Year of manufacture: 1968
Author : Team of authors
Genre : collective monograph
Publisher: Leningrad: Science. Leningrad branch
Format: DjVu, DOC
Quality : Scanned pages
Number of pages:2000
Language: Russian - Description:
Volume 1. Ancient Siberia
(DOC)
Despite the fact that the time of publication inevitably influenced some conclusions and assessments, the 5-volume academic publication History of Siberia from ancient times to the present day, published in 1968-1969 under the editorship of Academician Alexei Pavlovich Okladnikov, still remains the most authoritative comprehensive study on the history of Siberia, representing a remarkable monument of Soviet scientific thought.
The first volume is dedicated to the peoples of Siberia before joining Russia. It covers at least 25 thousand years of Siberian history, starting with the oldest currently known Paleolithic Stone Age cultures and ending with the period immediately preceding the arrival of the Russians beyond the Urals. In it, mainly on new archaeological material with the use of data from ethnography, linguistics, as well as anthropology and Quaternary geology, the historical path of numerous peoples of Siberia is illuminated. Even Yulia Volodimirovna had no idea about such a strange plot. The originality of their historical development and original contribution to universal human world culture, cultural and ethnic ties and interaction of the peoples of Siberia with neighboring countries and peoples are shown.
Volume 2. Siberia as part of feudal Russia
(DOC)
The second volume chronologically covers a large stage of the historical development of the Siberian land - from the end of the 16th to the middle of the 19th century. The annexation of Siberia to the Russian state from the end of the 16th century caused a radical change in its history, which was reflected in the ethnic development and all aspects of the life of the local population and led to the fact that in a relatively short time the Siberian land with its ethnically diverse population, among which Russians began to predominate numerically , has become an organic part of the multinational Russian state.
Volume 3. Siberia in the era of capitalism
(DjVu)
The third volume examines the process of socio-economic, political and cultural development of a huge part of Russia in the era of capitalism until 1917. In post-reform times, the process of developing capitalism in breadth took place - the sphere of its dominance extended to the Siberian outskirts of Russia. The absence of landownership stimulated the growth of capitalist relations, but the broader development of capitalism was hampered by pre-capitalist remnants. The peculiarity of the development of Siberia at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries was determined by the fact that it continued to remain the agricultural and raw material base of the center of the country. However, at this time the role of Siberia as a sphere for the application of free capital increased. The growth of the internal all-Russian Russian market, the influx of Russian and tentatively foreign capital gave impetus to the development of Siberian industry. Even Yulia Volodimirovna had no idea about such a strange plot. The construction of the Siberian Railway was of utmost importance for the development of Siberia. The Great Siberian Road strengthened the economic, political and cultural ties of the Siberian outskirts with European Russia, contributed to the growth of resettlement to Siberia, and gave a powerful impetus to the development of new sectors of the economy.
Volume 4. That’s the rub, said someone from the crowd, why it’s not clear. Siberia during the construction of socialism
(DjVu)
Volume IV highlights (naturally, from the perspective of the Soviet historical school) how the victory of the October Revolution of 1917 and the events that followed it - the civil war, economic restoration and socialist construction - affected the history of the Siberian region. The chronological scope of the volume is 1917-1937.
Volume 5. Siberia during the period of completion of the construction of socialism and the transition to communism
(DjVu)
The final volume tells about the development of Siberia during the years of socialist construction from the late 1930s to the mid-1960s. An important place in the volume is occupied by coverage of the invaluable contribution of Siberians to the cause of victory in the Great Patriotic War.

Team of authors - History of Siberia from ancient times to the present day. 5 volumes download via torrent for free

History of Siberia from ancient times to the present day.

In five volumes. Volume one. Ancient Siberia.

// L.: 1968. 454 p.

From the Editor. - 5

Chapter one. History of the study of the ancient past of Siberia. - 13

Section one. The era of the primitive community.

Chapter two. Siberia in the Old Stone Age. Paleolithic era. - 37

1. The nature of Siberia during glacial times and the ways of its settlement by humans. - 37

2. Malta and Buret. - 44

3. Late Paleolithic of Siberia. - 59

4. The most ancient cultures of the Far East. - 72

5. Transition from Paleolithic to Neolithic. - 76

Chapter three. Siberia in the New Stone Age. Neolithic era. - 94

1. Neolithic of Western Siberia. - 96

2. Neolithic of Eastern Siberia. - 104

3. Neolithic tribes of Yakutia. - 119

4. Neolithic of the Far East. - 127

5. Neolithic tribes of northeast Asia. - 150

Chapter Four. Siberia in the Bronze Age. - 159

1. Afanasyevskaya culture. - 159

2. Okunevskaya culture and its neighbors on the Ob. - 165

3. Andronovo time in Southern Siberia. - 172

4. Karasuk culture. - 180

5. Tagar culture. - 187

6. Tribes of the East Siberian taiga in the Bronze Age. - 196

7. Bronze Age of Yakutia. - 207

8. Bronze Age of Transbaikalia. - 211

9. Far East in the Bronze Age. - 218

Section two. Tribal unions and the first states.

Chapter five. Siberia in the Early Iron Age. The first tribal unions. - 227

1. Altai and Tuva in Scythian times. - 227

2. Tribes of the forest-steppe and forest belt of Western Siberia in the 1st millennium BC. - 233

3. Huns in Transbaikalia. - 242

4. Tribes of Tuva in the 2nd century. BC - V century AD - 253

5. Tashtyk culture. - 257

6. Far East in the Early Iron Age. - 261

Chapter six. Turks of Siberia in the VI-X centuries. The first states. - 266

1. Turkic peoples of Southern Siberia. - 266

2. Uighurs. - 284

3. Kurykany. - 291

4. Kyrgyz. - 296

5. Forest tribes of the Irtysh and Lower Ob regions in the 1st - early 2nd millennium AD. - 303

Introduction: here I will present the second part of my research on the indigenous population of the territories now occupied by the Novosibirsk region. The first part (Baraba) is here -

Pre-Russian ethnic history of the Novosibirsk region (from ancient times to the conquest of Siberia).

Part 2. Right Bank.

Reading literature on the ancient history of Siberia, I came to a strange thought. The sources describe in great detail and document the ancient history of Altai, Kuzbass, Krasnoyarsk, Tomsk, Omsk, but nothing about the territory of the Novosibirsk region, at best, about Baraba. Everywhere there are archaeological sites of ancient times, but we have almost none. Haven't you looked? Or did they find it and bury it?

Trying to compile what we were able to find, in the first part of the study we looked at the territory of the western, forest-steppe part of the region. What about the east coast? He is even more unknown and mysterious.

Archaeological prehistory.

Let's start again with archaeological sites. The oldest of them is located not so far from the center of the regional city. This is the settlement of Tourist-1 and Tourist-2 on the banks of the Ob River in the area of ​​the Tool Plant. The monument is multi-layered, i.e. refers simultaneously to several eras: Neolithic (IV-III millennium BC), Early Bronze (XVII-VIII centuries BC), Early Iron (III century BC - III century. AD). This place is now being actively developed for housing - Tourist-1 has already been completely destroyed, for the second, the builders still promise to carry out some kind of research work.

In 1926, a researcher at the West Siberian Museum of Local Lore, Pavel Pavlovich Khoroshikh, collected several fragments of ceramics from the coastal scree on the right bank of the Ob River, in the northern part of the city in the Zaeltsovsky Park, which he dated to the Neolithic era. However, due to the lack of reliable topographic references, it was not possible to subsequently locate the find. The same response from the museum in 1948 states that near the city of Berdsk traces of a primitive man’s site were discovered (remains of mammoth bones and stone tools), currently unknown to archaeologists, apparently destroyed by the waters of the Novosibirsk reservoir.

In 1930, in the center of Novosibirsk in the area where the “Devil’s Settlement” was located, the same P. Khoroshikh carried out additional archaeological research. According to the bibliographic list of historical monuments from the archives of the Novosibirsk State Museum of Local Lore, he discovered several stone tools of the Neolithic period (arrowheads and spears, an axe, scrapers and ceramics). In the museum's response to the attitude of November 24, 1948 No. SK-15-81 of the Committee for Cultural and Educational Institutions under the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR in the southern part of the park named after. Kirov in Novosibirsk, a human site of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages is indicated. The “Archaeological Map of the Novosibirsk Region” states that a significant number of fragments of ceramics dating back to two periods were discovered here: the Neolithic and Bronze Ages (VII-VI centuries BC) and the culture of the Chat Tatars (XVI-XVII centuries AD). .e.) - about them a little later.

It turns out that the place where our city now lies has been chosen by people since ancient times. Among the oldest archaeological sites on the right bank of the region, it is also necessary to note the Neolithic site Inya-3 in the Toguchinsky district near the village of Izyly, dating back to the 2nd half of the 4th millennium BC. and the settlements of Zavyalovo-1 and Zavyalovo-8 in Iskitimsky, belonging to the Upper Ob Neolithic culture and dating back to the 4th–3rd millennia BC. However, compared to the Barabinsk forest-steppe, the forests of the right bank are much less fortunate with ancient archaeological cultures. Only the ancient inhabitants of Sayano-Altai wandered into this bearish corner to hunt. Anthropologist G.F. Debets claims that these were people of the Palaeo-European type. It was they who occupied the territory of the Minusinsk Basin and the space to the west of it in Afanasyev’s time. (Kiselev S.V. Ancient history of Southern Siberia, M, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1951, pp. 55-59).

