Libmonster ID: UZ-1296

At the beginning of the XVIII century. for the young Russian Empire, which by that time had widely expanded its borders, the question of strengthening them became urgent. In the east, Russia's strong neighbor was the Qing Empire; in the south, the interests of the Russian Empire collided with the interests of other powerful states of the time - Iran, the Ottoman Empire and its vassal, the Crimean Khanate. Russia had to have powerful military and political resources in order to realize its state interests and win this game of geopolitical forces. However, the young empire often lacked its own military and political resources, which prompted its creators to seek and find allies among the peoples who found themselves in its orbit. One of these peoples was the Kalmyks, or Oirats (Western Mongols), the heirs of the Mongol Empire. There are quite frequent cases in history when the future periphery of one empire - the territory and the people inhabiting it-was in the past the metropolis of the old empire. Such a story happened with the Kalmyks, who as heirs of the Mongol Empire returned to the former vassal territory-the lands of the Golden Horde, but already as subjects of the Russian Empire.

Keywords: acculturation, nomads, baptized Kalmyks, cultural norms, fortress.

The Kalmyks came to the attention of the Russian state in the early 17th century. During this period, the Russian colonial movement in Siberia collided in the border zone with the interests of the very militant Dzungarian Khanate. A panorama of events related to the Kalmyks appears when referring to the inventory of copy books compiled by the famous Russian historian-archivist G. F. Miller [Aktovye istochniki..., 1993]. The documents of the Siberian archives allow us to understand what motives guided the Kalmyks, in what relations they were with the Russians and with the Siberian peoples. Part of the Oirats, led by the Torgout taisha Ho-Urlyuk, moved from Siberia to the Volga.

There are different, often contradictory explanations for the reasons for the departure of Oirats, primarily Torguts, from Dzungaria to the Volga. There were some scholars who saw in the event of one of the last great migrations the imperial ambitions of the Kalmyks, namely, the desire to restore the former greatness of the Mongol Empire (Bichurin, 1991; Guriy, 1915; Rezun, 2000). There are also those who believe that the crisis that engulfed the Oirat society of that period caused the migration of Kalmyks to the Volga (Zlatkin, 1983). Some see this only as a desire of the Kalmyks, who have lost access to the markets of China and Central Asia, to break through to the Russian markets [Tsyuryumov, 2007]. One way or another, the Kalmyks reached the banks of the Volga River in the first half of the 17th century.

page 110
The people who found themselves in the imperial border zone used their border position between two or more political forces to their advantage. The Kalmyks had a rich experience of foreign relations not only with China, but also with Turkey, Crimea, and Iran. They proved to be very convenient allies of Russia, as they were a mobile and well-organized military and political force with extensive experience in conducting combat operations [Belikov, 1965; Gribovsky, 2005; Prozritelev, 1912; Shovunov, 1991]. The social organization of the Kalmyk society of that period favored this. The Kalmyk nomadic Khanate was actually an irregular army, as the Kalmyk nutug 1 was easily transformed into a military unit. In addition, the attractiveness of the Kalmyks as allies was explained by their combat capability. The Kalmyks, who came from Central Asia, brought with them to Russia a completely different battle tactic than that used by the Russians and the peoples of the Volga region and the North Caucasus. The Kalmyks ' type of military armament was often more effective in combat than that of local warriors (Bobrov, 2009: 100-101).

Schmitt's theory of politics can help us understand the foundations on which relations between the peoples who were part of the Empire and the imperial administration were built. According to her, the concept of political means friend-enemy relations, and politics is the art of turning an enemy into a friend [Schmitt, 2007, p. 35-40]. The Kalmyk case of" voluntary entry " into Russia, interpreted in terms of Schmitt's theory, appears as a political practice of turning an enemy into a friend. In Russia, the empire as a special form of political organization arose due to the transformation of enemies into friends. Then it becomes clear why, despite the frequent violations of the Kalmyks ' shert records - contracts with the Russian administration, relations between the Kalmyks and the Russian authorities developed successfully. Thus, guided by his pragmatic goals, Khan Ayuka (1642-1724) easily signed sherti2.

All the shertas signed by Ayuka contain points about Christianization. In the sherti of February 27, 1673, signed by Ayuka at the Solyanka River, the question of Christians is specifically stipulated: "Which Russian people and other Christians will leave the Kalmyk ulus, for which they would pay the Kalmyks a salary by decree." On the contrary, unbaptized Kalmyks and their subjects should have been returned to the ulus (Bakunin, 1995: 24-25). The inclusion of the issue of Christians in the treaties is explained by the fact that in the XVIII century the Russian authorities considered Christianization as a way to strengthen their dominance in the regions. The policy of Christianization was determined by military and strategic considerations [Orlova, 2006, p. 39]. Realizing this, the Kalmyk ruler was jealous of this issue, as he wanted to preserve the integrity of the people under his control and his relative independence from the Russian administration.

