THE PROBLEM OF EMIGRATION OF THE CRIMEAN TATARS IN THE RUSSIAN HISTORICAL LITERATURE OF THE 1800-1930s

Gulnara Bekirova (Moscow)

The political action, which was defined by the Manifest on Annexation of Crimea to Russia from 8 February 1783, became the dramatic event in the history of the Crimean Tatar people. As a result of a long military confrontation between the Russian and Ottoman Empires which was accompanied by destructive campaigns of the Russian troops on the territory of the Crimean peninsula, the Crimean Khanate lost its independence, and Crimean Tatars were subjected to the colonial policy of the Russian state.

With the annexation of the Crimea, the Russian Empire liquidated the political institutions of the Crimean Tatars. At the same time, the role of traditional bodies of the Crimea Tatar religious and local self-government was significantly diminished. However, the most catastrophic consequence was a purposeful policy of the Russian state to displace the Crimean Tatars outside the Crimea and to resettle "liberated" lands by the colonists from inner regions of Russia as well as from other states, in particular the German principalities.

The aspects of the Russian dominance in Crimea were reflected in the large body of literature encompassing natural sciences, geography, statistics, history, as well as memoirs from the XIXth century to the 1920-1930s. This complex combination of evidence, fragmentary references, and stories has formed a mythology of the views on the Crimean Tatar people - the mythology that is not always accurate, and sometimes is full of downright lies.

Although this literature is huge, it has not been subjected to any serious historical scrutiny. There were so few historiographic studies that their review will not take a large part of our work.

One of the first, and in our opinion a superficial, attempts at such an analysis was undertaken in 1856 by B-n in his short essay "Krim"¹. The author describes a few studies of Crimea, mostly the popular scientific ones. He evaluates the sources very sharply and critically, yet not always in order and logically. Besides, in our opinion, his analysis is very emotional to be considered scientific. However, his work deserves attention, being perhaps the earliest example, which initiated the historiography tradition in Crimean studies.

Two serious monographs on the history of the Crimean Tatar landowning by G.F.Blumenfeld³ and F.F.Lashkov³ constitute historiography surveys aimed at presenting a level of understanding of the problem developed by the time of their writing. The historiography essay in the book by Lashkov is more detailed and comprehensive, but it does not mention, in particular, the publication of the Special Commission on Vakuf of 1886, which was published in 1892⁴. On the whole, one gets the impression that this portion of the work is as an appendix to the main, historical, part.

The article by E.I. Chernishov⁵, which was published in 1930, considers a historiography of the Crimean Tatar emigration in 1860. The author analyses in detail the works by A.I.Markevich⁶, A.Ozenbashli⁷, S.A.Usov⁸, touching mostly upon their handling of the reasons for emigration. However, in this article his criticism of his colleagues' arguments gradually turns into an estimation of their ideological principles. Under the Party's logic of E. Chernishov, S.A. Usov was "a mythological conservative", O. Ozenbashli - "a nationalist", A.I. Markevich - "a great-power chauvinist". Analyzing the opinions of earlier authors through a prism of "the only correct one" Marxist theory, E. Chernishov apparently doesn't understand the narrowness of such an approach to the solution of the complicated and multi-aspect historical problems.

Concerning the most recent works, we can name a historiography essay on the history of the Crimean Tatar movement in the book by Guboglo M.N. and Chervonnaia S.M.⁹ These authors present a description of both Russian-language and foreign sources and a historiography on the issue. A concise and logical structure of their work allows us to follow dynamically the evolution of the opinions and positions on this subject. The analysis of the most serious books by the foreign historians, E.Olwort and A.Fisher¹⁰, gives an additional value to this work. The publications in foreign languages, which have not been studied historiographically mentioned by the authors, have a bibliographical significance. This short review, which defined the general directions for historiographical analysis of the issue undoubtedly, can become the basis for a larger comprehensive study on the history of the Crimean Tatar National Movement.

These are the historiographical works related to the study of the history of the Crimean Tatars. However, there were no works of synthesis or ones that would provide the 'big picture' or attempt to describe the whole body of literature and to analyze its basic ideas and trends. One person cannot do such work, but this doesn't mean that no one should be doing it.

Let us outline - in general terms - how and under what historical conditions the historiographical body of research relating to the life of the Crimean Tatars since 1783, when Crimea was absorbed into Russia, was formed.

The scientific study of Crimea from the end of XVIII century was connected, first of all, with the necessity to firm up control of new territory, including of its natural wealth. The governmental interest stimulated the initiative of the first visitors to the Russian Crimea - state officials, diplomats, academics, and foreigners, who left numerous accounts of their visit to this land.

At the turn of the 18th-19th centuries many of them tried to understand the ancient history of Crimea - Pallas P.S.¹¹, Narushevich A.¹², Sestrentsevich-Bogush C.¹³; to register its geographical, natural, topographical features - Gablits K.I.¹⁴, Zuyev V. D.¹⁵,

Pallas P.S.¹⁶; to study its archeological monuments - Keppen P.I.¹⁷, Muravyev-Apostol I.M.¹⁸, Murzakevich N.A.¹⁹. Such research was frequently carried out with the financial and other assistance from the official Russia.

