What do the Balkars profess? The origin of the Balkars and Karachais in the light of the chronicle of Khachatur Kafaetsi. Ancient information about the Balkars and Karachais

The question of the ethnogenesis of any people is one of the most important problems of its history. And no one doubts that the problem of the origin of this or that people is complex. The ethnogenetic process is influenced by a variety of factors, characterized by certain characteristics specific to the material and spiritual culture of the people. In other words, the ethnogenetic processes of any people occur against the background of the development of their material and spiritual culture. Therefore, in order to more or less objectively illuminate the issues of the ethnogenesis of any people, it is necessary to rely on data from a number of scientific disciplines (archaeology, folklore, ethnology, anthropology, history, linguistics). Only with this approach to the integrated use of all these sources can it be possible to objectively solve the problem of the origin of the Balkars and Karachais, who constitute two branches of the same people. In historical literature, over the years, various versions of the ethnogenesis of the Balkar-Karachais have existed and continue to exist. This explains that many prominent scientists paid considerable attention to this important problem. Moreover, in 1959 a special scientific session dedicated to it was held in Nalchik; 12 reports and scientific communications are discussed here. Leading Caucasian experts from various fields of knowledge (historians, ethnographers, linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists, folklorists) took part in this session. The range of their opinions on the issue under discussion was very diverse. When studying the work “Balkaria” by M. Abaev, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The ethnonym “malkar”, according to M. Abaev, was converted into “balkar” for euphony.

2. The ancestor of the Taubi of the Malkar (Balkarian) society is Malkar, who came from a plane of unknown origin.

3. First of all, the Malkar (Balkarian) society was formed, and then the rest, that is, the gorges were developed one by one.

4. Balkar taubiyas were formed in stages: first taubiyas from the Malkarovs, and then from Basiat.

5. By the time the Malkarovs and Basiata and their brother came to the gorges, people (taulu - mountaineers) were living there, about whose origin legend is silent.

6. Basiat - one of the ancestors of the Balkar Taubi - first settled in the gorge of the Urukh River (where the Digorians lived), and then moved to the gorge of the Cherek River, i.e. he is related to the ancestors of the Ossetians.

7. By the time Basiat arrived in the mountains, their inhabitants were not familiar with firearms. This suggests that firearms appeared relatively recently among the highlanders. In other words, according to this legend, the Balkars emerged as an ethnic group as a result of the mixing of local and alien tribes. The process of ethnogenesis of the Balkars and Karachais went through a long and contradictory path. If we proceed from the achievements of science in recent years, it should be noted that in the formation of these two related peoples, some local (purely Caucasian) tribes played a certain role; as a result, they belong to the Caucasian anthropological type. Most likely, such local tribes (substrate) that played a role in the ethnogenesis of the Balkars and Karachais were some representatives of the descendants of the Koban culture. In creating the anthropological type of Balkars and Karachais, the mountainous zone of the North Caucasus played a major role. This environment left its mark on their physical appearance. During ethnogenesis, the language of the alien tribes (in this case Turkic), which took part in the formation of the Balkars and Karachais, prevailed. A prominent role in this process was played by Iranian-speaking tribes, ethnically close to the Scythian-Sarmatians. Modern Balkars and Karachais show a very great similarity with the Ossetians, Kabardins and other highlanders of the North Caucasus in physical appearance, as well as material and spiritual culture. And finally, the Karachay-Balkar language was greatly influenced, primarily by the Ossetian language. In the formation of the Balkars and Karachais, an important role was played by the Alans, who in the V-XIII centuries.

had a significant influence in the North Caucasus. A large role (if not the main one) was played in the formation of the Balkars and Karachais by alien Turkic-speaking tribes - the “black” Bulgars (Bulgars) and Kipchaks (Cumans). Archaeological and other data indicate that the penetration of the latter into the Caucasus Mountains took place in the form of “two waves”, one of which, the earlier (Bulgarian), should be attributed to the 7th-13th centuries, the second, later (Kipchak) - to the turn of XIH-XIVBB. They were the Turkic-speaking ancestors of the Karachais and Balkars. The language of the latter and the Kumyks is directly dependent on the language of the Polovtsians, who lived in the steppes of the North Caucasus and Ukraine until the 13th century. Thus, it can be assumed that the Kipchaks also played a role in the formation of the Kumyks. The Turkic-speaking “black” Bulgars penetrated into the Caucasus Mountains as a result of the destruction of their powerful state formation, Great Bulgaria, created back in the 6th century. in the territory between Don and Kuban. Traces of their residence were discovered in the Caucasus Mountains. These are settlements with earthen ramparts, burials in simple earthen pits (so-called ground burials), which date back to the 7th-9th centuries. Another important Turkic-speaking component that had a significant influence on the formation of the Balkars and Karachais are the Kipchaks (Kypchaks). Linguistic data also support the idea that it was the Kipchaks who played the main role in the formation of the Balkar and Karachai peoples. Scientists have come to the conclusion that it is the Kipchak language that is closer to the language of the Balkars, Karachais and Kumyks. The Karachay-Balkars and Kumyks are the closest heirs of the Kipchaks. This is evidenced by the striking closeness of the Kumyk and, in particular, the Karachay-Balkar languages to the Kipchak language. The presence in these languages of very weak signs of the Bulgar language is probably explained by the fact that the “black” Bulgars, who lived in the Caucasus even before the appearance of the Kipchaks, were assimilated by the Oguzes and merged with the local tribes. In the XII-XIV centuries. The Kipchaks played an important role in the history of the North Caucasus. The Tatar-Mongol invasion of the North Caucasus in 1222 changed its political and ethnic map. Despite the desperate resistance of the Alans and Kipchaks to the Tatar-Mongols, the latter, having split them, defeated them one by one. Many of the remaining Kipchaks and Alans fled to the mountains to escape their pursuers. And those Kipchaks who took refuge in the swamps in the area of the lower reaches of the Terek gave rise to the Kumyk ethnic group, and those who took refuge in the mountains mixed with local tribes, among whom there were already Alans; in this process, the Turkic elements of material and spiritual life won and the Turkic-speaking Karachay-Balkar people emerged. It was the Tatar-Mongol invasion of the North Caucasus that caused the resettlement of a large group of Kipchaks into its mountainous zone, where, we repeat once again, they mixed with local tribes. This is evidenced not only by the data of linguistics and ethnography, where many Turkic elements are fully present, but also by all spheres of the material and spiritual culture of the Balkars and Karachais: housing, traditional food, folklore, etc., as well as data from various areas of knowledge, such as archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, history, folklore, etc. Thus, in the process of formation of the Karachay-Balkar people, Iranian-speaking Alans, Turkic-speaking “black” Bulgars (Bulgars) and Kipchaks took part. It was these tribes, in interaction with some local tribes, who created Karachay-Balkar people. This process was completed mainly after the Mongol invasion of the North Caucasus.

PRIMITIVE-COMMUNAL DISPUTE

Among the Altaians there is a clan group called “Alandan Kelgen”, i.e. “those who came from the plains”.

In addition, the word “alan” in many Turkic languages means the concept of “plain”, “valley”.

The closest neighbors of the Karachais, Mingrelians, still call the Karachais Alans. This ethnonym in the Caucasus is not known to any people except the Balkars and Karachais. The term “Alan” among the Balkars and Karachais is used when addressing in the sense of “relative”, “compatriot”. In addition to the listed facts, written sources emanating from Byzantium, which called the territory of Karachay Alania, also speak about the identity of the Alans and the Balkar-Karachais.

The tradition of calling this particular region Alania was preserved in geographical maps of the Caucasus in the 18th-19th centuries, even during the construction of the Georgian Military Road through Vladikavkaz.

Indisputable arguments in favor of the opinion about the Turkic-speaking nature of the Alans and their leading role in the formation of the Karachay-Balkar people are the so-called “Zelenchuk inscription” of the 12th century, found at the Karachay settlement “Eski-Jurt” (Upper Arkhyz), and the “Alan greeting” recorded Byzantine poet of the 12th century John Tzetz. In the Zelenchuk inscription, common Turkic words and terms are very easy to read: “Ata Jurt” - homeland, fatherland; “Belyunub” - having separated; “Zyl” - year; “De” - tell; "Teyri" - the supreme deity of the Turks Tengri; “Tsakhyryf” - calling; “Alan Yurtlaga” - for lowland settlements; “Bagatar” - hero and many others. etc. In a word, the inscription tells that once, having called upon God, having gathered together, some groups of tribes decided to move to the plain. The inscription says about the collapse of the tribal association

In the Alan greeting of John Tsets, one can also easily read Balkar-Karachai expressions that are not found in anyone else (so-called idiomatic expressions) such as “Oh yuyunge!”, as well as the words: “Kyun” - day; “hosh” - kind; “kaityf” - having returned; “Katyn” - madam, etc. All other attempts to read these documents, writing letters that do not exist in them, rearranging words and letters and other violence to the texts, do not give anything comforting except meaningless heaps of individual words or personal names. The materials available in historical, ethnographic and linguistic science clearly indicate that the Alans were a Turkic-speaking tribe and were one of the main components in the origin of the Balkars and Karachais

Kabardino-Balkarian conflict

Kabarda entered Russia in 1774 under the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Treaty with Turkey. In 1921, the Kabardian Autonomous Okrug was formed as part of the RSFSR, since 1922 the united Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Region, in 1936 transformed into an autonomous republic. From 1944 to 1957 There was a Kabardian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and in 1957 the Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was restored. Since 1992 - the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic within the Russian Federation.

Subjects of the conflict: ethnic groups (two titular peoples) of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.
Type of conflict: status with the prospect of developing into ethno-territorial.
Conflict stage: status claims to change the ethnic hierarchy.
Ethnic risk level: medium.

On March 8, 1944, the Balkars were expelled from their homes and forcibly taken to various regions of steppe Kazakhstan; the memory of this tragedy is still alive, although there are fewer and fewer direct eyewitnesses of the event.

After Khrushchev abolished the repressive acts against the Balkars, all adult representatives of this people signed a subscription that upon returning to the Caucasus they would not claim their former homes and property.

After the eviction of the Balkars, the redistribution of the “liberated” territory was carried out not so much in favor of their closest Kabardian neighbors, but on the initiative of L.P. Beria - in favor of the Georgian SSR. The Balkars themselves see this as the true reason for the deportation, officially caused by “collaboration with the Nazi occupiers.” Until the start of perestroika, spontaneous demands on the part of the affected Balkars to revise the borders established after their expulsion were considered exclusively as anti-Soviet protests and were suppressed even at the formulation stage. The potential conflict situation was also mitigated by the fact that they were represented to a certain extent in the party-Soviet power structure of this autonomy, although they constituted less than 10% of the population of the republic.

Over the thirty years after the return of the Balkars to their historical homeland, significant changes occurred in their settlement, level of education and economic structure: part of the mountaineers, whose traditional occupation was sheep breeding and weaving, descended to the valleys, received an education, and joined the stratum of the local elite.

Thus, certain conditions were created for ethnic mobilization.

