卷 13, 编号 4 (2025)

This paper, using materials from embassy books as a historical source, examines concepts that were used in the 16th century by Russian, Crimean, and Turkish diplomats in international dialogue. These are terms associated with the name of the monarch, the hierarchy of states, and the concept of power. The concept of "petition" (chelobitie) and its evolution in diplomatic relations is specifically examined. The author argues that by the 16th century, the concept of "petition" in international relations did not imply the different status of diplomatic partners, but a specific situation in which one party addresses the other with some initiative. The "petition" was acting as an ethical category, an element of political ritual. The article examines the problem of non-recognition of the Tsar’s title of Ivan the Terrible by the Crimean Khanate. The methods of legitimization of Russia's power over the annexed territories and the problems of religious tolerance are considered separately. Different policies towards Muslim and Catholic countries, various methods of diplomatic argumentation, and explanatory strategies are noted. Mutual religious tolerance was linked to practical motives. The parties tried to reduce the factors that aggravated the prospects of reaching diplomatic agreements, and the refusal to exacerbate confrontation on religious grounds was one of the diplomatic instruments.

Research objective: To consider the problem of the historical memory of the people, and the national cultural code of the Tatars, manifested in folklore samples about the Kazan Khanate.

Research materials: In this article, the author traces the monuments of epic folklore associated with the Kazan Khanate. The research material is published and archival texts of historical traditions and legends, as well as heroic epic dastans. The monuments of Tatar folklore discussed in the study were recorded from the lips of compatriots living in different regions of the Russian Federation, and were also found in old Arabic manuscripts during complex scientific expeditions, or extracted from collections and manuscripts submitted for signature owners to the archives fund; Some of the materials were included in the academic publication «Tatar Folk Art») in 13 volumes, published from 1977 to 1993.

Results and novelty of the research: The study systematizes individual genres of folk verbal creativity of the Tatars during the Kazan Khanate period; through folklore materials, the specifics of the national mentality and cultural processes of the people are revealed. Historical memory and valuable national codes are revealed in epic works. The author determines that the surviving relics reveal the past of the Tatars, help to find historical truth, and take a direct part in reviving the image and identity of national character, something which sheds light on determining the future. In the process of analyzing folk art texts, it was revealed that the origins of the folklore verbal art of the Tatar people go back to ancient times; oral folk works convey the worldview of the people of their time; they reflect the religious views of the Tatars. The work is the first experience of systematic analysis and description of individual genres of Tatar folk art of the Kazan Khanate period.

This study examines the role of the Kazan Khanate in the foreign policy of the Crimean Khanate and analyzes its political, economic, and cultural significance in the light of chronicles and archival documents. The Kazan Khanate held strategic importance for the Crimean Khanate in its struggle to inherit the legacy of the Golden Horde and establish influence over Moscow. During the reigns of Mengli Giray Khan and Mehmed Giray Khan, Kazan became a key element in Crimea’s relations with Moscow. Mehmed Giray aimed to increase Crimea’s influence in the region by placing his brother, Sahib Giray, on the Kazan throne. However, internal conflicts within the Crimean Khanate and increasing pressure from Moscow made controlling Kazan more difficult. This study details how Kazan became a tool in the foreign policy of the Crimean Khanate and examines the political and military developments of the period. Ultimately, the fall of the Kazan Khanate weakened the Crimean Khanate’s influence in the region and paved the way for Moscow’s expansion. By highlighting Kazan’s crucial role in Crimean-Moscow relations, the study sheds light on the political dynamics of the era.

Objective: To identify possible real or imaginary cases of Shibanid rule on the Kazan throne in the 15th century.

Research Materials: The present work is based on the analysis of published sources (chronicles of various origins, the collection of chronicles of Utemish Hadji, dastan Kadir Ali-bek, historical writings of Sayyid-Muhammad Riza and Hurremi Chelebi) and unpublished sources (Siberian chronicle of Ivan Cherepanov).

Results and scientific novelty: In 2007, V.V.Trepavlov proposed the hypothesis of Moscow and Kazan citizenship of the Siberian yurt, which had a significant impact on subsequent historiography. It was built on the basis of an analysis of the embassy and chronicle sources of the 16th century, which reflected precisely the Moscow point of view on this extremely important issue during the annexation of Siberia. However, an analysis of Turkic-language sources of various origins indicates that, on the contrary, they reflected a different narrative: the real or imaginary rights of the 15th-century Shibanid dynasties to the throne of Kazan which, regardless, turned out to be dependent on the Siberian suzerains.

The difficulty of studying this narrative lies in the fact that the full list of such Shibanid rulers on the Kazan throne is available only in the Crimean sources of the 17th century. Here they include such famous political figures of this dynasty as Mahmud Khoja, Khizr, Abul-Khair, Sheikh Haider, Yadigyar, and Eminek, as well as a certain unidentified Bayan Khoja. At the same time, in other sources, none of these khans, except perhaps Abu-l-Khair, was directly related to the Bulgar or the Kazan throne although in different periods they acted as leaders of all the Sibanids. Apparently, this made them potential rulers of the Kazan yurt, especially before the formation of an independent dynasty there in the late 1430s and the first half of the 1440s.

Beyond the information of Crimean historians, there were more factual cases of occupation of the Kazan throne or some lands there by representatives of the Tyumen ruling Shibanid dynasty in the person of Hadji Muhammad and his grandchildren, Ibrahim and Mamuk. At the same time, the Siberian chronicle tradition of the late 17th and 18th centuries also reflected other views on this issue which, on the contrary, can be interpreted as a possible dependence of Kazan on Siberia.