The research of new territory was accomplished on a private level as well, as reflected in numerous memoirs, most of them dating to the end of the 18^th - the first half of 19th centuries: Bronevskyi V.²⁰, Demidov A.²¹, Kleeman P.²², Korf B.A.²³, Kravel E.²⁴, Ludolf de²⁵, Imperator Joseph II²⁶, Romm Zh.²⁷, Segur²⁸, Sumarokov P.²⁹. Travel diaries, notes, and recollections of Crimea appeared in the following years, but they are perhaps more valuable for studying the evolution of the Russian society, the spiritual maturation of its intelligentsia.

The first attempts of Andriyevskyi A.A.³⁰, Goldenberg M.³¹, Gorchakova E.³², Kondaraki V.H.³³, Hartahay F.³⁴ to understand the history of Crimea and Crimean Tatars as constituents of Russia date to the second half of the XIXth century. Significant, critical developments in life of Tatars have prompted such studies. These developments, which affected the interest of Russia to a varying degree, such as the mass exodus of the Crimean Tatars, and the 100 years of Russian annexation of the Crimea and others, generated a reaction in the Russian social and literary life.

But it is obvious that the interest in Crimea or in its indigenous people during this period, was seesaw and sporadic. An eloquent proof of this is that the key Russian historians such as S.M. Solovyev and V.O. Kluchevskyi, remained indifferent to the history of the Crimean Tatars after the collapse of the Crimean Khanate in 1783. The same tendency can be found in later general works on history of the 19th century, in which Crimea is mentioned only in terms that were relevant to the most important historical events of the Russian state - Bochkarev V.N.³⁵, Kyzeveter A.A.³⁶, Kornilov A.A.³⁷, and in formulating the eastern and national policies - Zhigarev C.³⁸, Mylukov P.N.³⁹

Nevertheless, by virtue of the efforts of local historians and students of local lore, such as F.F. Lashkov, F.Khartahay, A. I. Markevich, N.F. Andriyevskyi, V. H. Kondaraki, in the latter half of XIX century some problems of the history of the Crimean Tatars which arose during the period of the "Russian Crimea", such as emigrations, educational situation, religion, spiritual life, land issue, received deeper theoretical and scientific formulations, and their treatment became more nuanced. The evidence that a local historical science existed, and that there was an active research and publishing activity, is evident from the publications of the Odessa Association of History and Antiquities of Black Sea Coast (since 1839) and the Tavricheskyi Scientific Archive Commission (since 1887) - "Zapiski OOID" and "Izvestiya TUAK". In the latter half of the XIXth century, the treasure-house of Crimean studies was replenished by the significant works which were a result of the mushrooming statistical science - Verner K.I.,⁴⁰, Skalkovskyi A.A.⁴¹, Khanazkyi K.V.⁴²; of ethnography and anthropology - Keppen P.I.⁴³, Kondaraki V.H.⁴⁴, Merezhkovskyi K.S.⁴⁵, Kharuzin A.N.⁴⁶; and of the archeological works - Brun F.K.⁴⁷, Kulakovskyi Y.A.⁴⁸, Tizengauzen V.G.⁴⁹, Fabr A.⁵⁰, Fomenko K.⁵¹.

Towards the end of the XIXth century, the emerging Crimean Tatar's intelligentsia began to understand the mutual co-existence of Crimea and Russia that was reflected in works by I. Gasprinskyi⁵², in which the idea on the necessity of rapprochement of the Russian and Islamic worlds was neatly enunciated.

An important source, which reflected an evolution of spiritual life of the Russian Islam, was the newspaper "Terdzhiman", published by I. Gasprinskyi since 1883 in Bakhchisaray. Some attempts to publish a similar publication for the Turkic people were undertaken previously. However, all of them up to the revolution of 1905-1907 were short-lived - the publications were arrested and closed. "Terdzhiman" had been published after the death of I. Gasprinskyi in 1914, up to 1918. Besides, in Bakhchisarai the newspaper "Millet" ("Nation") and the weekly journal for women "Alemi nisvan" ("The women' world")⁵³ were also published.

The intensive and purposeful studying of culture, history, ethnography of the Crimean Tatar people, which began in the 1920s, nearly came to naught in 1930s. In that period, a development of historical science in Crimea has practically been ignored and this subject requires separate research. However and now it is absolutely obvious that these two decades are fundamentally different. The 1920s was the period of active development of the Crimean studies. The best scholars of Crimea, Russia and Ukraine. In that period archeologist A.L. Bertye-Delagard, historians G.V. Vernadskyi and B.D. Grekov, who latter became academician and in 1919 became the chair of the Crimean Central Archive; orientalists Y.I. Krachkovskyi and A.E. Krimskyi, epigraphist O. Akchokrakly have centered around the Tavricheskyi scientific archival commission, which was established already in 1887 and in 1923 was reorganized into Tavricheskyi Association of History, Archeology and Ethnography (TAHAE). During many years, the chairman of this well-known center had been the notable Crimean studies shcolar A.I. Markevich. He became a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1927, and on 3 April of 1930 archeologist N.L. Ernst became the head of the commission.