In 1990, a congress of the Balkar people took place, which elected its own bodies of ethno-national representation, which, quite predictably, came into conflict with the Congress of the Kabardian People, created in 1991, the socio-political organization of the national movement of Kabardians. The political confrontation between the official authorities of the republic, on the one hand, and national movements, on the other, does not have broad support from ordinary citizens of the autonomy, both Kabardians and Balkars. However, already in 1996, the Balkar national movement put forward a demand for the separation of “Balkar territories” from the existing autonomy and the formation of a separate subject of the Russian Federation, the Balkar Republic.

The latent conflict potential in this region is due to the different ethnic origins of both main ethnic groups of the “binational” republic (Kabardians, together with the Adyghe and Circassians, belong to the “Adyghe” ethnic community, while the Balkars are of Alan-Turkic origin and are related to the Ossetians), and, in addition, a socio-psychological “minority” complex among part of the Balkar population.

Ossetian-Ingush conflict

Ossetia became part of Russia, just like Kabarda, in 1774 after the Russian-Turkish war. In 1924, the North Ossetian Autonomous Okrug was formed (in 1922 - the South Ossetian Autonomous Okrug as part of Georgia), in 1936 it was transformed into an autonomous republic. Since 1992 - the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania within the Russian Federation.

The suburban region, which makes up about half of the territory of lowland Ingushetia, came under the jurisdiction of the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic after the deportation of the Ingush and the abolition of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1944. After the rehabilitation of the Ingush and restoration of autonomy, it was left as part of North Ossetia. The number of Ossetians living in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania is 335 thousand people, Ingush 32.8 thousand people. (according to the 1989 census).

Ingushetia became part of Russia in 1810. In 1924, the Ingush Autonomous Okrug was formed as part of the RSFSR, with its center in the city of Vladikavkaz; in 1934, it was merged with the Chechen Autonomous Okrug into the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Okrug, which in 1936 was transformed into an autonomous republic. In December 1992, Checheno-Ingushetia was divided into two republics - Chechen and Ingush.

Subjects of the conflict: the titular people of the republic, which is part of the Russian Federation (Ossetians) and the national minority (Ingush);
Type of conflict: ethnoterritorial.
Stage of the conflict: forceful actions, the situation is “mothballed” with dissatisfaction on both sides of the conflict.
Ethnic risk level: high.

After the deportation of Chechens and Ingush to Kazakhstan and other regions of Central Asia in 1944, part of the territory of the abolished republic (including the Prigorodny region, traditionally inhabited by the Ingush) was transferred to the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

The preservation of the Prigorodny district as part of this autonomy after the rehabilitation and return of the Ingush to the Caucasus in 1957 became a source of ethno-national tension, which until the mid-eighties was of a latent, hidden nature.

The transition of the conflict into the open phase of confrontation between the parties was facilitated, firstly, by the law “On the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples” adopted in April 1991, and secondly, by the formation of the Ingush Republic in June 1992, which was not supported by a decision regarding the borders of the new subject of the Russian Federation. Thus, it is quite obvious that the conflict situation was initiated by the ill-considered actions of the federal authorities.

Meanwhile, the Prigorodny district was used by the North Ossetian authorities to accommodate refugees from South Ossetia; an ethno-contact situation arose in this area (Ossetians expelled from Georgia, on the one hand, and Ingush, who perceived this territory as their “ancestral land” , - on the other) could not but lead, ultimately, to mass actions directed against the Ingush population. The Ingush are expelled from the Origorodny district for the second time, this time to an undeveloped Ingushetia without clear administrative boundaries.

In order to stabilize the situation, a presidential decree in October 1992 introduced a state of emergency on the territory of both conflicting republics, and the first head of the provisional administration, G. Khizha, instead of finding a compromise solution, almost unequivocally supports the position of the Ossetian side in an effort to provoke Dudayev into open conflict with Moscow and thus put an end to the “Chechen problem”.

However, Chechnya did not succumb to the provocation and an attempt to mitigate the situation that arose (actual deportation on ethnic grounds) was the presidential decree on the return of four settlements to the Ingush and their settlement by Ingush refugees.

The uncertainty of the Russian position in this conflict (later it manifested itself during the Chechen war) is also indicated by the constant change of heads of the temporary administration of the region of the state of emergency, one of whom was killed in August 1993 by unknown terrorists. The conservation of the conflict to date does not yet indicate its resolution, therefore, despite the return of some of the deported Ingush to the Prigorodny district, relations both between the Ossetians and Ingush living in North Ossetia, and between both republics remain very tense.

Chechen conflict

In 1922, the Chechen Autonomous Okrug was formed, in 1934 it was merged with the Ingush Autonomous Okrug, and in 1936 it was transformed into the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1944, autonomy was abolished due to the deportation of the Vainakhs and restored after their rehabilitation in 1957. In November 1990, a session of the Supreme Council of the Republic adopted the Declaration of Sovereignty and thereby declared its claims to state independence.

Subjects of the conflict: the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and the Russian Federation.
Type of conflict: secession.
Conflict stage: war suspended by the Khasavyurt agreements (September 1996).
Ethnic risk level: very high.

There are many interpretations of the Chechen conflict, among which two seem to be dominant:

1) the Chechen crisis is the result of the centuries-old struggle of the Chechen people against Russian colonialism and neo-colonialism;

2) this conflict is only a link in the chain of events aimed at the collapse of the Russian Federation following the USSR.

In the first approach, the highest value is freedom, understood in the context of national independence, in the second - the state and its territorial integrity.

Main menu

It is impossible not to notice that both points of view are not at all mutually exclusive: they simply reflect the positions of the conflicting parties, and it is precisely their complete opposite that makes it difficult to find an acceptable compromise.

It is advisable to distinguish three stages in the development of this conflict.

First stage . The beginning of the Chechen conflict should be attributed to the end of 1990, when the democratic forces of Russia and national movements in other republics put forward the slogan of the fight against the “empire” and “imperial thinking”, supported by the Russian leadership. It was then that, on the initiative of the closest associates of the President of Russia, Aviation Major General Dzhokhar Dudayev was invited to head the United Congress of the Chechen People - the main force that was intended to replace the former party-Soviet elite led by Doku Zavgaev. In his strategic plans (the struggle for separation from Russia), Dudayev relied both on the radical wing of the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus and on individual Transcaucasian leaders and very quickly acquired the status of a charismatic leader of a significant part of the population of mountainous Chechnya.

The miscalculation of the Russian democrats, who with their own hands laid the “mine” of the future conflict, consisted not only in ignorance and misunderstanding of Vainakh psychology in general and the mentality of General Dudayev in particular, but also in illusions regarding the democratic nature of the activities of their “promoter” . In addition, the memory of the forced deportation of 500 thousand Chechens to the Kazakh steppes, which, figuratively speaking, “like the ashes of Klaas” knocks on the heart of every Vainakh - both Chechen and Ingush, was completely ignored.

(The thirst for revenge generally became an independent factor in this crisis, especially from the beginning of hostilities, when historical “pain” gave way to the desire to avenge a comrade, a destroyed home, a crippled life; it was this feeling, on both sides, that constantly reproduced the conflict throughout on a wider scale).

The situation of dual power persisted in Chechnya until August 1991, when D. Zavgaev’s support for the State Emergency Committee played into the hands of his opponents and brought to power the United Congress of the Chechen People in the person of Dudayev, who, having become the legitimate head of the republic (72% of voters took part in the elections , with 90% of them voting for the general), immediately makes a statement about granting Chechnya complete independence from Russia. This completes the first stage of the conflict.

The second stage, immediately preceding the outbreak of hostilities, covers the period from the beginning of 1992. until the fall of 1994 Throughout 1992, under the personal leadership of Dudayev, the formation of the armed forces of Ichkeria takes place, and weapons are partially transferred to the Chechens on the basis of agreements concluded with Moscow, and partially captured by militants. The 10 soldiers killed in February 1992 in clashes around ammunition depots were the first casualties of the escalating conflict.

Throughout this entire period, negotiations have been ongoing with the Russian side, with Chechnya invariably insisting on formal recognition of its independence, and Moscow just as invariably refusing it, seeking to return the “rebellious” territory to its fold. What is essentially emerging is a paradoxical situation, which will subsequently, after the end of hostilities, repeat again, in more unfavorable conditions for Russia: Chechnya “pretends” that it has become a sovereign state, the Federation “pretends” that everything is in order and maintaining the status quo is still achievable.

Meanwhile, since 1992, anti-Russian hysteria has been growing in Chechnya, the traditions of the Caucasian war are being cultivated, offices are decorated with portraits of Shamil and his associates, and the slogan is being put forward for the first time: “Chechnya is a subject of Allah!” However, Chechen society, despite its external, somewhat ostentatious, consolidation, remains split: opposition forces, relying on the open support of the Center (in particular, Avturkhanov, Gantemirov, Khadzhiev) in some areas are establishing parallel power, making attempts to “squeeze out” Dudayev’s supporters from Grozny.

The atmosphere is heating up to the limit and in this situation, the President of Russia on November 30, 1994 issues Decree No. 2137 “On measures to ensure constitutional legality and order in the territory of the Chechen Republic.”

Third stage. From this moment the most dramatic period in this conflict begins, because the “restoration of constitutional order” turns into large-scale military operations with significant losses on both sides, which, according to some experts, amounted to about 100,000 people. Material damage cannot be accurately calculated, however, judging by indirect data, it exceeded $5,500 million.

It is quite obvious that since December 1994, a return to the starting point in the development of the conflict has become impossible, for both sides: the ideology of separatism, as well as the ideology of the integrity of the state, seems to materialize in the killed, missing, exhausted and maimed people, in destroyed cities and villages. The bloody appearance of the war turns the parties to the conflict from opponents into adversaries - this is the most important result of the third period of the Chechen crisis.

After the liquidation of General Dudayev, his duties are transferred to the much less popular Yandarbiev. By mid-1995, Russian troops established control over the most important settlements of Chechnya (Grozny, Bamut, Vedeno and Shatoi), the war seemed to be moving towards a favorable outcome for Russia.

However, terrorist actions in Budennovsk, and six months later in Kizlyar, convincingly demonstrate that the transition of the Chechens to autonomous “partisan actions” will force Russia to constantly maintain essentially “occupation” troops in one of its regions, which will have to constantly restrain the onslaught of militants, and with full support of the population.

How inevitable was the conflict itself? Of course, an increased level of ethnic risk has always existed in Chechnya, but events could have followed a much “softer” scenario with more thoughtful, responsible and consistent actions by the Russian side.

Factors that indirectly aggravated the conflict situation include: the “invitation” of General Dudayev to Chechnya on the basis of a false belief about his supposedly democratic orientations; the actual transfer of Russian weapons located on the territory of the Chechen Republic to the separatists at the first stage of the conflict; passivity in the negotiation process of 1992-1993; already in the very course of hostilities, the use of the erroneous tactics of combining forceful pressure with the negotiation process, which disoriented the Russian army and did not contribute in any way to strengthening the “military spirit.”

However, the main factor that was almost not taken into account by the Russian side was the underestimation of the role of the ethnic factor in ensuring stability in Chechnya and in the North Caucasus as a whole.

