История башкирского народа. Том 3
История башкирского народа : в 7 т./ гл. ред. М.М. Кульшарипов; Ин-т истории, языка и литературы УНЦ РАН. – Уфа.: Гилем, 2011. – 476 с.: ил. – ISBN 978-5-02-037008-1.
Т. III. – 2011. – ISBN 978-5-7501-1301-9 (т. 3) (в пер.)
Третий том «Истории башкирского народа» охватывает период с середины XVI в. до конца XVIII в. На основе документальных источников и литературы освещается сложный процесс исторического развития башкирского народа: добровольное вхождение Башкортостана в состав Русского государства; статус башкир как народа-вотчинника; восстания XVII—XVIII вв. против политики правительства в крае; хозяйство и культура башкирского народа; участие в войнах России XVII-XVIII вв.
Начало и введение:
The Bashkir people in the second half of the XVI-XVIIIth centuries, during the first centuries of its affiliation with the Russian state has passed a difficult path of historical development. In the middle of the XVIth century after the fall of the Kazan Khanate Bashkirs have got into a difficult political situation. They didn’t want to further remain under the power of the Nogaj Horde, the Siberian and Astrakhan Khanates which were in a condition of feudal dissociation. However, the three-century stay in structures of different political formations didn’t allow Bashkirs to unite and begin struggling for the creation of an independent state. Voluntary acceptance of citizenship of the new neighbour - the Russian state has appeared to be the only solution. It was especially so that after conquering the Kazan Khanate Tsar Ivan IV has sent appeals to the neighboring peoples to peacefully join his state on the terms of a vast autonomy.
Voluntary affiliation of Bashkirs with the Russian state corresponded to interests of both parties. According to the Treaty Bashkirs became subjects of the Russian tsar, have retained their lands on the patrimonial right, retained their religion and ample self-management. The latter c onsisted not only in preservation of the real power of the Bashkir top quarters in volosts that is very important by itself. More significant was that Ivan IV agreed to recognize the status of Bashkirs as the land proprietor people and recognized Bashkortostan to be a specially governed territory of the Russian State. Bashkirs have acquired the right to gather for national congresses (jyjyn) within a volost, four darugas (districts) and the whole realm for discussing of urgent questions and a right to bring the made decisions to the notice of the Ufa authorities, that of the central official bodies and even to the Tsar. Decisions of the central authorities were publicly announced to the Bashkirs. For this they gathered meetings of representatives of Bashkir volosts and darugas at the place specially allocated near Ufa on the bank of a river named Chesnokovka. Up to the start of the XXth century the government continued with the practice of inviting representatives of the Bashkir people for participation in especially solemn ceremonies of the Supreme power of the Russian state (sovereign being enthroned, etc.).
After Bashkortostan having joined the Russian state she has expanded her territory from the Volga to the Tobol, and she was considerably enriched with natural resources and has increased her population. It also meant an improvement of strategic positions of the country, creation of preconditions for further advancement of the state in the southeast and east directions.
Thus, the Bashkirs’ treaty with the Russian state in the middle of the ХVI-th century can be estimated to be the most major historical event of the epoch.
All Bashkirs joining the Russian state the former’s political and territorial dissociation had been done with and civil strife in the realm had ceased. The Russian government guaranteed Bashkirs as its subjects peacefull life, protection against both claims of their former masters, and against inroads of external enemies. In the conditions of the XVI—XVIIIth centuries these aspects had a tremendous value since the Nogaj authorities, for example, weren’t going to reconcile with Bashkirs’ joining the Russian state and attempted to collect taxes in kind from Bashkirs almost till the end of that century. The protest of 1586 by a Nogaj noble Urns in connection with construction of the fortress of Ufa in the center of Bashkortostan is well-known. Despite political weakening of the Siberian Khanate Khan Kuchum and his successors came up with similar claims.
The Kalmuks and Kazakhs used to make frequent inroads into the southern and south-east Bashkir territories in the XVIIth and the first quarter of the XVIIIth century. The Kalmuks attempting to seize a part of the territory entrenching themselves there, attacked the southern outskirts of Bashkir lands ftrom the upper reaches of the Tobol to the mid course of the Yajik river in the first half of the XVIIth century. The Bashkir detachments with the support of garrisons of Tobolsk and Ufa managed to beat off the Kalmyks. In the first third of the XVIIIth century a part of these lands was seized by Kazakhs of the Younger (Lesser) zhouz (western group of their tribes).