New organizations, which considered as their main task the all-around research on Crimea were appearing as well. In October of 1922, in Moscow, on the initiative of number of well-known scientists and public figures - professor A.V. Zinger, physicians A.V. Kuznezov and A.A. Litkens, publicist and public figure E.D. Leytnekker - the constituent assembly of the Russian Association on Research of Crimea (RARC) was held. At the end of 1924, the Leningrad department of RARC, headed by of professor N.I. Kuznezov, was established. The branches of the association were established in towns and settlements around Crimea and brought together about 900 scholars of Crimea. In 1925-1929s, RARC published scholarly, popular, and travel journal "Krym". A lot of the popular articles on history, archeology, ethnography, geography and health-resort construction were published in ten issues of this journal.

However, already at the end of the 1920s, a general change of situation in the Soviet historical science transformed the development of the Crimean studies in Crimea.

The 1929-1931s trial of the group of historians headed by S.F. Platonov began the period of pogroms of the professional historical school not only in Russia, but in republics as well. The followers and students of M.N. Pokrovskyi, who took leading positions in Soviet historical science in the 1920s, were particularly zealous fighters against the representatives of the non-Marxist school of historiography. Already in 1930, the article by S.A. Piontkovskyi⁵⁴, who was a student of Mr. Pokrovskyi and was among the most radically disposed towards the "scholar-academics" (S.F. Platonov, S.V. Bakhrushin, M.S. Lubavski), attacked A.I. Markevich, who headed TUAK-TAHAE for many years, for "the great-power chauvinism", which was characteristic to "all bourgeois historians of Russia". In 1931, the activity of TAHAE was stopped, and many of its members were arrested and died. In 1937 the oldest historian of Crimea, 82 years old A.I. Markevich, in 1937, was again vilified by the exposing campaign in the newspaper "Krasnyi Krym," this time as the author of the "counter-revolutionary" works on Crimean area studies⁵⁵.

The purges of the 1930's, which were undertaken under the aegis of struggle against the representatives of the M.N.Pokrovskyi school, completed the demolition of the Crimean

historical science. At the same time, the representatives of the Crimean Tatar elite - ethnographer and artist U.Bodaninskyi, historian and epigraphist O.Akchokrakly, historian Ya.Kemal, philologist B.Choban-zade, writer A.Lyatif-zade and others - were also executed on charges of nationalism.

In contrast to the effective and undoubtedly valuable from the scientific point of view

achievements in Crimean studies in the 1920's, in the 1930's achievements were meager. At that time the most qualified researchers were repressed, and historical studies, in accordance to the formula " history is politics thrown into the past," have become a political and therefore a dangerous pursuit.

In the light of the glaring gap in the studying of the Crimean Tatar history, the problem of emigration seems to be one of the most developed. However, at a closer look, the it becomes clear that this conclusion is a mistake. One can safely claim that the literature on this subject raises more questions than it gives answers. Though the emigration problem is unanimously recognized by researchers as one of the most tragic chapters in the history of Crimean Tatars after the collapse of the Crimean Khanate, there is still no clarity concerning its main moments (reasons for and the scale of each emigration wave, chronological frameworks).

Specifically, we see the aim of the given work as not only to retrace a change of motives, assessments and approaches of the previous authors who wrote on all the waves of emigration of Tatars within the context of Russia since 1783, that is, to research the historiography proper. This study also aims to define the historiography's area of interest and lay out the ways for its further research. We consider each of the emigrations mentioned in historiography individually, irrespectively of on scales of the movements and the extent to which historiography addressed them.

Considering historiography as a whole, one can note the following.

Given a presence of historical sources, although not uniform on each of the emigration waves (there are no less than 20 studies on each period), more detailed research of each of the waves is required. To varying degrees, the evidence on each wave remains in various narratives, official publications, memoirs, and historical retrospectives. However, judging by the number of sources, which were included in scientific treatises and were reflected in historiography, they have proved to be insufficiently precise for the exact reconstruction of the historical continuum that is of interest to us (Crimea in the end of XVIII-the beginning of XX century), and for the research on particular problems.

Poorly defined chronological framework of the Crimean Tatar emigration waves speaks about the insufficient study of this topic. Thus, A. Ozenbashli defined the first emigration as taking place in 1784-1800s, E.Markov⁵⁶ and P.Martyanov⁵⁷ - in 1785-1788s. "The commemorative book of the Tavricheskyi province"⁵⁸ indicates that this emigration wave "was stopped under Richelieu in 1804".

The second emigration wave, which apparently took place between 1800 and 1812, and on which, in the opinion of A. Markov, there are only "oral stories", most of the researchers didn't mention at all. Generally this was a result the insufficient number of sources, of the lack of a real scientific interest in the problem. A.Ozenbasli thought that the second emigration was in 1804-1805s, V.H.Kondaraki-in 1807, and P.K.Martyanov-in 1812.

A.Kopchevsky 58 named as the second emigration wave the movement of Crimean Tatars in the period of the Crimean War (1853-1856), and the third one - the emigration in 1862-1865. He didn't mention at all the emigration at the beginning of the XIX century.

