to the 20th Century. The ancestors of the Golden Horde into smaller at the of the contemporary Kazan Tatars inhabited the beginning of the , the population of Middle Volga region since the 8th century. The first these khanates was also identified as Tatars. Rus- Turkic colonists here were known as . Lo- sian sources used to call the khanates of Kazan, cated in the Middle Volga at the confluence of the and Astrakhan the Smaller Tataria and the Volga and rivers (within the boundaries of region of the Greater Tataria [15]. the present-day ), the Volga Bulgar state The Russian State started to expand in the became a Muslim state by the beginning of the 10th middle of the by the conquest of the century. After the Mongol conquest and integration Kazan . The conquests of the other territo- of the Volga Bulgar State into the Golden Horde, ries of the former Golden Horde followed. By the the Middle Volga region underwent profound

91 LIAISAN ŞAHIN changes: the population transfers under Mongol the formation and adoption of a religiously- rule, the arrival of -speaking groups, and conceived “Bulgar” identity among Volga-Ural finally the led to a profound transfor- . According to Frank, this was an identity mation in the ethnic and linguistic character of the that “on the one hand had sought to create a re- region by the late 14th century [18: 141]. gional identity that unified the Volga-Ural Mus- Schamiloglu doubts the existence of a separate lims as Muslims, and on the other it was conscious Volga Bulgar people at this point in time, though of the religious basis of communal identity in the accepting that the name Bulgar continued to have a Volga-Ural region.” The proponents of this idea special place in the history of the peoples of the expressed Bulgar identity in historiography Middle Volga region [18: 141]. However, most of (through the medium of locally produced Turkic the scholars speak of a Bulgar population which histories) using historical legends and sacred histo- was existent in the late Golden Horde period [20: ries [6: 2; 9]. The “Bulgar” historiographical tradi- 492]. tion that considered the conversion of the Bulgars In the next period, when the Golden Horde dis- to as “the sacred inception of the commu- integrated into smaller successor states, the former nity” [6: 159] emerged in the first decades of the territory of the Volga Bulgar state came to form an 19th century. This historiography popularized the integral part of the . Historical Bulgar identity and led to its widespread accep- sources show that during the reign of the Khanate tance at all levels of the Volga-Ural Muslim com- of Kazan, its Turkic population preferred to iden- munities. According to Frank, by no means did the tify itself as “Muslims” or “Kazan people” [3: Bulgar identity “completely replace or displace 182]. older forms of communal identities”, as Muslim Following the fall of the Khanate in 1552, as clergy sought to harmonize older traditions with the first foreign conquest of the emerging Russian existing ones.1 Empire, the indigenous Muslim Turkic population The “Bulgar” dimension of the local communal went through hard times: many were killed; a large identity found a striking expression in the move- part of the population was resettled and sought ref- ment of the Vaysi brotherhood. Originated in 1862 uge in neighboring territories. The local Muslim in Kazan, it became widespread by the end of the land-owning class ceased to exist as its members 19th century throughout the Volga-Ural region fled to other states, were incorporated into the Rus- among the peasants, craftsmen and tradespeople. sian aristocracy or lost their lands and status. After The adherers of the movement declared their strict the conquest, the Russian state followed the policy adherence to Muslim religious laws and blamed of forced of the local population. the official Islamic clergy for serving “the infidels’ Especially during the harsh periods of the Christi- state”. The main tactic of the Vaysi movement was anization, the Muslim dimension of the identity of civil disobedience. They refused to obtain Russian the local Turkic population experienced greater passports, to serve in the Russian army, to pay stress as a kind of emotional opposition to the hos- taxes to the Russian state and to participate in cen- tile pressure [3: 182-183]. In this connection, the suses. The memory of the Volga Bulgar state as the memory of the Volga Bulgars was cherished, be- Golden Age of the religious history of the region cause the Volga Bulgars adopted Islam as early as occupied the central place in the Vaysi ideology. In in 922 and, being their descendants, were proud to 1897, the leaders and many adherers of the move- be devout Muslims. The memory of the Volga ment were arrested and exiled. However, after the Bulgars was kept alive by oral as well as written of 1905, the Vaysi movement traditions such as historical legends, village and gained new strength. By 1908, the number of the tribal histories, genealogies, and religious works. Vaysi followers reached 15,000 [20: 518-519]. Moreover, pilgrimages were made to the ruins of The sacred memory of the Volga Bulgars con- the Bulgar City on the confluence of the Volga and stituted just one aspect of the process of the ethnic Kama rivers [3: 149; 6: 197-198]. identity formation in the Volga-Ural region in the Under the circumstances, the continuation of 19th century. In parallel with a religious identity, a the Islamic traditions in the societyand its self- definition ultimately came to be the responsibility 1 U.Schamiloglu doubts the existence a “Bulgar” com- of Muslim clergy. Allen J. Frank, who devoted a munal identity in the 16th-19th centuries. According to monograph to the issue, argued that the Volga-Ural Schamiloglu, “attempts by individual intellectuals in the Islamic clergy played a crucial role in the dissemi- 18th-19th centuries to advocate linkages with a Muslim nation of the idea of common Bulgar heritage in past represent discontinuity with the past rather than continuity” [18: 142].