A lack of understanding of the specifics of the national identity of not only the Chechens, but also other mountain peoples of the Russian Caucasus, leads to an exaggeration of the economic possibilities for resolving the conflict; in addition, proposals to the Chechen side are based on the idea of a “non-ethnic” and “supra-ethnic” person, which even in Western In Europe and the USA it has not yet been fully formed, and is certainly not typical for peoples who are at the stage of ethnic mobilization and perceive themselves as victims of other ethnic expansion. Under these conditions, absolutely all the functions of ethnicity “work,” which becomes a “self-value.” This, perhaps, is the main lesson of the Chechen conflict, which has not yet been claimed by Russian politicians.

Is it possible to call an entire country cool? Is it fair to say that one nation is cooler than another? - asks CNN. Considering that most countries have murderers, tyrants and reality TV stars, the answer is a clear yes, and CNN has taken on the task of answering its own question.

To sort the cool from the less fortunate, we've compiled this list of the most stylish people on the planet. Not an easy task when you are dealing with almost 250 candidates. The main problem, of course, is that every nationality in the world thinks they are the coolest - except for the Canadians, who are too self-deprecating for that kind of thing.

Ask a man from Kyrgyzstan which people are the coolest in the world, and he will say “Kyrgyz”. Who knows (seriously, who would know?), maybe he's right. Ask a Norwegian and he will finish carefully chewing a piece of Thai green curry, take a sip of Thai Singha beer, look wistfully at the Thai resort of Phuket and the sun that eludes his country for 10 months of the year, and then mutter quietly to some suicidal lack of conviction: “Norwegians”.

It's not an easy task to determine who is cooler. Italians because some of them wear tight fitting designer suits? Are Russians uncool because some wear outdated tracksuits and wrestling hairstyles?

Are the Swiss too neutral to be cool?

So let's see which nations are considered cool by CNN.

10. Chinese

Not the most obvious choice, but with a population of over one billion, statistically China must have its share of cool people. It's also wise to include the Chinese in any list, for example, because if we didn't, China's resourceful hackers would simply break into the site and add themselves anyway.

Not to mention the fact that they managed to accumulate most of the world's currency.

Icon of cool: Brother Sharp is a homeless man whose appearance unwittingly made him aware of Internet fashion.

Not so cool: the concept of personal integrity is still largely unknown in the Middle Kingdom.

9. Botswana

Despite tax evader Wesley Snipes and Angelina Jolie's exciting adventures in Namibia, neighboring Botswana is taking the crown of cool from this country.

Even the animals are relaxed in Botswana. The country, which has the highest population in Africa, chooses not to care for wild animals like some other safari countries.

Icon of cool: Mpul Kwelagobe. Crowned Miss Universe 1999, Kwelagobe has truly achieved "making the world a better place" and tirelessly fights for HIV/AIDS awareness.

Not so great: Botswana leads the world in the spread of HIV/AIDS.

8. Japanese

We obviously won’t talk about the salaries of the Japanese, their jobs and karaoke, where each of them pretends to be Elvis. The Japanese torch of cool is held defiantly by Japanese teenagers, whose whims and warped modern consumerism, fashion and technology often dictate what the rest of the world (we mean you, Lady Gaga) wears.

Cool Icon: Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi may have been the coolest world leader, but former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is our pick. Forget teenagers, this man knows a lot about style, especially when it comes to shirts.

Not so great: Japan's population is rapidly aging. The future is very gray.

7. Spaniards

For what? With sun, sea, sand, siestas and sangria, Spain is awesome. The Spanish don't even start the party until most other countries have gone to bed.

It's a shame it's time for everyone to go home.

Cool Icon: Javier Bardem. Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz.

Not so great: we still remember the failure of the Spanish basketball team in China in 2008.

6. Koreans

Always ready to drink, refusing to participate in endless rounds of soju-vodka drinking is a personal insult in Seoul. By saying “one-shot!”, you can make friends with Koreans and become the best buddies in the world. Koreans are the leaders of almost all current trends in music, fashion, and cinema. They dominate and earned some bragging rights when that “one-shot!” turns into 10 or 20.

Icon of cool: Park Chan-Wook has achieved cult status among emo film actors around the world.

Not so great: Kimchi flavor.

5. Americans

What? Americans? War-intimidating, planet-polluting, arrogant, armed Americans?

Let's leave global politics aside. Where would today's hipsters be without rock 'n' roll, classic Hollywood films, great American novels, blue jeans, jazz, hip-hop, The Sopranos and cool surfing?

Okay, someone else could have come up with the same thing, but the fact is that it was America who came up with it.

Icon of cool: Matthew McConaughey: Whether he's playing a rom-com or stuck in astronauts and cowboys, he's still cool.

Not so cool: preemptive military strikes, random invasions, predatory consumption, pathetic math estimates, and Walmart's fat fruits automatically place Americans on any "most depraved" list.

4. Mongols

The air here is filled with some mystery. These imperturbable souls who love freedom lead a nomadic lifestyle, preferring throat singing and yurts. Everything is fur - boots, coats, hats. It adds its own splendor to the historical mystique. Who else keeps eagles as pets?

Icon of cool: Actress Khulan Chuluun, who played the wife of Genghis Khan in the very cool film “Mongol”.

Not so cool: Yaki and dairy products at every meal.

Jamaicans are the envy of the English-speaking world and have the most distinctive and recognizable hairstyle on the planet. Note to tourists: dreadlocks only look cool on Jamaicans.

Icon of cool: Usain Bolt. The fastest man and nine-time Olympic champion.

Not so great: high murder rates and widespread homophobia.

2. Singaporeans

Just think: in this digital age, where blogging and updating Facebook is almost all that interests today's youth, old school concepts have been rebooted. The prodigies will now inherit the Earth.

With its absurdly computer-literate population, Singapore is a geek hub, and its residents can claim their rightful place as avatars of modern cool. They're probably all tweeting about it right now.

Icon of cool: Lim Ding Wen. This child prodigy could program in six computer languages at the age of nine. A glorious future awaits him.

Not so great: With everyone on the computer, the local government is actually encouraging Singaporeans to have sex.

1.Brazilians

Without the Brazilians we wouldn't have samba or the Rio Carnival. We wouldn't have Pele and Ronaldo, we wouldn't have tiny swimsuits and tanned bodies on Copacabana beach.

They don't use their sexy reputation as a cover to exterminate dolphins or invade Poland, so we have no choice but to call Brazilians the coolest people on the planet.

So, if you are Brazilian and reading this - congratulations! Although, since you're sitting in front of a computer and not showing off your six-pack on the beach, you probably don't feel cool.

Icon of cool: Seu Jorge. Bowie's Portuguese makes you want Ziggy Stardust to be from Brazil, not outer space.

Not so cool: Mmmmm, Brazilian meat and cocoa are delicious, but the destruction of vast tracts of rainforest by agriculture leaves a bitter aftertaste.

The Karachais are a Turkic-speaking people of the North Caucasus inhabiting the Karachay-Cherkess Republic. Preferred areas of residence: Cherkessk city, Ust-Dzhegutinsky district, Karachaevsky urban district, Karachaevsky district, Malokarachaevsky district, Prikubansky district, Zelenchuksky district, Urupsky district. The original place of residence is mountainous areas: the valleys of Dombay and Teberda, the Elbrus region, and partly Arkhyz. The oldest settlements are Kart-Jurt, Uchkulan, Khurzuk, Duut, Jazlyk. The Karachais are Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi madhhab. The number according to the 2002 All-Russian Census is 192,182 people.

There is no definitive version of the origin of the Karachais. According to anthropology, like the Balkars, Ossetians, Ingush, Chechens, Batsbis, Avar-Ando-Tsez peoples, and part of the Mountain Jews, they belong to the central cluster of the Caucasian type of the European race. However, genetic data are still limited. From what we have at the moment, we can conclude that the following haplogroups dominate: R1A1 ((23.2%) Aryan) and G2 ((27.5%) Caucasian). The percentage of other haplogroups is insignificant. However, as far as we know, the samples are not large.

The Karachais speak the Karachay-Balkar language, which belongs to the northwestern (Polovtsian-Kypchak) group of Turkic languages. Researchers suggest that the following could have taken part in the ethnogenesis of the Karachais:
1. autochthonous Caucasian tribes;
2. Alans;
3. Bulgars;
4. Khazars;
5. Kipchaks.
This version, in particular, was approved on June 22-26, 1959 at a scientific session dedicated to the origin of the Balkars and Karachais, held in the city of Nalchik.

***
Karachais and Balkars
If we describe the Balkars, we can say that they are identical to the Karachais according to anthropological data, and according to genetics, and in language (not to mention culture). That is, all classifications and definitions given regarding the Karachais can be attributed, without doubt, to the Balkars. They consider themselves one people. To be absolutely precise, the people who are now called Balkars acquired such a common name already with their inclusion in Russia. These were five mountain societies: Cherek, Kholam, Bezengi, Chegem, Baksan (Urusbievskoe), which were each ruled by their own aristocratic families (taubii).

The most famous of them are: the Abaevs, Aydebulovs, Zhankhotovs and Misakovs - in the Malkar society, the Balkarukovs and Kelemetovs - in the Chegem society, the Shakmanovs - in the Kholam society, the Syyunchevs - in the Bezengievskiy, the Urusbievs (a separated branch of the Syyunchevs) - in the Baksan society.
There were some differences in the language of these mountain societies. Based on these differences, the corresponding dialects were later identified. The inhabitants of the largest Cherek society were directly called Balkars (malkarlyla). They speak the clicking dialect of the Karachay-Balkar language ((chach (Kar.) - tsats (Black dial.) - hair), there are some other phonetic differences).

Chegemians and Baksanians (Urusbievites by the name of the Urusbiev princes) speak a language that has no differences from Karachay (with the possible exception of the transition j/zh jash/zhash - guy). The Kholamo-Bezengiev mixed dialect is also distinguished. But there are no lexical differences between these dialects. Based on the language of the Karachais, Chegems and Urusbis, today's literary Karachay-Balkar language was formed. Initially, the inhabitants of the Cherek society called themselves Malkarlyla (Balkars), the rest called themselves Taulula (highlanders). That is, the ethnonym Balkar is not historically applicable to the entire Balkar people, although this is no longer a question of today’s self-identification, but rather of the deeds of the past.

***
Balkars- the indigenous population of Kabardino-Balkaria, inhabiting mainly its mountainous and foothill areas in the upper reaches of the rivers Khaznidon, Cherek-Balkarian (Malkars), Cherek-Bezengievsky (Bezengiy, Kholamtsy), Chegem (Chegemtsy), Baksan (Baksan or in the past - Urusbievtsy) and Malka. They speak the Karachay-Balkar language of the Polovtsian-Kypchak group of the Turkic family. They belong to the Caucasian anthropological type of the large Caucasian race. Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi madhhab. The population in Russia is 108 thousand people (2002), of which 105 thousand are in Kabardino-Balkaria, which is 11.6% of the population of the republic.
Balkars are one of the highest mountain peoples in the region. They occupy the gorges and foothills of the Central Caucasus along the valleys of the Malka, Baksan, Chegem, Cherek rivers and their tributaries. In fact, the Balkars form a single people with the Karachais, divided administratively into two parts. The material culture is also identical. The only thing is that, due to the specifics of the gorges, the Karachais built houses from wood, while the Balkars used stone construction; family princely towers and crypts made of stone were also preserved. If we talk about mentality, the Karachais consider the Balkars to be more cheerful, gentle people, prone to jokes. Balkar poet Kaisyn Kuliev said that songs are written in Karachay and sung in Balkaria.