The flexible policy pursued by Khan Ayuka allowed the Kalmyks to create their own statehood — the Kalmyk Khanate.3 Ayuki's long political life took place during the reign of various Russian rulers - from Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich to Peter the Great. Most of his reign (1672-1724) coincided with the reign of Peter the Great. In 1696, Peter officially entrusted Ayuka with the protection of the southern borders of Russia.4 Peter the Great met the "Kalmyk Ayukayu Khan" twice during the Persian campaign. First meeting

1 In this case, I share the position of D. A. Sussova, who, based on the analysis of letters from Kalmyk khans, concludes that the word "nutug" has several meanings. Firstly, the ownership of people and livestock, and secondly, the location of the possession (territory) [Sussva, 2009, pp. 133-136].

2 He signed four sherties with the Russians in 1673, 1677, 1683, and 1684. [Kolesnik-electronic resource http://www.drevnyaya.ru/vyp/stat/sl_15_6.pdf (accessed September 3, 2011)].

3 It is necessary to take revenge that the legitimation of the Khan's power was carried out somewhat later by the Dalai Lama. In 1690, Ayuka was sent a charter from Tibet and the seal, a symbol of the Khan's power.

4 In his book, A. G. Mitirov cites one of Peter the Great's letters to Ayuke, which reveals many aspects of Russian-Kalmyk relations. See: [Mitirov, 1998, pp. 114-116].

page 111
It occurred in 1722 on the way to Astrakhan, when Peter gave an audience to Ayuka, his wife and children.5 The second time he met Khan was on the way back.

The Kalmyk Khanate initially claimed independence from the Russian authorities, which is proved by the fact that the first Kalmyk Khan Ayuka received the title of khan and the Khan's seal from the Dalai Lama. In other words, the legitimacy of the Khan's power in this case was established from the outside. This order of things could not suit the Russian administration, which sought to limit the autonomy of the Kalmyks. This explains the jealous attention with which she treated the symbols of the Khan's power. When, after the death of the ruler of the Stavropol Kalmyks, Anna Taishina, the issue of inheritance of property was resolved, the question of the khan's seal arose. The Khan's seal, which was handed over by Ayuka Khan to Peter Taishin's father Chakdorjab and later kept by Taishin's widow, was considered necessary by officials to be kept in the Foreign Affairs Board. In a secret decree, Governor Neplyuev was instructed to "find the seal secretly from the Kalmyk people and send it here, to the Collegium, because it was sent from the Dalai Lama to the Kalmyk Khanate. 3, op. 1, d. 1, l. 77 vol.]. Not wanting to irritate the Kalmyks, the search for the seal was conducted in the strictest secrecy: "it is necessary to scout about it slightly and take it in this way, so that the governor of the Kalmyk khanate could not find out about it" [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 1, l. 123].

The independence of the Kalmyks was manifested in their desire to build their foreign relations, especially with the Dzungarian Khanate, independently. This circumstance was very significant in Russian-Kalmyk relations, as the Dzungarian Khanate played an important geopolitical role in the Central Asian region. To some extent, Russia viewed its foreign policy relations with China and the Central Asian states through the prism of Russian-Kalmyk relations. At that time, the Dzungarian Khanate was in a difficult situation due to the feuds of the Dzungarian elite and the advance of the Qing Empire. In the summer of 1756, the Manchu army reached the line of Russian border fortresses. Naturally, this caused concern to the Russian authorities. In order to assess the situation, the authorities urgently needed first-hand information. The Dzungars, weakened by the war and internal strife that led to the demise of the Khanate, had no choice but to ask for Russian citizenship. Some of the Dzungars themselves and their subjects, the southern Altaians, applied for Russian citizenship, which they were given. The authorities conditioned the permission to grant citizenship on the need to convert to Orthodoxy. To do this, it was decided to send new subjects to Stavropol-on-Volga.

Among those who came to the citizenship of Her Imperial Majesty Elizabeth Petrovna were very influential figures, such as Norbo Danzhin, a cousin of one of the last rulers of Dzungaria, Amursana. Naturally, the arrival of such a figure of the Dzungarian elite as Norbo Danjin had to be arranged accordingly, according to the etiquette of the time. Trying to win over Norbo Danjin and other Dzungarian owners who have arrived in Russia, the authorities reward them. Norbo Danzhin, who became Dmitry Yakovlev after his baptism, receives the rank of colonel and is appointed to the place of Pavel Torgoutsky, who was promoted to military judge. According to the Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs, he was given "three-natat carts of Yamsky and uyezd, and for these run-through and proverstnye money", as well as "noyon, two hundred rubles, zaisang Ulyumzhi, and after the baptism of Stepan Dmitriev, one hundred, and the servants who are with them from zengortsov and four people on tritseti rublev each. And in addition to that, give them five yards for a dress, and noyon for a caftan of cloth, and a half-caftan of gold or silver brocade " [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 4, l. 227].

5 A detailed description of the audience was given by the Scottish physician D. Bell, who accompanied Peter. A. G. Mitirov describes this description in his book. See: [Mitirov, 1998, pp. 118-120].

page 112
New subjects were considered by the authorities as reliable informants who could give reliable information about the Dzungarian events. A secret Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to Orenburg Governor Tevkelev states that Norbo Danzhin informed the Russians about the latest Dzungarian events, about the fate of the owners, and told them about the genealogies of the Dzungarian clans [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 1, l. 197-205].