92 TATARICA: HISTORY AND SOCIETY secular identity was in the process of forging and the “Tatarist” historiography was strongly influ- this secular identity became associated with the enced by “Pan-Turkic” nationalist ideas, on the name “Tatar”. While the Bulgar identity was cher- other hand, by European ideas as well as European ished mostly by the ordinary people, the new secu- critical methodology. The works of Tatarist histo- lar identity was forming by efforts of the high- rians were characterized by the use of Russian learned intellectual strata. Shihab ad-Din Marjani sources and secondary works [6: 158-159]. (1818-1889), the prominent modernist historian Frank asserts that the emerging “Tatar” identity and theologian, played the major role in advancing encountered strong resistance, as many Volga-Ural the modern Tatar historiography and in “disman- Muslims continued to identify themselves as Bul- tling established images of the past” [6: 150]. He gars and the Bulgar-oriented historiography con- broadened the spatial horizons of the history of his tinued to develop. Moreover, Bulgarist historians people to move beyond the limits of the Middle adopted elements of critical methodology and Volga region and to include histories of the Inner started to use European and Russian sources as Asian Genghisid dynasties and the Golden Horde, well as Islamic sources published by European and as he gave much importance to the ties that con- Russian scholars. Bulgar-oriented histories identi- nected the ethnic and political history of the Volga- fied the rulers of the Kazan Khanate as a “foreign” Ural Muslims to these traditions. According to Tatar dynasty that ended the rule of the Bulgar Marjani, as the Golden Horde and its successor princes in their own country. The Tatars were iden- states were “Tatar”, so were the Volga-Ural Mus- tified as nomads who came with the Mon- lims. Marjani called on his contemporaries to look gols [6: 163]. beyond the Russian period of the regional history, The Bulgar identity continued also in the form to be aware of the rich historical legacy and deep of a social movement (the above-mentioned Vaysi roots of their people and, therefore, to bear the brotherhood), the leaders of which started to aspire “Tatar” name with pride despite the fact that the to materialize their dreams in a geographical form. name was imposed on the Volga-Ural Muslim Vaysov and his followers sought to resurrect the community from outside and that the Russians had Bulgar state. They petitioned the tsar for a grant to loaded the name with negative connotations. Mar- build their community, and to give them the right jani appealed to those, who were ashamed of the to move back to the site of Bulgar and also to expel name: “You wretched thing! You say you are not the Russian population from the site. The Vaysi Tatar but you are also not Arabian, Tajik, Noghay, brotherhood supported the Bolshevik seizure of Chinese, Russian, French or German! If you are power in October 1917 and formed a military unit not Tatar, who are you?” [16: 43-44]2. based in Kazan. During the events of the year of Marjani inspired a group of historians, who 1917, Vaysi followers showed hostility to “Tatar” adopted a broad vision of Tatar history and pro- nationalist movement, because it was supported by duced a series of books describing the histories of the official Islamic clergy whom the Vaysi follow- the Tatar states – the Golden Horde and the Kazan ers saw as their archenemies. During the Civil War Khanate in particular. These works were printed years the Vaysi military unit operated with the Red mostly from 1890 to 1923 [6: 158, footnote 1]. In Army. However, it rejected to fight against Mus- contrast to the “Bulgarist” tradition of history writ- lims in the Central Asia. In the 1920’s, the Vaysi ing, the emerging “Tatarist” historiography dis- community founded a new village called “New pensed with the sacred religious dimension of the Bulgar” in the Tatar ASSR [20: 519]. Volga-Ural history and put emphasis on the Tatar The establishment of the Soviet rule caused political might that dominated medieval Russia. In drastic transformations in the ongoing process of “Tatarist” works the Russian conquest of the Ka- the identity formation in the Volga-Ural region. zan Khanate – the issue that was absent from the First, it put a decisive end to the religious dimen- Bulgarist narratives – was attached a great impor- sion of the communal self-perception. Islamic tance and it was depicted as a misfortune for the clergy, who was the traditional advocate of the Volga-Ural Turkic community. On the one hand, Bulgar identity, was physically exterminated in the purges of the 1920’s and 1930’s and almost all re- 2 Schamiloglu was the first to argue that the chain of ligious works and many old historical manuscripts identities (Volga Bulgar, Muslim, Tatar and Kazan were destructed. The Vaysi movement came to its Tatar) formulated and canonized by Marjani was, in end as its leaders were executed and the commu- fact, a conscious act of the manipulation of historical nity dispersed [6: 178-179; 20: 519]. (For the com- symbols, which conformed to the general modern para- prehensive historiography of the Vaysi movement, digm of the creation of national ideologies [17].