Undoubtedly, this raises the question of the possible bias of political views, reflected in written sources, regarding the rulers’ claims to an important political symbol of power in the post-Horde world.

Purpose of the study: To establish the type and date of creation of the document identified by Doctor of Historical Sciences B.A. Aznabaev and published by him under the title, "Copy from the list of granted charter to Bashkir of Uransk volost Avduak Sanbaev" (dating from no later than 1584).

Research materials: Written source (office documents).

Novelty and results of the study: The article examines the validity of the definition of the document identified by Doctor of Historical Sciences B.A. Aznabaev and published by him under the title "Copy from the list of granted charter to Bashkir of Uransk volost Avduak Sanbaev" as a granted charter dating it to the reign of Ivan IV. As a result of the present study of the document's form and its contents, namely, the restoration of the correct reading of the name of the first voivode of Kazan and the identification of biographical information about the persons mentioned in the document, it was established that the document is the report of the serving man, Osip Arkatov, the clerk Yuri Smirnov and the interpreter Ivan Chubarov regarding the division of arable land "with forests, and hay mowing, and with all kinds of lands" to Avduak Sanbaev and dates from the period between the end of May 1606 and May 21, 1607 (a copy of 1737).

This publication is a response to the text of our Ufa colleagues, where they tried to prove that the representatives of the Turkic population in the Trans-Urals during the 16th–17th centuries were definitely Bashkirs. They tried to demonstrate this using the example of the Tersyak and Synryan clans. I adhere to the position that the bulk of the Turkic population in the Trans-Urals during that time identified themselves with the clans: Tabyn, Tersyak, Synryan, Bakatin, etc. In the records of the late 16th–17th centuries (and later), the concepts of “Bashkirs” and “Tatars” are class designations. The word "Bashkirs" was used to refer to the yasak population in the Ufa district, and the word "Tatars" refered to the same population of the Tyumen, Turin, and Tobolsk districts (uezd’s). The formation of the Bashkirs and Siberian Tatars in their modern composition took place within the framework of the class groups of the Moscow State / Russian Empire, and administrative boundaries played a decisive role in the consolidation of these groups. At the same time, class designations began to be perceived as ethnic over some time.

B.A. Aznabaev and co-authors disagreed with this point of view and tried to show that the representatives of the Synryan and Tersyak clans had been Bashkirs since the time of Ivan the Terrible. They based their arguments on the fact that in documents the Tersyak and Synryan, as well as representatives of other Turkic clans of the Trans-Ural part of the Ufa uezd, were named as holders of patrimonial (votchina) rights to land. The authors of the text under consideration are convinced that only the Bashkirs had patrimonial rights to land in the Moscow State. In this case, the Bashkirs are the people, not a class or class group. But a sufficiently large number of publications have already shown that votchina rights to land in the 16th–17th centuries were characteristic of yasak people from the river Volga area to Western Siberia and were in no way connected with their cultural or linguistic affiliation. The existence of votchina rights in the period under consideration cannot serve as a basis for interpreting the ethnic affiliation of the people.

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the chronology of the Moscow-Kazan wars (1467–1530) as presented in Russian chronicles, within the context of the church calendar. The study addresses the symbolic meaning behind the Moscow princes’ choice of particular commemorative calendar dates for conducting military and political actions against the Kazan Khanate.

Materials of the research: Russian chronicles of the 15th–16th centuries contain a number of dated accounts of military clashes between the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Kazan Khanate during the reigns of Ivan III and Vasily III. Historians have noted that Russian military culture was characterized by calendar symbolism, in which certain military actions were deliberately timed to coincide with specific church feasts or the commemorative days of saints. In this context, the Moscow-Kazan wars between 1467 and 1530, described and interpreted in the chronicles from a religious perspective, are of particular interest.

Results and scientific novelty: For the first time, this study identifies and systematizes the correlation between the chronological data in Russian chronicles concerning major military conflicts between the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Kazan Khanate (1467–1530) and the corresponding church holidays. It has been established that the dated events of the Moscow–Kazan confrontation often coincide with the feast days of saints who were regarded as patrons of the Russian army and Moscow princes, with the changing feasts of the Easter cycle, and with other significant dates of the church calendar. The findings demonstrate that in planning military operations – such as preparing for campaigns, mobilizing the main forces, or dispatching separate detachments – the grand princes and voivodes deliberately took the church calendar into account. This was done both to strengthen the morale of the troops by aligning military actions with religious feasts or the commemorations of heavenly patrons, and to legitimize Moscow’s military and political claims toward Kazan.

This article presents a review of the scientific conference dedicated to the 85th anniversary of the leading researcher of the Oriental Department of the State Hermitage Museum, Mark G. Kramarovsky, held on November 12–14, 2025, at the State Hermitage Museum. The conference consisted of eight sections devoted to issues of archeology, history, historiography, art history, numismatics and many other topics, covering a wide range of problems and dedicated to the history and culture of the Ulus of Jochi, the Ulugh Ulus, and the states that formed on their territories, as well as problems of interaction between the cultures of the countries of the East and West, nomadic and sedentary populations. A separate topic was the study of the history and culture of Solkhat and Crimea in the 13th–16th centuries. The year 2025 marked 100 years since the beginning of archaeological research at the Solkhat settlement with the expedition of Ilia Borozdin, which was subsequently revived in 1978 by the State Hermitage Museum expedition led by Mark Kramarovsky.

Colleagues from Simferopol, Voronezh, Volgograd, Moscow, Kazan, Ufa, Yekaterinburg, St. Petersburg, and Baku took part in the conference.

The conference revealed interest in the topic and format of the event, as well as the need to organize a conference on the Golden Horde within the walls of the State Hermitage Museum on a regular basis.