Who are the Greco Tatars. On the origin of the Urums - the Crimean Greeks. Moor did his job...
Ethnonym
The term "Urum" comes from the Arabic word رُوم ("room"), meaning "Roman, Roman", and later - "Byzantine" (Eastern Roman) and "Greek". Words beginning with the consonant "r" were atypical for the Turkic languages, therefore, in order to facilitate pronunciation, their speakers added a vowel to the beginning of the word. However, in modern Turkish the spelling "urum" is considered obsolete, despite the fact that it continues to exist; the spelling "rum" is taken as the literary form.
Tsalka Urums
In the thirties of the 19th century, to the Tsalka region, on a confessional basis and under the common united name "Urum", from the Erzerum vilayet Ottoman Empire, Armenians, Greeks and Georgians were expelled.
Azov urums
The Azov Urums profess Orthodoxy. Throughout their ethnic history, they were an isolated group - and did not settle in the settlements of the Rumeians. According to the Turkologist Nikolai Baksakov, in 1969, 60,000 speakers of Urum lived in Ukraine. According to the all-Ukrainian census of 2001, out of 77,516 Greeks in the Donetsk region, 70,373 indicated as their native language
Urums- (Greek Ουρούμ, Urum; Tur. Urum, Crimean Tatar. Urum ), Azerbaijani Berzen an exoethnonym used by some Turkic-speaking peoples (Turks, Crimean Tatars) to refer to the Greek population of Muslim states, mainly the Ottoman Empire. Urums are an ethnic group of Greeks who speak the Anatolian dialect of Turkish. Turks call all Greeks Urums, and for Greeks speaking Turkish, this term has become a self-name. The ancestors of the Urums migrated in the 19th century from the interior of Turkey to the Tsalka Highlands in Central Georgia, where they mixed with other Greek ethnic groups. Part of the Urums settled in the North Caucasus, where they founded a number of villages. By the end of the 20th century, the Urums had largely lost their ethnic identity, and during the 2002 census in Russian Federation only 54 people called themselves Urums.
The term "Urum" comes from Arabic word رُّومُ (“room”), meaning “Roman, Roman”, and later- "Byzantine" (Eastern Roman) and "Greek". Words beginning with the consonant "r" were atypical for the Turkic languages, therefore, to facilitate pronunciation, their speakers added a vowel to the beginning of the word.
By decree of Catherine II in 1778-1779. Greeks from Crimea were resettled to uninhabited lands on the coast of the Sea of Azov. where they founded the city of Mariupol and 20 villages, the names of which repeated the Crimean toponyms - Stary Krym (Eski Krym), Yalta, Urzuf, etc. The resettlement was led by Metropolitan Ignatius (Gozatdinov), who headed the Gotfi-Kefai diocese.
Linguistically, the Greeks of the Sea of Azov are divided into two groups. Some of them speak Urum(one of the Turkic languages), while the native language of the other part is rumean(Greek group of the Indo-European family). The Urum language combines both Oguz and Kypchak dialect features.
Both groups call themselves Greeks and profess Orthodoxy. During the first years in the Sea of Azov, the Greeks constituted a special diocese and retained the specifics of the church rite, which was then brought into line with the requirements of the Synod. Most of the modern parishes of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov belong to the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Greeks moved to the Azov region from the Crimea already with two native languages, and in the new lands the Turkic-speaking and Greek-speaking Greeks settled separately from each other. The mixed population turned out to be only in Yeni-Sala (the modern village of Velikonovoselovka).
Historically, the Greeks of the Crimea (and later the Sea of Azov; modern Donetsk region of Ukraine) were represented by two groups: the Hellenic-speaking Rumeans and the Turkic-speaking Urums (also known as Greek-Tatars). Both groups inhabited the region for centuries (they consisted of descendants of Greek colonists from the 4th century BC to the 4th century AD, as well as those who different time immigrated from Anatolia), but the latter went through a series of social and cultural processes, as a result of which Turkic became their native language.
Historically GreeksCrimea (and later the Sea of Azov; modern Donetsk region of Ukraine) were represented by two groups: the Hellenic-speaking Rumeians and the Turkic-speaking Urums (also known as Greek-Tatars). Both groups inhabited the region for centuries (they consisted of the descendants of the Greek colonizers 4th century BC e.-4th century AD e. and those who immigrated from Anatolia at different times), but the latter went through a series of social and cultural processes, as a result of which Crimean Tatar became their native language. A certain, and according to a number of researchers, the main role in the ethnogenesis of the Urums was played by the local Christian population, primarily the Goth-Alans. In 1777, after the annexation of Crimea by Russia, by order of Catherine the Great, all the Greeks of the peninsula were settled in the Azov region; since then they have been known as the Azov Greeks. Some Western linguists believe that the dialect of the Azov Urums differs from the Crimean Tatar at more than a dialectal level, as a result of which it is considered a separate Kipchak language.
Comparing the map of the Sea of Azov and Crimea, many paid attention to the similarities in the names settlements. When settling the Sea of Azov, the Greeks often tried to leave the old Crimean names to new villages. So there was another Yalta, Urzuf, Stary Krym - even Mariupol. Mangush also belongs to the settlement with the same name. The current indigenous Greeks of this village - the Urum Greeks - are the descendants of the Byzantines who once lived in the Crimean Mangup.
Urums live in Georgia in Beshtasheni(cargo.ბეშთაშენი ) - a village 5 kilometers from Tsalka in the south of Georgia, the Yalksky district of the Kvemo Kartli region.
In the Russian Federation on the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus, Novorossiysk region. As well as the Taman Peninsula, the village of Crimean.
There is a lot of controversy about the origin of the Urums - there is no single point of view. Most likely they were formed as a result of the miscegenation of various Hellenic tribes with the Christian Turks, both with the Kipchaks and the Oguzes. Such is the legendary story. Allegedly, the Ottoman Turks demanded from the Greeks: Ya dilini deyiş, ya da dinini (change your Faith or language). And the Urums preserved the Faith - Orthodox Christianity. It is believed that part of the Urums arose in eastern Anatolia and in the Crimea.
Above were presented photographs of urums. see also
And now, for comparison, the Greeks of the Balkans
The Urums are known as Greco-Tatars and are representatives of the Crimean peoples. This term includes Armenians who adopted the Chalcedonian faith, Tsalka Greeks who moved to the Russian Empire due to the attacks of the Ottomans.
Name
The ethnonym "Urum" comes from the Arabic word "Roman". Later, the word was transformed into a different concept. Under the Urums began to understand the Greeks. Initially, there was no vowel in the name of the people, however, due to the difficulty of pronouncing the word “room”, such a prefix appeared in Arabic.
Researchers emphasize the difference between the Urums and the Rumeians (Rameians), who are representatives of the Azov Greeks. Their main difference is the language. The Urums use Turkic dialects, while the Rumeans speak Middle Greek.
Language
Urum is related to the related Crimean Tatar. It has several dialects, namely:
- Kypchak;
- Oghuz;
- middle.
This is the classification of S.N. Muratov. In addition to dialects, Urum has many dialects. There is also a very specific language related to folklore. The Urums rarely use it; Mariupol and Old Crimean dialects appear in it.
History
Urums and Rameis are a single ethnic group with different languages. There are no exact versions of the origin of both representatives. There is an opinion according to which the Urums assimilated as Greeks among the Crimean Tatars.