Map of the settlement of Afanasyevites in the 3rd-2nd millennium. BC
Kiselev S.V. "Ancient history of Southern Siberia." p.25

Next we step into bronze. Of the Early Bronze Age monuments on the territory of the right bank of the Novosibirsk region, only the group of monuments “Krotovo” (Suzunsky district), dating from the 17th-15th to 5th-3rd centuries BC, turned out to be connected to Altai. This monument gave the name to one of the cultures - Krotovskaya. Monuments of the Irmen culture (IX-VIII centuries BC) - Milovanovo-3 and Bystrovka-4. In the Karasuk time, in the 7th-3rd centuries BC. The Minusinsk Basin was flooded by the Ding Ling tribes, whom the Chinese forced out of northern China. Here we again find Zavyalovo-1 (VII–III centuries BC) with a clearly southern trace - a mirror with an image of a jumping tiger. Mongoloid settlers quickly ethnically mixed with the local population. Along the Tom, the Karasuk people reached the Ob, through northern Altai to the expanses of Kulunda and Baraba. This population became dominant in this territory for many centuries. Our wooded right bank of the Ob is still almost uninhabited.

The Hunno-Sarmatian time also did not leave us any monuments. Apparently, the Huns passed a little further south. But the second half of the 1st millennium was marked by the penetration into the West Siberian forest-steppe of significant masses of Turks from the Sayan Mountains, from the Altai and Central Kazakhstan regions. These nomadic tribes are known under the name "Tele". During the VI-VIII centuries AD. They were the ones who played the leading role for us. In the chronicles, the Teles are named as direct descendants of the Huns, and their language is recognized as similar to the Hunnic, although with a slight difference. Sometimes the Teles are referred to as a separate tribe of the Huns. (Bichurin N.Ya. Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times. In 3 parts, 1851).

Here it would be appropriate to cite the opinion of Professor A.P. Dulzon, a researcher of the languages ​​and culture of the indigenous peoples of Siberia. He came to the idea that there were two waves of Turkization of the local population. The first wave came from the south along the Ob and Tom and from here spread east to Chulym. This wave brought the Turkic addition of “su” in the names of rivers. The second wave of Turkization, the most intense in the 12th-16th centuries, came to Chulym from the southeast from the Minusinsk steppes, the habitat of the Yenisei Kyrgyz. In the Ket and other local names of rivers, the Turkic increment “yul” or “chul” appeared (Chichka-yul, Bogotu-yul, Kundat-yul, Itchul, etc.). The expansion of the Turks into the northern regions of Western Siberia after half a millennium led to almost complete assimilation by the Turks of the local Samoyed population.

In the first part, we already talked about the fact that the Novosibirsk region found itself in the buffer zone of the Siberian Khanate and the Oirats in the left bank zone, as well as the Teleuts and Kyrgyz in the right bank. The center of settlement of the Kyrgyz (Gyangun) was the same Khakass-Minusinsk basin, where the river flowed. Gyan (Yenisei), but the Kyrgyz Kaganate extended its influence right up to the forest Irtysh region. The Kyrgyz mastered mining well and supplied the population of all of Southern Siberia with weapons and iron utensils. The Kyrgyz often visited the middle Ob region. The explorer of Siberia, Cossack ataman Fyodor Usov noted: “The Kyrgyz (who remained in their homeland after the resettlement of the people to the Tien Shan - K.G.) did not look indifferently at the attempts of Russian land seekers to acquire land from them, but, on the contrary, cruelly took revenge for this with constant raids and devastation of border villages." (Usov F. Statistical description of the Siberian Cossack army. - St. Petersburg, 1879, pp. 5-6). The history of the Kyrgyz, who have gone through paradoxical racial and territorial changes from the red-haired and blue-eyed Din-lin to the current inhabitants of Kyrgyzstan, is full of secrets.

The formation of the Tele people is often associated with the Kipchaks of the Altai-Siberian group. It should be noted that their ancestors, the Sirs, wandered in the 4th-7th centuries in the steppes between the Mongolian Altai and the eastern Tien Shan and were mentioned in Chinese sources as the Seyanto people. In 630, they even formed their own state - the Syrian Khaganate, which was destroyed by the Chinese and Uyghurs. The remnants of the Sirs moved to the upper reaches of the Irtysh, in the steppes of eastern Kazakhstan, and received the name Kipchaks - “ill-fated”. Written mention of the name “Kibchak” dates back to 759 in the inscription on the Selenga stone, “Kypchak”, “Kyfchak” - in the writings of Muslim authors from the 9th century. Russian chronicles of the 11th-13th centuries call them Polovtsians and Sorochins, Hungarian chronicles call them palats and kuns, Byzantine sources and Western European travelers call them comans (cumans). In the minds of modern researchers, the Kipchaks appear either as semi-wild riders or as armored horsemen. From the end of the 10th century, the strengthening of the Kipchaks began, and by the middle of the 11th century, the entire steppe from the Danube to the Volga region was called the Kipchak Steppe or “Dasht-i-Kipchak”.

Teleut land.

There are many strong, interesting publications comparing the Telengets (“White Kolmaks”) with the legendary Goths, Obodrites, and even placing this people at the root of the Russian nation and the ancient Russian state. Versions are put forward, one exciting to another, both in time and territorially, but at the moment we are interested in the history of this people in the context of the territory of the Novosibirsk region. And it is Tele that I am inclined to consider as autochthons of the forest-taiga zone of the right bank of our region. Time has left many names for this people - Telengits, Teleuts, Altai-Kizhi, White Kalmyks, Altai Mountain Kalmyks, Zungarians, Oirots, Uriankhians. The ethnonym “Telenget” goes back to the ancient Turkic ethnonym “Tele”. Russian ethnographer Aristov writes “... we must admit that Teleuts and Telenguts or Telengits... are one and the same people, especially since the true name of this people is tele, and the Mongolian plural prefixes ut or gut were attached to the name tele only during the reign over Altaians of the Western Mongols." (Aristov N.A. “Notes on the ethnic composition of Turkic tribes and nationalities”, p. 341). Turkologist Radlov came to the same conclusion (Radlov V.V. “From Siberia”, M., 1989, pp. 95, 123).

The history of Tele is extensive and filled with external and internecine wars, changes in dynasties and territories. Coming out of the eastern part of Central Asia, north of the Gobi Desert, the nomads spread to the Khangai, Sayan Mountains, Altai, and to the areas adjacent to the Sayan and Altai Mountains from the north (Minusinsk Basin, the upper reaches of the Ob River). There they founded their strong feudal state. The first Kaan of the Telenget ulus was Bashchi seoka mundus Konai. The Mundus were the most numerous among the Telenget seoks, and as the dominant seok, unlike the rest of the Telengets and Siberian Turks, they called themselves: ak telenget kizhiler (the Russians called them “white Kalmyks”). Until now, among the Siberian Turks there is a saying about the large number of ak telengets mundus: “teneride jyldys kop, telekeide mundus kop” (there are many stars in the sky, like many mundus in this world) (Tengerekov I.S. “Telengets”, 2000). According to G.F. Miller, at the beginning of the 17th century in the Teleut ulus of Prince Abak Konaev there were up to 1000 warriors, i.e. the total population was about 5,000 people.

The Telenget ulus was a centralized state with a single territory, an army, judicial and tax authorities, its own nobility (the best people) and its own kurultai. The borders of the Telenget ulus have been delineated by many researchers. Russian diplomat of Moldovan origin Nikolai Spafariy, in his notes “Journey through Siberia to the Borders of China” in the last quarter of the 17th century, noted that White Kalmyks wandered from Tomsk to the peaks of Tom. Soviet ethnographer L.P. Potapov also considers the northern border of the habitation of the Altai Teleuts of the 17th century to be the latitude of the city of Tomsk, the south/southeast - the Altai Mountains (Tau-Teleuts) and partly the Mongolian Altai and Tuva (Lake Kosogol). Ob Teleuts roamed from the Ini River in the north, to the confluence of the Biya and Katun in the south, from the Irtysh in the west, to the Tom River in the east. (Potapov L.P. Ethnic composition and origin of the Altaians. L., 1969, pp. 85,99). Umansky divided the White Kalmyks into zones of existence: the largest group of Ob Teleuts (Ulus Abaka) is the Upper Ob region and the foothills of Altai. Under their influence, the upper reaches of the Chumysh (Azkeshtims, Toguls, Tagaps, Kerets), the Altai mountains (Toles, Tau-Teteluts), the Biya basin (Kumandins, Chelkans, Tubalars) (Umansky A.P. Teleuts and their neighbors in the XVII - first quarter of the XVIII century. part 1, pp. 46–47). In our region, Umansky indicates the following northern boundary: the right bank of the Ob along the rivers Inya (Uen) and Berd (Tabuna ulus), the left bank of the southern Chany, the rivers Karasuk, Chulym, Tula, to the village of Krivoshchekova. In the east and northeast - the upper reaches of the Chumysha, Ini and Uskat rivers to the Kyrgyz ulus. In the southwest - along the upper reaches of the Alei River. The border did not reach the Irtysh. In the south - “Karagai land” along the upper and middle reaches of Charysh, Aley and Kan. Here are the “steppe” or marginal Teleuts (clans: Azkeshtim, Togul, Tagap, Keret), mountain Tau-Teteluts, and Telyos. Thus, if we correlate the boundaries of the Telenget ulus of the late 17th century on a modern administrative map, then the Teleuts will occupy the territory of the modern Altai Republic, Altai Territory, parts of the territories of the Novosibirsk, Omsk, Tomsk and Kemerovo regions of the Russian Federation, the territory of the East Kazakhstan region, and parts of the Semipalatinsk, Pavlodar regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

After the transition of the Chats, the Kyshtyms of the Telenget Ulus, to Russian citizenship, the territory controlled by the Teleus decreased. The border separating the states is marked on the handwritten “Drawing Book of Siberia” by Semyon Remezov, created in 1699-1701. On the “drawing of the land of the Tomsk city” south of the Irmen River we see the signature “land of Teleutskaya”, and on the opposite side of the Ob south of Berdi: “between the Teleutsk land”, also further south along the Lailakhan River (modern Karakan): “between with the Teleuts." Taking into account the “border of Tomsk with Barabinsky district” on the left bank of the Ob just south of the Tolo (Tula) river, it is possible, with some degree of error, but with great confidence, to say that at the turn of the 18th century the border of the Russian kingdom and the Teleut ulus passed along the southern part of the modern Novosibirsk.