The chronological timeframe of the third emigration wave, despite the presence of many historiographical sources, is also not clearly established. Some considered the third wave to be 1860-1862 (A. Ozenbashli), 1860 (E. Chernyshev), other authors point to 1859-1860s⁵⁹. Apparently, in defining of the time frame of this emigration, it would be more logical to include the period from the earliest to the latest dates, but also not ignoring the emigration wave in period of the Crimean War, that is in 1854-1862. M.Pinson⁶⁰, the author of one of the most serious monographs on this subject, proposes the same chronological timeframe.

Things are even more complicated with respect to the subsequent emigration waves. There are only two studies on emigration of 1874 - the study by P.Martyanov which was already mentioned, and the study of I.Mufti-Zade⁶¹. Emigration from the end of XIX - the beginning of the XX century that peaked in 1902-1903s is also covered in the newspaper publications⁶². Because this emigration was not deemed worth studying by scholars, its chronological time frame is a debatable issue.

Thus, the disparate definitions of the time frames of the first three waves, as well as contradictory evidence of the chronological lines of the last two emigration waves, shows that the emigration problem was given more attention in popular literature than in the scholarly one, and that it awaits detailed research. This research required the archival evidence, including from the foreign archives of Turkey, Romania, Poland, where Crimean Tatar immigrants moved.

It is obvious that the historiography sources are lop-sided, most of them pertain to the first emigration wave (1800-1812s) and the third one (1850-1860s). One can talk about the evolution of the opinions of authors only with respect to the first and in particular the third emigration third waves. For the latter one there exists a formed historiography tradition and scholarly continuity, as evident in the works by E.Chernishev and A.Ozenbashli.

There are no general, overarching synthesis studies on this issue. Popular literature is prevalent among published studies especially dedicated to this subject: Sherban N.⁶³, A. U.⁶⁴, Martyanov P., Ozenbashli A., Levitskyi G.P.⁶⁵, Totleben E.I.⁶⁶, Volinets A., and others. A. Markevich and E. Chernishev have made an attempt at a scientific approach to this problem. The numerous references, which constitute a large body of fragmentary information from different resources, require a careful and detailed analysis.

Let us now move on to the consideration of the main moments in each emigration wave, their central features and characteristics.

It is understandable that all researchers have studied the reasons for the emigrations of the Tatars, as well as the circumstances and the scale of each of the emigrations.

In the opinions of most of researchers, the main reason for the first emigration, which followed after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire in 1784, was the fear of changes stemming from the establishment of "the new economic and legal order of life" by the Russian power (A.Markevich). As a result, there was a "belief that government <...> would not force them to remain in Crimea and will take various measures to exile them" (V.Kondaraki). There was also attraction "to Turkey, which has the same religion, and the encouragement by clerics and murzi" (F.Lashkov). Even Tatars’s reported lack of connection to their land is also cited as one of the reasons for emigration. (A.Markevich).

A.Ozenbashli took a contrary position on this issue. He thought that the religious and nationalistic reasons were secondary. He named the Imperial government as the principal culprit of all emigration waves of Tatars, which "by way of subtle methods <...> of the state apparatus" has implemented the policy of "forcing out indigenous population from the places where it has long settled." He thinks that this emigration was "in accordance with the desires of the government and Potemkin himself" who were engrossed into the "the Greek project". This project had an aim to restore the power of the Byzantine Empire, headed by the monarch of the Russian Imperial House, along the Black Sea coast".

Likewise, there is also no unity of opinions on size of the first emigration. Many of researchers note a widely ranging estimates of the number of those who went to Turkey. They referred to contradictory information by their predecessors, but didn't make their own calculations. The estimates range from 4,000-5,000 to 300,000 (K. Khanatsky), from 50,000 to 140,000 (A.Skalkovsky) and from 350,000 to 500,000 (A.Ozenbashli). Based on the estimate of the size of the population on the peninsula on the eve of its conquest by Russia in 1783, which was 260,000-280,000, A.I.Markevich thought that a number of emigrants of the first wave didn't exceed 80,000. Thus, he calls into question the most popular figure used by the historians of XIX century - 300,000.

The second emigration between 1800 and 1812 is even less examined by the historiography. E.L. Markov doubts the existence of statistical information on that event. At the same time, P.K. Martyanov gives not only the number of emigrants - 3,199 - but also links this emigration with the Bucharest peaceful agreement concluded in 1812. Under this agreement Russia was obliged not to prevent the Budzhukskyi and Edisanskyi Tatars from moving to Turkey.

The third emigration of Crimean Tatars, 1854-1862, has been most thoroughly studied in the Russian historiography. More details of the events have been depicted (in the journal "Kolokol" G.Levitsky; E.Totleben; N.Sherban). The number of emigrants during 1860-1862 was established, which according to the official information was 192,360 persons. Although the spectrum of opinions on this event varies widely, here, it seems, one can even talk about a certain evolution of assessments as we advance in time from the event itself.