The reason for the settlement of the territory of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov was the actions of the Russian government. There were fears of an attack by the Crimean Tatars and Nogais on the lands of the Russian Empire. By order of Empress Catherine II, the colonization of empty spaces began. By the end of the 18th century, the Greeks from the Crimea were resettled en masse, the task was given the highest priority, operations were led by such famous commanders as Suvorov and Rumyantsev. However, the Greeks were not forced captives Russian Empire. They were offered different lands.
The first in line was a site near modern Pavlograd. The Greeks did not agree to settle because of the small amount of forest and water. Catherine II hastened to give benefits that allowed immigrants to receive complete exemption from military duty, not pay taxes for 10 years and create their own self-government body. The measures taken by the empress kept the church administration in the hands of the current metropolitan. As a result, the Greeks were given the territory dedicated to the present Pavlovsk.
The pre-Soviet period was characterized for the Urums by the influence of the Ukrainian population. Living in the Mariupol Greek district, they inevitably came into contact with Russians and Ukrainians, which significantly influenced the cultural characteristics of the people. The Russian language began to prevail, and this concerned not only speech, but also writing. Many of the intelligent families studied in schools where they taught in Russian. However, due to the fact that the Greek community in the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov was quite large, the assimilation processes were suspended. This helped the Azov Greeks to preserve their identity.
The USSR contributed to the preservation of the culture of the Urums, popularizing theaters, schools, the press and literature in Greek in the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov. However, due to the lack of a sufficient number of teachers, there was a tendency to replace the native language with Crimean Tatar. As a result, the so-called New Greek was formed, which neither the teachers nor the students themselves knew, and this forced them to send their children to Russian schools.
Gradually, the Soviet Union began to curtail the policy of supporting the indigenous population of the Azov region, cultural institutions were closed along with Greek schools, and repressions intensified, including against the Greek embassy. Nevertheless, many of the Azov Greeks supported communism, which received a positive reaction from the Supreme Council. The Khrushchev thaw, which began in the 1950s, reduced the number of repressions, but further support for national minorities ceased. The policy of universal equality and brotherhood meant that any national differences were not significant. If in the early 1930s, more than 80% of the 100,000 Greeks living in Ukraine considered Greek as their native language, then by the end of the 80s, there were less than 20% of them.
population
Almost all Urums live in Ukraine. The approximate number of representatives of the ethnic group is 250 thousand people. The bulk of the people are concentrated in the Donetsk region. In the census earlier, many indicated themselves as Ukrainians or Russians. Now the trend has begun to change in favor of originality.
A life
Urums fall under the law of Ukraine "On National Minorities". It guarantees people the observance of rights and freedoms, including cultural, social, economic and political ones. Active social activities are carried out on the territory of Mariupol. The population receives the necessary medical services. A festival of Greek culture and song is regularly held. Public figures from Greece come here, and in 2008 the President of the Hellenic Republic visited Mariupol. In the same year, the educational center "Meotida" was opened. It studies the Greek language along with culture and history.
Famous people
Among the Urums and Greeks of the Azov region there are famous personalities.
- Pasha Angelina became the first woman to create a tractor brigade, which consisted exclusively of women. She became a deputy of the Supreme Council many times Soviet Union. Twice became a hero of socialist labor.
- Georgy Bakhchivandzhi, a well-known pilot who participated in the Great Patriotic War, received great fame. He was the first to test a jet aircraft and died in 1943. He was awarded the rank of captain.
- Konstantin Chelpan is one of the most famous engineers of the Soviet Union. For a long time he was engaged in the development of the design of diesel engines. It was he who created the engine for the most famous Soviet tank T-34.
culture
The most important cultural phenomenon in the life of the Urums is folklore. There were several types of fairy tales:
- about animals;
- song tales;
- prosaic with ancient oriental motifs;
- diverse, arising on the basis of the assimilation of the cultures of other peoples.
A characteristic feature of all fairy tales is the upholding of strength and wisdom.
Using the example of heroes, the reader can understand who is a coward, who is cunning, and who is a fool. All fairy tales are written in a simple language, they use a lot of everyday expressions. Stylistic language is neutral.
A clear example of fairy tales with ancient Eastern motifs is the legend “About mother and children”, which tells about two daughters and one son. The essence of her story comes down to the punishment of children for the fact that they refused to help their mother in difficult times. As a result, the eldest daughter turns into a turtle, the son becomes a hedgehog. Only the youngest daughter came to the rescue, although she also turns into a different creature, becoming a bee.
Traditions
During the wedding celebration, the songs practically do not subside. They accompany the entire process of the ceremony, telling stories about the bride and groom. Until the 19th century the practice of early marriages persisted. The girl's dowry was prepared from a young age. As a rule, carpets, silks, bed linen, tablecloths, clothes acted as his role. To show readiness for marriage, the girl had to demonstrate her ability in needlework. Embroidery and crocheting enjoyed special honor. A real craftswoman should have been able to knit lace. In the old days, the future bride or groom was chosen for the girl and the boy from the cradle. Young people were rarely introduced to each other. They received such an opportunity only during the engagement ceremony. Marriages have always been strong and rarely broke up.
Each wedding ceremony involved matchmaking. Matchmakers came to the girl and her parents in the house, handing a bottle of wine or vodka. Despite the fact that everything was predetermined in advance, the bride's relatives often refused, giving a tavern (pumpkin, zucchini). In addition to him, nuts and forks served as symbols of refusal. From the side of the groom, they gave fruits, silk scarves, jewelry and dresses.
The bride and groom were allowed to sit in a separate room together during the negotiations of their parents. The traditional gift of a girl for her future husband has always been a shirt. At the matchmaking, guests should be treated to fried fish and a puff pastry stuffed with rice and meat.
The godfathers must also come to the wedding celebration. The matchmaker took the lead over the process. Girlfriends from the side of the bride had to take a rooster with them to perform a dance with him. Then the bird was given to the groomsmen. Songs were sung not only by women, but also by men. Arriving at the groom's house, the young meet their parents. His mother must hold a plate in her hands, which was previously filled with grain and coins. The ritual has been preserved to this day. Approaching the mother, the bride and groom bow their heads, and the groom's mother raises the plate over their heads three times, wishing for long years and sweet bread.
The Panair holiday is very popular among the Urums. It is a whole feast, usually celebrated in June. Prepare for it in advance, calling people from all the surrounding villages. Only men come to the meeting, widowed women do not participate in the celebration. The headman of the village always took over the leadership of the holiday. Each household is required to prepare a dish to be served on the table. The richest present a ram. During the "Panair" races and wrestling are held. From each village, the strongest and most famous wrestler was selected. If he won, then his reward was truly great - to bring a ram to his native village meant to arrange a grand feast. Now horse races have become a rarity, but the tradition of wrestling (kuresh) is still preserved. The clashes of wrestlers are accompanied by songs and dances.
Another favorite holiday among many Urums is the “Mouse”. It competes in the art of performing music, using tambourines, zurna and violin. IN New Year It is customary to congratulate the inhabitants of the whole village, bypassing each house. In the morning, the family eats a pie in which coins are placed. They eat the pie carefully, if a coin comes across, then a person will receive happiness in the new year.
Urums are familiar with Easter, before which they thoroughly clean the house. Nothing can be done on Good Friday, the next day it is customary to clean up the house and go to church in the evening. On Sunday morning it's time for a celebratory breakfast.