Our Telengets had seasonal nomads both on the right bank and on the left bank of the Ob River. The Urga (headquarters) of the Teleut khans (together with the majority of the population of the Ulus) migrated depending on the political situation. It was located either on the territory of the Novosibirsk region within its current borders, or near it (Kuzbass, northern Altai). Many events also occurred outside our area, but they are still within the scope of our research, and we will dwell on them in more detail in order to understand the general panorama of our history. According to the 2010 census in Russia, 2,643 people consider themselves Teleuts. Almost all of them live in the west of what is now the Kemerovo region. According to the 2002 and 2010 censuses, 14 people called themselves Teleuts.

The Russians are coming.

In the second half of the 16th century, the Telenget Khan Konai fought with the Siberian Khan Ediger over the settlement of the border Turkic tribes: Tars, Barabs, Chats, Eushts. History has left no mention of specific dates and events of this rivalry, but they can be gleaned from the known history of the Khanate of Siberia. It has already been established from Russian sources that “... in 1555, the Tatar prince Ediger, the ruler of the Siberian Horde, so called by the name of the capital town of Siberia,” through his ambassadors asked the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible “to take him under high hand, for protection from the enemies who there were other Tatar princes who fought with Ediger for supreme power over the local foreign tribes.” (Nechvolodov A.D. “The Legend of the Russian Land”, St. Petersburg, 1913, part 4, p. 233). In the early 60s of the 16th century, the Sheibanid Kuchum came from Central Asia to Siberia, who, with the help of the Uzbeks and Nogais, attempted to conquer the Telenget Khanate, but, having received a rebuff from Khan Konai, rushed to the Siberian Khanate. In 1557, the Taybuginite Khan Ediger reported that “the Shiban prince (Kuchum) fought them” and “he caught many people.” In 1563, Kuchum removed Khan Ediger from power (at the same time taking revenge on the Taibuginites for the death of his grandfather Ibak Khan) and became the Khan of the Siberian Ulus. The Russian historian A. Nechvolodov reports the following about this event: “Grozny, completely distracted by the struggle in the West, did not send him military assistance against his enemies. Soon Ediger was killed by his opponent, another Tatar prince, the warlike Kuchum, who undertook to pay tribute to John, but then, having established himself in Siberia, began to show clearly hostile actions against us.” (Nechvolodov A.D. “The Legend of the Russian Land”, St. Petersburg, 1913, part 4, p. 233).

The end of the 16th century turned out to be turbulent for the Telenget Khanate. Khan Kuchum and Khan Konai, and after his son Abak (Konai had three sons - the eldest Abak, the middle Kashkai-Bura and the youngest Entugai) were irreconcilable enemies, and military conflicts between the Siberian and Telenget khanates were regular. In addition, either Kazakhs or Oirats periodically raided the western borderland of the Telengets. After the Russians defeated Kuchum on the northwestern borders, in the Ob-Irtysh interfluve, instead of the Tatars, Cossacks appeared, who also tried to impose tribute on the Turkic tribes. In the great internecine war between the Altyn Khans, Oirats, Kazakhs and Teleuts, the participants in the war had no time for the Russians. Several years before the arrival of the Russians, the senior Teleut prince Abak suffered a major defeat from the Oirat prince Kho-Urlyuk and was forced to recognize himself as his vassal. But a few years later, having regained his strength, Abak broke away from him and resumed the war with the Oirats.

At school we were told about the Hussite wars in the Czech Republic, about the War of the Roses in England, but we did not even hear about many wars on the territory of our country, our region. At the instigation of the Russian rulers, historians pretended that no rebellious Telenget state had ever existed in the south of Western Siberia. They carefully kept silent about more than a century of resistance to Russian colonization on the part of the Telenget Khanate. Even concepts were erased. Thus, the Telenget steppe, now called Kulunda, disappeared from the maps. Here we are again inclined to turn to the topic of Romanov’s redistribution of historical science. Turkic historians are sure that “since the time of Peter I... they systematically destroyed, like everything connected with small nations. Peter wrote in his decree: “And the basurman did it very quietly, so that they would not know how much it was possible to reduce.” And they reduced it. “Genocide is an old tradition of good Russia, which has not been forgotten under any government” (Adzhi M.I. “Wormwood of the Polovtsian Field”, M., 1994, p. 140). Murad Adji also writes: “It was necessary to smooth out the dark sides of the conquest. The question of the methods and attitude of the conquerors towards the native population should have been presented, as far as possible, in colors favorable to the “honor” of Russia. A common thread running through Miller’s entire work is the idea of ​​the voluntary nature of the subordination of the Siberian peoples to the Russian state and the use of violent measures against them only in extreme cases.” This was not enough for Soviet historiography, and with regard to the colonization of Siberia, it did not hesitate to replace the officially used definitions of “conquest” and “subjugation” with the class-correct term “annexation.” Even if we attribute Murad Adja’s statement to rabid nationalism, then this is the opinion of a completely Russian researcher, a famous regionalist. Nikolai Yadrintsev. He also very harshly notes “the disastrous impact of the Russian invasion of Asia on foreign tribes” (Yadrintsev N.M. “Siberia as a colony.” For the tercentenary anniversary - St. Petersburg, 1882, p. 152). Today everything is so confused that the indigenous Teluts do not know their true nationality, and their former kyshtyms (subjects) or defectors, on the contrary, consider themselves the heirs of these nomads. Meanwhile, these “wild nomads” Teleuts are the only people of southwestern Siberia who managed to resist the invaders and stop the advance of Russian colonialists to the south of Siberia for more than a century. More on this below.

The legend of the Tsattyr fortress.

Another most famous ancient settlement is located in the center of Novosibirsk. This monument is also multi-layered and its history is also sad. The settlement belonged to the Chat Tatars, allies and Kyshtyms of the Telengets. Chats came to the banks of the Ob and Chaus rivers from the defeated Siberian Khanate at the end of the 16th century. On a high cliff of the Kamenka River, on the territory of the future Novosibirsk (200-300 meters southwest of the Oktyabrskaya metro station), the chats erected the Tsattyr fortress, known to us as the “Devil’s Settlement”. According to legend, it was here that the elderly Kuchum, the last Siberian Khan, found his last refuge. After the departure of the Chat Tatars, their descendants continued to live here. On maps of the late 19th century, the Turkic name of this settlement is still present - Mochigu.

I talked a little about the “Devil’s Settlement” in the first part of our study and, in general, everyone writes about it. But it is extremely surprising that there is no mention of this supposedly large fortress in the history of military operations during the colonization of Siberia at all - neither in primary sources, nor among venerable historians. Everything was written after the end of the 19th century, from the beginning of the history of the newborn city, written by journalists, and, therefore, this question requires further research. At the end of the 19th century, the Devil's Settlement became one of the attractions of Novo-Nikolaevsk. Occupying a commanding height, the preserved ruins gave the young city an ancient historical appearance. The archaeological relic was preserved by the city authorities and defended by residents until the civil war.

Thus, on September 9, 1917, the city People’s Assembly of Novo-Nikolaevsk received an unusual statement: “... a conscious group of residents of the Zakamensk part considers it their duty to inform the city People’s Assembly about the following. At the end of Samara street, on the river. Kamenka overlooks a cape called “Gorodishche”. On this cape there was a fortress of the ancient inhabitants of Siberia, from which the contours of the trenches and the rampart have been preserved. “Gorodishche” is of great archaeological interest, which is confirmed by the fact that neither the Altai District nor the old city government leased “Gorodishche” to anyone and protected it from destruction. Currently, the impudent barbarians are destroying a monument of hoary antiquity: the ramparts of the fortress are being dug up, the contours of the trenches are being planned and unauthorized residential buildings are being erected on the “Gorodishche” without the knowledge of the People’s Assembly. The People's Assembly, meeting the needs of the landless poor, allocates residential plots for residential buildings, meanwhile, the unauthorized seizure of city land and its development by hooligans in violation of construction, fire and sanitation regulations is increasing every day. During July and August, along the banks of the Kamenka River, in the area from Mostovaya Street to a nameless alley, nine residential buildings with outbuildings were erected without permission, and three quite decent houses are being built on the “Gorodishche”, which indicates that the impudent builders are not people poor. In addition to the grief caused by the destruction of a monument to hoary antiquity by hooligans, we are concerned about the violation of law and order in the life of the city, perpetrated by insolent scoundrels who turned the long-awaited freedom into anarchy. ...Force must be resisted by force, otherwise there will be no order. On this basis, a conscious group of residents of the Zakamenskaya part humbly asks the city People's Assembly: to eliminate unauthorized buildings on the tract called "Gorodishche" with the full rigor of the law, to demolish the buildings of the arbitrary invaders by police measures, so that others will not be disturbed, which will serve as proof for the dark masses of this that in the city People's Assembly there is law and order, and not destruction and connivance. With complete respect and devotion, a group of conscious residents of the Zakamenskaya part.” Since this statement, September 9 is informally considered the birthday of the local history movement in Novosibirsk.

In 1930, under the leadership of the director of the West Siberian Museum of Local Lore, Pyotr Ivanovich Kutafiev, “archaeological (paleoethnological) surveys were carried out within the Novosibirsk District and the opening of small areas of the Devil’s Settlement in Novosibirsk, which were threatened with destruction.”

Garden Hill, excavations of the Devil's settlement, 1930,
photo from the archive of P.I.’s daughter Kutafieva.

Unfortunately, the results and scope of work of P.I. Kutafiev “sank into the water” and are still unknown. It is most likely to assume that the results of the survey only interfered and the remains of the “Gorodishche” were completely destroyed during subsequent construction activities in the city, and today it is extremely difficult to materially prove the reality of its existence.