Another reason that aroused the interest of the Foreign Affairs Board in the Dzungars was the return to Russian citizenship of 15 thousand families of Torgout Kalmyks. This event occurred in 1701, when the sons of Ayuki rebelled against their father, who was convicted of adultery. One of Ayuki's sons, Sanjip, under the influence of his Dzungarian wife, took the Kalmyks under his control to Dzungaria, where Khan Tsevan-Rabtan took them away, sending Sanjip back to his father in disgrace. The Board's interest in the return of the Kalmyks was so great that officials were not confused by the question of whether these were the Kalmyks who belonged to Sanjip. The College decided to accept all Kalmyks who roamed along the Russian-Chinese border as Russian citizens. A notice was sent to the Chinese that " from now on, the Zengor people will be accepted as citizens." The Panel put forward the argument necessary to justify such a decision -the benefits that the Chinese authorities will receive if the Kalmyks are taken away from the Chinese borders. They will stop "fixing theft" [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 1, l. 199]. The Board was very interested in the question of the number of Dzungars who did not fall under the rule of the Qing Empire.

Thus, it can be concluded that the Russian authorities were interested in increasing the number of their Kalmyks subjects. The benefits of the Kalmyks exceeded the losses that the Russian population often suffered as a result of Kalmyk attacks. It was advantageous for the state to keep the Kalmyks at home.

The Kalmyks at that time sought independence in their relations with the Islamic world - the Caucasian peoples, the Crimean Khanate, Turkey, and Persia. They often turned to them as a third party during the period of civil strife, wanting to avoid pressure from the Russian administration. One of the main figures of the Kalmyk civil strife of 1723-1735, Taisha Donduk-Ombo, fleeing from the persecution of the governor of Tseren-Donduk and the Russian authorities, retired to the Kuban, the territory controlled by the Crimean khan.

Such activity of the Kalmyks in relations with foreign countries could not but alarm the Russian authorities. By the first third of the 18th century, the Kalmyks had already been living in the lands considered part of the Russian state for more than a hundred years, and were to become its subjects in every sense of the word. However, the Kalmyks themselves, being autonomous, had a different opinion on this matter. 6 Counting on Moscow's financial and military support, the Kalmyks believed that they would be allowed to be independent [Khodarkovsky, 1992, p. 239]. Recognition of Kalmyk autonomy was part of the tactic of state policy. The strategic goal was to limit the independence of the Kalmyks and their acculturation, which was supposed to remove the inevitable contradictions between the settled and nomadic populations of the empire. At the same time, the empire needed loyal subjects and loyal defenders of its borders. One hundred years of Kalmyks ' existence as Russian subjects is sufficient time to find suitable means to transform the alien into their own, to use the terms of anthropology.

The chosen acculturation strategy included Christianization and the transition of the Kalmyks to a sedentary lifestyle. If for the Russian authorities, Christianization was a means of strengthening their influence on the Kalmyks, primarily on the Kalmyk elite [Orlova, 2006, p. 39], then for the Kalmyk elite, Christianization was a bargaining chip in the political game of imperial forces.

6 V. V. Trspavlov's book discusses in detail the question of real and imaginary citizenship, and the understanding of citizenship by the Russian authorities and the elite of the annexed peoples [Trspavlov, 2007, pp. 134-197].

page 113
Documents related to the creation of the Stavropol-on-Volga fortress introduce us to the experience of Christianization and acculturation. The documents allow us to understand what methods the authorities used to manage the Kalmyks, and what principles this management was based on.

Modern Russian historians claim that the founder of the city was a famous statesman and historian V. N. Tatishchev. From my point of view, the main role in the decision of the imperial administration to establish a fortress for baptized Kalmyks in the Samara Region was played not even by Pyotr Taishin (Baksadai Dorji), who wanted to use the resource of Orthodoxy to obtain the khan's title, but by another grandson of Ayuki Khan - Donduk-Ombo. The true reason for the construction of the Stavropol-on-Volga fortress should be sought in the events of the Kalmyk civil strife and his deeds. The well-known Kalmyk scholar N. N. Palmov wrote at one time that the decision to move the baptized Kalmyks to places remote from the Kalmyk nomads was made in response to the petition of the Kalmyk khan (viceroy) Donduk-Ombo [Palmov, 2007, p. 164]. This view existed even in pre-revolutionary historiography. Thus, in the historical review of the Stavropol Kalmyks, it is written that not only Peter Taishin, but also Donduk-Ombo, for his part, also asked "for the separation of the baptized Kalmyks, and the government, convinced by these ideas," commissioned the construction of a fortress and a city [Historical Review..., 1844, p.29].

The events that preceded the decision to relocate the baptized Kalmyks to a special place and build a fortress for them took place far from Samara - in the Kalmyk Khanate. The main figure of these events is the grandson of the Kalmyk Khan Ayuki, Taisha Donduk-Ombo, who later became the khanate's viceroy and then khan. During the civil strife, Donduk-Ombo went to the Kuban and threatened to become a Turkish citizen. His actions caused such serious concern among the authorities that in February 1729 a hearing was held in the Supreme Privy Council on this occasion [Bakunin, 1995, p.64]. Concerned that Donduk-Ombo might have gone under Turkish citizenship, the authorities entered into negotiations with him, persuading him to return. As conditions for his return, he, in addition to the khan's throne for himself, also put forward the release of Taishin from custody, the return of uluses to him, and the transfer of all baptized Kalmyks to him. Subsequently, he demanded that all baptized Kalmyks entrusted to Taishin be removed from the rest of the Kalmyks.