In the traditions of the Urums, the pronunciation of proverbs has been preserved, not only on holidays, but also in everyday life. The proverb helps a person to show himself wise, cultured and intelligent. In the vocabulary of the Urums, there are tens of thousands of proverbs, including Greek, Ukrainian, Russian. Many of them appeared under the influence of circumstances. There are 12 proverbs devoted to labor alone, 40 to stinginess, and more than 20 about life itself. Among the unique Urum proverbs, there is a rather interesting one that sounds like “If you get hit with a stone, hit with bread in response.” Literally, it should be understood as the expression "You cannot keep evil in yourself." This perfectly characterizes the Urums as positive and persistent people.
Video
Current page: 11 (total book has 18 pages) [accessible reading excerpt: 12 pages]
Font:
100% +
Here is another example of establishing the identity of the Modern Greek studied at school with the native language, although at another point in the interview the informant notes the difference in idioms.
Collector. Do you think it is right to learn Greek (that is, modern Greek) at school?
Informant. Certainly! How is it to live and not know the Greek language?! Well, this is how to grow up among the Greeks, both father and mother ...
(Information about the informant: VKG, Rumeika, 1939, Maly Yanisol.)
The informant transfers to the Modern Greek studied at school the notion of blood, kinship between the carrier and the idiom, which is usually used when describing the mother's language.
The homonymy of linguonyms facilitates the change of one "Greek" language - Rumeian, marking the ethnic identification of the group, to another "Greek" idiom - Modern Greek. Nominally, both idioms correspond to the requirement often mentioned in interviews to "understand at least some of your native (Greek) language." For a language in the function of a group identity marker, it is not so important whether the term "Greek" always denotes the same idiom; the informant may equate his own mother tongue with the Greek of his grandchildren. It is possible that as the number of children who studied Modern Greek at school but do not speak Rumean increases, the number of informants whose Greek identity is symbolized by the Modern Greek language will increase. At present, the identification of Rumean and Modern Greek and the adoption of the latter as a marker of Greek identity are found only in isolated cases.
Major groups and community boundaries
I do not consider interaction with individual groups, however, the real self-identification of the community always takes place taking into account the boundaries with all neighbors. Although the need to describe all neighbors may be difficult for informants 79
“In an interview ... the informant finds himself in a very difficult situation, which he never encounters in daily practice. He, sometimes for the first time in his life, is forced tell about relationships not with any one, but immediately with everyone groups (and not to carry out these relationships in practice, which, of course, is much more familiar to him)" [Bakhtin, Golovko, Schweitzer, 2004, p. 121].
Ideas about other groups and relationships with them constitute the context of interaction, defining contacts with a particular community and individual. The boundary is not only drawn between itself and the second group, its individual representative, but its characteristics are always correlated with other, parallel existing boundaries, and a change in the relationship with one community will inevitably entail a revision of the definitions of the other neighbors and the group itself.
The interview indicates the possibilities of uniting with each of the groups, manifesting certain aspects of the culture of the Rumeans. If we summarize the oppositions that are not usually formulated by the carriers, then the Rumeians and Russians are opposed to the Urums as owners of a more eastern appearance, that is, as non-Tatars - Tatars. In turn, the Rumeians and Urums constitute a group of Greeks (Priazovye), separated from the Russians by Greek way of life and origin, and from the external group, Greeks from Greece, as "local Greeks." The Rumeans and the Greeks from Greece, who speak related idioms/the same language, are opposed to the Urums, the speakers of the Tatar language.
The system of nominations adopted by the community allows you to oppose any of the groups at any time and unite with your neighbors. The Greeks (Urums and Rumeians) are opposed to the Russians; Greeks (Rumeans) - (Greek) - Tatars (Urums); Hellenes (Rumeans and Greeks from Greece) - also (Greek) - Tatars (Urums).
The system outlined above constitutes the generally accepted ideas of the Rumeans about their neighbors. Depending on the individual preferences of the informant, these relationships can be characterized somewhat differently, with the narrator voicing the ideas that make up the background, the “reserve fund” of the community, updated from time to time, as needed. For example, some informants emphasize the fallacy of the nomination “Greek-Tatars” and, insisting exclusively on the Tatar nature of another group, deny the commonality of the Rumeans and Urums in all respects, attributing to the Urums not only linguistic, external and behavioral differences, but also a different religion, place of origin ( not Crimea, but Turkey). These representations may at some point be in demand by the entire community when the boundaries between groups are blurred. However, the complete denial of the Greek nature of the Urums is possible only as an expression of an individual position and is not shared by the rest, since, crossing out any similarity between representatives of another group with the Rumeans, it leads to the disappearance of the border between communities.
The ideas of the Rumeians about neighbors depend on the status of the interacting groups. However, are group relations always perceived as a hierarchy of low and high statuses? Each group gives itself definitions that testify to its higher position compared to its neighbors; at the same time, status differences that actually exist are sometimes ignored. Although attributes attributed by neighbors are part of the self-identification of the group, the internal point of view may to some extent neglect the negative assessment or develop compensatory mechanisms, resorting to such parameters as beauty or the antiquity of traditions, that is, to the values of authenticity. As a result, each of the groups feels superior to other communities, and an agreement is formed on the borders of the communities, according to which one of the communities carries the ancient culture, and the other is successful economically. Lower status may not actually be reflected in the community's self-description in interviews.
The relationship “real Greeks” – “Greek-Hellenes” – “Greek-Tatars” is an example of a pure hierarchy, a stepwise decrease in the status of a group. The already mentioned term “hierarchy of Greekness”, introduced by researchers of immigration policy in Greece (see:), successfully characterizes the status distribution of groups in the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, accepted, in fact, by all participants in this system, although both Urums and Rumeians develop different compensatory characteristics that allow clarify relations with a group with a higher status. The stability of this system is due to mechanisms outside the community: economic and other advantages of contacts with Greece and the activities of the Federal State Educational Institution
At the same time, relations with Russians today are not connected with pressure from the state or the elite, which changes the prestige of the groups. There are memories in the community about the relationship between the statuses of Russians and Greeks in different periods, and the informant can use certain plots of the oral history of the group to describe the ethnic border.
* * *
Relations between groups are not an isolated opposition of two communities, but a complex system of communicating boundaries. An increase in pressure from one of the groups causes a change in the border with the rest of the neighbors. The complete denial of the Greek identity of the Urums leads to the disappearance of the border with them and, thereby, violates the “hierarchy of Greekness” recognized by the Rumeans: the existence of another Greek group places the Rumeans in the middle of the scale, between real Greeks and Greco-Tatars.
Informants use two value scales - authenticity and civility; assessments from the point of view of authenticity prevailed in the perception of everyday life, holiday traditions, the choice of nationality (before the abolition of the corresponding column in the passports of citizens of Ukraine), while in relation to the native language, assessments from the point of view of civilization prevail in the interview.
So, to be Greek means for our informants to be different from Russians (non-Greeks); to be somewhat the same as the Urums, but more real Greeks; strive to enter the imaginary community of Greeks, embodied by Greeks from Greece (recognizing themselves as less pure Greeks). Interaction with the three groups discussed above determines the self-identification of the Rumeians. Describing neighbors, informants explain how they see themselves. By accepting or rejecting attributes attributed to another group, the community develops a constantly changing self-image.