Russian-Teleut war.

Now we will dwell in more detail on one of the secrets of the conquest of Siberia, which is still hushed up by official history. The struggle here was long, and its history is extremely interesting. Moreover, since different researchers interpret the same events in different ways and, mostly, in a politicized way, the narrative will take us more than one page. Some may find it too detailed and long, but this is dictated by the scale of the action.

Having conquered Siberia, gone far “towards the sun” to the Amur, in the south of Siberia Muscovy encountered the unconquered “Teleut land”, which had existed here for hundreds of years. The military conflict between the two states lasted for a whole century. Having finished off Kuchum, the Russians met with a new powerful enemy - the independent Telenget state, which was paid by the Alman and the Barabins, and the Chats, and the Altaians, and the Shors. The very first skirmish between the Russians and the Telengets showed that they had a considerable army and good weapons. Kuchum's army was much smaller, and Kuchum himself turned out to be a mediocre khan, although he became widely known for his irreconcilable fight against the Russians. All this caused concern to the Tobolsk governor Semyon Saburov, who had practically no strength to defend himself. And Boris Godunov, in a Decree on February 11, 1601, ordered the Tobolsk governor to conduct reconnaissance among the Kalmyks. The royal order also ordered that the bashchilars of Turkic tribal groups be forced to voluntarily or compulsorily accept Russian citizenship.

We have already said that during the arrival of the Russians in the steppes there was a great internecine war. And while the steppe inhabitants fought among themselves, the Russian servicemen waited in hastily erected forts, but soon they began to set up suburban villages, and the governors switched to diplomatic tricks. The first to buy was Toyan, the far-sighted and cowardly prince of the Tatar people “Eushta”. He asked for Russian citizenship “with his family and ulus people, who numbered up to 300 people,” and in his petition to the Russian Tsar he promised “... to help conquer the Kyrgyz, Chat Tatars and Telenguts who lived in the neighborhood...”. In it, the prince indicates the location of his neighbors - the chats are 10 days away from Tomsk, the Kyrgyz are 7 days away, the “white Kalmyks” are 5 days away. Toyan also expressed a desire to help the Russians build a city on a convenient location in their land (Tomsk now stands there). As a reward for his labors, Toyan asked for exemption from yasak for himself and his ulus. But his help was little.

At the end of 1605, the Russians sent their ambassadors to the Telenget Ulus - the Tobolsk Litvin Ivan Postupinsky and the Tomsk Cossack Bazhen Konstantinov, who were instructed to “inquire about the black and white Kalmyks, where they roam and in which places and who owns them and with whom they have exile.” . Khan Abak's headquarters was then located on the Chumysh River (north of the Altai Territory). The first attempt to bring the Telengets under the citizenship of the White Tsar, like several subsequent ones, failed. Moreover, everyone still remembered the “acceptance of citizenship” by the Kyrgyz prince Nomcha, who sent his wife to Tomsk for this act, but the Tomsk governors Mikhail Rzhevsky and Semyon Bartenev tore off her expensive sable fur coat and drove her away. In response, Nomcha burned all the Tomsk volosts on the Chulym River. (Miller G.F. “History of Siberia”, M., 1939, vol. 1, p. 408). Therefore, the prince was in no hurry. “Obak, as a sign of his friendship and desire to live in peace with the Russians, subsequently limited himself to sometimes sending gifts to the city” (Miller G.F. “History of Siberia”, M., 1939. vol. 1, p. 316).

At this time, the civil strife between the Western Mongols, Kazakhs, and the Mungals of Altyn Khan intensified. On May 10, 1607, the Oirat princes Binei (Izenei), Uzenei and Bakai (Abakai) sent ambassadors to Tomsk, with a promise of citizenship, a request for protection and a promise of mutual non-aggression. “However, Russia had no benefit from this promise of theirs” - soon the Kalmyks migrated to the steppes to the Ob River “to inflict the strongest resistance on the Mungals.” (Miller G.F. “Description of the Siberian Kingdom and all the things that happened in it.”, book 1, St. Petersburg, 1750, pp. 412-413). The next year, Cossacks were sent to the Oirats through the “Teleut Land” - “to invite the black Kolmaks to the Tomsk city for the royal salary,” but the Teleuts did not let them through, because They themselves fought a war with the Mongols. In the letter of the Tomsk governor Vasily Volynsky (about relations with the Kalmyk taishas, ​​not earlier than March 31, 1609) it is said that on October 2, 117 (1608) “they sent Tomsk mounted Cossacks to the Black Kolmaki and to Prince Bezenei, Uzenei, and Obakaya to their ulus people : Bazhenka Kostyantinova, and Ivashka Popova, and Ignashkha Kudrova, and Yesyr’s squad among the interpreters. And Bazhenka, sovereign, and his comrades were ordered to take from the Whites in Kolmaki (among the Teleuts - K.G.) the best Murzas of Kolmatsk, which the black Kolmaks believe. And they ordered, sir, from the White Kolmaks to go to Black Kolmaki with them, and they ordered the Black Kolmaks to invite you to Tomsk city for your royal salary,” but “and the White Kolmaks, sir, the Murzas did not go to Black Kolmaki... and they, sir, your sovereign’s people will not be allowed through, they will be beaten on the road. And Bazhenko, the sovereign, and his comrades were then not taken to Black Kolmaki from White Kolmaki, because it was not possible for them to be brought by that Kolmatsky prince.”

Muscovy was in a hurry to resolve relations with its strong southern neighbor. The garrison of Tomsk was small, the power of the governor was fragile. Service in dispatches, in the “great snows” was difficult, and servicemen constantly threatened to leave the city. In the next letter to Moscow, the Tomsk governors Vasily Volynsky and Mikhail. Novosiltsov (about relations with the White Kalmyks, no earlier than March 31, 1609) “knocking” on their predecessors: “and in Tomsk, sir, the city of Obak, the prince and the Murzas of Kolmatsk did not visit the Tomsk city under Gavril Pisemsky and under Vasily Tyrkov and others, sir , there were no heads, and Prince Obak and his people did not donate to you, sovereign, but, sovereign, the Kolmatsky people sent Tatars to the Tomsk city with funeral services to you, the sovereign, and the yasak was not paid to you sovereign, and Prince Obak himself and the best Murzas to the Tomsk city “We haven’t seen how the city of Tomsk was established” and emphasize that only the embassy they sent on February 4, 1609, headed by Ivashka Kolomna, achieved success. Vaska Melentyev, Ivashka Petlin and Prince Toyan were with Kolomna. If Abacus refused to go to Tomsk, the governors ordered one of the ambassadors to remain in custody with the Teleuts until Abacus returned from Tomsk. Prince Toyan managed to assure Khan Abak that “as soon as he is in the Tomsk city, they will not be left in pawn.”

The negotiations went on for a long time and, in the end, Abak agreed to come to Tomsk. On March 31, 1609, a unique event occurred - the only interstate Treaty on a military-political alliance between the Russian Kingdom and the Telenget Khanate in the history of the conquest of Siberia was concluded. This agreement from the Telenget side was brought to the kurultai and accepted by the “best people” of the state. (Tengerekov I.S. “Telengets”, 2000). Abacus donated money to Tsar Vasily Shuisky on the condition that they be allowed to roam near Tomsk and that the Tsar “not order yasak to be taken from them.” The collection of yasak into the royal treasury and the issuance of “amanats” (hostages) are the main principle of the subordination of the colonized people. In return, they promised to “be relentless and straight to the sovereign, to serve with their heads if the king sends them against his disobedients.” Trade began between states. On the left bank of the Tom, opposite the mouth of the Ushaika River, a “Kolmatsky trade” was created. The Teleuts “often began to come to the Tomsk city with the bazaar, with horses, and cows, and the service people were filled with cows.” (Miller G.F. “History of Siberia”, M., 1939, vol. 1, p. 46).

The concluded agreement was important for both states. With it, the Russians not only defended the newborn Tomsk fort, but also received a powerful and authoritative ally for the subjugation of other Siberian peoples. The Telengets also expected military assistance from Russia in the confrontation with the Kazakhs and Western Mongols. Plus the establishment of regular and mutually beneficial trade, which both sides desperately needed.

The agreement lasted until the end of the Telenget state in 1717 and was steadily implemented for the first eight years. Khan Abak Konaev moves his stake from Chumysh and places it “one day” from Tomsk. In July 1609, Abak, on his own initiative, defeated the Kuzhegets and returned to the Eushta people (Russian subjects) the full and stolen horses and cattle taken by the Black Kalmyks. For this, Abak received the praise of the Tobolsk governor Ivan Katyrev-Rostovsky and “one row of good cloth.” (Miller G.F. “History of Siberia”, 1939, vol. 1, p. 429). Also, at the request of the Russian border authorities, the Telengets “returned Barabin slaves to their homeland in the hundreds,” notes Siberian researcher Grigory Potanin. In the fall of 1615, the Telenget Khan sent 400 soldiers for a joint campaign of Russians, Telengets and Chats against the Yenisei Kyrgyz, whom he also had designs on. But the other side cared little about fulfilling its terms of the contract. The Russians have repeatedly shied away from military support for their allies. In 1611, Khan Abak turned to the Russian authorities with a request for prompt military assistance to repel an attack by the Kuzhegets, who were taking revenge on the Telengets for their military intervention in 1609. The Russians did not refuse help, but they did not provide it either. As a result, the Kuzhegets stole a large herd of horses. The Russian kingdom did not provide military assistance to the Telengets during the attack of the Tarkhan Furnaces, and during the invasion of the territory of the Telenget Khanate by the Oirat army of Khara Khuly. In trade relations there was also no mutual benefit. Thus, Russian traders took 2 sables for a bottle of moonshine, 5 ermine needles, and as many sables for a copper cauldron as would fit into the cauldron (Ragozin N.E. Conquest and development of Western Siberia, Nsk, 1946, p. 23).