93 LIAISAN ŞAHIN see: 24) Apparently, the “Tatar” identity was offi- these peoples with the Russian people in struggling cially approved by the Soviet authorities, as the against reactionary forces [22]. Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was Under these circumstances, Soviet historians established, which was supported by the Tatarist began to interpret the Russian conquest of the Ka- historiography during the early phase of the Soviet zan Khanate as a progressive step in the history of rule. However, the Soviet reality greatly differed the Volga-Ural region because it helped demon- from that of the preceding period. Ideological con- strate the historical partnership between the Rus- cerns of the Soviet state resulted in further trans- sian people and the various non-Russian peoples of formation of the Tatar identity. the region, who together led a struggle against their Manipulations of the Tatar Identity through class enemies as well as foreign powers seeking to Representations of the Past in the Soviet Era. The dominate the Russians and their “little brothers” early phase of the Soviet historiography that ex- [6: 181]. tended for about a decade after the 1917 Revolu- As Soviet historiography became centered on tion was marked by a relatively tolerable stance of the Russian people, important themes and symbols the Soviet authorities toward local historical inter- of Russian national history also came to the fore. pretations, as well as by coexistence between The painful memory of the Mongol conquests and Marxist and non-Marxist camps of historians. In the Golden Horde’s dominance over had this period, the first Tatar Soviet historians, many constituted an important part of the Russian his- of whom had begun their career before 1917, con- torical imagination. Therefore, the theme of the tinued to advance the “Tatarist” approach, identify- struggle against the Golden Horde became an im- ing the cultural legacy of their people with the portant element in the Soviet historical formula. Golden Horde and its successive states and depict- The Golden Horde rulers were depicted as arch- ing the Russian conquest of the Kazan Khanate as enemies against whom diverse members of the So- an unfortunate event of the Tatar history [6: 179; viet of nations joined the Russian people in 181]. The latter moment was even in tune with the a common struggle. This theme gained especial Soviet historiography of the time, as the early So- importance in the context of the World War II, in viet historians had adopted an anti-colonial ap- which various Soviet peoples struggled together proach to Russian history, deploring the conquests against a common enemy [8]. made by the . However, the historical relationship of the Then situation changed. Since the 1930s, the with the Golden Horde, as estab- heavy-handed influence of the Communist Party lished by the “Tatarist” historiography, was upset- was established over the field of historiography as ting this historical theory. The early Soviet Tatar well as over Soviet intellectual life as a whole. As historians had argued that the ancestors of the a scholar has noted, “the range of competing Volga Tatars formed the ruling class of the Golden voices was sharply reduced” and “the state univo- Horde and its successor states. It became necessary cality” emerged [25: 74]. Stalin and the rest of the for the Soviet historians to demonstrate that the Soviet leadership attached a great importance to Soviet Tatar nation was not connected in any representations of the past in the formation of the meaningful way to the Golden Horde and its suc- Soviet collective identity. As another scholar put it, cessor states and that the Volga Tatars had fought “history-writing was too important a weapon in the together with the Russian people against the rulers arsenal of culture and ideology to be left outside of the Golden Horde and the Kazan Khanate. the party control” [19: 281]. In to bring the Tatars’ history to confor- An unexpected aspect of the new orientation in mity with this scheme, assaults on various aspects historiography that emerged under Stalin was the of the intellectual life of the Tatar republic began. fact that the new approach to history abandoned First of all, Tatar historians of the “Tatarist” tradi- the previous cosmopolitan stance and reintroduced tion were executed during the 1930s purges and a nationalistic perspective placing the Russian their works were suppressed. Historical inquiries people in the forefront. The Russian nation was into the Golden Horde as well as folkloric studies declared to be “a big brother”, who led other So- of the oral epics related to the period were stopped. viet nationalities in the path of social progress. The The infamous resolution by the Central Committee histories of non-Russian peoples had to conform to of the Communist Party of the (1944) the “Friendship of Peoples” dogma based on the condemned the “mistakes” of the Communist Party idea of the historical partnership (i.e. friendship) of of the Tatar ASSR. Among the “mistakes” was the glorification of the reactionary, feudal, and para-