The dominant theme in the studies from the 1860, which were written in the height of the emigration and soon after its ending, is the need to rapidly colonize Crimea by Slavic and

partially by German settlers. (N.Sherban, "The Crimean Tatars' emigration.." ⁶⁷). The authors of these studies advance numerous proposals on "saving" the region (N.Sherban, A.U.). They openly declare the anti-Tatar sentiments: "...to detain on our land a tribe that doesn't want to live with us and will only be a burden to us means to bother about something that is impossible as well as disadvantageous" ("The Crimean Tatar's emigration.", N.Sherban). From the point of view of state interests "the reduction of the Tatar population" in order to "fill the region with more talented race" is recommended (N.Sherban), because "the Tatars, due to their Moslem-Asiatic character, are not amenable to be improved" (K.Khanatsky). However Khanatsky confesses that "as a labor force which has become attuned to the local environment" the Tatars "have a significant advantage," but only "providing that the leadership will be in hands of the enlightened people" (K.Khanatsky).

Among reasons for emigration these authors cite religious fanaticism (N.Sherban, A.Markevich), fear of persecutions for "ambiguous behavior" during the war (K.Khanatsky), poor cultural level of Tatars ("Krym: The guide-book"⁶⁸, A.Markevich), reluctance to serve compulsory military service and “nationalism” (A. Markevich).

Two authors, Totleben E.I. and Levitsky G.P., demonstrate their attempts to analyze objectively the real reasons of the mass emigration of Crimean Tatars. The two studies were written in the period of this emigration, in the beginning of 1860s, but were published much later. Both studies are characterized by a historical approach to the problem. The authors consider the emigration wave not a product of an instantaneous irrational drive, but a natural result of the difficult material situation of the Tatars, stemming from the confiscation of their land and the willfulness of numerous Russian chiefs. "The landowners <....> have often appropriated the land of the Crimean Tatars. … 30 years ago in Crimea almost all landowners were free Tatar and a small number of others who owned orchards along the Southern shore and in the valleys." (E. Totleben). "All orders of the local officials were flagrantly unfair when they concerned the ownership of land by the Tatar population", "nothing was exempt from violation and arbitrariness, neither the forests, nor the water" (G. Levitsky).

Pondering about the life of the Tatars in Russia before the Crimean War of 1853, Levitsky states with surprise that "even the Russian population wouldn't put up without a grumble or a clear resistance even with one tenth of the hurt and injustices that the Crimean Tatars have suffered. However <...> they consider Crimean Tatars as harmful and stupid." Levitsky thinks that the real reason for this attitude was "a desire to take the Crimea from the hands of the Crimean Tatars and settle it with Orthodox population".

The Hertzen "Kolokol" takes the same position on this issue. It very critically assesses the role of the government in this emigration and does not hide its sympathies towards the Crimean Tatars: "Upon the end of the war the government realized that the population of Crimea, which is of different origin and religion, can be a danger in case of a new war, and that measures need to be taken to settle this region with the Russians or, at the very least, with the Bulgarians. This is why it was forbidden to prevent the Tatars and the Nogays from emigrating to Turkey." The Tatars suddenly "discovered that government does not force them to stay in Russia" ("Persecution of the Crimean Tatars"...)

Among the reasons for this emigration were, in the opinion of E.I.Totleben, - "information on the intention of the government to deport Tatars from Crimea to the interior provinces", rumors "on converting Tatars into Christianity" after the establishment of a new eparchy in Melitopol, and also talks that the Tatars, like the inhabitants of other provinces, will be drafted to the military service. Totleben doesn't discount religious factor, supposing that emigration of the Nogays from the Caucasus to Turkey, who have "passed through Kerch peninsula and boarded ships at Kerch and at Feodosia <...> have unwittingly evoked in the Tatars a desire to follow their religious folks to Turkey".

In answering the question of what could have prompted the entire people "which were patient, faithful, and fatalistic" and, therefore, "of rather high morals" for such panicked escape, Mr.Levitsky names several reasons.

First, in the period of the Crimean War the Cossack patrols roamed the province and often detained the Tatars (on the ground of their intention to join the enemy). If the Tatars refused to pay bribes for their release, the Cossacks presented the Tatars to the officials as traitors. As a result, many Tatars were exiled to Orel, Kursk, Ekaterinoslavl, and Kherson provinces.

The second reason noted by Levitsky is the "the unequal compensations” paid for damages sustained during the war. The compensations "were paid most unfairly, and this have strongly shook undermined the Tatar attachment to the Russian government".

Finally, in the opinion of Levitsky, land quarrels which have gone on for many decades played a big role as well. By the 1850s "the desire to extract all land from the hands of

the Crimean Tatars became so strong that the seizure of inheritable plots of land from the Tatar peasants, to be converted first into a communal, and later into personal property, became the law". The researcher also points to "a heavy burden of taxes and duties" that he describes in details, and to the "inadequacy of the judicial system and legal proceedings, inconsistent with the spirit and the character of this people".

As we can see, the reasons that Levitsky highlights are mainly economical.

E.I. Totleben refrains searching for the guilty parties. He only alludes that emigration was precipitated by the regional administration. However, he writes that because of the abuses of local bosses, "the Tatars deserve special patronage from the government, similar to the one accorded to them by Count Vorontsov".

"Kolokol" takes more radical position in this issue: "The government was ousting the loyal Tatar population in order to settle the Crimea with the Russians, and only when 100,000 Crimean Tatars were gone did the government realize that Russians would not go to Crimea" ("The persecution of Crimean Tatars"). “Kolokol” lays the full blame on the government, personified by the minister M.N. Muravyev.