On the whole a new epoch in the history of the Bashkir people and Bashkortostan begins with the middle of the XVIth century. Being a part of the Russian state Bashkirs had an opportunity to live calmly and be engaged in their economy. During the XVII-XVIIIth centuries majority of the people remained employed in semi-nomadic cattle breeding, primitive bee-keeping, hunting, fishery and scavenging which represented then a more productive mode of economy, in comparison, say, with the agriculture of the population in the Middle Volga region and the central districts of the state. It is not accidental that in petitions of Bashkirs in these centuries there were no complaints against any shortage of products of cattle breeding and other branches of economy. They fully covered own requirements for foodstuffs, executed duties before the state neatly: military service at their own expense, providing horses for state officials, payment of the land duty. The positive characteristic of the Bashkir economy of the middle of the XVIIIth century testifies exactly to it. The book of the first Russian historian of Bashkortostan P.I. Rychkov says: “before the last revolt (revolts of the ‘30s in the XVIIIth century — author’s note) the Bashkir people was very rich in horses, but many persons grew destitute due to the riot. Some of them had been bereft of their manor; however, nowadays many of those folks have renewed their trades, and not a few of them possess from three to four hundred mares and fillets ... The aboriginal Bashkirs-owners of wooded places, receive great income from these wild bees becoming very skillful in nurturing those bees. Many a person of this nation own several thousand trees for primitive bee-keeping thus possessing whole woods of that sort” [Rychkov, 1999. pp. 148, 150-151].
Mass withdrawal of Bashkir lands occurring in the middle and the second half of the XVIIIth century had considerably worsened conditions for conducting semi- nomadic cattle breeding. Nevertheless ordinary Bashkirs had, according to participants of the academic expeditions of I.G. Georgy and P.S. Pallas, on the average 50—80 horses per yard each and the tarkhans (feudals), foremen and other representatives of local aristocracy owned from several hundred to 2-4 thousand horses [Georgy, 1776. P. 1. p. 91; Pallas, 1786. P. 2. Book 1. p. 95].
During this period there were also positive changes in the economy of the aboriginals of the Southern Urals. First of all the cattle breeding became improved, for example, Bashkirs have considerably expanded hay mowing. Agriculture has been known to Bashkirs since long, but in the XVI-XVIIth centuries they were engaged in it but a little. However, in the conditions of vast colonization of the realm Bashkirs, primarily living in the northwest, gradually increased their agricultural activity. From the middle of the XVIIIth century farming played the same role as cattle breeding among the Osa daruga inhabitants. But the basic employment of Bashkirs of the Nogaj, Siberian and most of volosts of the Kazan districts were traditional branches of local economy though near Ufa, other fortresses and factories they began to be engaged in agriculture more.
Crafts were developed much among the Bashkirs. They widely processed wood, skin, wool, hemp, nettle, extracted salt, produced potassium, knew of silver and gold deposits. From times immemorial Bashkirs possessed knowledge and skills of prospecting, extraction and melting of copper and iron. Bashkirs of the Osa and Sibir districts engaged in ore-prospecting in the 30s through the 70s of the XVIIIth century ensured a vast supply of copper and iron ore to the state-owned and private works of the Middle Urals. The opinion of Academican I. Lepyokhin, a contemporary of those years, on the role of Bashkir ore-prospectors in the development of the Urals mining industry is of interest: “One can justly say that it is mostly to the Bashkirs that they owe knowledge of propitious places for mining and founding copper and iron works in the Urals” [Lepyokhin, 1802. p. 40]. The Czarist decrees dated the end of the XVIIth and the XVIIIth centuries forbading Bashkirs to own smithies and practice forging have had an adverse effect on the development of those crafts.
Despite of the overall preservation of a subsistence economy, Bashkirs were actively engaged in goods exchange and trade as well.