94 TATARICA: HISTORY AND SOCIETY sitic Golden Horde. In this connection, the epic histories – among them the history of the Tatar Idegei was censured in particular [9; 23]. ASSR – were included in the Soviet curricula only In 1946, a special conference on the eth- in 1965 and only as a part of the general course on nogenesis of the Tatar people was convened in the history of the USSR. In fact, regional histories Moscow. The conference decided that the ances- were not ethnic histories and they served just to tors of the Tatars were the Volga Bulgars. In 1948, exemplify the general course of Soviet history at a collection of articles was published which repre- regional scales [7: 58-6, 62-66]. sented a “Bulgarist” reinterpretation of Tatar his- The first school textbook on history of the tory in accordance with the Communist Party de- Tatar ASSR appeared in 1980. Another version mands. While continuing to use the name “Tatar” appeared in 1985. Both textbooks described Tatar for the Volga Tatars, this collection identified the history according to the Soviet prescriptions. It was Volga Bulgar State as a legitimate political identity restricted by the boundaries of the Tatar ASSR in of the Volga Tatars. The Golden Horde and the geographical terms. There were not any references Kazan Khanate were ethnically identified with the to historical or spatial relations between the Tatar Mongols. The collection praised the struggle of the people and other Turkic and Muslim peoples and Bulgar/Tatar people, in partnership with the Rus- states. The history of the Golden Horde was simply sian people, against the Mongol-Tatar feudal rulers absent. The chapter on the Mongol conquest of the until they were liberated by the progressive con- Volga Bulgar State in 1236 was immediately fol- quest of Kazan by . This version lowed by the chapter on the establishment of the was accepted by the Soviet authorities and became Kazan Khanate in 1438. A two-hundred-year hia- the basis for the official histories of the Tatar tus was not explained. The progressive role of the ASSR published in the 1950s [6: 182-184]. Thus, Russian conquest of the Volga-Ural region was as Frank notes, “a new sort” of the Bulgar identity emphasized and the reactionary role of Islamic reemerged as a “local interpretation” of the idea of clergy and Jadidist thinkers was deplored [10: 67- the “Friendship of Peoples.” It was an ironic situa- 68] tion, as the same Soviet state had just exterminated Meanwhile, the 1970s and 1980s witnessed a the basis of the traditional religious Bulgar identity revival in Tatar national sentiments. After Stalin, [6: 179]. the Communist Party permitted academicians Meanwhile, the use of the term “Tatar” created greater latitude in their interpretations. By the mid- a logical confusion, as the Soviet Tatars were sup- 1960s, a critical spirit had developed in Soviet his- posed to have no ties with historical Mongol- torical writing. Under these circumstances some Tatars but despite of this “fact” they bore the Tatar intellectuals launched a campaign aimed at name. Moreover, the “Tatar” name became loaded defending Tatar historical heritage in the 1970s. with negative connotations and this situation was Some Tatar historians challenged Stalinist ideo- negatively affecting the self-esteem of the name- logical constraints, speaking about the need to re- bearers, school children in particular, as they were discover fully the past of the Tatar people and to incurring the ridicule of their non-Tatar classmates improve the self-image of Tatars [14]. A gradual and feeling confused and ashamed of their people. revaluation of the historical relationship of the Tatar scholars came to feel the same uneasiness; Tatars to the Volga Bulgars and to the Golden they occasionally criticized Russian historians for Horde began. It resulted in an intense debate about associating the Mongol-Tatars with the contempo- the issue of the proper name for the Tatar people. rary Tatars.3 Bulgarist-Tatarist Debate among the Tatar It should be noted here that during the 1940s Public. The publication of the long-suppressed and 1950s, Tatar history was not taught as a sepa- epic Idegei in 1988 marked the beginning of the rate school course. Therefore, school children did public discussion of the historical role of the not have the possibility to overview Tatar history Golden Horde. Soon it evolved into an intense de- as a whole. The materials related to Tatar history bate between “Bulgarists” and “Tatarists” interpre- was only touched upon in the course of out-of- tations of the Tatar ethnic identity. As Frank notes, class work which was focused solely on the issues the debate proceeded in two directions. One was of regional economy, geography and ethnography the “academic” debate which was carried out by and not on Tatar national history as such. Regional means of popular articles in Tatar- and Russian- language periodicals, in popular booklets, at schol- 3 Frank mentions two cases of the criticism by arly conferences and ethnic congresses. Bulgarist Kh.Gimadi in 1954 and A.Karimullin in 1988 [6: 185, polemicists questioned the historical validity of the 188].