In the works by F. Khartuhay written shortly after the emigration of 1854-1862, the motive of the end of the Crimean Tatar history in Crimea appears: "The Crimean Tatars now have only their historical significance, which is nevertheless not unimportant for us".

In the publications of a later period, in particular the scientific-popular literature and in the memoirs, there emerged a theme of regret about the Tatars who left: "Instead to apprehending and shooting the thieving officials, we have chased out <...> the most honest of all Crimean tribes - the Tatars. Nobody was so mistreated in this war as this peaceful and useful tribe. It was defamed with betrayal and was forced to leave its ancient motherland <...> The Crimea perished after the deportation of Tatars" (Markov). Nostalgia for Oriental Crimea, personified in the remaining Tatars and those Tatar settlements that were preserved, becomes the dominant motive. "In Otuzi there is a special style - lovable, ancient Crimean style… The Tatars bring a certain tenderness and endearment to the Otuzskaya valley." (Yelpatyevsky⁶⁹)

In the subsequent pre-revolutionary historiography the opinion of G.P. Levitsky, who attributed emigration mainly to economic reasons, has become dominant. K.I. Verner interprets the problem along the same lines as Levitsky ("The book of memories."). In turn, his analysis is regarded as the most sound by the authors of the study that claims to be a conceptual treatment and generalization of the problem⁷⁰.

The Soviet historiography of the pre-war period has undertaken new attempt at understanding the reasons for the Crimean Tatar emigration in 1854-1862. (E.Chernishev). This study, written on the basis of archival documents, leaves a dual impression. On the one hand, the author establishes as his task to study the problem scientifically, and analyzes a lot of sources and archival documents. On the other hand, the study already shows traces of the 1930s publications, when the practice of attaching labels has become the norm. Aggressive criticism of predecessors and their arguments constitutes a significant part of the study. The author does so to prove the main reason for emigration, in his opinion - “the class contradictions and class struggle of the Tatars which unfolded on the territory of Crimea as a result of the new capitalist relations". It is absolutely clear that this reason cannot be an exhaustive explanation of migration. This conclusion is nevertheless the only possible one for a Marxist historian limited by the class approach as a way of thinking.

The emigration of 1874 and subsequent emigration waves have been nearly ignored in the historiography.

About the first one it is known that it was connected the with announcement on compulsory military draft, which led to brooding resentment among the Tatar population. Perhaps the only measure that was taken by the government to prevent a new wave of emigration was the establishment of special Crimean squadron. For this squadron "certain provisions and regulations of troop duty were changed," and "the orders of internal service" which took into account the national and religious particular qualities of Crimean Tatars were introduced (I.Mufti-zade, P.Martyanov). Emigration processes at the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century are studied even less. There is evidence that at the height of the emigration, in 1902-1903, some 600-800 Tatars have been leaving Crimea daily ("Krym: The guide-book"). Local press presents a glimpse of the emigration wave of that period ("On emigration plans."; "On the issue of Crimean Tatars migrations in the South of Russia"..), but there are no serious studies on this issue.

Thus, in the Russian and latter in the Soviet historiography of 1800-1930s, the first and third waves of Crimean Tatar emigration are researched the most, while the second, fourth, and fifth waves are only sketched. For researching the latter, it is necessary first of all to create a representative base of sources. This would allow to start scholarly study of these emigration waves. With regard to the better studied waves, the first and the third, new sources need to be used - archival and print documents, including those from the libraries and the archives of the states where the Crimean Tatars have emigrated (Turkey, Romania, Poland). The application of the modern methods and approaches is also important in the forthcoming research. Specifically, ethno-psychological methods may be employed to determine the reasons for emigration, while quantitative methods may be used to calculate the scale of emigration.

Bibliography and sources cited:

¹B-n I. Krim // Biblioteka dlya chteniya.(library for reading). M., 1856, t.35, January, p. 3-15.

²Blumenfeld G.F. Krimsko-tatarskoye zemlevladeniye (Crimean Tatar landownership). Odessa: Printing-house of "Odeski vestnik", 1888.

³Lashkov, F.F. Istoricheskyi ocherk istorii krimsko-tatarskogo zemlevladenia (). Simferopol: Printing-house of Tavricheskoy guberni, 1897.

⁴Chastno-vakufnoye vladeniye v Krimu. Simferopol, 1892.

⁵Chernishev E.I. Prichini emigratsii krimskih tatar v Turtsiyu in 1860: Study on archival documents// Works of association for studying of Tatarstan. Kazan, 1930, t.5, p.93-128.

⁶Markevich A.I. Pereseleniye krimskih tatar v Turtsiyu v cvyazi s dvizheniyem naselenia v Krimu // Izvestiya AS USSR. L., 1928, 1 4, p. 375 -405.

⁷Ozenbasli A. Rol tsarskogo pravitelstva v emigratsii krimskih tatar // Zabveniu ne podledzit. Kazan: Tatar printing-house, 1992, p. 69-73.

⁸Usov S.A. Istoriko-economicheski ocherk Krima. Simferopol, 1925.