***
If we talk about the self-name Balkar, then it is difficult to correlate it with the ethnonym Bulgars, since in the original it sounds like Malkarly. It can also be correlated with the name of the Malka River in Kabardino-Balkaria. At the same time, it is probably possible to argue that the Balkars are descendants of the Bulgars. If we follow the legend according to which the Great Bulgaria of Kubrat, which territorially covered part of the northwestern Caucasus, disintegrated and the people were divided between his sons, then we can say with greater or lesser degree of certainty that part of the Bulgars could have remained in the North Caucasus (Bulgars of Batbayan ) and contribute to the ethnogenesis of local peoples, including Karachais and Balkars.
The existence of the Bulgars in the foothills and partly in the mountains of Karachay-Cherkessia and Kabardino-Balkaria has some archaeological confirmation.
In this regard, it is possible to draw a certain symbolic line from Danube Bulgaria through the Caucasus to Volga Bulgaria and Kazan. However, taking into account the versatility of the ethnogenesis of the majority of the peoples of the North Caucasus, and even more so the Karachay-Balkars (a conventional term that has long been used), the possibility of participation in the ethnogenesis of the people of several ethnic groups, we would not say today that the Balkars are the Bulgars of our days become. But there are also no arguments to exclude the participation of the Bulgars in the indicated formation of the people.
***
By the way, modern Bulgarians, as well as Kazan Tatars, show constant interest in this issue. We think that this topic is subject to separate scientific development, which may, if not confirm this version, then provide additional knowledge in the appropriate context, which should be welcomed.

Armenian historian H.A. At a scientific conference in 1959 in Nalchik, Porksheyan presented a report based on the concept of the Crimean origin of the Balkars and Karachais. But the majority of conference participants, guided not so much by scientific as by political considerations, rejected Porksheyan’s idea. In their opinion, the Crimean hypothesis strengthened the position of the “aggressive policy of pan-Islamism and pan-Turkism” and, more importantly, did not satisfy the desire of the Balkars and Karachais to be considered an autochthonous population of the North Caucasus.

We believe that Porksheyan’s version has a right to exist as more reasoned in all respects. Moreover, modern Balkar-Karachai historians give preference to the Turkic roots of their ethnic history. The modern Moscow scientist Shnirelman writes that “the desire of Soviet researchers to present their (Balkars and Karachais - comp.) ancestors as autochthons who switched to the Turkic language caused protest among the Balkars and Karachais” (V. Shnirelman “Being Alans. Intellectuals and Politics in the North Caucasus in the 20th century).

It follows that under the conditions prevailing in historical science today, there is a need to return to the version of Porksheyan H.A.

Historians still do not have accurate data about the past of the Balkars and Karachais. The question of their origin surfaced in historical science more than 300 years ago and has been studied and debated by historians ever since. However, to date there is no common point of view supported by indisputable evidence.

The difficulty of the ethnogenesis of the Balkars and Karachais is further complicated by the fact that before the Sovietization of the region they did not have their own written language, they did not have their own chroniclers, and their ancestors did not leave written sources about the past of their people.

The situation is also bad with auxiliary scientific disciplines. The corresponding monuments of material culture have not yet been identified. True, in the territory occupied by the Balkars and Karachais, there are many ancient monuments - burial grounds. But, according to archeological data and the conclusion of scientists Maxim Kovalevsky and Vsevolod Miller, the skulls and household items found in the Shiaks belong to an earlier period and have nothing in common with the current population.

In the same area there are many medieval churches and other buildings, most of which have either been destroyed by time or have fallen into disrepair. Their architecture is not at all similar to the building art of the Balkars and Karachais, and all of them belong to the period of either Greek or Genoese influence.

Historians usually, in difficult cases, resort to the history of neighboring and other related peoples and study their past.

Unfortunately, here too the prospects for studying the history of the Balkar and Karachay peoples in this way are very narrow. Pressed against the rocks of the gorges of the Caucasus Mountains, a handful of Balkars and Karachais have no tribes related in language in their neighborhood. Their neighbors, the Digorians and Kabardino-Circassians, are themselves in the same situation; they have no written sources of their culture. True, the Kabardians in the 19th century had their own outstanding scientist and writer Shora Nogmov. Before the establishment of Soviet power, the Balkars and Karachais did not have their own historians, and none of the indigenous residents studied their native history.

The only source for studying the history of Balkaria and Karachay remains folk legends and songs. However, great care must be taken when using them, because they are often contradictory. So, for example, in Karachay there was a widespread legend that they, the Karachais, came from the Crimea, where they escaped from the khans who oppressed them. According to another version, the leader Karcha led them out of Turkey, and according to a third version, from the Golden Horde in 1283, etc.

The French scientist and traveler Klaproth, who visited Chegem and Karachay at the beginning of the 19th century, heard from the Karachais that they came from the Khazar city of Majary and occupied their current territory before the Circassians arrived in Kabarda.

There is a legend that the Balkars and Karachais “remained from the lame Timur.”

There are many other modified legends that contradict one another. It is impossible to put any of them into the basis of science without supporting it with indisputable evidence.

Foreign scientists and travelers who visited Balkaria and Karachay sometimes tried to find out their origin. Under the influence of fleeting impressions, superficial judgments were born, devoid of any serious significance for science.

The first historical information about the Balkars and Karachais dates back to the 17th century. In 1639, the ambassador of the Moscow Tsar Fedot Elchin and his retinue traveled to Svaneti through Baksan. Here they found the Karachais and stayed with their leaders, the Crimean-Shamkhalov brothers. This is how the name “Karachai” first appeared in the report of the Russian ambassador.

A few years later, in 1650, the ambassadors of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Nikifor Tolochanov and clerk Alexei Ievlev passed through the Balkar lands on their way to the Imeretian Tsar Alexander. Their report mentions the name “Bolkharians” for the first time.

In the historical literature about the Karachais, the Catholic missionary Arcangelo Lamberti first wrote a book in 1654, which will be discussed further.

Serious study of the history of the Caucasus and its peoples began in the 40s of the last century, first by military historians: Butkov, Stahl, Uslar and others, and after the end of the war - by academicians M. Kovalevsky, V. Miller, N. Marr, Samoilovich, professors Leontovich , Karaulov, Ladyzhensky, Sysoev and many others. Despite this, the question of the origin of the Balkars and Karachais remains an unresolved problem.

Much has been written about the origins of these two peoples. Back in 1983 Islam Tambiev believed that the number of existing opinions and hypotheses on this issue is at least nine. He himself, while criticizing them, expressed his own, tenth opinion.

X.O. Laipanov divides hypotheses about the origin of the Balkars and Karachais into seven groups and expresses a completely new point of view, which does not correspond to any of these opinions.

It is not our task to analyze these hypotheses in detail. The purpose of this brief message is to acquaint historians and readers with the contents of the chronicle of the Crimean chronicler of the 17th century. Khachatura Kafaetsi.

In our opinion, the chronicler Kafaetsi satisfactorily resolves the problem of the origin of the Balkars and Karachais.

However, in order to make the question more understandable, to clarify its essence and the ways of development of historical thought about the origin of the Balkar and Karachay peoples, we must briefly dwell on the existing main hypotheses.

Arcangelo Lamberti's hypothesis.

Back in 1854, the Catholic missionary Lamberti, who lived for 18 years in Mingrelia, wrote that the Karachais, or Kara-Circassians, are descendants of the Huns. 20 years later, the French traveler Jean Chardin joined this opinion.

Lamberti bases his conclusion on two premises. On the one hand, the Karachais “preserved the purity of the Turkish language among so many different peoples,” and on the other, he read from Kedrin that “the Huns, from whom the Turks descend, came from the northernmost part of the Caucasus.”

Since the Turks descend from the Huns, and the Karachais and Turks speak the same language, then, according to Lamberti, the Karachais also descend from the Huns. He speaks of the Zikhs and Circassians as two different peoples, and calls the Karachais Kara-Circassians. Of course, with such a poor store of knowledge, Lamberti could not resolve such a complex question as the question of the origin of the Balkars and Karachais.

Without going into details of the history of the peoples of the Caucasus, it is enough to turn to the history of the Huns themselves to be convinced of the inconsistency of Lamberti’s hypothesis.

First of all, it should be noted that the Huns’ belonging to the Turkish world is not generally accepted in science and that there are many supporters of Huns’ Mongolism, such as Shiratori Pinyo.

The Huns lived in the center of Asia along the Chinese border. Around the 1st century. n. e. they began to move west. In the seventies of the IV century. The Huns migrated to Europe, they devastated the Kuban, Taman Peninsula, defeated the Alans and Meotians, moved to the Crimea, forever destroyed the famous Bosphorus kingdom, conquered the space between the Volga and Danube, and advanced to the Rhine.

As a nomadic people, the Huns did not stay long either in the Caucasus or in other conquered lands. They moved west, defeating the Sarmatians, Scythians and Germans. In the 5th century their famous leader Attila created the Hunnic alliance. In 451 he devastated France, in 452 - Italy, and in 453 the movement of the Huns to the west stopped, and the Hunnic union soon collapsed.

Thus, in the whirlpool of history, the numerous Hunnic union was wiped off the face of the earth, and a small handful of it, according to Lamberti, remained for more than 1,500 years in the Caucasus Mountains. The improbability of Lamberti's hypothesis will become more obvious if we take into account that the Caucasus was the scene of devastating wars and huge movements of peoples.

Lamberti expressed his idea more than 300 years ago, but it still has not found its at least partial confirmation either in science or in the legends of the people.

Gildenstedt's hypothesis.

The traveler Gildenstedt, who visited the Caucasus in the 17th century, suggests that the Balkars are descendants of the Czechs. He bases his assumption on information gleaned from a catechism published in Berlin, the preface of which states that several centuries ago (and according to other sources in 1480), Bohemian and Moravian brothers fled from religious persecution and found salvation in the Caucasus mountains. Finding traces of ancient Christianity and, in addition, pointing out that Bohemia and Balkaria, as well as the Czech Republic and Chegem, begin with the same letters, Gildenstedt considers it possible to assume that the brothers who fled from the Czech Republic stopped in Chegem and founded Balkaria.

Let's assume for one minute that the Czech brothers really arrived in the Chegem Gorge and over time lost their language. Here the question involuntarily arises: how did they acquire the Turkic dialect, when Kabardians, Ossetians and Svans live next door to them and none of them speak this dialect?

Gildenstedt's hypothesis is not scientifically substantiated, and his fortune telling on the initial letters “b” and “h” does not deserve serious attention.

Klaproth's opinion.

The French scientist and traveler Klaproth, who visited Karachay and Balkaria at the beginning of the 19th century, collected folk legends and became acquainted with the life, way of life and language of the Karachais and Balkars. Based on these materials, Klaproth comes to the conclusion that the Karachais and Balkars come from the Khazar city of Madzhar, which was destroyed by Timur in 1395 and the remains of which are still visible on the Kuma River.

