11 research outputs found
The Takht Eli Khanate: The State System at the Twilight of the Golden Horde
No full textRésumé : La structure administrative du khanat de Takht Eli (nom donné dans les sources à la Grande Horde au xve-xvie siècle) était largement calquée sur celle de la Horde d’Or. Cependant, au xve siècle, les rouages et les institutions étatiques furent affaiblis et simplifiés dans la mesure où les espaces agricoles, situés en périphérie, dans les régions du Dniepr et du Caucase nord, étaient restreints et offraient un rendement trop faible pour constituer une base économique suffisante à la continuation de l’empire nomade. Le khanat de Takht Eli vivait au rythme de la Maison du khan et avait la charge de son administration, une caractéristique essentielle des empires nomades d’Eurasie. A la différence de la Horde d’Or, le khanat ne disposait plus de moyens de coercition efficaces pour canaliser ses sujets récalcitrants. Du fait de l’amoindrissement continu des revenus agricoles, rendant problématique la subsistance des populations du khanat, et de la déliquescence des leviers de contrôle et de pouvoir de l’État, l’organisation politique de Takht Eli peut donc difficilement être considérée comme un État à part entière. On ne peut pour autant comparer le khanat de Takht Eli à une structure sociale primitive du type « chefferie complexe ». La hiérarchie sophistiquée des tribus et des begs du khanat, et les divisions territoriales qui en découlaient, ainsi que de la persistance de la civilisation urbaine de la Horde d’Or – l’Islam étant à l’origine de la culture urbaine en Basse Volga – montre que la Grande Horde pourrait être comparée au khanat Uzbek et définie comme un État embryonnaire, à une étape transitoire entre une chefferie complexe et une forme d’État en devenir.Abstract: The administrative structure of the Takht Eli (Great Horde) was inherited from the Jochi Ulus (the Golden Horde). However, the historical circumstances of the 15th century led to a simplification and contraction of the Takht Eli’s state apparatus, because the agricultural periphery of the Dnieper and the Northern Caucasus was too small to provide the economic foundation of the nomadic empire. The internal life of the Takht Eli was controlled by the administration of the khan's headquarters, as was typical for nomads in Eurasia. The main difference between the Takht Eli and the Golden Horde was the former’s lack of effective means of coercion to control disloyal subjects. With the almost complete loss of the agricultural foundation of the economy and without effective power structures, the khans of the Takht Eli found themselves leading a polity that could barely be considered a state. However, at the same time, the complex hierarchy of els and their leaders, the supra-tribal territorial division, and the remnants of the urban Islamic civilisation of the Golden Horde, especially in the Lower Volga, do not allow us to describe the Great Horde as a primitive social structure, such as a complex chiefdom. Perhaps, similar to the Uzbek khanate, the Great Horde can be defined as an inchoate state that occupied the intermediate stage between a complex chiefdom and a typical early state
XIII-XVII. Yüzyıllarda Deşt-i Kıpçak Türkleri Hac Yolunda
No full textXIII-XVI. yüzyıllarda Avrasya göçebeleri arasında İslam dini hızlı bir şekilde yayılmaya başlamıştır. Bilindiği gibi, İslamiyet'in beş şartından biri de Hac'dır'. Ancak Ortaçağ'da ve özellikle de uzak bölgelerden Hacc'a gidenler büyük sorunlarla karşılaşıyorlardı. Uzun mesafe ve yolculuk sırasındaki zorluklar, Deşt-i Kıpçak Müslümanları için de bir sorun teşkil ediyordu. XIII-XV. yüzyıllarda Hacıların Mekke'ye gelişleri ve aynı zamanda da Mısır ve Suriye'ye uğradıklarına dair bilgiler mevcuttur. Dönemin şartları ve bölgedeki düzen, Hacıların Hac yapabilmeleri için söz konusu Arap topraklarına hakim olan yüksek hükümdardan izin almalarını gerektiriyordu. O dönemde bu izin Memlük sultanlarından alınıyordu. Memlük sultanları Kahire'deki saraylarından sadece Mısır'ı değil, Suriye, Filistin, Nubiye ve Hicaz'ı da yönetiyorlardı. Ayrıca Moğolların yakıp yıktığı Bağdad'dan kaçan Abbasi halifeleri de Kahire'de yaşıyorlardı
Non-Russians at Royal Coronations: The Ethnic Politics of the Empire in Ceremonies