The construction of a fortress for baptized Kalmyks in the Samara Region allowed solving a number of problems: first, to strengthen the Kalmyks troops that served on the border service, secondly, to promote the acculturation of nomads and, finally, to solve the problem of prolonged Kalmyk civil strife. More precisely, the Kalmyk civil strife prompted the authorities to build a fortress, which created the basis for solving two other problems.

The choice of a place to build a fortress for the baptized Kalmyks was not accidental. First, it was necessary to separate them from the rest of the Kalmyks in order to turn them into Orthodox farmers. Secondly, the choice of location for the fortress on the Middle Volga is dictated by the need to develop the so-called inner outskirts of Russia. The impetuosity of the empire in the development of distant lands led to the fact that the territory of the Trans - Volga region, which was not fully developed, remained in the rear. The Volga River was the symbolic border of the pre-imperial Russian state. Meanwhile, the peoples inhabiting the Trans - Volga region-the Nogais, Bashkirs, and Kirghiz-Kaisaks-posed a real threat to the plans of the growing empire. Nomads ravaged Russian towns and villages. Bashkirs, resisting colonization, repeatedly rebelled against the imperial power. During this period, the construction of grandiose fortified structures was carried out - the Samara (Orenburg) and New Zakamskaya lines (Dubman, 2004). The Kalmyks, having settled in the Samara region, had to play the same role as in the khanate-to carry out border service. By decree of April 7, 1737, Chief Secretary Kirilov was ordered to build a fortress with

page 114
the princess is also home to the church. Kalmyks were sent under escort to a new place of residence [RGADA, f. 248, op. 3, d. 140, l. 141-148 vol.].

Kalmyks who arrived at their new place of residence found themselves in a difficult situation, as many lost their main wealth - cattle. As it is written in the document of the College, "many of the baptized de Kalmyk people are poor and without cattle" [RGADA, f. 248, op. 3, d. 140, l. 345]. Upon arrival, the Kalmyks were faced with confusion in the food supply, as the authorities did not specify who should receive and issue money for them. Commandant Zmeev in his report points out: "Where to get money from, it is not depicted, but now this princess constantly demands from me the aforementioned annual monetary and grain salary, and moreover declares that because she has not received the salary determined for her, she has no small need to support herself and feed her people" [RGADA, p. 248, op. 3, d. 140, l. 187]. The Kazan governor Golitsyn, who was approached by the commandant, wrote to the capital that he had no decrees "to buy Princess Taishina food or contract out what income to keep money" [GAOO, f. 2, op. 1, d. 3, l. 28]. The only thing that was clear was the salary of the priests. In addition, after learning about the plight of the Kalmyks and the need to buy food for new settlers as quickly as possible, Samara merchants immediately inflated the prices of bread and cereals [ibid., l. 28].

Wanting to somehow improve her situation, Anna Taishina asked V. N. Tatishchev, who at that time was appointed head of the Orenburg expedition (commission) and was supposed to control the development of the Kalmyks, to allocate Russian villages to her possession. She reminded Tatishchev of her husband's promise to allocate villages in a letter to Tatishchev dated March 14, 1738. Interestingly, her writing style is different from that of other prominent Kalmyk ladies of the time. The letter structure corresponds to the rules of the then Russian clerical writing. First, it declares its loyalty to the Government. "In accordance with my loyalty and oath, I willingly wish,"she wrote," to govern the baptized Kalmyks, who have been granted a place to plow arable land, mow hay, and raise cattle." Further, she stated the fact of her poverty due to the fact that everything was looted back in Astrakhan. She ended with the request, " Show me around that place in the village... for that poverty of mine and for teaching the Kalmyks to arable land and the Russian custom" [RGADA, f. 248, op. 3, d. 140, l. 318 vol.].

Tatishchev agreed with her and suggested that the authorities give villages in Usolskaya volost. However, the Foreign Affairs Board had a different view of things and refused her request. Tatishchev is given the following definition: "This princess should not be given villages now, because the Kalmyks are not involved in maintaining villages, and they can lead them to ruin, and even more so they will always use them to work in the arable land, but they themselves, hoping for something, will not plow, and for that reason it is more reasonable to tell her, the princess, and with her zaisang land - against the ordinary ten times, and Zaisang twice Kalmyk against the ordinary, and to train them in arable land to give in the summer from the garrison of saldat, koi taken from the peasantry " [RGADA, f. 248, op. 3, d. 140, l. 346 vol.].

Stavropol-on-Volga was to become a kind of melting pot, in which a new identity of nomadic Kalmyks, who were still formally Orthodox farmers, was created. At the same time, the city and its environs became a place of honorable exile for prominent Kalmyks. Owners who for one reason or another were in hostile relations with other owners or the khan (governor) were sent here. In 1739, the owner of Donduk-Dashi was sent from Moscow to the Krasnoyarsk fortress, located not far from Stavropol [GAOO, f. 2, op. 1, d. 5, l. 12-13 vol.].