Chapter 5
Ethnic identity of the Urums
In this chapter, the focus is on the Turkic-speaking part of the Greeks of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov - the Urums. Due to the historical discrepancy between the self-name of the group ("Greeks") and the characteristics of their language (reflected in the linguonym "Greek-Tatar"), any reasoning about this community of the Urums themselves and representatives of other groups is based on finding out how language and ethnicity actually correlate Turkic-speaking Greeks of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov. The Urum language is recognized as the main marker of the group, allowing the speakers themselves and their neighbors to form the boundaries of the community.
At the same time, the definitions of language and community adopted under the influence of contacts with other groups, in turn, affect the attitude (commitment, loyalty) of speakers to their language.
Analyzing the relationship between language and ethnic (self-)identification of the Urums, I will try, as far as possible, to take into account both sides of the problem: the role of language in shaping the boundaries of the group, and the influence of external and internal definitions of the community on the attitude towards the idiom. Considering the first aspect, the role of linguonyms in the categorization of a group and language as a marker of ethnic boundaries, I will consider the system of nominations for Urums and their idiom by different groups, then I will analyze the markers used by Urums to maintain boundaries with other groups, and share some observations on how the accepted definitions groups (formed in the interaction of external categorization and self-descriptions of the community) influence the attitude towards the idiom, that is, I will consider the perception of the Urum language by native speakers in the context of interaction with other groups.
The main part of the field materials was collected in two Urum settlements - Stary Krym in the Mariupol region and Granitnoye (Staraya Karan) in the Telmanovsky region.
1. The village of Stary Krym, Mariupol District- average in terms of the number and composition of the population for the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov (about 6200 inhabitants 80
According to the city department of statistics of Mariupol in Stary Krym in 1979 there were 6170 inhabitants; of them Greeks - 2249; in 1989 - 6439 inhabitants; of them Greeks - 1984. As of 2003, 6242 people lived in the village. It is difficult to judge to what extent this ratio of Greeks and non-Greeks (about 1 to 3), presented in the census, reflects the real situation. The article by K. Kaurinkoski and the booklet dedicated to the 220th anniversary of the village of Stary Krym provide other data: 60% of the Greek population, 20% of Russians, 15% of Ukrainians out of 6460 people in 2000 [Kaurinkoski, 2002, p. 82; Old Crimea, 2000].
), in fact - a suburb of Mariupol 81
By minibus you can get to the city in 10-15 minutes, and some residents travel to Mariupol to work (to the Ilyich Iron and Steel Works and other enterprises).
For many years, the president of the Federation of Greek Societies of Ukraine (a native of the Rumeian village) worked as the director of the local school No. 46; associated with the period of her tenure in this position is a more active (compared to other Greek settlements) introduction to school curriculum new Greek(the status of a school with in-depth study of the Modern Greek language), a large-scale organization of the 220th anniversary of the founding of the village in 2000, frequent visits of delegations from Greece.
2. Settlement of Granite (Old Karan) Telmanovsky district in 1946–1970 was a district center, which was then transferred to the urban-type settlement of Telmanovo. 3929 people live in Granitnoye, of which 2712 (69%) are Urums. Today, Granitnoye is a relatively inaccessible village, located far from the city and away from the Mariupol-Donetsk highway. There is no permanent teaching of the modern Greek language in the village, although for several years extracurricular activities for schoolchildren on weekends; due to the remoteness from Mariupol, delegations from Greece rarely come here. The settlement is inhabited by Crimean Tatars who moved to the Sea of Azov in the 1950s-1960s.
Like the Rumean settlements chosen for analysis, these two Urum settlements are quite typical. In addition, I use material recorded in the Urum settlements of Staroignatievka and Kamenka in the Telmanovsky district, Staromlinovka in the Velikonovoselkovsky district (Zaporozhye region) and Mangush in the Pervomaisky district, as well as in the only settlement with a mixed Urum and Rumeian population - the regional center of Velikonovoselovka.
Ethnonyms and linguonyms
The most common ethnonyms and linguonyms used by various groups present in the Azov region to designate the Urums and the Urum language are summarized in a table (see Table 5.1).
Table 5.1. Urum nominations and their idiom
* Note. Contacts with the Crimean Tatars are typical only for one village, so the situation in the Granitnoye village will be considered separately.
Russians. As noted in Chapter 4, Russians and Ukrainians refer to the Urums and Rumeans as Greeks and use the linguonem "Greek" for both idioms. The linguistic division of the two groups is usually known to Russians permanently residing in the Urum or Rumean settlements, but they, as a rule, evaluate it as a private difference, significant only within the “Greeks” group itself, and do not distinguish between Urums and Rumeans. Greco-Hellenes and Greco-Tatars. I don't understand these subtleties. ‹…› No, well, we just[name them] "Greeks", who will make out there - he is a Greek-Tatar or a Greek-Hellenic. It’s far, far away the roots went there ”(RAP, Russian, ca. 1940, Mangush).
Like the Rumeians, some Urums recall that the Russians used to use the nickname "Pindos", which has clearly negative connotations: “But the Greeks are not people at all, the Greeks are not for people at all.[considered] ... Greeks, Pindos, you know, everyone…”(MAN, Urumka, 1936, Stary Krym). In interviews with Russian informants, this nomination did not come up.
The ethnonym "Russians" used by the Urums refers to the non-Greek Russian-speaking population - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Some Urums use the terms "Ukrainian", "Ukrainian" to refer to specific people, while the group will be called Russians. In Urum, the term "Russians" corresponds to the ethnonym "hazah": "Everyone was called" hazah " – and Ukrainians, and Russians, and Katsapov"(SAA, Urumka, 1929, Stary Krym).
The Urums comprehend the relationship with the Russian-speaking population of the Sea of Azov as contacts between Russians and Greeks, not divided into Ukrainians and actually Russians, Urums and Rumeians.
Rumei. The linguonym "Tatar" is perceived by the Rumeans as a neutral nomination of the idiom of the Urums, while the ethnonym "Tatars" implies a certain point of view of the informant; the neutral nomination is considered to be “Greek-Tatars”. Between themselves, the Rumeians call the Urums both Greek-Tatars and Tatars, but in interaction with the Urums they use only the full form of the ethnonym - "Greek-Tatars" and the self-name "Greek-Hellenes", or "Greek-Hellenes". As a rule, the Urums and Rumeians in conversation avoid nominations of the group or use names derived from toponyms without resorting to ethnic terms. The Rumeians call the Tatar and only sometimes the Greco-Tatar language of the Urums; but when talking with the Urum, the linguonym "Greek-Tatar" will be chosen.
As already noted (see Chapter 2), from ethnographic descriptions of the 19th century. It is known that in the past, the Rumeians called the Urums in Rumeian "Bazarians", or "Bazariots", which means "residents of the city" [Grigorovich, 1874, p. 56] 82
Bazar (Rom.) originally meant the city of Mariupol, although now it is often used as a synonym for shier" (Rom.) the city in general.
However, today neither the Rumeians nor the Urums remember this nomination, since Mariupol was founded and inhabited by the Urums. Thus, the Rumeans do not have special terms for the other group and their language in Rumeian, and in all situations they use Russian nominations.