No full textThe article was submitted on 03.09.2019.This article considers the participation of representatives of the non-Slavic population of the Russian Empire in the coronation ceremony of the monarch. The author of the article refers both to published and archival sources from the funds of the Russian State Historical Archive and the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. On the basis of these documents, it is demonstrated how “alien” deputations were compiled for participation in the “sacred coronation” ceremony; how officials in the centre and periphery selected deputies who they thought were worthy; in which capacity they attended the ceremony; and what value it had for the internal policy of the state. The cooperation with the elites of the peoples that made up the Russian Empire was one of the leading principles of ethnic politics. An important means of involving ethnic elites (as well as the non-Slavic population in general) in the life of the state and implementing government policies was to form a cult of the Russian monarch. The convocation of multiethnic masses in the Kremlin and other Moscow celebrations not only marked the national diversity of Russia but was also meant to demonstrate the unity of all its inhabitants around the new autocrat. The research methodology is based on the analysis of the symbolic capital of supreme power. The article reveals how it was maintained and supported in the eyes of different ethnic subjects. Participation in a series of coronation rituals was also important for the non-Russian subjects themselves. It was an opportunity to represent one’s people. Gradually, an algorithm was developed for the selection of people invited to the celebration. Representatives of the ethnic elite, aristocracy, and highest clergy were seen as the most desirable, although by the end of the nineteenth century, it was considered reasonable to invite commoners. The participation of representatives of the country’s peoples in the ceremony of enthronement was an important element of imperial ethnic policy.Рассматривается привлечение представителей неславянского населения Российской империи к участию в торжественной церемонии коронации монарха. Использованы опубликованные и архивные источники из фондов РГИА и РГАДА. На основании документов показано, каким образом составлялись «инородческие» депутации для участия в церемонии «священного коронования», как чиновники в центре и на местах отбирали достойных, по их мнению, членов депутаций, в каком качестве они присутствовали на этой церемонии, какое значение это имело для внутренней политики государства. Сотрудничество с элитами народов, включенных в состав Российской империи, составляло один из ведущих принципов этнической политики. Важным средством вовлечения этнических элит (как и неславянского населения в целом) в участие в жизни государства, в осуществление правительственной политики было формирование культа российского монарха. Собрание разноэтничной массы в Кремле и прочих московских пунктах торжеств знаменовало не только многообразие национального состава России, но было направлено на демонстрацию единения всех ее жителей вокруг самодержца. Методология исследования основана на анализе феномена символического капитала верховной власти. В нем выясняется, каким образом он сохранялся и поддерживался в глазах разноэтничных подданных. Участие в череде коронационных ритуалов было важно и для самих подданных«инородцев». Это давало возможность репрезентовать свой народ. Постепенно вырабатывался алгоритм подбора людей, приглашаемых на торжество. Наиболее желательными виделись представители этнической элиты - аристократии и высшего духовенства, хотя к концу XIX в. власти сочли разумным приглашать и простолюдинов. Участие представителей российских народов в царской интронизации представляло собой важный элемент имперской этнической политики
Reviews
No full textTibetische Handschriften und Blockdrucke, Teil 17 (Die mTshur-phu-Ausgabe der Sammlung Rin-chen gter-mdzod chen-mo, nach dem Exemplar der Orientabteilung, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin-Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Hs or 778, Bände 34 bis 40), beschrieben von Peter Schwieger; Long Dong (ed.): Ling ting Xizang, Yi xiaoshuo de fangsi [Listening to Tibet. Short stories]; Catalogue of the Collections of Sir Aurel Stein in the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Compiled by John Falconer-Ágnes Kárteszi-Ágnes Kelecsényi-Lilla Russel-Smith, edited by Éva Apor-Helen Wang; Robert Hymes: Way and Byway; V. V. Trepavlov: Istorija Nogajskoj Ordy; Benderli Gün-Gülen Yılmaz-Kakuk Zsuzsa-Tasnádi Edit: Magyar-török szótár