The Khazars have appeared in history since the 2nd century. A. Initially, they were a special people with their own language and a fairly high culture. In the VI - VII centuries. on the territory of the Lower Volga region they formed a large kingdom called the Khazar Khaganate.

In the VII-VIII centuries. The Khazars lived in the lower reaches of the Volga, on the Don and the foothills of the Carpathia; they subjugated the entire North Caucasus, the Taman Peninsula and the Crimea. Many tribes and nationalities were enslaved, mainly Turkic, who adopted their culture and assimilated with them; but the Khazars themselves were strongly influenced by the conquered peoples.

They had large cities: capitals - Itil (Astrakhan), Sarkel (Belaya Vezha, and according to many - Makhachkala) and Madzhary on Kum. The latter was a major center of transit trade with the East, from here caravan routes went to the shores of the Black and Caspian Seas.

The king and the entire court professed the Jewish faith. The majority of the population were Mohammedans, but there were many Christians and pagans.

The Arab traveler Ibn-Haukal (977-978) writes that the Khazar language is not similar to Turkish and is not similar to any of the languages of known peoples. However, over time, due to the quantitative superiority of the Turkic tribes, Turkic became the state and dominant language.

The Khazar state collapsed after the defeat of Itil in 965 by Svyatoslav and Crimea - and 1016 by Mstislav. The remnants of the Khazars existed for a long time in the Crimea and the Caucasus.

According to Klaproth, part of the population of the Khazar city of Majary, after the defeat by Tamerlane, moved to the gorges of the mountains and founded Balkaria and Karachay.

The question of the Khazars belonging to the Turkish world is not sufficiently developed and is very problematic. The population of the Khazar Kaganate at that time represented a conglomerate of different nationalities. Klaproth does not indicate which of them came to Balkaria and Karachay. Klaproth's hypothesis is based on a legend that is not popular among the population; it is not confirmed by objective data and written sources.

Hypothesis about the Kabardian origin of the Karachais and Balkars.

This hypothesis has no basis. If the Balkars and Karachais come from Kabarda, then the question arises (how, living next door to the Kabardians, did they forget their natural language and from whom, from what people did they adopt the current Turkic language? After all, no one nearby speaks this language. It is clear that the Balkars and Karachais came to their current territory with their modern language.

This hypothesis, devoid of any scientific basis, found a place in the encyclopedic dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron.

Hypothesis about the origin of the Balkars and Karachais from the remnants of Timur’s troops.

Some researchers consider it plausible to believe that the Balkars and Karachais are the descendants of the remnants of the troops of Timur (Tamerlane).

It’s true that Timur visited the North Caucasus and conducted his military operations here. In 1395 he destroyed and devastated the famous Tana (Azov) on the shores of Lake Meot; in 1397, on the Terek, he completely defeated the mighty khan of the Golden Horde, Tokhtamysh, destroyed his power and conquered many populated areas. However, there is no evidence that the remnants of the victor’s troops settled in the mountain gorges of the Caucasus. The beautiful plains of the Caucasus spread out before them, and it is incredible that they, bypassing them, settled on the meager lands of rocky gorges. The very logic of things speaks against this hypothesis.

All of the above “opinions” and “points of view” are based on conflicting folk tales.

Serious study of the country and the history of the mountain peoples by Russian scientists begins after the annexation of the Caucasus to Russia.

The process of annexing the Caucasus lasted several decades. The Russians did not have accurate information about the highlanders and their country. The headquarters of military units were in great need of such information. Therefore, individual officers were entrusted with the study of localities, nationalities, their history and geography. Consequently, the first Russian explorers of the Caucasus were military specialists. Among them were such outstanding scientists as Academician Butkov, Academician Uslar, Stal and many others. The materials they collected were presented to the military authorities in the form of reports. They were not published or printed, but remained for use at the headquarters of military units.

As an ethnographic and historical study, Stahl's work, written in the forties of the last century, is of particular value. Steel was held captive by the mountaineers for five years, where he studied their languages and history. Stahl's work was not published until 1900, but scientists widely used its data. Due to the great demand for Stahl's work, in 1900 the learned historian General Potto published this manuscript in the Caucasian Collection.

This first essay about the Circassian people still remains a very valuable reference book about the highlanders.

According to Stahl, the Karachais are of Nogai origin, the Malkars (i.e. Balkars) are of Mongol-Tatar origin.

Stahl was unable to determine the time of settlement of the Karachais and Balkars in the Caucasus. According to Stahl, Balkars and Karachais are different nationalities of different origins.

Hypotheses of Russian scientists about the origin of the Balkars and Karachais.

After the annexation of the Caucasus to Russia, a thorough study of it began by Russian scientists: historians, ethnographers, geographers, geologists and other Caucasian experts. One of the first scientists to study the Caucasus is professor of Novorossiysk University F.I. Leontovich, who wrote a monograph about the adats of the highlanders. On the question of the origin of the Balkars and Karachais, he fully agrees with the opinion of Stahl.

Another Caucasus expert, V. Sysoev, holds the same opinion. He believes that the Karachais came to their country no earlier than the 16th century, because only in the 13th century. Mongol rule appeared, from which the Nogai Horde emerged much later, around the 15th-16th centuries. In turn, the Karachais emerged even later than the Nogais.

Sysoev bases his conclusions on logical assumptions; he has no written sources or other evidence at his disposal.

The assumption that Mingrelians, Kabardians, Svans, Abkhazians and even Russians joined the main core of Nogai-Tatar origin over the centuries is unlikely.

There is a fairly common opinion about the Bulgarian origin of the Balkars. This assumption, based on the consonance of the words “Bulgar” and “Balkar,” was first expressed by N. Khodnev in the newspaper “Caucasus” in 1867. Later N.A. Karaulov became the defender of this opinion.

Based on folk legend, Karaulov writes that the Balkars once lived in the steppe part of the Caucasus, and then, displaced by the Kabardians, they went to the mountains, upstream the Cherek, Chegem and Baksan rivers. The Balkars, in turn, ousted the Ossetians from these gorges, who moved to the neighboring gorges, to the south on the river. Urukh.

In support of this legend, Karaulov refers to the fact that “several Ossetian villages, cut off from their people, remained north of the Balkars.

According to Karaulov, the Balkars got their name from the great Bulgarian people who lived on the Volga in the 7th century. advanced to the south of Rus' and the Balkan Peninsula.

Some historians also include Academician as a supporter of this opinion. V. F. Miller. It’s true, he wrote very carefully in his “Ossetian Etudes” in 1883: “In the form of an assumption, we express a guess that, perhaps, in the name of the Turkic society living east of the Digorians in the Cherek valley - Balkar, an ancient name has also been preserved.” .

However, a year later, after he traveled around Balkaria with prof. Maxim Kovalevsky, the same Miller wrote:

“It is much more plausible that they (the Balkars - A.P.) “inherited” the name along with the country, from which they partly displaced the older Ossetian population.”

Miller, who in his first statement made a “guess” about the Bulgarian origin of the word “balkar,” in his next statement completely moved away from defending this opinion.

The hypothesis about the origin of the Balkars from the Bulgarians, based on the similarity of these words in consonance, is devoid of any scientific basis.

We know many different nationalities that have similar names. For example, Germans and Nenets. It is unlikely that any scientist will allow himself to say on this basis that the Germans are descended from the Nenets or vice versa.

Supporters of the Bulgarian origin of the Balkars refer to the historian Moses of Khorensky, who lived in the 5th century AD. e. Khorensky is the author of the “History of Armenia”, translated into all European languages. This work is of great importance for the history of neighboring peoples.

Khorensky in his “History” in two places tells about the resettlement of the Bulgarians to Armenia, but these migrations took place in the first and second centuries BC.

In addition, there is a geographical treatise of the 7th century, the author of which until recently remained unknown, and scientists have long attributed this treatise to Moses of Khoren. Since Khorensky lived and worked in the 5th century, and the geography was compiled in the 7th century, in order to smooth out this contradiction, there were historians who tried to prove that Khorensky also lived in the 7th century.

Even in the last century, Orientalist scholars Gubschman and Prof. Kerop Patkanov was allegedly assured that the author of geography was not Moses of Khorensky, but a scientist of the 7th century. Ananiy Shirakatsi, but due to the lack of evidence this issue remained unresolved. Currently, through the painstaking research of Prof. A. Abrahamyan has clearly established that the author of the geographical treatise is not Moses Khorensky, but a major scientist of his time, Ananiy Shirakatsi, who lived in the 7th century.

The handwritten text of this treatise was greatly distorted by scribes; many lists with different variants appeared. In one of these lists, in the description of Asian Sarmatia, the author speaks of four Bulgarian tribes, who received their names from the rivers in whose valleys they settled. These valleys were, according to the author, north of the Caucasus, along the Kuban River and beyond.

It is difficult to say whether this list is trustworthy and can serve as a solid basis for a hypothesis. The Volga Bulgars are a people of the Turkic tribe. In the 7th century, most of them moved to the Balkan Peninsula, creating their own powerful state there, which successfully competed with the great Byzantine Empire.

Despite the large number of their people and the power of the state, the Bulgars fell under the influence of the Slavs, assimilated and became glorified. The Turkic Bulgars became the Slavic Bulgarians.

Here the question involuntarily arises: how could a small handful of Bulgars, who settled in the gorges of the Caucasus Mountains, preserve their language and national characteristics for such a long time?

Armenian chroniclers - Moses of Khoren in the 5th century. Ananiy Shirakatsi in the 7th century. and Vartan in the 14th century. - they interpret about one people who arrived in Sarmatia, calling them “bukh”, “bulkh”, “Bulgar” and “Pulgar”. Obviously, we are talking about the movement of the Volga Bulgars, some of whom at one time went to Armenia, some to the Balkans, and some settled in Sarmatia. Saint Martin also speaks about the presence of the “Bulgars” in Sarmatia in his book.

The famous historian and Caucasus expert Ashot Noapnisyan, without denying the possibility of the presence of the “Bulgars” in the North Caucasus, believes that on the basis of this bare fact and the meager information of Armenian authors, it is impossible to establish a connection between the Sarmatian “Bulgars” and modern Balkars, to consider the latter as descendants first. Usually, every important event in the life of peoples is reflected in folk legends and songs. In the folk legends and songs of the Balkars we find no traces of their “Bulgar” origin.

Russian Caucasian scholars academicians Butkov, Uslar, Marr, Samoilovich, V. Miller and D.A. made a great contribution to the study of the history of the Caucasus. Kovalevsky. The last two scientists, in addition to studying the history of the entire Caucasus, were specifically engaged in the study of Balkaria.

In 1883, V. Miller and M. Kovalevsky made a joint trip to Balkaria. They studied the history of the people on the spot, collected folk legends, studied the remains of ancient material culture, themselves excavated ancient graves - shiaks, acquired from the population ancient objects discovered in shiaks that were of historical significance.

First of all, they were struck by the fact that Balkaria forms, as it were, an island among nationalities that differ from the Balkars in language and tribe. In the east it borders with Ossetia and Digoria, in the north and west with Kabarda, and in the south the Main Caucasus Range separates it from Svaneti.