The resettlement movement from the Middle Volga region and the central districts of Russia was a major phenomenon in the history of Bashkortostan of the XVII-XVIIIth centuries. In the beginning of the XVIIth century colonization but only began. At the end of the XVIIth - first third of the XVIIIth century it grew stronger a bit. At this time it were the run-away peasants who came to live to Bashkir volosts since the authorities forbade peasants to resettle prior to organizing the Orenburg expedition. Bashkirs were obliged to give the run-away people out for returning them to their former residence. Nevertheless, Bashkirs accepted and hid runaway peasants, lodged them on their patrimonial allotments. Dialogue of Bashkir-cattlemen with immigrantes-farmers promoted perfecting and expanding branches of economy furthering a growth of trade and economic relations, generally boosting the Bashkirs’ economy. All this was conducive to the establishment of good-neighbourly relations of aboriginals with immigrant peasants. However drastic amplification of colonization of Bashkortostan after the Orenburg expedition had been organized and its actions led to mass withdrawal of the Bashkir lands. By the end of the XVIIIth century 55 per cent of land manors owned by Bashkir proprietors have appeared in the possession of fortresses, factories, noblemen, officials, military men, the Treasury, Mishars and immigrant peasants. Bashkirs have preserved only the lesser part of the land, owning actually 11 per cent of the ancestral lands. 34 per cent of ancestral lands was in the joint possession of Bashkirs and their tenants. In this situation Bashkirs began to lose possibility for pursueing traditional branches of economy - semi-nomadic cattle breeding, primitive wild bee-keeping and hunting. In the conditions of massive land losses they had difficulties in passing to agriculture and the settled way of life. Besides, by distributing the Bashkir patrimonial allotments to various categories of the alien population, the imperial authorities set the latter against the Bashkirs which led to a deterioration of relations between immigrants and the aboriginals. For example, land-renting people refused to pay the tax in kind to Bashkirs for using the land.
Changes in the social structure of Bashkirs were no less conspicuous. Feudal relations in the Bashkir society deepen and develop at the background of expanding the economy. In the XVIIth century there is a consolidation of the Bashkir feudal top represented by tarkhans, village heads, aldermen, akhuns and mullahs. Conditioned by chief actions of the Orenburg expedition the 40s-70s of the XVIIIth century saw the appearance of a novel layer among the top represented by volost aldermen, their aides, scribes, tarkhan heirs, the Moslem clergy (akhuns and mullahs) who became the official power’s safe support. This layer conspicuously stands apart from their ordinary clansmen, it grows rich and it executes civil power in the volosts (local administrative subdivisions). One cannot but note the following circumstance: a negative influence on the social and economic development of the Bashkir society has been exercised by the accelerated colonization of Bashkortostan in the middle and the second half of the XVIIIth century on the part of the government, nobility, factories and peasants along with harsh reprisals against rebels during the 30s through the 70s. However, during the General land survey and also in a number of agrarian laws of the first third of the XIXth century the government had considered features of social and economic life of the Bashkirs; to a certain extent it established for them an inalienable minimum of the patrimonial land for conducting the traditional economy.
The Bashkir revolts of the XVII—XVIIIth centuries have become important events in the history of Russia. The question why the Bashkirs, having voluntarily joined the Russian state have been rebelling practically every 10—15 years in the XVIIth-XVIIIth centuries, is quite in order.
This is explained, above all, by the fact that the conditions on which Bashkirs joined the Russian state had not been observed.
The positions of the parties concerning terms of the Treaty were substantially different as historical materials testify. The Bashkirs were accurate in keeping their obligations before the State: they would unreservedly pay the tax in kind, did the postal service, exercised the military service in guarding the south-eastern frontiers of this country and participated in all wars Russia waged in the XVIIth-XIXth centuries. The position of the other party, i. e. the Czarist government was ambiguous. On the whole it observed its obligations vis- a -vis the Bashkirs from mid XVIth till the first quarter of the XVIIIth century, though its policy had certain deviations from the middle of the XVIIth century. Quite a different policy was pursued by the government from the 30s of the XVIIIth century since the Orenburg expedition got organized. It had denounced the main conditions on which Bashkirs had joined the Russian state, it started governing Bashkirs chiefly by military ways and it began to dispose of the Bashkir lands of its own accord. The government would found fortresses on the Bashkir lands without their permission, it would hand the land out to the nobility, state officials, to the military and to the factory owners. It started an attack on the Moslem religion and clergy, forbade construction of mosques and finished with the Bashkirs’ self-government. The change in politics concerning the people who voluntarily joined this state by virtue, of an agreement found its official reflection in the decree issued by Empress Anna Ivanovna dated April 11,1736 and in some subsequent decisions of the ruling authorities.