Having become baptized and settled in Stavropol-on-Volga and its environs, the Kalmyks not only changed their place of residence and religion, but their social status and social roles changed, and the dispositions of social space changed. Social networks-

page 115
The cultural ties of Kalmyk society of that period were based on the personal dependence of the owner and the commoner, who was supposed to ensure the economic prosperity of the owner. Up until the October Revolution, despite the fact that serfdom was abolished in Russia, commoners were required to bring a sheep or other animal daily for the table of their owner.

Stavropol-on-Volga was built as a fortress for Kalmyks-Cossacks, therefore, commoners acquired a new status-Cossacks. Acquiring a new status freed them from personal dependence. Representatives of the "white bone", people of noble origin did not immediately realize this unpleasant fact for them. So, in response to the request of Zaisang Danila Deret to return 30 kibitkas belonging to him before his baptism and arrival in Stavropol, an explanation came from Moscow that all baptized Kalmyks should be considered Cossacks, just like the Chuguev baptized Kalmyks. Zaisangs should only be their military commanders [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 1, l. 37 vol.]. This meant that zaisang was losing his previous status and couldn't count on the commoners to serve him.

For the same reason, earlier A. Taishina asked for villages with serfs. In the conditions of serfdom, it was difficult for a person of noble origin, who was not used to serving himself, to build his life without having serfs. The Zaisangs tried to solve this problem later, seeking permission to buy land and serfs from Russian nobles. In the report of the Stavropol military chancellery, the situation of the Zaisangs is clearly outlined: "Their ulus Kalmyks, who have already served as people, are already excluded from all services and taxes, which, when they were in the horde, were performed by them, the owners and zaisangs, and by their nature, the owners and zaisangs, for domestic services without such people who do black work. the work was corrected, they can not do without it, and although they still manage to cope with the need by hiring from the baptized Kalmyks, but for a considerable fee with a large loss for themselves" [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 89, l. 165 vol.]. As documents show, there were quite a lot of people in the new city notable Kalmyks. The Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Orenburg governor on the baptism of Zaisang Pavel Torgoutsky and his wife states that she was the" pre-deceased " wife of Khan Tse-ren-Donduk [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 1, l. 117].

The authorities were aware of the norms that established symbolic order in Kalmyk society, and the practices of symbolic exchange that resulted in power. One of the most important practices was giving. M. Moss considered giving as a key element of social life in a traditional society. The gift operates outside the logic of economic utilitarianism, since its goal and result are power and social hierarchy. The giver seeks to establish his superiority and, having established it, must confirm it every time. The recipient of the gift thereby discovers his subordinate position and agrees with it [Moss, 1996, pp. 134-155]. Such a norm was formed in the era of the formation of the Mongol Empire and became the basis for building relations between the Mongol khans and the people.7
The content of the instructions to Zmeev clearly shows that the authorities were aware of the norms that guided the owners in their relations with the ulus people. It is stated that "all Kalmyk owners are in the habit of giving away their belongings with their own zaysang and other Kalmyks when someone just asks them for something" [RGADA, f. 248, op. 3, d. 140, l. 148].

Cultural norms change rather slowly and continue to be a reference point even when the living conditions of a person change. Princess Taishina no longer had to pay for the loyalty of her people, as both her status and that of a subordinate were considered to be the same.-

7 N. N. Kradin and T. D. Skrynnikova analyze the function of giving and gifts in the context of studying the anthropology of the Khan's power in their book [Kradin and Skrynnikova, 2006, pp. 281-295].

page 116
the number of Kalmyks assigned to it was legally clearly defined. According to the decrees of the Empress and the government, she was appointed ruler of the baptized Kalmyks, and the Kalmyks subject to her were also Cossacks of the irregular army with all the duties that follow from this. Fearing that the princess might have squandered the salary and property assigned to her, the drafters of the instructions instructed Zmeev to " take away and present the princess from such excessive and inconsiderate distribution by his advice, so that she could look after herself and have a decent economy in her expenses, and therefore have no lack of content and lack of anything." [ibid.].

The Kalmyks tried to preserve the nomadic way of life, despite the fact that "neither the nature of the area, nor the new religion, nor the types of government agreed with this" [Istoricheskiy obzor..., 1844, p. 33]. They lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle and supported themselves by raising livestock and selling it. According to the bulletin for 1777, the Stavropol Kalmyk corps consisted of 5,155 souls of both sexes and 1,592 tents. Of this number, 2,036 souls and 740 caravans were on vacation on tickets [ibid., p. 34]. Kalmyks sold cattle in the cities. The wool of sheep and camels was used for making felt and clothing. In the markets of the Volga cities, sheepskin coats and sheepskin coats made and sewn by Kalmyks were highly valued. The order authorizing Zaisang Yak-shid to leave for the Troitsky Fortress for a period of four months allows us to judge the nature of the Kalmyks ' activities released on tickets. Zaisang and his men, consisting of 82 people, were released for food, which was obtained by skill and sewing sheepskin coats [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 89, l. 72].