The experienced eyes of scientists immediately noticed two dominant types among the population; one is reminiscent of Mongolian, with significantly smoothed features, and the other is Aryan, most similar to Ossetian.

As we noted above, excavations of the Shiaks, the study of the skulls and household items found in them showed that they belong to an earlier period and have nothing in common with the current settlers.

Based on a number of toponymic names left over from the Ossetians, the presence of many words in the language of the Balkars of Ossetian origin and local legends, Miller and Kovalevsky came to the conclusion that the Balkars found an Ossetian population in the mountains who professed the Christian religion.

Thus, according to Miller and Kovalevsky, the Balkars are not aborigines of their country. Arriving at the real territory, they found the local Ossetian population here, displaced them, and some of the Ossetians remained in place and mixed with the newcomers. This explains that the Ossetian type is often found among the Balkars.

Miller and Kovalevsky were unable to find out where and when the Balkars came from. They call the Balkars Caucasian Tatars, without indicating their origin.

Language is the main factor in determining the origin of peoples. Unfortunately, the language of the Karachay-Balkars has been little studied. In this area, the research of the best specialist in the languages of Turkic peoples, Acad. Samoilovich. The scientist finds that “the dialects of the Kumyks, Karachais and Balkars are not closely related to the dialects of the Nogais that appeared in the southern Russian steppes after the Mongol invasion (XIII century), but have some common features that indicate the connection of these three dialects with the dialect pre-Mongol inhabitants of the southern Russian steppes - Kumans, or Kipchaks, (Polovtsians) Although Samoilovich does not give his final conclusion about the origin of the Karachay-Balkars, his scientifically based statement refutes the opinion of Stahl, Leontovich and others about the Nogai origin of the Karachay-Balkars.

Samoilovich’s opinion about the similarity of the language of the Kipchaks and the Karachay-Balkars is also confirmed by the Polovtsian dictionary, compiled in 1303 and first published by Klaproth in 1825. It contains words that are now preserved only in the Karachay-Balkar language. Samoilovich's statement and the Polovtsian dictionary are an important factor in determining the origin of the Karachay-Balkars.

Dyachkov-Tarasov (1898 - 1928) studied Karachay. For four years he lived in Karachay, where he studied the language, history, geography, ethnography, and economy of the country.

Like V. Sysoev, Dyachkov-Tarasov believes that the Karachais moved to Kuban in the 16th century. Referring to the message of Academician Pallas that at the end of the 18th century. the total number of Karachais did not exceed 200 families; the author himself comes to the conclusion that at the time of resettlement their number reached barely a thousand people.

In his opinion, the basin of the upper Kuban was occupied by an unknown people with a fairly developed culture. Several centuries before the arrival of the Karachais, this people left the country.

This is how Dyachkov-Tarasov explains the origin of the Karachais: “The primary group of ancestors of the Karachais, speaking one of the Kipchak dialects, was organized from refugees. It included natives of Turkish regions: on the one hand, the Far East (Koshgar), Itiliy, Astrakhan, and on the other, the Western Caucasus and Crimea.”

According to Dyachkov-Tarasov, the Karachais willingly accepted newcomers into their midst. The author counts among the Karauzdenians alone 26 clans formed from aliens and refugees: of these, 7 clans have Russian ancestors, 6 clans have Svans, 4 clans have Abkhazians, 3 clans have Kabardians, 1 clan each has Abaza, Kumyks, Armenians, Balkars, Kalmyks and Nogais.

Without entering into a discussion of the hypothesis about the Kipchak origin of the Karachais, which corresponds to the opinions of many scientists, we must say that it seems incredible to us such a large influx of aliens from various distant countries, not connected by economic interests, who did not know each other. It is incomprehensible that a small society numbering barely 2000 people, without its own written language, a developed national culture, scattered and scattered in small groups throughout the territory of Karachay, along its impassable gorges, would be able to assimilate, dissolve in its composition such a large number of foreign-language representatives of various nationalities and preserve the purity of the Kipchak language.

We have briefly listed all the main hypotheses of foreign and Russian scientists about the origin of the Karachais and Balkars. You should get acquainted with the opinions of local historians, indigenous residents of the Caucasus: Islam Tambiev, prof. G. L. Kokieva and Kh. O. Laipanova.

Islam Tambiev, analyzing existing hypotheses and denying some of them completely, and some partially, comes to the conclusion that “the first ancestors of the Balkars and Karachais, who took the reins of government in their hands and had an assimilating influence on all other newcomers, were the Khazars-Turks or Kipchaks."

Further, the author himself admits: “the question of which people (Khazars, Cumans, etc.) belong to the descendants of the Karachay-Balkar ancestors, who formed the first cell of the social organism, remains not yet positively resolved.”

This vague opinion is nothing new. It partially duplicates the statements of Klaproth, partially Sysoev and others, introducing great confusion into their hypotheses.

Tambiev completely incorrectly identifies the concepts of Khazars, Turks and Kipchak.

The question of whether the Khazars belong to the Turkish world, as academician Samoilovich writes, has been little developed, and classifying them as Gurkhas “is a very controversial position.” Above we cited the opinion of the Arab geographer and traveler Ibn-Haukal that “the language of the pure Khazars is not similar to Turkish and none of the languages of known peoples is similar to it.”

As for the process of formation of the Karachay and Balkar peoples, Tambiev attributes it mainly to the influx of foreigners, which is a complete repetition of the thoughts of Sysoev, Dyachkov-Tarasov and others.

Objecting to Sysoev and Dyachkov-Tarasov in their opinion about the appearance of Karachais and Balkars in the North Caucasus in the 16th century, he argues that their settlement in the current territory occurred “long before the 16th century.” and, in any case, no later than the 10th century.” We have already talked above about the report of the Russian ambassador Yelchin, from which it is clear that back in 1639 the Karachais lived on Baksan and the ambassador and his companions stayed with them for two weeks, making valuable gifts to their leaders - the Crimean-Shamkhalov brothers and their mother.

This valuable document definitively refutes the conclusions of G.A. Kokiev about the time of resettlement of the Karachais and Balkars in the current territory.

Further, according to G. A. Kokiev, the Karachais and Balkars were part of the “Elamite union of tribes,” because, as he explains, with the exception of the Kabardians, all peoples were included there. The question arises, how does the author know that the Karachais and Balkars also could not be an exception?

Before giving such a conclusion, the author had to find out whether the Karachais and Balkars themselves were in the Caucasus during the era of the existence of the Alan tribal union.

Historian X.O. Laipanov goes further in his assumptions than G.A. Kokieva. He categorically states that “the Karachais and Balkars did not have any Turkish or Crimean ancestral home, but are the indigenous inhabitants of the Kuban basin and the sources of the Terek.”

Further, the author defines their place of origin: “The Balkars lived,” he writes, “in the steppe regions of Kuma and Podkumka, and the Karachais lived in the Trans-Kuban region, in areas called Zagzam, Laba, Sanchar and Arkhyz.” However, the author himself admits that he “does not have any written or other sources” on this issue.

He also has no evidence about the crossing of the Karachais from Trans-Kuban to Baksan, and the Balkars from Kuma and Podkumk. This resettlement, in his opinion, occurred “no earlier than the second half of the 15th and early 16th centuries.”

Regarding the issues of the origin of the Karachais and Balkars, Kh.O. Laipanov concludes: “the basis of the Karachay-Balkar ethnic group are the Kipchaks (Cumans) and Khazars.”

This statement by Laipanov coincides with Tambiev’s hypothesis. In addition, Laypanov admits the possibility of one of the tribes of the Kuban Bulgarians joining the main Khazar-Kipchak group and believes that “fragments of Timur’s hordes joined the bulk of the Karachay-Balkars and were the ancestors of some of their modern surnames.” Then the author claims that over the centuries Ossetians, Kabardians, Svans, Abazas, etc. joined this Khazar-Kipchak core.

X.O. Laipanov, denying any resettlement of the Karachay-Balkars from Crimea and other places, considers them to be the aborigines of the North Caucasus, while recognizing the Karachays and Balkars as descendants of the Kipchak-Polovtsians. Everyone knows that the Kipchaks and Cumans are not the indigenous inhabitants of the North Caucasus, their homeland is Central Asia, from where they migrated to Eastern Europe in the 11th century. n. e. Consequently, the Karachay-Balkars, descended from the Kipchaks, could not possibly have been the indigenous inhabitants of the North Caucasus.

Laipanov's hypothesis about the origin of the Karachais and Balkars, in addition to being based on historically incorrect and contradictory data, is too broad and comprehensive. Here are the Kipchaks, and the Khazars, and the Bulgarians, and the remnants of Timur’s troops, and almost all the Caucasian peoples.

It is possible to allow the assimilation of individual newcomers and foreigners on the part of the Karachay-Balkars, but it is difficult to believe in the assimilation of the remnants of Timur’s military units or an entire tribe of Bulgarians.

We have presented almost all the main hypotheses about the origin of the Balkars and Karachais.

From their brief review, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Karachais and Balkars lived together in the past and bore the name of the people from which they broke away.

2. For the first time the name “Karachais” is found in the report of the Moscow ambassador Yelchin in 1639, and the name “Bolkhars” is in the report of the Moscow ambassador Tolochanov in 1650. It is true that in the replies of the Terek governor Dashkov for 1629 the word “Balkars” is found, but it is used as a place name, as a toponymic term.

3. Karachais and Balkars are not aborigines of their current territories, they are newcomers and displaced an earlier population from here.

4. Most scientific researchers consider the Kipchaks (Polovtsians) to be the main core of the Karachay-Balkar people.

5. Linguistic research of acad. Samoilovich and the Polovtsian dictionary, compiled in 1303, which has survived to this day, testify to the closeness of the language of the Karachais and Balkars with the language of the Kipchaks (Polovtsians).

6. The Karachais came to the present territory between 1639 and 1653, for in 1639 they were still in Baksan, as evidenced by the report of the Russian ambassador Yelchin.

7. From the report of the Russian ambassador Yelchin it is clear that the Karachais (and therefore the Balkars) were in the stage of transition to feudal relations, they were led by leaders - the Crimean-Shamkhalov brothers, the feudal lords of Karachay.

8. The ancient burial grounds and shpak located on the territory of Balkaria, as shown by excavations carried out by V. Miller and M. Kovalevsky, have nothing in common with the current population and belong to an earlier period.

9. Among the Karachais and Balkars, two dominant types predominate: one is Turkic, with significantly smoothed facial features, the other is Aryan, most reminiscent of Ossetian.

Here, in our opinion, are more or less scientifically substantiated data concerning the history of the Karachay-Balkars, which we came to by reviewing the existing main hypotheses and indisputable evidence.

However, as we see, the question of the origin of the Karachay-Balkars, the questions of when and where their ancestors came from when they came to Baksan, have not yet been scientifically clarified. Historians are helpless, there are no written sources, and there are no remnants of material culture, these small but faithful witnesses of the past.

In such cases, when a hopeless situation is created for the historian, Prof. V. Klyuchevsky recommends turning to the memory of the people themselves, that is, to folk legends.