Силсила в политике и идеологии (постордынский мир)
No full textIn the era of the collapse of the Golden Horde, representatives of non-dynastic nobility, leaders of Turkic tribes, gained access to power in some polities. In the Nogay Horde, these were the leaders of the Manghyt tribe. Since they did not belong to the descendants of Genghis Khan as the only basis for legitimate rule, they had to invent other ways to legitimize their managerial prerogatives. Inside the court environment of Manghyt leaders, a genealogical combination was compiled regarding the pedigree of the founder of the Nogay ruling dynasty, Bek Ӓdigü. His origin was artificially erected to the Sufi preacher of the 14th century Khoja Ahmad Baba Tükles, and he, in turn, was declared a direct descendant of the first caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. In this pedigree, there was a mixture of purely Sufi silsila (as a succession of pious sheikhs) and a succession of purely secular rulers, including clearly legendary ones.В эпоху распада Золотой Орды доступ к власти в некоторых политиях получили представители нединастической знати, предводители тюркских племен. В Ногайской Орде это были лидеры племени мангытов. Поскольку они не принадлежали к потомству Чингисхана как единственному основанию для легитимного правления, им пришлось изобретать иные способы узаконения своих управленческих прерогатив. В окружении мангытских вождей была составлена генеалогическая комбинация в отношении родословной основателя ногайской правящей династии — бека Эдиге. Его происхождение было искусственно возведено к суфийскому проповеднику XIV в. Ходжа-Ахмаду Баба-Туклесу, а тот, в свою очередь, объявлялся прямым потомком первого праведного халифа Абу Бакра ас-Сиддика. В данной родословной наблюдается смешение истинно суфийской силсилы (как череды благочестивых шейхов) и последовательности чисто светских правителей — в том числе явно легендарных
Review of the Book: Trepavlov V.V., Belyakov A.V. Sibirskie tsarevichi v istorii Rossii [The Siberian Princes in the History of Russia]
No full textThis article analyzes the new book by Russian historians V.V. Trepavlov and A.V. Belyakov dedicated to the Siberian princes and their role in national history. The first part of the book is dedicated to the struggle of Kuchum Khan and his descendants for revenge in Siberia and the restoration of the Siberian Khanate, and the second one – to the conditions of the Kuchumovichi’s appearances in the Moscow state, their inhabitancy, the role in political processes and the further disappearance of the dynasty. The book is written on the basis of a large number of archival documents, mainly from the Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts (RGADA). It allowed reconstructing the rich tapestry of the Kuchumovichi’s life in Siberia and the Moscow state based on the methods and traditions of political history, studies of everyday life, prosopography, microhistory and genealogy. On the one hand, the book will be important for studies of Siberia, because the Siberian kings and princes in the Moscow state tried, if possible, to keep their familiar surroundings for a long time that preserved some distinctive features of their prior life’s period, which cannot be directly reconstructed with local materials. On the other hand, many nuances of the everyday life of these dynasts and their entourage can characterize not only the Siberian aristocracy but also the relevant layers of Moscow society as a whole, for which the Eastern traditions were also not immune to. Therein, we get an interesting slice of the Moscow society of the 16th–17th centuries: notably, the gradual forfeiture of the princes directly coincided with the exhaustion of the post-Horde and Eastern traditions in Russia as a whole. Despite some minor shortcomings, the materials of the monograph are so manifold so each reader will find in it some of his or her own interesting aspects, and will get an idea of an interesting slice of the Russian history of the 16th–17th centuries