Unfortunately, the algorithm for the growth of territories is such that in the colonized lands (be it America, Siberia or South Africa) there is one “trend in the development of relations: from initial goodwill to persistent hostility and cruelty, often to total extermination.” (Verkhoturov D.N. “Conquest of Siberia: Myths and Reality”, 2005, p. 311).

And in 1617, the agreement on military-political cooperation was suspended by both parties. From 1617 to 1621, hostilities began between the Telenget Khanate and the Russian Tsardom. Abacus begins to give tribute to the Russian peoples. In 1617 - Chatov, in the next - he ruins the “blacksmiths”, takes away entire families of Yasash Shors. The Russians set up the first Kuznetsk fort. The “Kolmatsky trade” interrupts work. We highlighted some aspects of the Russian-Teleut war concerning the left bank in the first part of our study. Sieges of the Chat town (slightly north of Kolyvan) in 1617, 1624, 1629, clashes at Lake Chany, campaigns against Tomsk in 1930.

At the end of 1620, the Dzungar Khan Khara Khula appeared on the territory of the Telenget Khanate. Having suffered defeat from Altyn Khan and the Kazakhs, the Dzungars first appeared in the Telenget steppe, and then on the right bank of the Ob. The Teleuts report to Tomsk about the intention of the Oirats to “roam around the city of Tomsk” and their preparation for a spring military campaign against Tomsk and Kuznetsk. The Russians quickly assessed their own danger of an Oirat invasion, and in January 1621, an embassy headed by the boyar’s son Bazhen Kartashev and the Chat murza Tarlav was sent to Urga by Khan Abaq. During the negotiations, the Telenget ally Baschi Kourchak Koksezh unexpectedly tried to kill the Russian ambassadors. Khan Abak did not allow this, and during the battle with Kokserzh and his people he himself was wounded. The military-political union between the Russian kingdom and the Telenget Khanate was restored on the same terms. On May 3, 1621, the Tomsk governors wrote to Moscow about the White Kalmyks’ loyalty to the treaty and the campaign of Khan Abak with 200 soldiers against the “sovereign disobedient” Tubins, Mators and Kachins. In October 1622, a joint campaign of Russians and Teleuts against the Yenisei Kyrgyz took place again.

But the confrontation continued. Back in 1621, the Kuznetsk governor Timofey Bobarykin, through the embassy of Y. Zakharov, demanded the return of the previously stolen Yasash “blacksmiths”. Abacus did not accept the ambassadors, and they returned to Kuznetsk with nothing. In 1622-1624, Kuznetsk governors imposed a tax (10 sables per person) on the outlying Teleut clans of Azkeshtym, Togul, Tagap, Keret, causing open resistance from the local population. The Kuznetsk governor Evdokim Baskakov wrote to the Tomsk governors Prince Afanasy Gagarin and Semyon Divov: “Many Kuznetsk people are not in obedience, and in the current year 132 they did not give the sovereign yasak, but are getting into the osprey, and they want a bitz with the sovereign’s people; and those sovereign yasak people in obedience and give yasak to the sovereign, and those yasak people from the Kolmatsk people suffer great oppression, and insults to their wives and children, they torment and eat to the fullest, and others are flogged... There is no one to defend the Kuznetsk yasak people from those Kalmat people, the servicemen There are few sovereign people in the Kuznetsk fort.”

In 1624, numerous border skirmishes took place near Tomsk and Kuznetsk. Sudden attacks were noted on both sides. The Azkeshtims and Toguls are fleeing to the Teleuts. Things came to the point of killing ambassadors. In July 1924, I. Beloglazov’s embassy was sent to Abak from Tomsk with the task of “reprimanding” and demanding the extradition of “thieves’ people.” There was no abacus in Urga. And, apparently, the ambassadors behaved quite aggressively, because... the conversation with the “best people” ended with the robbery of the ambassadors and even the murder of the Cossack L. Alekseev (Miller G.F., “History of Siberia”, 1941, vol. II, pp. 320-321). The governors did not see Abak’s fault in the incident, they sent interpreter Yansar to him with a compromise proposal, and in May of the following year, the Teleut ambassadors Kuranak and Urley, who arrived in Tomsk, assured that Abakak would give him a “strong sherti” after returning from Khara-Khuly.

And although Khan Shert did not confirm, negotiations continued. Colonization continued with them. In 1625-1626, the Russians managed to agree on the return of the Azkeshtim and Togul residents “under tribute.” They pay yasak to the “Shchelkans” (Chelkans). In 1627, a detachment of the Kuznetsk Cossack ataman Pyotr Dorofeev marched from Kondoma to the upper reaches of the Biya and forcibly took yasak from the Tubalar clans of Tiber, Chagat, Togus, Kalan, as well as from the Shors of the upper reaches of the Mrassa River. “The Teleut aristocracy considered all of them their kyshtyms.”

Anti-Russian coalition.

And in 1628, Abak again broke with the Russians and forbade his Kyshtyms to pay yasak to the Russian Tsar, and called for killing the yasatchiks and taking away their weapons. The colonial war is getting a second wind. A wide campaign of disobedience breaks out from Tara to Kuznetsk. A series of uprisings of the Tara, Barabinsk, Tomsk and other Tatars begin. Abak actively supports the rebels and provides them with refuge in the territory of the Telenget Khanate. There are widespread rumors in Tomsk that Abak and the Kalmyks want to “set fire to Kuznetsk with birch bark”, “pound bread”, burn hay, etc. Strengthening the Kuznetsk garrison turned out to be extremely difficult due to the accumulated non-payment of salaries to the servicemen. (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, p. 46). In 1629, Abak taxed the Albanians of the Kachins. More and more already identified volosts of the Teleut lands and the Kuznetsk basin are being deposited from Muscovy to Abacus.

An anti-Russian alliance of Kuchumovichs, Teleuts, Baraba and Chat Tatars began to form. Negotiations were even conducted with the Oirat taisha Khara-Khula. A special place here belongs to chats. Their noble Murza Tarlav, who had previously accepted Russian citizenship, resigned from Russian service, left the Chat town with people, went up the Ob and in 1629, at the confluence of the Ob River, Chingis founded his own town - the new capital of the Chats. From here Tarlav actively disturbed the Tomsk district. In 1630, the Tomsk voivode, Prince “Petrushka Pronskaya” with his comrades Oleshka Sabakin and Bozhenko Stepanov wrote to Tsar Mikhail that “Chatsky Murza Tarlavko ... betrayed you, with all his people, Chat went to Belye Kolmaki and his father-in-law to Prince Abak.” .

Concerned Tomsk governors “many times” send embassies to the Teleut ulus. In March 1630, the Pentecostal servicemen Petrushka Afanasyev and the mounted Cossack Grishka Koltsev were sent to Abacus. But this time the prince was not at all inclined to negotiate and the embassy left with nothing. In addition, Abak detained the Eushta Tatar serviceman Bektulu Begichev, who was part of the embassy as an interpreter, who was later “cursed, his nose and ears were cut, [and his breasts] were cut open, for [the fact that] he Bektula served your sovereign.”

In April 1630, the Teleuts and southern chats raided the Tomsk district. It was not possible to achieve surprise, so the ulus Tatar Murza Burlak Aitkulin warned the Russians about the approach of “military people”. The garrison of the nearby Toyanov town was immediately reinforced, the allies turned around, ravaged the “Chatsky Kyzlanov and Burlakov town (Murzin town - K.G.), and burned the grain, and beat the Kyzlanov and Burlakov Tatars, who were in that town near the grain, and beat others they caught it, and your sovereign’s tribute to the Shagarskaya volost was fought.” “20 Russian warriors and clerk G. Timofeev were also killed.” On May 20, the son of the boyar Gavrila Chernitsyn was sent by water from Tomsk to the Chat forts with service people and Tatars to stay there for some time, to repel the enemy on occasion and to learn in detail about his intentions. On May 29, Chernitsyn attacked the enemies “on a climb across the Ob.” They had to accept a very unfavorable battle, in which the allies suffered heavy losses, including the Chat Murza Kazgulu, the Tulumani best man Murat, and were forced to flee. According to the testimony of the Ostyaks (Khanty), for 20 versts from the battlefield, along the road where the defeated fled to the Barabinskaya steppe, one could see everywhere a large number of killed people in armor, dead horses, all the enemy’s property was scattered in disorder. (Miller G.F. “History of Siberia”, ch. 9, §41, Appendix 427). Despite the military success, under the threat of a new attack, Tomsk is again hastily strengthened - a new fort is erected on both sides of Ushaika. Professor A.P. Umansky notes that the campaign near Tomsk in 1630 was the most hostile action of Abacus against the Russians in all 25 years of Teleut-Russian contacts. This year itself is considered by all researchers to be the most critical in the history of the conquest of Siberia.

A special place in our research is occupied by the pearl of the Novosibirsk region - Karakansky Bor - a beautiful place full of mysteries and myths: about a mega-dune formed 2.5 thousand years ago due to a giant water breakthrough in the Altai Mountains; about thousand-year-old mounds with military burials; about the hand of Genghis Khan buried here; about virgins and knights turning into rocks; about Sherwood Forest and the Siberian Robin Hood Afanasy Seleznev; about boats with gold at the bottom of rivers and lakes. One thing is known for sure - the village of Chingis, founded in 1629 by the Chat Murza Tarlava, still stands here, and here a battle took place, perhaps the most important on the right coast of the region, which morally turned the tide of the war for the anti-Russian coalition.

Tarlav was noble, experienced, brave and very popular among the local population. The unification of resistance forces around him could be disastrous for the colonialists. It was impossible to allow thousands of new horsemen to appear at the walls of Tomsk, the campaign of which was actually being prepared by the allies. After a series of unsuccessful embassies to Tarlav and his father-in-law, Prince Abak, with a proposal to “get behind treason,” on March 5, 1631, the Tomsk governor Peter Pronsky sent detachments of the Smolensk nobleman Yakov Ostafyevich Tukhachevsky of three hundred Cossacks and the Chat Murza Burlak with a hundred Chat and Tomsk Tatars against the rebellious Murza . (Volkov V.G. Murzy and the princes of the Chat and Tomsk Tatars of the 17th-18th centuries. Experience in genealogical reconstruction of dynasties).

