Формы межэтнического взаимодействия в Уфимском уезде второй половины XVII – начала XVIII в. (по материалам Приказного делопроизводства)

Abstract

Ufa county of the second half of the XVII – early XVIII centuries - The territory is open for migration flows from all sides of the world. In many respects, the ethnic and religious diversity of the region was due to the voluntary nature of the Russian citizenship of the Bashkirs. For almost two centuries, the Bashkirs managed to maintain tribal self-government, patrimonial land tenure and freedom of religion in inviolability. In addition, the Ufa district was not included in the all-Russian system of protecting the southern borders of the state. Protection of the southeastern border was entrusted to the structures of the Bashkir militia. As a result, by the beginning of the XVIII century. 11 ethnic groups belonging to the Turkic, Mongolian, Finno-Ugric, Slavic language families professing Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and paganism settled peacefully and not quite peacefully on Bashkir lands. Households were just as diverse: from hunting and gathering, from classical nomadic and semi-nomadic farming to developed forms of agriculture. Since almost the entire territory of the Ufa district was declared the estates of the Bashkirs, migrants were forced to enter into legal and economic relations with the local population. These circumstances led to a wide range of interethnic interaction: from integration and assimilation to long-term interethnic conflicts. An analysis of various forms of interethnic communication shows that the familiar markers of ethnic identity (language, faith in a common origin, religion) did not play a big role in the assimilation or integration processes in the region. For example, it turns out that the Bashkirs more often integrated their military adversaries, the Kalmyks, into their tribal structures, rather than the Tatars and Mishars loyal to them. Bashkirs and Kalmyks did not coincide on more than one ethnic basis: different languages, religion, lack of myth of common origin, lack of historical experience living in the same territory. Even economically, the Bashkirs and Kalmyks belonged to different structures (nomadic and semi-nomadic). In social terms, the Bashkirs never had a division into white and black bones, and among the Kalmyks the power of the taishas over ordinary communes was completely despotic. At the same time, representatives of related ethnic groups (Tatars and Mishars), Bashkirs were less likely to integrate into their tribal structures due to the prevailing prejudice among nomads about settled agricultural peoples. In addition, the Tatars and Mishars in the Ufa district found themselves on the Bashkir patrimonial lands, which put them in various forms of tributary dependence. For this reason, tributaries and tributaries of tribute could not be integrated into one ethnic and social organism.