Within their own group, the Urums call the Rumeans "Greek Hellenes", "Greek Hellenes", or "Greeks", and themselves - "Greeks"; they designate the language of the Rumeans as Hellenic, and their idiom as Greek. Describing interaction with the Rumeians in a conversation with visiting collectors, the informants, as a rule, switched to an “external” Rumeian-oriented system of description and called their idiom Greek-Tatar, however, some Urums in any situation adhered to their usual distribution of linguonyms “Greek” and "Hellenic", even when it could lead to misunderstandings.
Tremins "Greek-Hellenes" and "Greek-Tatars" are perceived as full forms, emphasizing the common part - the Greeks, while short forms, opposing Greeks and Hellenes (Greek and Hellenic languages), allow you to mark the border of the community and separate yourself from the Rumeians. The ethnonyms "Greek-Hellenes" and "Greek-Tatars" set the scheme of logical (generic) relations, which, as a rule, the informants try to interpret. Double generic ethnonyms are a productive model for the formation of new nominations in an interview: “... Still, it seems, there are Greek-Georgians; Greco-Hellenes and Greco-we"(ELK, rumeyka, c. 1923, Stary Krym).
Crimean Tatars. In the late 1950s Crimean Tatars moved to Granite from the Trans-Urals, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. In 1956–1957 the first families settled in Granitnoye, and in the 1960s and early 1970s. migration continued: relatives of migrants were also recruited to work on the collective farm; the main Tatar population of the village was formed during these decades. Separate families arrived later under the influence of political and ethnic processes in the republics of the USSR or the newly independent states (the family of a Tatar woman AAA came from Uzbekistan in 1989).
Tatars live in the so-called new settlement, in houses built by the collective farm for migrants, located separately from the central part of Granite 83
Today, the new village is no smaller than the rest of the village, but the division is very clearly understood: on one side of the village administration building is the old village, and on the other, behind the wasteland on the site of the old cemetery, is the new one.
Crimean Tatars are in contact only with the urums of the village of Granitnoe (Staraya Karan), and also, in part, with residents of the nearest villages - Staraya Laspa and Staroignatievka, who come to Granitnoe. Urums from other settlements did not meet with the Tatars and do not know about the group of settlers in Granitny.
Tatars in conversation with the Urums call them "Greeks", and within their group - "Greeks", or "Greek-Tatars". The last ethnonym is used by the Crimean Tatars in the presence of the Urums only in a situation of conflict or play, playful teasing. In interviews, Crimean Tatars avoid unambiguous nominations of Urums and their language, resorting to deictic constructions or common attributes of the group. Often in interviews there is a definition of the Urums as Crimean people or other references to the presence of the community in Crimea.
“Yes, they too, they are… Greek Tatars, they say[hereinafter highlighted by me. - V. B.],but their 300 years - back there - they were sent here. They are also deported people in general. Well, their descendants… have already died. Children remained there, children-children ... like that, in general, youth. And their parents all died a long time ago - once 300 years, what kind of parents are there? That's why they are their nation ... for the Russian, who goes where in general. Got married. People got confused. This is where the people are. And our language converges. And they speak even more clearly than we do.”(VAV, Urumka, 1927, Granite).
The informant avoids ethnonyms: once she calls the Urums Greek-Tatars, but she distances herself from this nomination, referring to the fact that others say so. Then she resorts to descriptive names of another group, and the wording “also deported people” indicates a comparison of the Urums and her own group: the main motive of the oral history of the Crimean Tatars is deportation from Crimea, and the assessment of the resettlement of the Urums from the Crimea to the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov as an eviction in an interview with Crimean Tatars usually indicates the recognition of the Urums by the Tatars.
The Crimean Tatars call the Urum language both Tatar and Greek, but more often, avoiding certain lingvonims, they describe it as a similar idiom close to Tatar. Crimean Tatar and Urum are closely related languages, and sometimes there are communications in which each of the interlocutors uses “his own” idiom, called in this case by the Tatars both Tatar and Greek.
The Tatars of Granite distinguish two variants in the Crimean Tatar - Nogai (steppe) and Tat. Some of our informants projected this division into a similar idiom, describing the language of the Urums as Tat, the language of Tats (AAA, Urumka, 1940, Granite). However, none of the Urum informants noticed the coincidence of this nomination with the almost lost designation of the Rumeians in the Urum language - Tats, Tat language.
The Urums use the ethnonym "(Crimean) Tatars" (and sometimes, within their community, the pejorative derivative "Tatarva") and the linguonem "Tatar". In the village of Granitnoye, when discussing the Crimean Tatars, the Urums almost never use the self-name “Greek-Tatars”, which implies comparison and rapprochement of groups that are undesirable for the informants.
When interacting with the Crimean Tatars, the functions of the ethnonym and lingvonim in maintaining the border between the groups are distributed: the ethnonym opposes the Urums and the Crimean Tatars - Greeks and Tatars, while the lingvonim allows emphasizing the commonality of the groups. Speaking about the Crimean Tatars, the Urums called the idiom Greek-Tatar or Tatar, denoting a partial or complete coincidence of the Urum and Crimean Tatar languages. The rare use of the self-name "Greek" in this context was marked and signified the informant's refusal to acknowledge any similarity between the idioms.
self-names, considered outside the context of interaction with other groups are rather conditional, since only in a situation of contact does the need for naming arise. However, the nominations of their group and the idiom adopted by the Urums are divided into those used mainly in interaction with other groups or in the context of stories about these contacts and reflecting the internal point of view of the community.
Used in the XIX - early XX century. the self-name of the group in the native language "Urum" and the nomination of the idiom "Urum" / "rum tili" ("the language of the Urums") [Muratov, 1963, p. 179] are currently unknown to the absolute majority of the community. However, this nomination is familiar to some informants from publications in newspapers or from the title of a book by A. N. Garkavets, a modern researcher who enjoys considerable authority in the community. The lost self-name is gradually re-spreading, primarily among older men who are interested in the history of the group; informants tend to interpret the lost internal form of the nomination. “Do you know what urums are in general? It's Greek in Turkish. This, apparently, was what the Turks called it.”(ITSH, Urumka, 1963, Stary Krym). The publications usually mention the paired term "Rumei", however, Urum informants often confuse who they are - Rumei or Urum.
To date, the Urums use only Russian-language nominations to designate their group and idiom. The linguonym "Greek" - the most natural modern name for its idiom for the Urums - spread, apparently after the 1930s. influenced by population censuses and other official documents. Throughout the 19th century the Urums could borrow Russian-language linguonyms from officials or ethnographers who designated the Urum idioms as Turkish-Tatar. The Urum language was named Tatar and Turkish in the 1897 census [First general census… 1904]; the same nominations were used later during the period of indigenization (along with the new linguonym "Greek-Tatar"). In the mid 1920s. the Urums called their idiom in Russian - "Turkish-Tatar", for example, in a debate at a meeting of citizens in the village of Mangush in 1925 [TsGAVO 8, l. 19]. In interviews with modern urums, this form was not encountered. In the late 1930s the nominations “Tatar, Turkish or Greek-Tatar language” disappeared from official documents, and the wording “Greeks with the language of their nationality”, that is, with the alleged Greek, remained in the census. Within the community, the Russian linguonym “Greek language” was established, which now did not contradict the official categorization, but was supported by it.