This document allows us to identify the authorities ' concerns about the departure of the baptized Kalmyks. Thus, a certain Yakshid and his men were allowed unhindered access to fortresses and outposts, but were ordered to "watch them closely, to make sure that they escape to the Kirghiz-Kaisat horde or could not do any dirty tricks" [ibid.]. Shoots of baptized Kalmyks were common. Thus, the report of the Stavropol Military Chancellery refers to the capture of baptized Kalmyks in the Kalmyk Khanate [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 89, l. 9]. In the document relating to the baptism of Chidan, Taishina's brother, it is also stated that "the baptized Kalmyks made whole uluses from Azov and from the Slobodsky Ostrogozhsky regiment" [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 1, l. 94-94 vol.]. For this reason, the promemory indicated that Chidan should not be allowed to wander to the Don, but sent to Stavropol to live with his sister. The authorities were always afraid of the possible escape of the Kalmyks, so in 1752 it was decided to establish outposts along the Samara and Kinel rivers, and the Stavropol Kalmyks "should not go anywhere without pasports outside the Stavropol Department" [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 30, l. 19 vol.].

The authorities were wary of the influence of unbaptized Kalmyks on them and were suspicious of any of their contacts. Thus, the decree of the Orenburg Provincial Chancellery states that the city commander should "diligently observe and scout through all people subordinate to him, so that no spies, and especially from unbaptized Kalmyks, can creep in to them for indignation or for any contrary suggestions" [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 12, L. 100]. Control over the Kalmyks was relentless. Thus, the Orenburg governor himself gave a resolution to allow the baptized Kalmyks to visit their relatives in the khanate. In 1768, Avdotya Ivanova, the widow of Ensign Menku, asked to be allowed to travel to the Enotaevskaya fortress to visit relatives accompanied by 12 baptized Kalmyks for a period of three months [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d. 89, l. 83-83 vol.].

Over time, the Stavropol Kalmyk elite gradually integrated into Russian culture. The children of the owners were taught Russian literacy in a Kalmyk school. The widow of Colonel Pavel Torgoutsky, asking to give her sons the ranks of captain and cornet, justified her request on the merits of her late husband, as well as the knowledge of Russian literacy by both sons and diligent schoolwork [GAOO, f. 3, op. 1, d.89, l. 21].

page 117
Summing up, we should say the following. The Stavropol-on-Volga fortress was built not only as a fortification, but also as a settlement in which the acculturation of nomads was to take place, which assumed the formation of an Orthodox identity. The fortress and its surroundings were used as a place of honorable exile for those representatives of the Kalmyk elite whose presence in the khanate was undesirable (Donduk-Dashi). Despite the fact that the task of transferring Kalmyks to settlement was never solved, nevertheless, there was a gradual integration of baptized Kalmyks into Russian society. Representatives of the state authorities showed sufficient flexibility in their relations with nomadic subjects of the empire. The desolation of the annexed territories encouraged them to use such a resource of nomad society as mobility. The Kalmyk nutug was a kind of human shield on the border of the nascent empire. At that time, the Russian authorities did not seek to make all nomads sedentary. Thinking strategically, the authorities envisioned such a possibility in the future. The experience of creating settlements such as the city of Stavropol-on-Volga confirms this.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SAEO - State Archive of the Orenburg Region

RGADA - Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts

documents

Denoshsnis of the Kazan governor S. Golitsyn to the Cabinet of Ministers on the proceedings concerning the procurement of provisions for the Stavropol Kalmyks. 1738, January 16 / / GAOO. F. 2. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 27-30.

Report of the commandant of Stavropol Zmsev on the organization of life of the Kalmyks in Stavropol and a joint resolution of the head of the Orenburg expedition V. N. Tatishchev and the head of the Siberian line L. I. Soimonov on the report. 1737, December 18 / / RGADA. F. 248. Op. 3. D. 140. L. 187-188 vol.

Donoshsnis of the Stavropol chancellery to the Orenburg governor A. A. Putyatin about the work in the ranks of the Stavropol army of the children of Colonel Pavel Torgoutsky. 1768, February 25 / / GAOO. F. 3. Op. 1. D. 89. L. 21-21 vol.

Donoshsnis of the Stavropol Chancellery to the Orenburg governor A. A. Putyatin about the trip of the Stavropol Kalmyks to the Kalmyk Khanate to meet their relatives. 1768, June 21/ / GAOO. F. 3. Op. 1. D. 89. JI. 83-83 vol.

Instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers to the commandant of Stavropol-on-Volga, Colonel A. Zmeev, on the arrangement of Princess Anna Taishina and her entourage in the city. 1737, June 30 / / RGADA. F. 248. Op. 3. D. 140. L. 141-148 vol.

Definition of the Board of Foreign Affairs on the presentation of V. N. Tatishchev on the letter of Princess Anna Taishina, 1738, September 29 / / RGADA. F. 248. Op. 3. D. 140. L. 345 347.

Determination of the Orenburg Provincial Chancellery on the establishment of Kalmyk owners in Stavropol, the appointment of their salaries and the training of the staff of the Stavropol corps. 1744, September 25 / / GAOO. F. Z. Op. 1. D. 2. L. 256-260.