S. G. Agadžanov, V. V. Trepavlov. Nacional’nye okrainy Rossijskoj imperii : stanovlenie i razvitie sistemy upravlenija. Moscou, Slavjanskij dialog, 1998, 416 p., bibliographie (Institut Rossijskoj Istorii RAN). [Les confins nationaux de l
No full textReview of the Book: Trepavlov V.V., Belyakov A.V. Sibirskie tsarevichi v istorii Rossii [The Siberian Princes in the History of Russia]
No full textThe Fate of Khan Kuchum and His Descendants during the Crisis of Nomadic Statehood
No full textThe article was submitted on 05.04.2018.The work by V. V. Trepavlov and A. V. Belyakov is the first complex and comprehensive study of the history of Khan Kuchum and his descendants’ steppe exile. It is also the first collective portrait of the representatives of the Kuchumovichy who found themselves in the Russian state. The first part of the book carries out a thorough analysis of the nomadic lifestyle of Kuchum and his descendants, and their armed raid of Yasaq and Russian settlements in Siberia in the late 16th and 17th centuries. The second part of the book considers the genealogy, everyday life, and services of the Kuchumovichy in the Russian state. The work done by the authors makes it possible to characterise the monograph as a fundamental study and an important stage in the historiography of the ethnopolitical history of Siberian Tatars. However, like any outstanding work, the monograph gives rise to a number of controversial questions related to further research strategies. The fact that the authors do not analyse Kuchum and his descendants’ foreign policy and armed raids through the prism of history and law makes it doubtful that the period in question can be characterised as a “guerilla war” or that the term “war” can be applied to the sporadic raids of steppe nomads at all. Additionally, the authors do not pay enough attention to the analysis of Kuchum and his descendants’ sovereign rights. Also, Belyakov’s characteristic of the Kuchumovichy as “superfluous men” is debatable. Indeed, his research testifies to the fact that Kuchum’s descendants were treated humanely in the Russian state. Finally, Belyakov maintains that the Genghisid automatically attracted Muslims to Russia, which allows researchers to presume that the high status and material support provided to them were a means to ensure the territorial unity of the multiethnic and multi-religious Russian state.Монография В. В. Трепавлова и А. В. Белякова является первым в историографии комплексным всесторонним исследованием истории пребывания в степном изгнании хана Кучума и его потомков, а также коллективным портретом Кучумовичей, оказавшихся в Русском государстве. В первом разделе монографии проведен скрупулезный анализ кочевого уклада жизни и быта Кучума и его потомков, вооруженных набегов хана и царевичей на ясачные и русские поселения в Сибири в конце XVI – XVII в.; во втором – генеалогии, быта, статуса и служб Кучумовичей в Русском государстве. Несомненные достижения авторов позволяют оценить их исследование как фундаментальное, как важный рубеж в историографии этнополитической истории сибирских татар. Но, как и всякий выдающийся труд, монография порождает некоторые дискуссионные вопросы, связанные с поиском дальнейших путей исследования. Отказ авторов от историко-правового анализа внешнеполитических сношений и вооруженных набегов Кучума и его потомков в Сибири заставляет усомниться в квалификации этой эпопеи как «партизанской войны» и в целом в применимости понятия «война» к эпизодичным набегам степных кочевников. Авторами не уделено достаточное внимание анализу суверенных прав Кучума и его потомков. Вызывает возражения тезис А. В. Белякова о Кучумовичах в Русском государстве как о «лишних людях». Напротив, его исследование свидетельствует о гуманном отношении к потомкам Кучума в Русском государстве. Наблюдение А. В. Белякова о том, что Чингисиды автоматически становились центром притяжения мусульман в России, позволяет предположить, что высокий статус и материальное обеспечение, которые им предоставлялись, были одним из средств укрепления территориального единства многоэтничного многоконфессионального Русского государства