95 LIAISAN ŞAHIN name “Tatar” and called on the Tatars to change sheds light on some aspects of long-term develop- their names to Bulgars. Instead, Tatarists argued ments in ethnic and geographical perceptions in that the origins of the Bulgar theory had its roots in Eurasia. Besides, the modern history of the name the Soviet policy demands of the 1940s and shows us how the scope of national imagination of equated the Bulgar theory with Stalinism. The a dependent minority people is conditioned by the other direction of the debate took political form outside political developments and the ideological with the establishment of the Bulgar National pressure of the dominant power. In the Tatar case, Congress and the advocacy of “Bulgar” political we see that the natural course of forging of the activity in 1990. In this connection, Tatarists ac- Tatar modern national self was interrupted by the cused the Bulgarists of seeking to weaken the Tatar Soviet rule. Moreover, the Soviet ideological pres- national movement [6: 186-192; 4: 3-4]. sure resulted in a serious transformation of the Frank draws attention to the fact that the Bul- Tatar identity. In terms of historical imagination, garists have repeated the main arguments of the this led to the narrowing of the spatial scope of the Soviet historiography, ignoring the key role that Tatar history which became limited by the bounda- political expediency played in the formation of the ries of the Tatar ASSR. In the post-Soviet period Bulgar theory. They have also ignored the religious the long-suppressed tension exploded into the re- aspects of the pre-Soviet Bulgar regional identity. newed Bulgarist-Tatarist debate. This heated ar- Therefore, this new post-Soviet form of the Bulgar gument can be interpreted as the continuation of theory can be considered as “a purely Soviet phe- the once-interrupted process of imagining national nomenon” [6: 184; 199-200]. Moreover, Frank identity. At the same time, it has shown explicit notes that Soviet ideas concerning ethnic history signs of Soviet legacy. have permeated the Tatarist side as well. Both Bulgarists and Tatarists have adopted the view of References ethnic identity as an immutable entity [6: 194]. 1. Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ Brokgauza i Efrona. By the end of the 1990s, Tatar academic circles Vol. 64. St.Petersburg: Izd. Ob. “F.A.Brokgauz – failed to have reached a definitive conclusion I.A.Efron, 1901. (in Russian) about the Bulgarist-Tatarist debate. The Tatar En- 2. Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ Brokgauza i Efrona. Vol. 67. St.Petersburg: Izd. Ob. “F.A.Brokgauz – cyclopedic Dictionary (published in 1999) pre- I.A.Efron, 1901. (in Russian) sented the three “presently existent” conceptions 3. Fakhrutdinov R.G. Tatar khalky häm Tatarstan about the ethnogenesis of the Tatar people: 1) The tarikhy. Kazan: Megarif, 1996. (in Tatar) Bulgar theory; 2) The Tatar-Mongol theory; and 4. Fakhrutdinov R.G. Tatar ugly tatarmyn. Yar Chally, 3) The Turkic-Tatar theory [21: 566-567]. The 1993. (in Tatar) similar ambivalence about the Tatar identity can be 5. Foucault M. Questions on Geography // observed in the content of history textbooks pro- Power/Knowledge. Ed. C. Gordon. New York: Pan- duced in the post-Soviet period. The search for the theon Books, 63-77. (in English) “place” (spatial dimension) of the Tatar ethnic 6. Frank Allen J. Islamic Historiography and “Bul- identity made some interesting zigzags during the ghar” Identity among the Tatars and of Russia. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1998. (in Eng- past twenty years (This will be the topic of my lish) forthcoming article). At the same time, it is obvi- 7. Gibatdinov M.M. Stanovlenie i razvitie metodov ous that the advocates of the name “Bulgar” have prepodavaniia istorii tatarskogo naroda i Tatarstana. constituted a tiny minority among the Turkic na- Kazan’: Alma-Lit, 2003. (in Russian) tionalists of the Volga-Ural region and that the 8. Halperin Charles J. Soviet Historiography on Rus- ethnonym “Tatar” introduced first by Marjani and sia and the Mongols // Russian Review. Vol. 41, his followers and then supported by Soviet authori- 1982, No. 3, 306-322. (in English) ties has become firmly rooted in the Soviet period 9. Iskhakov D. and Izmailov I. Aisbergi proshlogo // and today it is evidently accepted by the over- Tatarica. 1992, Kazan’, 20-26. (in Russian) whelming majority of the “Tatar” community as 10. Izmailov I.L. Dilemma natsional’noi istorii v federa- tivnoi strane: gosudarstvennost’ i etnichnost’ // Ka- their indisputable national designation. zanskiy Federalist. No. 2, 2002, 60-78. (in Russian) Conclusion. The history of the ethnonym 11. Kaiser Robert J. Homeland Making and the Territo- Tatar exemplifies well how spaces (spatial imagi- rialization of National Identity // D. Conversi (ed.) nations) are dynamically constructed and how they Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World: constitute “historically contingent network[s] of Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism. New social interaction” [12: 2. Emphasis in the origi- York; London: Routledge, 2004, 229-250. (in Eng- nal]. The pre-modern history of the ethnonym lish)