Order of the Orenburg governor A. A. Putyatin on the release of the Stavropol zaysang Yakshid with people to the Trinity Fortress for three years to practice the furrier's craft. 1768, June 12 / / GAOO. f. 3. Op. 1. D. 89. L. 72.

A letter from Princess Anna Taishina to the head of the Orenburg expedition V. N. Tatishchev. 1738, March 14 / / RGADA. F. 248. Op. 3. D. 140. L. 318 vol.

Promsmory of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Military Board on the baptism of zaisang Chidan Dsrbstsva with the ulus. 1744, May 15 // GLOO. F. Z. Op. 1. D. I. L. 94-94 vol.

Report of the Stavropol military Chancellery to the acting Orenburg governor N. Ya. Lanov on the baptized Kalmyks caught in the Kalmyk Horde. 1768, January 17 / / GAOO. F. 3. Op. 1. D. 89. L. 9.

Report of the Stavropol military Chancellery to the acting Orenburg governor N. Ya. Lanov on the desire of the Stavropol zaisangs to acquire estates with people as property. 1768, October 28 / / GAOO. F. 3. Op. 1. D. 89. L. 165 165 vol.

Registry of possessions of the deceased Princess Anna Taishina, issued to owners and zaisangs of the Stavropol corps / / GAOO. F. Z. Op. I. D. 2. L. 252-255.

Secret Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Orenburg Governor I. I. Neplyusv on the transfer of the seal and armor of Prince P. Taishin to Donduk-Dashi Khan. 1744, March 16 / / GAOO. f. 3. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 77 vol.

page 118
Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Orenburg Provincial Chancellery on awards to Zyungor Kalmyks entering the Stavropol Army. 1758, September 17 / / GAOO. f. 3. Op. 1. d. 4. L. 227-228.

Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Orenburg Governor A. I. Tsvkslev and adviser to the provincial government P. A. Rychkov on the testimony of the owner of Norbo Danzhin about the situation in Dzungaria. 1758 / / GAOO. F. 3. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 197-205.

Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Orenburg Governor I. I. Nsplusv about the people of zaisang Daniil Dsrstu. 1744, January 9 / / GAOO. f. 3. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 37-37 vol.

Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Orenburg governor of the Nsplusv on the search for the Khan's seal and awarding Kalmyk Colonel K. Sharap for the transfer of the shell to the governor of the Kalmyk Khanate. 1744, August 16 II GAOO. F. 3. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 123 124.

Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Orenburg governor of Nsplusvu on the baptism of Zaisang Pavel Torgoutsky. 1744, August 4 II GAOO. f. 3. Op. 1. D. 1. l. 117-117 vol.

Decree of the Board of Foreign Affairs to the Stavropol commandant of the Zmssvu on the stay of the Kalmyk owner of Donduk-Dasha in the Krasnoyarsk fortress near Samara and his meeting with Princess Anna Taishina. 1739, October 13 / / GAOO. F. 2. Op. 1. D. 5. L. 12-13 vol.

Decree of the Orenburg Provincial Chancellery to the Stavropol Chancellery on strengthening control over unbaptized Kalmyks coming to the Stavropol army. 1750, September 20 / / GAOO. f. 3. Op. 1. d. 12. L. 99-101.

Decree of the Orenburg Provincial Chancellery on measures to combat the flight of Stavropol baptized Kalmyks and on the development of regulations on the Stavropol Army together with the Kalmyk Zaisangs. 1752, April 23 / / GAOO. F. 3. Op. 1. d. 30. L. 19-20.

list of literature

Official sources on the history of Russia and Siberia of the XVI-XVIII centuries in the funds of G. F. Miller. Inventory of copy books. In 2 volumes, vol. 1. Novosibirsk: Sibirskiy khronograf Publ., 1993.

V. M. Bakunin Description of the Kalmyk peoples, and especially of the Torgout people, and the actions of their khans and owners. Elista: Kalm. kn. izd-vo, 1995.

Belikov T. I. Kalmyks in the struggle for the independence of our Motherland. Elista: Kalm. kn. izd-vo, 1965.

Bichurin N. Ya. (Iakinf). Historical review of the Oirats or Kalmyks from the 15th century to the present. 2nd ed., Elista: Kalm. kn. izd-vo, 1991.

Bobrov L. A. On some features of military affairs of the Volga Kalmyks in the XVII-XVIII centuries// Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference "United Kalmykia in United Russia: through the ages to the future. " Ch. I. Elista: Dzhangar Publ., 2009.

Vitsvsky V. N. I. I. Neplyuev and the Orenburg Region in its former composition until 1758, Issue 3. Kazan, 1881.

Gribovsky V. V., Sen 'D. V. " Kuban vector" in relations between Kalmyks and Nogais in the first third of the XVIII century. (http://www.isd-ua.org/dcvclopmcnts/history/su/kuban_vector.htm).

Guriy (Stepanov), Archimandrite. Essays on the history of the spread of Christianity among the Mongol tribes. Part 1. Kalmyks. Kazan, 1915.