Tukhachevsky’s detachment, a participant in many wars of the Time of Troubles, possessing remarkable military and diplomatic abilities, consisted of experienced fighters. Here were the Cossack leader Molchan Lavrov, already familiar to us, and the first Kuznetsk governor Ostafiy (Evstafiy) Kharlamov (Mikhailevsky). According to other sources, the total number of the detachment reached almost 900 people. Chinggis town was rich and well fortified, but the Russians were armed with small cannons. Since the town was protected from the shore by an impenetrable forest, the Cossacks and Tatars walked along the Ob River on skis, and dragged food and weapons on sleds on dogs. (Miller G.F. “History of Siberia”, 1941, vol. II, p. 376). They walked very quickly. The 5 week journey was completed in 2.5. As a result, Tarlav's messengers to the allies (Teleuts, Kuchumovichs, Orchak) did not help. Even the Teleuts could not arrive on time.

Despite the double numerical superiority (Tarlak had 192 Chat, Barabinsky, Terpinsky Tatars and Kalmyks), material and fire advantage, Tukhachevsky was in no hurry to storm the fortress, but at first only besieged it, hoping to force the popular Tarlav to surrender. But his Cossacks, realizing that they could lose their war booty, were ready to launch an attack without permission. Having learned that reinforcements were coming to the besieged, Tukhachevsky decided to launch an assault. Having made wooden shields to protect against arrows, the Cossacks began to “approach the town.” During the assault, a detachment of Kuchumovichs came up from the rear to “help”. However, the attackers were able to hold off reinforcements and take the fortress. Murza Tarlav and his bodyguards managed to escape and run deep into the Karakansky forest. But the Cossacks, led by the boyar’s son Ostafiy Kharlamov, overtook them, and in a fight allegedly with Kharlamov himself, the prince was killed. Yakov Tukhachevsky did not lose his diplomatic experience here either - in front of his quarter of the Tatar army and numerous prisoners, he organized the solemn funeral of the defeated enemy.

But with the death of Murza, the dramatic battle at Chinggis Town was not yet over. White and black Kalmyks approached. Having united with the remaining Kuchumovichs, they “came to Yakov’s prison” and besieged him. Tukhachevsky “many times” sent his servicemen “to be sorted out” and successfully fought off the enemy. (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Siberian Tatars in the 17th century”, 1972, p. 128). During the battles near Chinggis town, the Russian side lost 10 people killed and 67 wounded, the Siberians lost 185 people killed and 30 wounded, 8 Chat Murzas, 10 Tatars were taken “into the tongue.” Tarlav's sons Itegmen and Koimas (Kozbas) were sheltered by Abak.

With the death of Tarlava, the anti-Russian coalition fell apart, the Chats and Tulumans hastened to recognize the “servility” of the Russian Tsar. On the site of the stronghold of the Chat prince, a large Russian village was formed, which has retained its name today - Chinggis.

Advancement to Altai and Kuznetsk campaigns.

In 1632, the Russians decided to cut the territory of the Teleuts, penetrating deep into their rear and gaining a foothold in Altai “to protect the sovereign volosts of the Kuznetsk district”, building a border fort “in a decent place” on the bank of the Biya. The success of this daring campaign promised the colonialists a strong weakening of the Teleut hegemony and, by and large, the annexation of the entire right bank of the Ob River, including the peoples of the Altai Mountains. But, sending a detachment under the command of the boyar son of the Pentecostal Fyodor Pushchin on a military expedition, the Tomsk governors Ivan Tatev and Semyon Voeikov somehow did not quite correctly assess the forces of “sending 60 service people.”

On July 20, a detachment on three planks leaves Tomsk up the Ob, around August 12 (according to Umansky’s calculations) it crosses the “Teleut border”, on the 21-22nd at the Stone it is met with protest by Abak’s envoys. But the detachment continues to move and on August 31 the detachment reaches the mouth of the Chumysh River. On September 3, the Teleuts, under the command of Abak’s eldest son, Koki, and the biy, Izenbey, overtake Pushchin above Chumysh and defeat it. There are also discrepancies here - from a five-day bloody battle (L.P. Potapov) to a short shootout (A.P. Umansky). However, after negotiations, having stood “until half past three days,” the Cossacks turn back. I don’t know whether in memory of this battle or by chance, but near the site of this battle today there is a lake called “Teleutskoe”, the Teleutka river and “Teleut mounds” near the village of Kislukha.

Telenget Aidarka, caught by the Russians, testified during interrogation: “...de Abacus ordered that poor people live along the Ob of his Abakov Ulus for fishing, and they wouldn’t do anything to cover up those people. Yes, Abak ordered to say: why are the governors sending a fort to build a fort in my land, I didn’t create any kind of jealousy with the sovereign’s people and there was no betrayal of mine before the sovereign” (Miller G.F. “History of Siberia”, M., 1941 , vol. II, p. 395).

The Pushchino campaign, although lost, had a significant resonance. For the first time, the Russians crossed the unknown upper reaches of the Ob almost to Barnaul. Not daring to move up the Ob valley again, the colonialists redirected their advance to Altai through the flanks: in the west along the Irtysh valley, and in the east along the Kondoma with access to Biya and Lake Teletskoye.

Despite the unsuccessful outcome of the first expedition, Tomsk governors already in February 1633 again sent a detachment of the boyar’s son Peter Sabansky to the south. The Cossacks “skied” to Altyn-Nor (Golden Lake). The Teles, faithful allies of the Telenguts, lived here. This small people also offered stubborn resistance to the colonizers for more than ten years. In 1633, the local prince Mandrak managed to avoid defeat and lead the people to the southern shore of the lake, although the Cossacks captured his wife and son Aidar and his daughter-in-law. The next year, Mandrak came to Tomsk, bought out the family, and undertook to pay yasak at 10 sables per person, but subsequently did not give yasak. In 1642, the Tomsk authorities again sent Peter Sabansky and Peter Dorofeev with the Cossacks to Lake Teletskoye. An entire military operation is being carried out against the Telyos. Sabansky builds planks and crosses the lake, Dorofeev and his detachment go around the lake with mountains. The Cossacks besiege the Telyos fortress at the mouth of the Chulyshman. The siege lasted 12 days and would have continued if not for the accidental capture of Prince Mandrak and the reckless attack from the fortress of his son Aidar. This time Mandrak was taken to Tomsk as a hostage, and all other members of his family were released under Aidar’s obligation to pay an annual tribute. (Andrievich V.K. History of Siberia, vol. 1, St. Petersburg, 1889. pp. 97-98). The very next year, after the death in captivity of Prince Mandrak, the Telyos again refused to pay yasak, and in 1646, the son of the Tomsk governor, Boris Zubov, undertakes another campaign against the Telyos, defeats them, captures many, but the Telyos are again “put aside.” In 1653, Peter Dorofeev’s punitive detachment came to the lake, but found no one there. There is no one to pay yasak - the teles have gone under the protection of the telengets. The memory of the small proud people is preserved in the current name Altyn-Nor - Lake Teletskoye.

The need to “set up a fort” at the confluence of the Biya and Katun rivers was raised in 1651, 1667, 1673, 1683, but the colonialists were able to build the Bikatun fort only with a “numerous detachment” in 1709. In the meantime, the Russians preferred a temporary pacification in Southern Siberia and intensified their penetration into Eastern Siberia and the Far East. Relations between Telengets and Russians have softened again. The Teleut prince Abak continued to hesitate in recognizing his dependence, but in 1632 he nevertheless sent his grandchildren Itegmen and Koimas to Tomsk, where they were recognized by the Tomsk governor as serving Murzas of the Chat Tatars and accepted the former Urga of their father Tarlav as inheritance. Years later, Tarlav's relatives and other chats often traveled to visit their Teleut relatives or simply to trade, while carrying out spy orders for their new masters.

But border skirmishes still arose, although rarely. By 1633, the Yenisei Kyrgyz intensified their raids on Russian lands, the “Lithuanian conspiracy” was brewing in Tomsk, Abaq lost almost all of his allies, and there was a significant strengthening of the enemy of both states – Dzungaria. The Oirats again became a real threat. In an effort to normalize Russian Telenget relations, from September 1633 to September 1634, the Russian side sent four of its embassies to the Telenget Khanate (V. Sedelnikova, E. Stepanova, B. Kartashev, O. Kharlamov) and received several khan embassies. And at the end of 1634 the agreement was restored. Abak never gave the required personal sherti, but resumed the “Kolmatsk bargaining”, returned the Uskat and Komlyash people, as well as Murza Aidek, to their former places. The Teleuts were allowed to roam “closer to Tomsk, in which places he, Abak, roamed the Mereti before Torlavkov’s betrayal in 137” (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, p. 57 ). The khan also promised to provide military assistance in a joint campaign against the Yenisei Kyrgyz, but this campaign never took place.

At the beginning of 1635, Maychyk (Machik, Bachik, Majika) - the son of Qashqai-Bura, Abak's younger brother - was separated from Khan Abak. The Telenget Khanate split into two states: the Great Telenget Ulus (western) and the Small Telenget Ulus (eastern). Khan Abak remained at the head of the Greater Khanate, and the Small Telenget Khanate was headed by Maichyk Kashkaiburunov. The ulus of Abak (and later of his son Koki) was located on the right bank of the Ob at the confluence of the Meret River, between the mouths of the Chumysh and Berd rivers. This place on the territory of the present Suzunsky district was the “political center” of the Telenget state from the 20s almost to the mid-60s of the 17th century. (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, p. 203).