The revolts of the XVIIth-XVIIIth centuries have been the Bashkirs’ response to the government’s breaches of the terms of acquiring the Russian citizenship. All strata of Bashkirs were involved in uprisings - from rank- and-file commoners to the top becoming feudalized as the authorities’ policy used to displease the whole nation. The revolts would be headed by the Bashkir elite being the more advanced part of the people: Sary Mergen, Seit, Aldar Isyangildin (Isekejev), Kusum Tulekejev, Kilmek Nurushev, Aqaj Kusemov, Telkesura Aldagulov, Jusup Arykov, Mandar Karabajev, Karasakal. Representatives of clergy Bepena Toropberdin, Juldash Sujarembetov, Batyrsha became the ideologists. The programmes of rebellions were not identical reflecting alterations and dynamics in the rebels’ demands. In the XVIIth century movements Bashkirs protested against infringements of certain terms of receiving citizenship but in the rebellions of the XVIIIth century they raise issues including formation of their own state. But the materials preserved do not permit to more concretely evaluate the insurgents’ slogans — whether the point was an autonomy within the state of Russia or they meant a cessesion of Bashkirs from Russia and creation of a sovereign state.
It is common knowledge that khans were indeed in the forefront of most uprisings in the first half of the XVIIIth century. But as major an issue as how to act further had not been thought of properly for the rebellion leaders themselves failed to have any concrete ideas. It is possible that khans used to be put forward, above all, in order to unify all insurgents’ forces. Be as it may, appearance of khans caused serious concern of the government and forced it to be seriously engaged in putting uprisings down and to give in in various manner in view of terminating an uprising.
The revolts of the XVIIth-XVIIIth centuries not only testified to a serious discontent of the Bashkirs and their dissatisfaction with their position but also they spoke of their ability to resist the powers-to-be.
The tsarist government while suppressing the mutinees of 1735-1736, 1737-1738 and of 1739-1740 by “sword and fire” attempted to break the Bashkirs’ will to resistance and to do away with Bashkir rebellions for ever. In the 30s the authorities succeeded for the first time in effecting their defeat. The Bashkirs bore heavy human losses, materials losses too, the whole realm was in havoc. Albeit the people continued with their struggle. A testimony to this was the uprising of 1755—1756. Therefore the government had been compelled to cede essential concessions. The Bashkirs have safeguarded their personal liberty, language and religion and have preserved the patrimonial right to land. All this has resulted from their liberation movements in the XVIIth and the
XVIIIth centuries. In those movements Bashkirs generally fought for then autonomy within the Russian state since Russian tsar Ivan the IVth bestowed ample rights when they joined his state.
The overall historical value of the Bashkir rebellions was in the following. They have impeded the feudal Russia’s nobility and men-of-state to extend serfdom (the heaviest type of Medieval exploitation) not only to the aboriginal dwellers but also on the main part of the realm’s immigrant population.
The Bashkirs’ heroic struggle objectively contributed to upkeep interests of the multination population of Bashkortostan as a whole.
Strengthening of the government’s position in the realm after the Orenburg expedition was organized had an adverse effect on the lives of both the aborigins and the immigrant peoples. The authorities increased taxes and duties on them. The latter’s reaction was quick to show itself. This was seen from riots of Teptyars, Bashkirs, Bobyls and Mishars in 1747 and it was felt in speeches of deputies from the said ranks of the population sent to the Law-making commission from the Orenburg government in 1767—1768.
The Law-making commission has failed to meet hopes of the suppressed population of the country, Bashkortostan included. Then the peoples of the realm took to arms to defend their interests and participated most widely in the Peasant War of 1773-1775 which had been one of the most major uprisings against oppressors in European history. Bashkirs became one the chief motive forces of the peoples’ movement. Actions of Bashkir insurgents were noted for their organization, stamina and duration. United with the Yayik cossacks they made up the most battle-worthy and constant component of the Chief insurgent forces and its main detachments in the battles near Orenburg, Ufa, Chelyabinsk, Menzelinsk, Kungur, Osa and elsewhere. Not only were they (i. e. the Bashkirs) on the part of the rebels; by their energetic actions they would draw into struggle factory workmen, as weft as the landowner and state peasants. Due to this the Bashkir unsurgent detachments played an important role in spreading the rebel movement and in turning a local Cossack uprising into a grand Peasant war. The Bashkir people have put forward large number of able and trustworthy leaders from their ranks. Among them there were such persons as Kinja Arslanov, Salavat Yulajev, Kaskyn Samarov, Karanaj Moratov, Batyrkaj Itkinin, Yulaj Aznalin, Yulaman Kushajev, Bazargol Yunajev and others who made up about 40 per cent among the insurgency’s leaders from campaign atamans to brigadiers and generals. All the mentioned above permitted this country’s historians to highly appreciate the role and place of the Bashkir people in the Peasant war of 1773-1775: “To the Bashkirs belongs the first place among the non-Russian peoples in terms of the common people’s participating, scope of action and in terms of their role in the common struggle” [Limonov, Mavrodin, Panejakh, 1974. p. 152].