96 TATARICA: HISTORY AND SOCIETY

12. Kaiser Robert J. Political Indigenization and Home- 19. Suny Ronald G. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the land Making in Russia’s Republics. NCEEER, USSR and the Successor States. New York, Oxford: 2000. (in English) Oxford University Press, 1998. (in English) 13. Karimullin A. Tatary: etnos i etnonim. Kazan‘: Tat. 20. Tatarskaia entsiklopediia. Vol. I. Kazan’: Institut knij. izd-vo, 1989. (in Russian) tatarskoy entsiklopedii AN RT, 2002. (in Russian) 14. Lazzerini Edward J. Tatarovedenie and the “New 21. Tatarskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar’. Kazan’: Insti- Historiography” in the Soviet Union: Revising the tut tatarskoy entsiklopedii AN RT, 1999. (in Rus- Interpretation of the Tatar-Russian Relationship // sian) Slavic Review. Vol. 40, 1981, No. 4, 625-635. (in 22. Tillett Lowell. The Great Friendship: Soviet Histori- English) ans on the Non-Russian Nationalities. Chapel Hill, 15. Malyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Brokgauza i NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1969. (in Efrona. St.Petersburg: Izd. Ob. “F.A.Brokgauz – English) I.A.Efron, 1909. (in Russian) 23. Usmanov Mirkasym. O tragedii eposa i tragediiakh 16. Märdzhani Shikhabetdin. Möstäfadel-äkhbar fi liudskikh // Idegei. Kazan’, 1990, 247-254. (in Rus- äkhvali Kazan vä Bolgar. Kazan: Tatarstan Kitap sian) Näshriiaty, 1989 (original: 1897). (in Tatar) 24. Usmanova D.M. Vaisovskoe dvizhenie v 1870- 17. Schamiloglu U. The Formation of a Tatar Historical 1916-kh gg.: istochniki i istoriografiia // Istochniki i Consciousness: Şihabäddin Märcani and the Image issledovaniia po istorii tatarskogo naroda. Kazan’: of the Golden Horde // Central Asian Survey, Vol. Kazan. gos. univ. im. V.I.Ul’anova-Lenina, 2006, 9, No. 2, 1990, 39-49. (in English) 380-396. (in Russian) 18. Schamiloglu U. We are not Tatars! The Invention of 25. Wertsch James V. Voices of Collective Remember- a Bulgar Identity // Néptörténet – Nyelvtörténet. A ing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 70 éves Róna-Tas András köszöntése. Ed. László (in English) Károly and Éva Nagy Kincses, Szeged, 2001, 137- 153. (in English) ______

ЭВОЛЮЦИЯ ЭТНОНИМА «ТАТАРЫ»: ВЗГЛЯД С ПРОСТРАНСТВЕННОЙ ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ

Ляйсан Ильгизовна Шахин, Мармарский университет, 34722 Кампус Гёзтепе, Стамбул, Турция, [email protected].