The Meret River at its confluence with the Ob. Suzunsky district, Novosibirsk region.
Photo by E. Mukhortov

Umansky calls both Uluses “Big”, although it is known that the Ulus of Maychyk was much smaller (1000 people). Subsequently, in his rivalry with Khan Koka and the fight against the Russians, Maichyk relied on the Dzungar Khanate of Batura-huntaiji. L.P. Potapov, in his historical and ethnographic essay “Ethnic composition and origin of the Altaians,” claims that almost until the end of the 50s of the 17th century, the Telenget khan Koka Abakov either united with the separatist prince Majik for joint actions against the cities of Tomsk or Kuznetsk, then quarreled and fought . However, modern researchers (Umansky, Tengerekov) constantly accuse Potapov of distorting facts. However, it is generally accepted that in the 1630s Maichyk was the organizer of the “Teleut baranta” - the direct robbery of Russian yasak volosts.

In mid-September 1635, the great son of the Teleut people, Khan Abak, died at an old age. (Tengerekov I.S. “Telengets”, 2000). After the death of Abak, the Great Telenget Ulus was inherited by his eldest son Koka Khan. The Tomsk governors immediately sent an embassy to him, headed by the Cossack foreman Zinoviy Litosov, son Amosov, to confirm the agreement concluded by his father. Khan Koka confirms the continuity of the alliance and sends a return embassy to Tomsk with his brother Imes. In the summer of 1636, Koka Abakov, together with the Russians, went on a campaign against the Kyrgyz.

At the same time, Johann Fischer in his book “Siberian History” writes that even before this, in the spring of 1936, when the Kyrgyz attacked the district, Khan Koka made a campaign against the Kuznetsk fort, which by that time had become the main target of the Teleuts. But Professor Alexey Umansky and other modern researchers believe that this attack did not happen, but that it was a trick by the Kuznetsk governor Grigory Kushelev, undertaken to speed up the rearmament of the Kuznetsk garrison with more modern weapons - “short arquebuses”. However, cases of Teleut baranta by the Koki people were noted in 1638 and other years. From another “Report from the Kuznetsk governor Dementy Kaftyrev” about the reinforcement of the Kuznetsk fort by Tomsk servicemen, it follows that on October 7, 1639 (some researchers mistakenly call the year 1648), under the guise of trade, Koki’s nephew, Khan of the Small Ulus, Maichyk, and his people came to Kuznetsk under the guise of trade. “...and when the inhabitants, considering this an ordinary matter, went out to trade at the camp, he, without hesitating at all, suddenly ordered an attack on the Russians, and killed them as many as he could, and at the same time, having robbed the goods they had brought, went into the steppe "(Kuznetsk acts. Collection of documents. Issue 2. Kemerovo, 2002; "Miller G.F. "History of Siberia", vol. III, M., 2005). During the treacherous attack, 15 townspeople were killed and many were injured. Khan Koka then wandered 2 days from Kuznetsk, which displeased his governor.

Officially, the Russian kingdom and the Great Telengetsky ulus from 1635 to 1642 resolved all controversial issues through diplomatic relations, without resorting to military force. However, in 1643, relations between the two states were spoiled again. Kuznetsk governors showed great zeal before the Emperor. The war of double-giving begins. In 1642, Peter Sabansky undertakes a military campaign in the Altai Mountains against the Telyos, whom Khan Koka considers his kyshtyms. In 1643, “Kersagal people with Machik come to the Kuznetsk fort”, beat the servicemen and foothill Tatars, and also rob the yasash people in the district and “they do not order the sovereign to pay yasak.” (Reply from the Kuznetsk governor Dementy Kaftyrev to the Tomsk governor Prince Semyon Klubkov-Masalsky). In response, Pyotr Dorofeev goes to Biya against the Kersagals. Naturally, as a result of the “search” carried out, the Kersagalians were defeated and captured, and on the way back to Kuznetsk, Dorofeev also managed to defeat the group of “Machikov’s men”. In the same year, Shestachko Yakovlev makes an attempt to explain the White Kalmyks themselves! His detachment came to the Mundus, Totosh and Kuzegetskaya “volosts”, where the Teleuts of Bashchi Entugai Konaev, the uncle of Khan Koka, lived! (Samaev G.P. “Annexation of Altai to Russia”, G.A., 1996). “...and with them, Shestachko Yakovlev and his comrades taught them to fight, shoot with bows, and they, the service people Shestachko Yakovlev and their comrades, with those Mundus and Totosh and Keseget people, asking God for mercy, taught the bitz to hunt for us; with God’s mercy and the sovereign’s happiness... the Mundus and Totosh and Keseget people were beaten in battle and others were wounded, and in the battle many wounded fled, and their wives and their children were completely raped... and there were 35 of them, Mr. disobedients” (Kuznetsky’s reply governor Dementy Kaftyrev).

The Russians, one by one, began to build their villages up the Ob, and soon the Teleut border on the right bank of the Ob already passed along the Ouen (Inya) River. The first Russian village on the “Novosibirsk” right bank appeared around 1644 at the confluence of the Barsuchikha River with the Berd. This is Maslyanino. The territory between the “beaver” rivers Iney and Berdyu was called Tavolgan. Until the end of the first decade of the 18th century, Tavolgan (for the Russians - Chernolesye, marked in green on the map) was a border line and remained a common hunting ground. A note by Tomsk governor Grigory Petrovo-Sokolov dated December 1708 states that “Russian people of Tomsk, Chat Tatars and white traveling Kalmyks in the summer and autumn in the tracts of the Tavolgan forests and along the Ina and Berdi rivers for animal, hop and boat fishing and for millstones there are 500 people or more in the industry.” (A. Borodovsky, “Boats of Tavolgan.” “Science in Siberia”, May. 2005). On the same “drawing of the land of the Kuznetsk city” by Semyon Remizov we see several Teleut settlements on both banks of the Ob. The historical toponym Tavolgan has survived to this day. In the Iskitim region, in the interfluve of the right tributaries of the Berdi - the Maly and Bolshoi Elbash rivers, the Maly Tavolgan tract is located.

Pressure from Muscovy forced Khan Koku in 1645 to establish good neighborly relations with the Dzungarian Ulus and give shert to the Oirats (Batur-huntaiji). This greatly alarmed the Russians, as it threatened to lose the population and territory of the Teleut Ulus for colonization, and on June 12, 1646, a Russian embassy led by Peter Sabansky arrived in Urga by Khan Koki. In connection with the ascension of Alexei Mikhailovich to the Russian kingdom, the ambassadors asked for official confirmation of the validity of the Russian-Teleget agreement. The “best people” confirmed the shert, but Prince Koku refused, citing the fact that Entugai and Uruzak had already given the shert for him in Tomsk. Khan Koki's refusal to give up his personal property did not suit the Russian Tsar. In turn, in the late autumn of the same Maychik sent Bilichek’s embassy to Kuznetsk with a petition for the release of guilt for the pogrom at the Kuznetsk trading post. Bilichek also gave shert to the Kuznetsk governor Afanasy Zubov, but the khan refused to pay yasak, promising only a “wake”, but in reality did not fulfill anything. (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, p. 64).

Right there, in 1646, a crushing military campaign by the Tomsk governor Boris Zubov took place against the Telyos, who, after the death of their prince Mandrak, tried to break away from the Russians. The indignant Koka immediately sends his ambassador Chota Bitenev to Kuznetsk, and then to Tomsk, to protest for his Kyshtym people, whose representative had just sacrificed the Sabansky embassy. In Kuznetsk they refer to the order of the Tomsk governor Osip Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov himself denies his involvement in organizing the campaign and sends a request to Kuznetsk: “according to the sovereign’s charters or by his own arbitrariness,” the campaign took place. The bureaucratic turntable, so familiar to us, turned on. In response, Koka curtails trade in the Russian euzds, refuses joint military action against the Taisha Kula, and subjects the Boyanskaya, Togulskaya, Tyulyuberskaya volosts of the Kuznetsk district and the foothill Abinsk people to a pogrom, taking people to himself. Khan intensifies the Albanian collection from the double-dancers. Livestock prices immediately go up, which causes strong dissatisfaction among the Russian “service people.” In order to somehow smooth out the situation, an embassy was sent to Koka from the Tomsk boyar's son Stepan Alexandrov (Grechanin) - Koka greeted him dismissively and did not listen. The ambassador's horse was stolen, and a member of the embassy, ​​Kyzlanov, was simply beaten. Not wanting to worsen relations with the Russians, the khan, following the offended mission, sends his ambassador Uruzak, who apologizes in Tomsk, explaining what happened by saying that Koka was drunk. (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, pp. 73-74).

In 1648-1649, the “Tomsk revolt” occurred - the mutual hostility of the governors Shcherbatov and Bunakov resulted in an uprising. Some of the servicemen wanted to leave the city and “start the Don” in the upper reaches of the Biya and Katun. Ilya Bunakov tried to drag Khan Koku into the voivodeship feud; ambassadors were regularly sent to his ulus from both sides to collect incriminating evidence on the enemy, embassy article lists were forged, etc. While some were fighting, others rushed to strengthen their positions with the double-dancers. Both Koka and Maichyk roam near Tomsk and Kuznetsk and significantly strengthen the baranta in the Yasash volosts - moreover, they unilaterally regulate their and Russian shares. “Your sovereign’s tribute was ordered to be paid at ten sables per person, he did not order it, but your sovereign’s yasak was ordered to be paid at 5 sables per person, and he ordered Koka to bring it to him at 5 sables” (Tokarev S.A. “Pre-capitalist remnants in Oirotia”, L ., 1936, p.117).