Having accepted this advice, we turned to the legends existing among the people, which, as mentioned above, are very contradictory, and therefore, having reviewed them with great caution, we settled on one, the most widespread legend in Karachay, about the exit of the Karachais from Crimea, about their Crimean origin. In this regard, we found it expedient to turn to the sources of the history of Crimea, to the monuments of the history of the peoples who inhabited Crimea, and there look for the information we need. The North Caucasus has always been in close cooperation with Crimea.

Since ancient times, the Crimean Peninsula has been the arena of the history of many peoples, starting with the Cimmerians and Taurians, ending with the Kipchak Cumans, Tatars, and Nogais.

An important role in the history of Crimea was played successively by the Greeks, Armenians, Genoese and Tatars.

The Armenians played a particularly important role in Crimea under the Genoese. The Armenians in Crimea created a large network of churches and monasteries, which had educational institutions. Learned monks lived in the monasteries, were engaged in literary activities, and taught in schools not only theology, but also philosophy, history, mathematics, astronomy, geography and other sciences. A large number of church, historical and scientific books were written and rewritten here.

According to a tradition established over centuries, book scribes included at the end or beginning of these books the memorable notes they compiled about the events of their time. There were a lot of such manuscripts with memorial records in Crimean-Armenian churches and monasteries. Most of them disappeared after the fall of Kafa and the conquest of Crimea by the Turks in 1475. Currently, the surviving manuscripts of Crimea are stored in Yerevan in the state book depository - Madenataran. In addition, Jews, Karaites and Krymchaks lived in Crimea from ancient times, who played a leading role in the Khazar Kaganate.

In the middle of the 11th century, the Kipchaks (Cumans-Cumans) entered Crimea. These are Turkic people who previously lived in Central Asia. In the 11th century The Kipchaks migrated to Eastern Europe and occupied the Azov and Black Sea steppes. They were engaged in cattle breeding and raids on Rus', where they obtained slaves, who were taken to eastern markets and sold at a profit.

According to the historian of Crimea of the 17th century. Martiros Kryshetsy, in 1051 they settled in a large trade center of Crimea, in the famous city of Solkhat, turning it into their capital. From here there was a trade caravan route to Asia Minor and India.

In the middle of the 12th century. The Kipchaks occupied the Taman Peninsula and forever destroyed the Russian Tmutarakan principality, occupied its capital Tumatarcha, from where the caravan route began to Asia Minor and beyond.

At the end of the 12th century. these Kipchaks subjugated another important trading point - the port of Sudak (Sugdeya), which was then the largest center of transit trade between East and West.

Owning three large points of international trade, the Kipchaks benefited greatly.

In 1223 they were conquered by the Mongols. After the conquest of Crimea, part of the Kipchaks (Cumans) went to Hungary and settled there. There they founded two regions - Greater and Lesser Cumania. They enjoyed special benefits and lived autonomously according to their own laws. These regions existed until 1876, when, due to reforms, they were abolished, and the Kipchaks (or Cumans) began to submit to the norms of general Hungarian legislation. Some of the Polovtsians remained in Crimea, but did not enjoy any benefits.

Here is basically a list of peoples who inhabited Crimea in the Middle Ages and played a role in the life of the country. All these peoples have their own archives, containing enormous historical material not only on the history of Crimea, but also on the history of the North Caucasus. The Crimean Tatar state (Khanate), which existed from 1223 to 1783, had its own divan and left a large archive, which, of course, contains information about the peoples who inhabited the Crimea. The Genoese also had their own rich archive, which they took to Genoa, where it is kept in the archives of the Bank of St. George. The Greeks and Armenians in 1778, during their resettlement, took their archives to Mariupol and Nakhichevan-on-Don.

We did not have the opportunity to use all these rich sources. However, as we have already mentioned above, the state book depository of Armenia - Madenataran - has extensive material on the history of Crimea. The number of manuscripts stored in Madenataran exceeds 10 thousand. Currently, the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR publishes commemorative records of these manuscripts. Among the published memorial records, the chronicle of Khachatur Kafaetsi (1592-1658) attracts attention. This chronicle was not known to the scientific world; it was first published by V. Hakobyan in 1951. True, back in 19-14 a detailed article was written about it in the Etchmiadzin magazine by prof. A. Abrahamyan.

It should be noted that Kafaetsi’s records are very truthful and completely coincide with the data of historical science. For example, his records about the capture of Azov by the Don Cossacks and about the campaign of the Turkish Sultan and the Crimean Khan against Azov in 1640 with an army of one hundred thousand, about the brutal defeat of this army, about the loss of more than 40 thousand soldiers by it alone, and about the shameful return to Crimea , his records about the alliance of Bogdan Khmelnitsky with the Crimean Khan Islam-Girey the second, about their joint struggle and campaign against Poland coincide with the descriptions of the same events by historians N. Kostomarov, V. D. Smirnov, V. Klyuchevsky and others. Based on this we can say that Kafaetsi’s records are trustworthy, and we hope that his record about the Chagatai (Kipchaks) will also deserve the attention of historians.

This is what we find and what attracts our attention in the chronicle of Khachatur Kafaetsi:

“On May 3, 1639, peoples rose up: Nogais, Chagatai, Tatars, left (or left - Kh.P.) from Crimea. All three (peoples - Kh.P.) came together and consulted with each other: the first (people, i.e. Nogais - Kh.P.) went to Hadji-Tarkhan, the second (people, i.e. Chagatai. - X. P.) entered Circassia, the third (people, i.e. Tatars - X. P.) returned back to Crimea.”

Here is the Armenian text of this entry: “...1639 Tvakanii, Amsyan 3 Maisi 932 Nogai, Chgata, Tatar Elan, Khrimen Gnatzin. 3 mekdeg egan, zenshin arin, - mekn Hadji-Tarkhan gnatz, meki Cherkess mdavev mekn dartsav, khrim egav.” What is important to us from this record is that on May 3, 1639, three peoples left the Crimea, of which the Chagatai went to Circassia. (The Kafaets in their notes call all Circassians Circassians, and call the entire country, including Kabarda, Circassia.)

Unfortunately, Kafaetsi in his entry brings the Chagatais “to the Circassians” and this ends his story about them. He is silent about the further fate of the Chagatai people in Circassia; we have no other sources yet. From history we know that the Chagatai are the same Kipchaks (Cumans). According to philologists, their language belongs to the Kipchak group of Turkic languages, to the Kipchak-Oguz subgroup. The Chagatai language arose on the basis of the Oguz-Kipchak literary language that already existed in Central Asia. No wonder Lamberti was amazed by the purity of the Turkic language among the Karachais.

Kafaetsi more than once mentions in his notes the Chagatai as warriors of the Khan’s army. The Chagatai took part together with the Circassians in the Khan's campaign against Azov. The Chagatai and Circassians knew each other well, like comrades in arms. Therefore, it is not surprising that by 1639 the Chagatai went to their Circassian friends, entered their country and settled there.

Where did the Chagatai, or Kipchaks, stay in Circassia? The history of Circassia has been little studied; in it we do not find the name “Chagatai”. This question was not the subject of research. In the same way, we do not know from Russian primary sources the name “Karachai” before 1639, and the name “Balkar” until 1650. The word “Balkarians” is used as a geographical name for an area. True, Kokiev and Laipanov are trying to prove that the Karachais and Balkars could exist under the name Alans, but this is a bare assumption that is not confirmed in science. Scientific data say that they really did not exist in the Caucasus. They lived in Crimea under the name of Chagatai, or Kipchaks.

We are confident that the Chagatai who came from Crimea are the indisputable ancestors of the Karachais and Balkars. Kafaetsi says that the Chagatai entered Circassia. First of all, it is necessary to find out whether the territory of Baksan, where Fedot Elchin found the Karachais, is an integral part of Circassia. This question is beyond doubt. For a long time, Pyatigorsk Circassians lived on Baksan. Laipanov proves that “by the time the Karachais and Balkars arrived in Baksan, Kabardian auls existed in its lower reaches and the lands along Baksan were considered princely.” Further Laipanov writes that the Karachais, when they came to Baksan, were subject to princely tribute. Thus, Baksan was part of the territory of Circassia.

How can one prove the identity of the Karachay-Balkars and the Chagatai? To do this we must turn to the facts. Until 1639, in Kabardino-Cherkessia, in particular in Baksan, there were no people who spoke the Turkic language. Kafaetsi writes in his chronicle that in 1639 the Chagatai people left the Crimea and entered Circassia. These people spoke the Turkic language. We don't know where they stopped. We only know that in the fall of 1639 there were people on Baksan who spoke the Turkic language. In other places of Circassia even after 1639 there were no people who spoke Turkic or Kipchak languages.

The question arises: if not the Chagatays, but another people appeared on Baksan, then where did the Chagatais go and where did the new people come from, called the “Karachai” by the Russian ambassador Yelchin?

The royal order, given to Ambassador Yelchin at the beginning of 1639, details all the settlements, cities, principalities in the Caucasus, and the names of their rulers with whom he could stay. This order says nothing about the Karachais and Balkars. This clearly proves that at the time the order was drawn up, they were not on Baksan. They left Crimea in May 1639. Apparently, these people were then on the move and looking for a suitable place for a permanent and settled life.

Indeed, they found suitable places in the upper reaches of the Kuban. Soon, part of the Karachais moved there and settled in the Zelenchuk and Teberda gorges. This resettlement took place soon, maybe even in the same 1639, but not later than 1650, when the second Russian ambassador Tolochanov on Baksan did not find either the Karachais or their princes and stopped at the Balkar Murzas. The Karachay society was a feudal type society, which completely coincides with the Chagatay society. The Balkar people were led by the Crimean-Shamkhalov princes.

An important factor for determining the ethnogenesis of any people is its language. The conclusion of academician has already been cited. Samoilovich that the language of the Karachais and Balkars has a common connection, common features with the dialect of the Kipchaks.

This opinion of Samoilovich is confirmed by the Polovtsian dictionary of 1303, which we have already discussed above. It contains many words that have survived to this day only in the Karachay and Balkar languages and are completely absent in other Turkic languages.

One more remark from Academician. Samoilovich deserves serious attention. The name of the days of the week among the Karachais and Balkars coincides with the name of the days of the week among the Karaites and Crimeans. This suggests that the ancestors of the Balkars and Karachais lived in Crimea together with the Karaites and Krymchaks and borrowed. They have these words.

All these facts and the great similarity of the language of the Karachais and Balkars with the first language of the Chagatai (or Kipchak) speak of their exit from the Crimea and their Chagatai (or Kipchak) origin.

One more question remains to be clarified: why did one part of the Crimean Chagatais (or Kipchaks) here in the Caucasus begin to be called Malkars or Balkars, and the other Karachais? According to the prevailing opinion among historians, the Karachay people got their name from their country - Karachay, which translated into Russian means “Black River”. Lamberti often calls the Karachais “Kara-Circassians,” although they have nothing in common with the Circassians. He explains this not because they are black, but “maybe because in their country the sky is always cloudy and dark.” K. Gan, based on folk legends and his own observations, finds that this country is called “Karachay” because the rivers in this area are colored black from slate sand.

At the Karachay resort of Teberda there is a beautiful lake Kara-Kel, which means “Black Lake”. The water in it, thanks to the underwater black stones and the abundant shade of the branchy coniferous and deciduous giant trees standing on the shore, really seems black and shines like skillfully polished black marble.