Этноним «татары» имеет длинную и сложную историю. Эта история неразрывно связана с масштабными историческими процессами, происходившими на обширных географических пространствах. Анализ изменений пространственного смыслового значения этого этнонима проливает свет как на эволюцию географических представлений на обширных частях евразий- ского континента, так и на политическую практику современного татарского национализма. Описывая эволюцию пространственных смыслов этнонима «татары», автор сначала обрисовы- вает трансформации смыслового значения этнонима со средневековья до XX века, затем анали- зирует особенности использования этнонима в контексте современной националистической практики. Последняя проблема раскрывается через рассмотрение особенностей развития татар- ской историографической мысли: автор фокусирует внимание на том, как трансформировалось пространственное осмысление татарской истории с начала XIX века и до сегодняшнего дня. В татарской историографической традиции в течение долгого времени сталкивались и до сих пор сталкиваются и взаимодействуют два различных подхода: так называемый «булгаристский» и «татаристский». В статье данное противостояние рассматривается с точки зрения пространст- венной перспективы и в контексте процесса построения национальной идентичности тюркско- го населения Волжско-Уральского региона; подчеркивается тот факт, что советская историо- графия оказала значительное воздействие на данный процесс.

Ключевые слова: история татар, татарская историография, этноним «татары», националь- ное пространственное представление, булгаристско-татаристская полемика, советская историо- графия.

97 LIAISAN ŞAHIN

______

«ТАТАР» ЭТНОНИМЫНЫҢ МƏГЪНƏ ҮСЕШЕ: ПРОСТРАНСТВОНЫ КҮЗАЛЛАУДАН ЧЫГЫП КАРАУ

Лəйсəн Илгиз кызы Шаһин, Мəрмəрə университеты, Төркия, 34722, Истанбул ш., Гөзтəпə шəһəрчеге, [email protected].

Озын һəм катлаулы тарихка ия булган «татар» этнонимы зур географик киңлеклəрдə булып узган колачлы тарихи процесслар белəн тыгыз бəйлəнгəн. Бу этнонимның пространство ягыннан мəгънə үзгəрешлəрен тикшерү Евразия киңлеклəрендə географик күзаллауларның үсеш-үзгəрешен дə, хəзерге татар миллəтчелегенең сəяси гамəллəрен дə ачыкларга ярдəм итə. «Татар» этнонимының пространство белəн бəйле мəгънəлəре үсешен тасвирлап, автор башта аның урта гасырдан алып XX йөзгə кадəрге мəгънəви үзгəрешлəрен сурəтли, аннары этнонимның хəзерге милли хəрəкəткə бəйле рəвештə кулланылу үзенчəлеклəрен тикшерə. Соңгы мəсьəлə татар чыганак белемендəге фикер үсеше үзенчəлеклəрен тикшерү аша ачыла: авторның төп игътибары татар тарихын пространство ягыннан аңлауның XIX гасырдан башлап бүгенге көнгə кадəр нинди үзгəрешлəр кичерүен ачыклауга юнəлдерелə. Татар чыганак белемендə озак вакыт дəвамында ике юнəлеш – «болгарчылар» һəм «татарчылар» бəрелеште, хəзергə кадəр бу тартыш һəм аларның үзара тəэсир итешүе дəвам итə. Мəкалəдə əлеге каршылык пространствоны күзаллауга бəйле рəвештə һəм Идел-Урал төбəгендəге төрки халыкларның үзаңында «милли кемлек» төшенчəсе формалашу процессы кысаларында карала; совет чыганак белеменең бу процесска шактый зур йогынты ясавы ассызыклана.

Төп төшенчəлəр: татар тарихы, татар чыганак белеме, «татар» этнонимы, пространствоны милли күзаллау, болгарчы-татарчы бəхəсе, совет чыганак белеме.

98