As already noted, the urums of the nomination "Greek-Tatars" and the Greek-Tatar language, opposed to the Rumeians and their idiom, are also used as self-names, although some informants perceive the meaning of the ethnonym "Greek-Tatars" rather negatively: "Our language is called[Greek-Tatar], Why do they say "Greek-Tatars"? Not Tatars. Well, in general, everywhere in the documents, everywhere it is written “Greeks”. Do you understand? And so, this is how to verbally say that these are Greek-Tatars. Well, why? Well, it’s true, not Greek-Hellenics”(VGT, Urumka, 1936, Stary Krym). The VGT informant protested the connection between the nomination “Greek-Tatars” and the ethnonym “Tatars”, which is not accepted by the Urums to define their group. The informants are aware of the application of the ethnonym “Tatars” to them, and stories about interaction with neighbors using this nomination contain explicit or implicit polemics with this categorization.
The nomination system of urums, from the point of view of speakers, can be represented as several concentric circles. At the center of this system are the original names for their group and the idiom - the Greeks with the Greek language. The ethnonym and lingvonim generally accepted within the group postulate the identity of the language and ethnicity of the Urums and, thereby, remove the contradiction indicated by the nominations used by the Rumeians. The little-known terms “Urums” and “Urum language” are easily recognized as true nominations, since they do not carry negative connotations, and their external origin is compensated by the authority of researchers.
The nominations "Greek-Tatars" and "Greek-Tatar language" or even "Tatar language" constitute an intermediate layer between self-names and unacceptable exoethnonyms: although part of the community believes that the double ethnonym used by the Urum environment disputes their Greek origin, this ethnonym and linguonyms are allowed in a conversation with a Rumei or a visiting linguist, in contrast to the pejorative ethnonym "Pindos" and the nomination "Tatars", which, as a rule, are not mentioned without special questions from the collector.
During the interview, informants move from one layer of nominations to another. An example is the standard option for choosing a self-name - "Greeks" or "Greek-Tatars" - in the Urum village of Stary Krym: at the beginning of the interview, at the first appearance of the researcher, the informants specify that they are not just Greeks, but Greek-Tatars, and "at they have the wrong language, not Hellenic,” which is supposed to be of interest to the interviewer. After some time, the informants switched to the point of view of their community and began to call themselves simply “Greeks”, however, when the conversation touched on relations with the Rumeians, as a rule, they again used the ethnonym “Greek-Tatars”.
Urum self-names and external nominations are organized around two ethnonyms - "Greeks" and "Tatars" (or linguonyms "Greek" and "Tatar language") with a complex system of connotations and assessments associated with the ideas of a modern inhabitant of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov about Greece, Tatars and Mongol-Tatars . The use of a double ethnonym or non-coinciding linguonym and ethnonym allows each group, in addition to unambiguously defining the Urums as Greeks or Tatars, to introduce various intermediate statuses. The most complete possibility of categorizing the Urums as Tatars/Greeks to a greater or lesser extent is realized in interaction with the Rumeians and Crimean Tatars. The choice of nomination makes it possible for the neighbors of the Urums to separate themselves from them and, at the same time, to emphasize closeness with this group, and the discrepancy between exoethnonyms and self-names accepted among the Urums causes a need in the community for new definitions of ethnicity.
Urums and neighboring groups: symbolic markers
Urums ascribe to neighboring groups certain properties that allow them to show the similarities and differences between their own and other communities. Such markers are associated with observations of the daily life of neighbors and the most relevant (auto)stereotypes that manifest certain features of one's own and others' traditions. From the point of view of the urums, the markers used actually exist, although an outside observer may see a different picture.
We consider both the everyday interaction of the Urums with Russians, Rumeans and Crimean Tatars (the latter is relevant only in the village of Granitnoye), as well as the borders with imaginary communities - Greeks from Greece and Turks, whose influence on the self-determination of informants is sometimes no less real than contacts with neighboring groups. .
Russians. As already noted in Chapter 4, the opposition of Russians and Greeks implies the unification of Urums and Rumeans, and, because of this, the stories of the Urums about Russians largely coincide with similar ideas of the Rumeans. Interaction with Russians appeals to two layers of the oral history of the group - memories of the appearance of Russian settlers in Greek villages and the experience of the Soviet era.
Settlers. The ideal past, the "golden age" of the group, refers to the period prior to contact with the Russians. Talking about genuinely Greek cultural features, informants often stipulate that they existed before the appearance of Russians, which led to a mixture of traditions. The informant's childhood is described as devoid of Russian influence: the Urums say that their parents (grandparents) did not know Russian, there were no Russians in the village. Informants often emphasize that Russians were such a rarity in the village that adults frightened little children with them: “ "Khazah will take." Well, they were afraid of another nation, as I understand it. They also said: “Xazaghyn baltasyn podushkasyndun”. Well, “the hazakh has an ax under his pillow.” That he is always on the lookout. Well, they were afraid(LOD, Urumka, 1938, Stary Krym). Although such stories are usually told in the first person, as a rule, the informant stipulates that he was no longer frightened, because Russians already lived in the village in his childhood.
Like the Rumeians, the Urums indicate that the community avoided intermarriage in the past. “Before, it was even wild - well, there are cases when our local Greek will go and bring a Russian. You know how wild it was? Even, well ... it was indecent that this Russian was in the family. Even my brother got married in 1953 and somehow else…”(VFD, Urumka, 1937, Stary Krym). The WFD appeals to the experience of his brother, but more often informants do not correlate knowledge about marriages (mostly mixed) in their own family and the general prohibition to marry Russians.
The high prestige of the Urums in the eyes of visitors is motivated by the advantages of everyday culture, primarily by the neatness of the Greeks: “But the Russians really liked our nation, when they came:“ What cultural! How clean!“. Of course, the katsaps were probably not so clean.”(SAA, Urumka, 1929, Stary Krym). In the opinion of the informants, the modern traditions of the village are the result of the interpenetration of traditions, although the influence of Greek culture on Russians prevails; an example of Greek practices is almost always the cubite celebratory pie.
Informant. The Russians who live here, they have… learned a lot from us – both good and… well, not bad, of course. And we are from them. They have one food, we have another. Collector. What have they learned from you? Informant. Greek dishes have learned. Kubite with meat, with zucchini.
(Informant information: AEN, Urumka, 1928, Granite.)
In the everyday life of the community, the symbols of Greek household traditions among the Urums, as well as among the Rumeians, are cubites and chebureks. They are prepared for the holidays and especially for visitors, for example, for us.
Let us repeat that the motifs of the stories about the other group are the same for the Urums and the Rumeans, and the differences in ideas about the other group become all the more significant. In general, the Urums are more loyal to the Russians than the Rumeans, and less often mention the negative properties of the settlers and talk about the superiority of the Greeks over the Russians; in particular, the Urums did not mention Russian workers among the Greeks.
Russians and the state. In the interview, the Russians are described as the conductors of the Soviet policy aimed at Russification and suppression of the Greeks (both Urums and Rumeians); at the same time, the Russians support the unity of the Greeks, which is significant for the Urums. The Urums, like the Rumeans, mention the ban on the use of the Greek language, career restrictions, and the fact that Greeks were not drafted into the army; in last years According to the informants, the attitude of Russians towards the Greeks changed under the influence of contacts with Greece. However, such stories are heard mainly in response to the collector's questions, and one gets the impression that memories of discrimination constitute an insignificant, optional layer of discourse for the Urums. Exceptions are often related to the biographical circumstances of the informant: “It’s now that they started the Greek language and the Greeks, but before -“ devil Greeks! ”, Yeah, like that ... You’ll go to the city, you’ll get up for bread, there too -“ these devils Greeks have come again, oh! Go to your village!“ – so we were scolded. They called it scary. We were even afraid to speak Greek. Yes. And then this power has become narrower, we have become... Greece began to travel here, ours began to travel there. And we have already begun to respect "(OMT, Urumka, 1926, Stary Krym).