According to folk legend, at the bottom of this lake lives a black witch, the mistress of the country’s lands, and the country as her possession “Kara-Chai”.

We do not intend to argue whether the rivers and lakes of Karachay are black or not, although we have wonderful lakes in the mountains of green, blue and other shades, although the beautiful Teberda herself has rightly been called “Blue-Eyed Teberda” for a long time. It is important for us to find out since when did this country begin to bear its modern name? What was its name before the Karachais settled there?

According to Dyachkov-Tarasov, this country was abandoned by an unknown people several centuries before the arrival of the Karachais and had no name.

This free territory was occupied by part of the Chagatai, or Karachais, who migrated from Crimea and temporarily stayed on Baksan. The Karachais could not get their name from their new homeland, because before coming here, while on the road, they were called Karachais even on Baksan.

The Chagatai left Crimea on May 3, 1639, and on October 13 of the same year, the Russian ambassador Fedot Elchin found them on Baksan; he stayed with their leaders, the Crimean-Shamkhalov brothers, for two weeks.

Both the ambassador himself and the priest Pavel Zakharyev who accompanied him always call them Karachais in all their official papers. This means that the Karachais came with this name from Crimea, where they already had this name.

The Kafaetsi chronicle calls them Chagatai based on their nationality. Everyone knows that in Southern Crimea there is a river called the Black River, which the local population calls “Karasu”, and sometimes “Kara-Chay”. “Karasu” is a new Tatar name, and “Kara-Chay” is an old one, apparently of Kipchak origin. Residents of the entire river basin Kara-Chai were called Karachais. Among these residents were Chagatays. These are Chagatai by origin, and Karachays by residence moved to Circassia, whom Yelchin found on Baksan.

Usually, all immigrants in new places of residence, when founding cities, villages and other settlements, give them the names of the settlements they left. The Karachais did the same: having settled on the modern territory of Karachay, in memory of their old Crimean ancestral home - the Kara-Chay basin - they also called their new homeland “Karachay”.

About the Balkars.

Balkars are also called Malkars. As Laipanov certifies, “the neighbors of the Balkars - Kabardians, Circassians and Karachais - in the past did not know the name “Balkars”. Both in the past and at present, the Balkars themselves do not call themselves by this name.”

Stahl, in his essay about the Circassian people, always calls the Balkars Malkars.

M.K. Abaev believes that Russian officials renamed the Malkars into Balkars, finding this name more euphonious and convenient for official papers.

As Laipanov notes, various Balkar tribes previously bore the names of their gorges, only the inhabitants of the Cherek Gorge called themselves Malkars. In his opinion, this indicates that the Malkars came to this gorge with an established name. Like many others, Laipanov believes that the name “Malkars” comes from the name of the river. Malki, where the inhabitants of Cherek seem to have lived before.

V. Miller and M. Kovalevsky suggest that the Balkars inherited their name along with the country from which they displaced the more ancient Ossetian population. This assumption of scientists at the present time, when documents and materials related to Kabardian-Russian relations have been published, has been fully justified.

According to the indisputable data of the Kafaetsi chronicle, the Chagatai, or Karachais, left Crimea on May 3, 1639. Having stopped temporarily on Baksan, they settled.

As we have already seen, one group went to the upper reaches of the Kuban, occupied the Zelenchuk and Teberda gorge, the second group went to the upper reaches of the Terek, settled along the gorges of the Baksan, Bezengi, Chegem and Cheren rivers, flowing into Malka. The first group retained its name and gave the country its name - Karachay, and the second group in the upper reaches of the Terek, in the river basin. Malki, lost its name and began to be called Balkars, and the territory occupied by the inhabitants of all four gorges began to be called Balkaria. How did the Chagatais, or Karachais, become Balkars? According to our data, the Balkars under the name of the Chagatai or Karachais appeared on Baksan in 1639 and until 1650 nothing was said about them as a sovereign people either in Russian or in foreign sources.

Only recently, T. Kh. Kumykov, in his outline of the history of the Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and after him S. Babaev, D. Shabaev in a newspaper article, state that the first news of Russian sources about the Balkars dates back to 1628. However, respected authors they are mistaken, a toponymic term is mistaken for an ethnic name, the name of a locality is considered the name of a people. Obviously, the source on which this statement is based are documents published in the book “Kabardino-Russian Relations in the 16th - 18th Centuries.” Nos. 76, 77, 78 concerning silver ore deposits.

In the letter from the Terek governor I.L. Dashkov dated January 11, 1629 to the Ambassadorial order on exploration of silver ore deposits, it is reported that “Kovshov-Murza was sent to the mountains for your sovereign affairs, who brought ore... and the place of Balkara belongs to him , Kovshov-Murza, nephew of Abshit Vorokov.” From this reply it is clearly clear that the word “Balkarians” is the name of the place where they were looking for silver.

The same Terek governor I. A. Dashkov, in his reply dated February 21, 1629, writes on the same occasion:

“Gathering with the military men, they went to the mountains in Balkars to the place where they had silver ore.” Here also the word “Balkarians” is used as a toponomic term. These documents indicate that the place where the silver was located, even before the arrival of the ancestors of modern Balkars, was called “Balkars,” and it is very natural that the inhabitants of this area, regardless of nationality, bore the name of the area and were called Balkars. Since when the Cherek gorge was called this, we do not know, the question has not been studied, but it has been established that the name “Balkary” already existed in 1629.

If Karachay got its name from the Karachay settlers, then the “Balkars” themselves gave their name to the Chagatai, or Karachays, who came from Crimea. Soon they forgot their old name and began to be called Balkars.

Academicians Kovalevsky and Miller were right when they, not knowing and having no information that this country was called “Balkarians,” wrote that the Balkars “inherited their name along with the country.” The toponomic name became ethnic.

There is an opinion that only the river basin. Cherek was called “Balkars”, and the inhabitants of this gorge were called Balkars. The question arises, how did the name “Balkars” spread to the inhabitants of the Baksan, Chegem and Bezengi gorges and the entire territory of these rivers began to be called Balkaria? Supporters of this hypothesis say that the numerical superiority and large share of the population of Cherek - Balkars in the social life of settlers from all gorges brought them to the fore. They played a leading role in the lives of the settlers, and therefore the name of this tribe eventually passed on to all other tribes and became the common name of the entire people. Shora Nogmov had this opinion, and now this point is defended by Laipanov and others.

Kabardino-Balkaria is a beautiful mountainous country, the main part of which is located in the mountains of the North Caucasus. In the south the country borders with Georgia, in the north with the Stavropol Territory, in the west with Karachay-Cherkessia, and in the east and southeast with North Ossetia. The capital of the republic is Nalchik, other large cities are Prokhladny, Baksan.

Kabardino-Balkaria occupies only 12.5 thousand square meters. km, but the nature of this small area is surprisingly diverse. The scope of the relief within the republic: from plains lying at an altitude of 150 m above sea level to mountains with peaks rising more than 5000 m. And the climate varies from dry steppes to the plains near the river. Terek to the zone of ice and snow at sky-high heights. Such differences in relief and climate determined the diversity of soils, as well as flora and fauna.

One of the main attractions of these places is Mount Elbrus (5642 m) - the highest peak in Russia, the Caucasus and Europe, located on the border of Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia. Elbrus received many names and interpretations: “Albar” (“Albors”) - among the Iranians it means “High Mountain”, “Brilliant Mountain”, “Elburus” - among the Nogais from “spruce” (wind) and “burus” (twist, direct ), “Oshkhomakho” - among the Kabardians it means “mountain of happiness”, etc.

Elbrus has two peaks: the western one is high

5642 m and the eastern one - 5623 m. Both peaks of Elbrus are covered with snow and ice. The powerful glaciers of Elbrus give rise to the rivers Kyukyurtlyu, Ullu-Khurzuk, Ullu-Kam, which, merging, form the Kuban River - the largest in the North Caucasus. Elbrus is considered an extinct volcano and is a unique natural monument.

In the east of Kabardino-Balkaria there is the largest gorge in the republic - Balkarskoye (Cherekskoye). The gorge looks like a narrow gap between unusually high rocks. Half a kilometer before the entrance to the gorge there are blue lakes. The largest of them is 200 m wide and 368 m deep. The road to the Balkar Gorge passes along the ledges of steep cliffs and rises steeply into the mountains all the time. Thus, on the left is a wall several hundred meters long, and on the right is a dizzying abyss, in the depths of which the seething Cherek Balkarsky River is visible as a thin thread. There are many ancient monuments in these places: mainly the remains of defensive towers and fortress walls. Mountain peaks rising into the clouds are visible everywhere.

The Chegem Gorge is located on the river of the same name. The wall of Su-Auzu waterfalls (Chegem waterfalls) is rightfully considered the most beautiful place in the gorge. In winter, you can see a grandiose cascade of ice here. Not far from these places is one of the main attractions of Kabardino-Balkaria - a waterfall on the Chegem River Abai-Su about 80 m high.

There are many more beautiful corners of Kabardino-Balkaria that should also be mentioned. For example, the valley of the picturesque Baksan (Azau) River, where ancient monuments are located: ruins of fortresses, ancient rocks, etc. As well as Lake Tambukan, widely known for its healing mud, and the Bezengi Wall, consisting of a number of mountain peaks covered with ice. The height of the Bezengi wall is about 2000 m, and its length is over 12 km. The second largest glacier in the Caucasus, the Bezengi glacier, begins from the wall, its length exceeds 13 km. At its end, lying at an altitude of 2090 m, a large ice grotto formed. From there, one of the largest rivers in the country, the Cherek Bezengisky, bursts out noisily. To the east, in the upper reaches of the Cherek Balkarsky River, there is the largest glacier in the Caucasus - Dykhsu - about 15 km long and over 45 km 2 in area.

Another wealth of Kabardino-Balkaria is mineral waters. There are more than 100 springs open here, including thermal ones. At the foot of the northern slopes of Elbrus is the beautiful Narzan Valley. Here, on an area of about 1 km, there are 20 “Narzan” type mineral water sources. The famous Narzan begins its journey at the foot of

Elbrus. The name “Narzan” comes from the Kabardian word “nart-sana” (“drink of the Narts”), and the Turkic name for Narzan is “Ache-Su”, which means “sour water”.

The population of Kabardino-Balkaria is multinational, but the main nationalities are Kabardians and Balkars. The traditional occupations of Kabardians and Balkars are agriculture and transhumance. Since ancient times, trades and crafts have been developed: men's - blacksmithing, weapons, jewelry, women's - cloth making, felt, gold embroidery. Beekeeping, hunting and, of course, horse breeding were of great importance. All over the world, Kabardian horses are valued for their speed, endurance and grace. They are one of the symbols of the country.

The history of Islam in Kabardino-Balkaria is closely connected with the spread of Islam throughout the North Caucasus. Currently, there are mosques in almost all populated areas of the country, some of them have several mosques: a cathedral mosque and a neighborhood mosque.

The capital of Kabardino-Balkaria - the city of Nalchik - is known for its beauty. It is surrounded in a semicircle from the southwest by a picturesque panorama of the Caucasian ranges. Many city streets resemble park alleys. The outskirts of the city in several places imperceptibly turn into suburban forests.