⁹Guboglo M.N., Chervonnaya S.M. Krimskotatarskoye natsionalnoye dvizheniye. I., 1992. T.1. Istoriya, probleni, perspectivi. T .2. Documents. Materials. Chronicle.

¹⁰Allworth E. Tatars of the Crimea. Their struggle for survival. Durham and London, 1988; Fisher A. The Crimean Tatars. Stanford, 1978.

¹¹Pallas P.-S. Puteshestviye po Krimu akademika Pallasa in 1793-1794s // Zapiski Odesskogo obshestva istorii I drevnostey. Odessa, 1881, t.12, p. 62-208; t .13. 1883, t.13, p. 35-107.

¹²Narushevich A. Tavrikia, ili Izvestiya drevneyshaya i noveyshaya o sostoyanii Krima i ego zhiteley do nashih dney. Kyiv, 1788.

¹³Sestrentsovich-Bogush S. Istoriya tsarstva Khersonesa Tavriyskogo, sochunenaya Stanislavom Sestrentsovich-Bogush. SPb., 1806.

¹⁴Gablits K.I. Phisicheskoye opisaniye Tavricheskoy oblasti po yeye mestopolozheniyu i vsem trem tsarstvam prirody. SPb., 1785.

¹⁵Zuyev V.D. Puteshestveniye zapiski Vasilya Zuyeva ot Sankt-Peterburga do Khersona v 1781 i 1782. SPb., 1787.

¹⁶Pallas P.-S. Kratkoye phisicheskoye i topograficheskoye opisaniye Tavricheskogo poluostrova. SPb., 1795.

¹⁷Keppen P.I. O drevnostyah Yuzhnogo berega Igor Tavricheskih. SPb., 1837.

¹⁸Muravyev-Apostol I.M. Puteshestviye po Tavride v 1820. SPb.: printing-house. Osobaya kanzelyaria minestersta vnutrenih del, 1823.

¹⁹Murzakevich N.A. Poyezdka v Krim v 1836// Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosvesheniya. 1837, kn. 13, p. 625-691.

²⁰Bronevski V. Obozreniye yuzhnogo berega Tavridi v 1815 Tula: printing-house. gub. pravl., 1822.

²¹Demidov A. Puteshestviye v Yuzhnuyu Rossiyu i Krim cherez Vengriyu, Valahiyu i Moldaviyu, sovershenoye v 1837. Anatoliy Demidov. M.: Printing-house. Semena, 1853.

²²Kleeman P. Puteshestviye iz Veni v Belgrad i Novuyu Kiliyu, takzhe v zemli Budzhetskih tatar i vo ves Krim i pr., 1768 -1770s. SPb., 1783.

²³Korf B.A. Prebivaniye v Krimu // Sin Otechestva. 1834, t.41, ch.143, 1 4, p.249-262.

²⁴Kraven E. Puteshestviye miledi Kraven v Krim I Konstantinopol v 1786. I ., 1795.

²⁵Ludolf de. Pisma o Krime // Russkoye obozreniye. 1892, t.2, March, p.155-201.

²⁶Lettera of imperator Joseph II to Field Marshal graph Lassi during his visit of Kherson and Crimea in 1787// Russian archive. 1880, b. 2, p.356-372.

²⁷Romm Zh. Puteshestviye v Krim in 1786. L.: publishing-house of Leningrad University, 1941.

²⁸Segur. Notes of graph Segur on his visit of Russia in period of Katherine II (1785-1789). SPb., 1865.

²⁹Sumarokov P. Puteshestviye po vsemu Krimu I Bessarabii v 1799 s istoricheskim i topographicheskim opisaniyem vseh mest. M.: Univ. Publishing-house of Ridiger, 1800; Sumarokov P. Dosugi Krimskogo sudi ili Vtoroye puteshestviye v Tavridu. P.1-2. SPb., 1803-1805.

³⁰Andriyevski A.A. Krim I krimskiye tatari. Kyiv: Tip. gub. prav., 1883.

³¹Goldenberg I. Krim I krimskiye tatari // Vestnik Evropi. 1883, November, p.67- 89.

³²Gorchakova E. Vospominaniya o Krime. P.1-2. I., 1883-1884.

³³Kondaraki V.F. V pamyat stoletiya Krima. T.1-4. I.: tip. V.V.Checherina, 1883-1984.

³⁴Khartahay F. Istoricheskaya sudba krimskih tatar // Vestnik Evropi. 1866, June, p.182-236; 1867, June, p. 140 -174.

³⁵Bochkarev V.N. The history of Russia of OIO century. I., pub.h. Rihter, 1912.

³⁶Kizivetter A.A. The history of Russia: XIX c. I., 1915.

³⁷Kornolov A.A. The course of history of Russia of XIX century. I.: Misl, 1993.

³⁸Zhigarev S. Russkaya politika v vostochnom voprose (yeye istoria v XVI-XIX, kriticheskaya ozenka i budushiye zadachi). I., 1896, T.1-2.

³⁹Milukov P.N. Natsionalniy vopros: Proishozhdeniye natsionalnosti i natsionalnogo voprosa v Rossii. Praga, 1925.

⁴⁰Verner K.I. Pamyatnaya knizhka Tavricheskoy guberni. Simferopol, 1889.