In the article "Who are we and where are we from?", published in the Hellenes of Ukraine, the author noted that today "there is no substantiated theory of the origin of the Urums." In this connection, I propose one of the versions of the origin of the Urum people, substantiated on the basis of the latest works of Crimean historians.
Currently, on the basis of numerous studies, it is believed that somewhere in the 3rd century a new ethnic community appeared on the territory of Crimea, which archaeologists prefer to call the “Mountain Crimean people” or simply as “Crimean Christians”. In scientific circles, it is customary to also call this people "medieval Greeks." Unlike the "ancient Crimean Greeks", the "medieval Greeks" have their own peculiarities of formation, as well as the originality of their language and culture. If the “ancient Crimean Greeks” were from Hellas, then the Crimea was the birthplace of the “medieval Greeks”.
Experts say that a rather rare process took place in the Crimea, the so-called "ethnogenetic mixing", during which a new ethnic group is formed by the merger of peoples not related by kinship. The main factor contributing to the merger that took place was the commonality of their religion, namely Greek Orthodoxy.
“There is no Hellene, no Jew, no barbarian, no Scythian, but everything and in everything is Christ” - this phrase from the New Testament perfectly characterizes the Urum people - Christian Greeks - in contrast to the ancient Greek pagans. The medieval Greeks-Urums are the descendants of the Goths, Alans, ancient Greeks, Slavs and all those peoples who adopted Christianity and settled in the Crimea.
There is still a lot of controversy about the entry of Tatars into the ethnos of the Urums. Cases of the mass conversion of Tatars to Christianity are not recorded by written sources and are unlikely. Muslim laws, under pain of death, prohibit changing faith and marrying non-believers (only after they have converted to Islam). But no one persecuted the Urums for this, and the life of those who converted to Islam became much easier. That is why the Christian population of the mountainous Crimea decreased from 250,000 in the 15th century to 30,000 in the 18th century. During this period, the Tatar ethnos was greatly replenished at the expense of the Greeks, and not vice versa, as many researchers think. So it was not only in the Crimea, but throughout the Byzantine Empire. So, as a result of apostasy, a whole people appeared in modern Turkey - “kunaks”, they are, by the way, in the north of Greece. These fair-haired Muslims, former Orthodox, in comparison with them, remaining Christians, the Urums, are real heroes and keepers of the faith. It is not for nothing that on their coats of arms (and the Urums have several of them), the Urums tried to depict the victory of Christ over other religions. So the coat of arms of Mariupol (founded by the Urums), as well as the ancient coat of arms of the Urum princes Theodoro, found on the walls of the Crimean mountain fortress of Funa, symbolize this.
At first glance, one gets the impression that perhaps the Urums are not real Greeks. But let's not jump to conclusions. Because the Balkan Greeks themselves and the Cypriot ones, too, in the same way as the Urums and the Pontic Greeks, absorbed the ethnic groups of the peoples of Asia, Europe and even Africa, Christianizing them. All of them, like the Urums, are not 100% descendants of the ancient Greeks.
What is the native language of the Urums? Gothic? Turkish? Tatar? Or maybe now Russian? Not! There was a time when all the Urums spoke Greek. The language of the New Testament and Christian worship. This is the native Urum language.
Where is our homeland? In Greece? In Asia Minor? Not! Our homeland is the mountains of Crimea.From Inkerman to Demerzhi, from Demerzhi to Alushta, from Alushta - all the coast to Balaklava. The ancient country of Dori, the Principality of Theodoro, aka Crimean Gothia, was once fenced on all sides by Justinian's "long walls". There are our holy temples and mountain monasteries, cave cities and impregnable fortresses. That's where we come from.
Forty fortresses were counted in this area by a medieval Arab traveler. The name of one of the Urum cities was Kyrk-Or, which translates as 40 castles.Isn't it from here that the surname Kior, common among the Urums, originates?
Here in the Crimean mountains, the Urum Greeks managed to create independent state and maintain political independence for many centuries. "The last fragment of Byzantium on the Black Sea" called the Principality of Theodoro the famous American byzantologist of Russian origin A. A. Vasiliev. The main coat of arms of this principality was a double-headed eagle, the same as the Russian one, only without a crown. This is the emblem of the Byzantine emperors, with whom the Urum princes were related. A stone slab depicting this coat of arms, found on Mangup, can still be seen in the Simferopol Historical Museum. Unique written Urum documents have also been preserved. In Greek letters in Turkish, and not in Arabic, like the Tatars, all Urum written relics are written, which are still stored in Ukrainian and Russian archives. These documents, as well as tombstones from the medieval Urum cemeteries, are silent witnesses to the gradual loss of their native Greek language by the Crimean Greeks. Actually, because of the loss of their native language by the Greeks, the very name "Urum" appeared - which in Turkish simply means Greek. On this occasion, Genoese sources say that in the pre-Ottoman Crimea all the Greeks were called "Romans" and even the inhabitants of the Principality of Theodoro. It was only after the forced "obfuscation" by the Turks in the following centuries that the population began to be called - Urums. So in the late medieval Crimean legend "On the golden cradle and the golden anvil" the principality of Theodoro is no longer called the "Roman principality", but "Urum".
From all of the above, it follows that we - "Romans" and "Urums" - are really branches of one big tree more than we even think about it ourselves. As a prominent specialist in the history of the Crimean Greeks M. Arajioni notes: “The narrowing of the scope of the use of the Greek language in the southwestern Crimea and in the cities of Crimea led some of the Crimean “Romans” to the loss of their native language. Thus, "Urums" are Greeks who have undergone linguistic assimilation, and not "baptized Tatars", as some unscrupulous researchers write.
“Urums are former “Romans”.
MEDIEVAL MANGUP - FORGOTTEN
PAGES OF HISTORY
Comparing the map of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov and Crimea, many paid attention to the similarities in the names of settlements. When settling the Sea of Azov, the Greeks often tried to leave the old Crimean names to new villages. So there was another Yalta, Urzuf, Stary Krym - even Mariupol. Mangush also belongs to the settlement with the same name. The current indigenous Greeks of this village - the Urum Greeks - are the descendants of the Byzantines who once lived in the Crimean Mangup. They can rightfully be proud of the name of their village and its glorious history. And that's why…
Anyone who has been to the Crimea must have heard of the so-called "cave towns". In total, there are 14 of them in Crimea. Now "dead", they stretched out in a chain in hard-to-reach places in the inner ridge of the Crimean mountains. Once upon a time, these were well-fortified fortresses, which had the city of Mangup as their capital and together made up the principality of Theodoro. Before the Turkish occupation, Mangup itself was also called Theodoro, and even earlier in the era of late antiquity Doros.
Now Mangup "Feodoro" is located in an amazingly beautiful mountainous area, which in itself is worth visiting. It is one of the most interesting "cave cities" of Crimea. In 1996, as an archaeological monument, Mangup was included in the UNESCO list of unique world historical antiquities.