Dubman E. L. Novaya Zakamskaya liniya: proekt, stroitelstvo, sudba [New Zakamskaya Line: project, construction, Fate]. Samara: Etch, 2004.

Zlatkin I. Ya. Istoriya Dzungarskogo khanstva [History of the Dzungarian Khanate]. 2nd ed. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1983.

Historical review of the Stavropol baptized Kalmyks and some data on their current state / / Otechestvennye zapiski. 1844. Vol. 35. Book 7.

Kolesnik V. I. "Russkaya" politika kak faktor vozrozhdeniya kalmykskoy gosudarstvennosti v XVII v. ["Russian" politics as a factor in the emergence of Kalmyk statehood in the 17th century] (http://www.drcvnyaya.ru/vyp/stat/sl_15_6.pdf).

Kradin N. N., Skrynnikova T. D. The Empire of Genghis Khan, Moscow: Vostochny lit., 2006.

Mitirov A. G. Oirats-Kalmyks: centuries and generations. Elista: Kalm. kn. izd-vo, 1998.

Moss M. Essay on the gift / / Society. Exchange. Personality. Trudy po sotsial'noi antropologii I Per. s frants. M.: Vostochny litra, 1996.

Orlova K. V. Istoriya khristianizatsii Kalmykov: seredina XVII - nachalo XX veka [History of Kalmyks Christianization: mid-17th-early 20th centuries].
Palmov N. N. Materials on the history of the Kalmyk people during their stay in Russia. Elista: Kalm. kn. izd-vo, 2007.

Prozritslsv G. N. Military past of our Kalmyks. [Reprint from the 1912 edition]. Elista: Sanan, 1990.

Rszun D. Be here ostrog and sloboda / / Rodina. 2000. № 5. (http://www.istrodina.com/find.php).

Sussva D. A. Letters of the Kalmyk Khans of the XVIII century and their contemporaries (1713-1771). Izbrannoe. Elista: Dzhangar Publ., 2009.

Trspavlov V. V. "The White Tsar": the image of the monarch in the idea of citizenship among the peoples of Russia of the XV-XVIII centuries. lit-ra, 2007.

Tsyuryumov A.V. Kalmyk Khanate as part of Russia: Problems of political relations. Elista: Dzhangar Publ., 2007.

Schmitt K. The partisan theory. An intermediate note to the concept of the political, Moscow: Praxis, 2007.
Shovunov K. P. Essays on the military history of the Kalmyks of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Elista: Kalm. kn. izd-vo, 1991.

Khodarkovsky М. Where Two Worlds Met: The Russian State and the Kalmyk Nomads, 1600-1771. Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press, 1992.

page 119


© biblio.uz

Permanent link to this publication:

https://biblio.uz/m/articles/view/NOMADS-AND-THE-FORTRESS-AN-ACCULTURATION-EXPERIENCE-FOR-BAPTIZED-KALMYKS

Similar publications: LUzbekistan LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Nurdin MansurovContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://biblio.uz/Mansurov

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

L. B. CHETYROVA, NOMADS AND THE FORTRESS: AN ACCULTURATION EXPERIENCE FOR BAPTIZED KALMYKS // Tashkent: Library of Uzbekistan (BIBLIO.UZ). Updated: 21.11.2024. URL: https://biblio.uz/m/articles/view/NOMADS-AND-THE-FORTRESS-AN-ACCULTURATION-EXPERIENCE-FOR-BAPTIZED-KALMYKS (date of access: 18.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - L. B. CHETYROVA:

L. B. CHETYROVA → other publications, search: Libmonster UzbekistanLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Nurdin Mansurov
Самарканд, Uzbekistan
62 views rating
21.11.2024 (88 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Примеряют золушки?сапоги
Yesterday · From Golem Anzhanov
КАК ДЕСАНТНИКИ С "ТИГРИСОМ" БАНЮ ДЕЛИЛИ
3 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
Боевая учеба: один выстрел - семь в уме?
3 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
Тема для прапорщиков. Как предупредить наркоманию?
Catalog: Разное 
6 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
Тема для прапорщиков. Изучение социально-психологических особенностей военнослужащих и практика их
Catalog: История 
7 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
О культуре и контркультуре
9 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
THE WORKING CLASS OF UZBEKISTAN IN THE PERIOD OF DEVELOPED SOCIALISM
Catalog: История 
16 days ago · From Azamat Usmanov
APPLICATION OF QUANTITATIVE METHODS AND COMPUTERS IN HISTORICAL RESEARCH
16 days ago · From Azamat Usmanov
THE FAILURE OF THE IMPERIALIST POLICY FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH IN RELATION TO THE U.S.S.R.
18 days ago · From Azamat Usmanov
THE RUSSIAN WORKING CLASS FROM ITS BEGINNINGS TO THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY
19 days ago · From Azamat Usmanov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

BIBLIO.UZ - Digital Library of Uzbekistan

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

NOMADS AND THE FORTRESS: AN ACCULTURATION EXPERIENCE FOR BAPTIZED KALMYKS
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: UZ LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Uzbekistan ® All rights reserved.
2020-2025, BIBLIO.UZ is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Uzbekistan


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android