⁴¹Skalkovski A.A. Chronologicheskoye obozreniye istorii Novorossiyskogo kraya, 1731-1823. P.1- 2. Odessa, 1836-1838.

⁴²Khanatski E.V. Pamyatnaya knizhka Tavricheskoi guberni. issue # 1 /by edition of E.V.Khanatski Simferopol, 1867.

⁴³Keppen P.I. Ethnographical map. SPb., 1852.

⁴⁴Kondaraki V.H. Obichai krimskih tatar // Novorosiyskii vedomosti. 1870, March, 1 66.

⁴⁵Merezhkovski K.S. Otchet ob antropologicheskoy poyezdke v Krim in 1880 // Izvestiya Russkogo geographicheskogo obshestva. T.17, issue # 2, 1881, ¤.104-130.

⁴⁶Kharuzin A.N. Tatari: Kefalometricheskii nabludenia nad tatarami Yuzhnogo berega Krima // Izvestiya Obshestwa lubiteley yestestvoznaniya, antropologii i etnographii. O.68, 1890, p.14 -36.

⁴⁷Brun F.E. Chernomorye. O.2. Odessa, 1880.

⁴⁸Kulakovski Y.A. Zametki po istorii i topographii Krima //Archeologicheskii izvestiya I zametki. O .4, 1 1. I., 1896, p.1-6.

⁴⁹Tizengauzen V.G. O sokhranenii i vozobnovlenii krimskih pamyatnikov drevnosti i ob izdanii opisania i risunkov // Zapiski Odesskogo obshestva istorii i drevnostey. 1872, t.8, p.363- 403.

⁵⁰Fabr A. Dostopamyatneyshii drevnosti Krima. Odessi, 1859.

⁵¹Fomenko K. Peshernii khrami v Krimu// Trudi Kiyevskoi duhovnoy akademii. O.3, Kyiv, 1894, p. 385-409.

⁵²Gasprinski I. Russko-vostochnoye soglasheniye. Bakhchisaray: Terdzhiman, 1896; Gasprinski I. Russkoye musulmanstvo // Zvezda Vostoka, 1991, 1 4, p.105- 119.

⁵³Klimovich L. Na sluzhbe prosvesheniya: O pervoy turkoyazichnoy gazete "Terdzhiman" I yeye izdatele I.Gasprinskom // Zvezda Vostoka, 1987, 1 8, p.170- 186.

⁵⁴Piontkovski S.A. Velokkoderzhavnii tendentsii v istoriographii Rossii // Historian-Marxist. O.17, I., 1930, p.21- 26.

⁵⁵Garagulya V.E., A.I.Markevich // Markevich A.I. Tavricheskaya gubernya v period Krimskoy voyni: The archival documents. Simferopol: Business -Inform, 1994, p. 255- 267.

⁵⁶Markov Џ.L. Ocherki Krima: Kartini krimskoi zhizni, prirodi i istorii. Pub. 3. SPb.: T-vo M.I. Volf, 1903.

⁵⁷Martyanov P. Poslednyaya emigratsia tatar iz Krima in 1874 // Istoricheski vestnik. 1886, t.24, 1 6, p.698-708.

⁵⁸Kopchevski A. Proshloye i nastoyasheye v pesnyah Krima // Zabveniu ne podlezhit. Kazan: Tatar. Pub. house, 1992, p.250- 254.

⁵⁹Goneniye na krimskih tatar // Kolokol. 1861, December.

⁶⁰Pinson M. Russian Policy and the emigration the Crimean Tatars to the Ottoman Empire, 1854-1862. Istanbul, 1974.

⁶¹Mufti-zade I. Ocherk voyenoy sluzhbi krimskih tatar from 1783 tЊ 1889: The archival documents // Simferopol, 1900, Izvestiya Tavrichesk scientific archival commission. 1899, 1 30.

⁶²Ob emigratsionih planah krimskih tatar // Krimski vestnik. 1893, March,. 1 52; K voprosu o dvizhenii tatar na yuge Rossii // Krim. 1893, November; Volinets A. Viseleniye tatar v Turtsiyu // Krimski vestnik. 1901, November, 1 313.

⁶³Sherban N. Pereseleniye krimskih tatar // Russkii vestnik. 1860, b. 12, p.211-229.

⁶⁴A .U. O zaselenii Krima nivimi poselentsami // Russkii vestnik. 1866, 5, p.256-269.

⁶⁵Levitski G.P. Pereseleniye tatar iz Krima v Turkey// Vestnik Europe. 1882, October, p. 596-639.

⁶⁶Totleben E.I. O viselenii tatar iz Krima in 1860 // Russkaya starina. 1893, O. 78, p.531- 550.

⁶⁷Emigratsiya krimskih tatar i cherkeskih nogaytsev // Russkii vestnik. 1860, t .28. p.371-373.

⁶⁸Crimea: Guidebook. Simferopol, 1914.

⁶⁹Yelpatyevski S. Krimskii ocherki. I.: Publishing-house of writers in Moscow, 1913.

⁷⁰Statistical digest of Tavrichesk province/Drawer. F.N.Andriyevski. Under edition of M.E.Benensona. Simferopol, 1915.