Today, the history of this glorious, once very famous city is undeservedly forgotten and needs to be restored. Mangup is not just a city, it is the former capital of a large medieval state. In the Middle Ages, the city bore the Greek name Theodoro, which means "Gift of God". It was a large Christian principality at that time, which occupied almost the entire mountainous southwestern part of Tavri and had access to the sea - the large port of Kalamitu (now Inkerman). During its heyday, the population of the principality was approximately 150-200 thousand people
The emergence of the Principality of Theodoro is associated with active foreign policy The Byzantine Empire, which sought to strengthen the borders of its territory with fortresses and fortified lines. So on the high plateaus of Taurica, at the end of the 5th century. and at the beginning of the 6th century, a whole network of cities appeared, surrounded by impregnable rocks and formidable defensive structures.
In the works of Byzantine authors, Theodoro was first mentioned under Emperor Justinian 1 (527-665). The historian Procopius of Caesarea wrote a treatise "On Buildings", which refers to the activities carried out in Taurica. Procopius reports the existence there of a certain country of Dori (in other sources Doros), "which is inhabited by the allies of Byzantium." To protect them from the attack of the barbarians, the emperor ordered to put up "long walls covering the mountain passes." Back in the 30s of the 19th century, Academician Koeppen saw on the passes of the Main Range of the Crimean Mountains, the ruins of structures in which the “long walls” of the Byzantines were easily guessed. These walls separating the mountainous part from the foothills and the steppe were once the border of the Byzantine Empire.
When the Mongol-Tatars first appeared in the Crimea in the 13th century, the rulers of Theodoro (Doros) managed to establish peaceful relations with them and stay in their possessions. The Theodorites also coped with the Polovtsians and Khazars, with the Genoese and Venetians, who in turn invaded the Crimea.
From the second half of the 14th century, a large construction began in the city of Theodoro: the fortifications of the upper castle, the princely palace, temples and bridges were erected. All this was done by high-class masters. The heyday of the principality falls on the reign of Prince Alexei (1420-1456). He laid new fortresses and ports, upset old cities and towns. In 1427 he rebuilt the fortress of the capital. Alexei not only maintained good relations with the Crimean Khanate, but also interfered in the struggle of the khans for the throne, supporting one or another pretender. There is a known case when one of the Crimean khans, namely Mengi Giray, was imprisoned by Prince Alexei in a Mangup prison.
When at the end of the 14th century the Genoese captured almost the entire coast of Crimea, they cut off the Principality of Theodoro from the sea. In an effort to reach the coast, the ruler Theodoro recaptured a small strip of coast and founded the port of Kalamita (now Inkerman) there, while he gave a worthy rebuff to the Genoese invaders. It has always been like this, the freedom-loving mountain people Theodorites successfully fought and defended themselves against all those peoples who invaded Taurica throughout the more than 1000-year history of the Principality of Theodoro. Having founded the port of Kalamita, the Theodorites became a rival of many states in maritime trade.
Many ships from Byzantium and the Mediterranean countries were sent to Kalamita. This port remained sea gate principality until the end of its existence.
The Principality of Theodoro played a significant role not only in Taurica, but also in the international life of the vast region. It was associated with many states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The principality was ruled by the Govras dynasty, relatives of the Comnices of Trebizond and the Byzantine emperors of the Poleologists.
It is known that in 1472 the Mangup princess Maria, the daughter of Olubey, was married to the Moldavian ruler Stephen III. In 1475 Grand Duke Moscow instructed his ambassadors to negotiate the marriage of his son to the daughter of Prince Theodorites. The marriage did not take place due to the Turkish invasion of the Crimea. The year 1475 became fatal for Theodoro.
The first blow of the Turks fell on the possessions of the Genoese. Kafa, which seemed impregnable, on the sixth day of the siege, surrendered to the mercy of the victors. On the peninsula, only Mangup managed to put up a worthy resistance. For half a year of siege, the Turks made five assaults on it. Only at the end of 1475, when they removed the guns from the ships and transported them to Mangup, did they manage to break into the city.
Obviously, the majority of Theodorites knew only by hearsay about the new weapon - the almighty destroyer of the city walls. And yet, neither the roar of guns, nor their granite cores with a caliber of 40 cm. and weighing 100kg. did not shake the courage of the defenders of the city. When the outer walls of the fortress, erected almost a millennium before, collapsed under the blows of siege weapons, the last stronghold of Prince Alexander was his palace - the citadel. The besieged were in a desperate situation, but they were not going to capitulate. Evidence of this is the remains of the defenders found by archaeologists under the rubble of the walls, as well as the found forge, arranged near the very gates of the castle. Here, in the midst of the battle, they continued to forge swords and spearheads and arrows. To break into the citadel, the Turks were forced to use cunning. Ahmet Pasha, who commanded the Turkish troops, pretended to retreat from the fortress, but left a detachment in ambush. And when the exhausted defenders of the city went beyond the walls of the fortifications, the Turks unexpectedly hit them.
Having captured Mangup in December 1475, the Turks plundered the city and carried out a merciless massacre of the inhabitants. Almost all of them were exterminated. Prince Alexander and all members of his family were sent to Istanbul, where the prince and the men (all his relatives) were executed, and the women ended up in the Sultan's harem. Only the young son of the prince survived, who later became the ancestor of a noble Turkish family.
With the capture of Mangup, the lands of the principality were declared the property of the Sultan, and his remaining inhabitants from other cities were his subjects. The principality itself turned into a Turkish kadylyk (district), and the dilapidated capital, called Mangup-Kale by the Turks, became its administrative center. Over time, the Mangup fortress was partially restored and adapted by the Turks for firing from cannons. It housed a large Turkish garrison until the end of the 18th century. The surviving Greeks, who lived near the old Mangup-Kale, soon founded another small village with the same name Mangup not far from it. Later, under the influence of the Turks, this name was transformed into the name Mangush, which migrated to the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov.
In this regard, we note that it is a mistake to consider the Urum Greeks, descendants of Theodorites, as Greek-Tatars. It was not the Tatars, but the Turks, who had the strongest influence on the culture of the Greeks of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, the inhabitants of present-day Mangush. The Urums borrowed their cuisine, surnames, clothes and language directly from the Turks, which, by the way, can still be heard in the markets in Istanbul. With the fall of the Principality of Theodoro, his lands, as well as the entire coast of Crimea, went directly to the Sultan, and not to the Crimean Khan. And they have never been a territory subject to the Tatars. The Crimean Khan owned only the foothill and steppe parts of Crimea. The domination of the Turks over the Greeks of the Crimea lasted 300 years and, as we all know, ended with the arrival of the Russians in the Crimea.
Having fully tasted all the troubles of Turkish dependence, fearing the return of the Turks, in 1778 the last inhabitants left Mangup and its environs. At the same time, the once prosperous city finally ceased to exist. But the ancient Christian people did not cease to exist. Carefully keeping their faith - the most valuable thing they had left, the descendants of the Theodorites moved to the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, where they gave one of their new settlements a borrowed old, slightly modified, Turkish name - Mangush.
Time erases a lot from memory, but the history of the harsh and majestic Mangup should not be forgotten. Because this is the story of a people who courageously lived, worked and fought against enemies, climbing to the clouds above others in the Crimea. A people that is still alive today.