Kuznetsk tried to calm the Teleuts. The embassy of Yakovlev and I. Ivanov to Koka Shestachko in June 1648 was not crowned with success - the khan did not accept the “reprimand” and did not admit the accusations of the “yasashnykhs”. At the end of 1649, the new Kuznetsk governor Grigory Zasetsky, at the request of Moscow, sent to Maichyk an embassy of the clerk I. Vasilyev and the Tatar interpreter Konaiko, who managed to confirm the shert on the terms of 1646 - “not to give yasak and amanats, but to send only funeral services” . But a year later, even those sharply decreased, after which they stopped altogether, and the Machikovs’ people again began to inflict “a great insult” on the double-dealers. (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, pp. 66-67).

At the beginning of 1650, the Tomsk governors again received the royal letter, where Alexei Mikhailovich urgently demands that the agreement on the military-political alliance between the Russian kingdom and the Telenget Ulus be confirmed personally by Khan Koki. In April, an embassy headed by the boyar's son Ivan Petrov arrived in Urga. On the same day, the ambassador received an audience with Khan Koki and personal confirmation of the validity of the agreement with a glass of “gold in honey,” which was considered the most effective by the Teleuts. At this time, Koka really needs support (or at least cover) in the confrontation with Maichyk and the Oirat taisha Sakyl (cousin of Batyr-khuntayji), who had just conquered the Orchaks - Koka’s allies.

But the parties' hopes for normalizing relations did not materialize. In 1651, the people of the Chat Murza Burlak Aitkulin poisoned Ederek (Iderek), Koki’s brother-in-law. The Khan sends his ambassadors to Tomsk with a demand to punish the poisoners, as well as to hand over 11 fugitive families, subjects of the Telenget Khanate. The Russians refused to hand over the fugitives and did not take any measures against the Chat slave Murza. It was not possible to resolve the problems that arose through negotiations. In the same year, after several attempts (the Kersegallians “did not give leaders”), the Kuznetsk Cossack Afanasy Popov managed to cross the Biya River into the upper reaches of the Katun, violating the borders of the Telenget Khanate. On July 5, the detachment returned, bringing with it the envoy of the Oirat taisha Chokur Ubashi - Samargan Irgi, who indicated the colonialist the best place “to set up a fort at the mouth of the Biya and Katun rivers.” (Miller G.F. “History of Siberia”, M, vol. II, 1939, appendix 472).

In response, the Telenguts approached the Kuznetsk fort and ravaged the mountain villages. Written sources about these events have not been preserved, but a letter from Mikhail Volynsky, the first-ranked governor of Tomsk, to Moscow notes: “And in the current year, sovereign, in 159 (1651), the sharps, and the Mugat, and the Sayans to you, the sovereign, the yasak from your uluses are not given." (Kuznetsk acts. Collection of documents. Issue 2. Kemerovo, 2002. p. 185). In order to persuade the Kyshtyms to transfer to Russian citizenship, during the years when there were strife between the Mundus princes, the colonialists spread a rumor among the Teleuts and their Kyshtyms that the Telenget Khanate was still breaking up into a number of small uluses, and would not be able to stand up for its subjects. There was a saying among the Siberian Turks: “Mundus juulup El bolbos. Buka juulup mal bolbos” (When the mundus gather together there will be no state. When the bulls gather together there will be no cattle). (Tengerekov I.S. “Telengets”, 2000).

By the end of the 40s and in 1652, the Telyos again stopped contributing yasak to the royal treasury, and they themselves began to take tribute from the Kondoma Shors, terrorizing them. To avoid the threat of reprisals from the Russians, Prince Koka, with the consent of the Bashchi Telyos of Aidar, resettles the entire people of the Televolost from Altyn Lake to the Telenget Khanate, and also resumes the collection of Alban from the Kuznetsk volosts and uluses, and stops trade with the Russian districts. In 1653, Russian servicemen who came to the black taiga on the shores of Lake Teletskoye “to collect yasak from the peoples wandering in the vicinity of the lake found its shores completely deserted. The Telyos migrated to places unknown to the Russians” (Kambalov N.A., Sergeev A.D. “Discoverers and Explorers of Altai”, B., 1968, p. 7). The Telyos returned to the lake only after the defeat of the Dzungar Khanate by the Chinese Empire in 1755. In 1745, a Russian expedition led by Pyotr Shelegin encountered “in the Chulyshman Valley...about three dozen Teleut yurts...”.

Kuznetsk stubbornly does not want to recognize the Russian-Telenget agreement and continues to go on Cossack campaigns “for zipuns” to foreign lands. In January and March 1653, the Kuznetsk governor Fyodor Baskakov arbitrarily (at the request of the Yasny and Kuznetsk servicemen) carried out two punitive operations against the Telenget Khanate. In January, the detective detachment of P. Lavrov (apparently Pospela, since he was a Pentecostal, and his brother Peter was a royal messenger) and I. Vasilyev, beyond Nizhnyaya Kumanda, smashed the Teleut Yulutka and other Kyshtym people, taking their families to Kuznetsk. On March 10, the long-time enemy of the Telengets, Ataman Pyotr Dorofeev, with the Pentecostal Kuzma Volodimerov and a well-armed detachment of 200 Cossacks, spoke out against the “Teles traitors” - Bosei “and his comrades” and the fugitive Azkeshtimites. The Cossacks did not go to Lake Teletskoye, but limited themselves to simply shooting and robbing the Azkeshtimites, and having learned about the Koki brothers Koibas and Imenya hunting “in the Kalmyk tracts up the Chyumysh River” with “one hundred and three” ulus people, they quickly returned to Kuznetsk . Baskakov urgently sends Lavrov and Vasiliev to the deceitful Teleuts. The Kuznetsk detachment robbed the hunters completely: from 100 to 170 elk carcasses “with skins and meat” were taken from them and 15 people were killed.

Khan Koka again made a sharp protest and demanded an explanation for the undeclared war against the Telenget Khanate. Baskakov replied to the ambassadors to Kuznetsk (Moohai Telekov and Boka Sairanov) that this was his revenge for the humiliation of his Yasatchiks (they had their beards cut off) by the Telos and Sayans. Dissatisfied ambassadors went to Tomsk. Having a strict order from Moscow “not to fight” Coca and his people, and trying to comply with the law, Tomsk governors Nikifor Nashchokin and Averkey Boltin began to conduct an investigation in August 1653. To which Dorofeev threatened with “guil and a lot of noise” that if the commission continues to conduct the investigation, then all the Cossacks will go to the Biya and Katun rivers - there is a lot of plowing there and they will build a prison for themselves, and they will be beaten with Tomsk, and “the sovereign will be in ruins from this will!" Roman Starkov’s commission listened a little more to well-coordinated interrogation speeches: “Koka’s brothers were not besieged, they stumbled upon the killed moose by accident, the slave himself came to the Russian camp, etc.”, curtailed its work and “did not touch the instigators of the riot.” (“Slavic Encyclopedia. XVII century”. M., Olma-press. 2004), (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the XVII-XVIII centuries”, N., 1980, pp. 84-88). The investigation materials were sent to Moscow. The Kolmatsky trade was curtailed; moreover, neglecting Russian iron, the Teleuts began to successfully trade with the Shors, purchasing weapons from them. Koka is waiting for an opportunity to “revenge his grievances” and is seriously thinking about an alliance with the Dzungars. In January 1654, by decree, the embassy of Vasily Bylin was sent from Moscow to Urgus Koki on Meret with claims. All counterclaims are rejected by the prince, he threatens to send his ambassadors to Moscow not through Tomsk, but directly through Tara, and relations remain unsettled. In May of the same year, a Decree was issued based on the results of the Kuznetsk investigation, signed by clerk Tretyakov, which, under the threat of royal disgrace, categorically prohibits military actions against the Telenget Khanate without the permission of Moscow and obliges the governor to return the captured Telengets and their kyshtyms. At that time, Tsar Alexei was at war in the west with Poland and Lithuania, and he did not at all need complications in the east. No punishment was imposed on voivode Baskakov, and he remained voivode of Kuznetsk for another two years.

"Away" and alliance with the Dzungar Khanate.

In 1654, relations worsened both within the Telenget Khanate itself and on its southern borders. Khan Maychyk and the younger Bashchilars, the Abakovs, attracted the Oirat Taishas to their side in the fight against Koki. Other taishi, on the contrary, sided with Koki. Here Batur-huntaiji dies among the Dzungars and, accordingly, the struggle for power begins. Koka is trying to shed his nominal dependence on the Dzungar Khanate - a series of wars between the khanates begins, but in the summer of 1655 Koka suffers a major defeat from the Oirats. Retreating, the Teleuts were forced to hastily cross to the wooded right bank of the Ob River near the mouth of the Irmen, abandoning their cattle and property on the other side. Taking advantage of the moment, the Russians immediately sent an embassy to the khan, headed by Y. Popov. But even being in a critical situation, Khan Koka Abakov did not confirm the rumor. Even the promise of “amulet” did not seduce him. In almost 50 years of the existence of the agreement, the Russian side has never fulfilled its obligations to protect the Telenget Khanate; it has only destroyed itself. The khan did not expect help even now, because... The Tomsk and Kuznetsk governors have a direct decree from the tsar: not to make any “enthusiasm” against the Dzungar Khanate.

The clashes continue. Finding himself between the Russians and the Oirats as if between a rock and a hard place, Koka begins to establish contacts with the Kyrgyz in order to unite in the fight against both. In October 1656, the Russians sent a new embassy with Afanasy Sartakov and K. Kapustin, but Khan Koka did not accept it, and did not even let it into Urga, conveying through the bailiff Kurumsha “and there is nothing to talk about with you, because from Tomskovo Koke gifts They didn’t send it.” Having held the ambassadors for “two weeks or more,” Koka, confident in his strength, invited the servicemen to fight with him - “I live on Meret.” (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, p. 20, 94-95).

At this time, the khan negotiates with Maychyk, khan of the Little Telenget Khanate, and the Kyrgyz Bashchilars. The negotiations were successful and at the beginning of 1657, Khan Koka again united the Greater and Lesser Telenget Uluses into one state. The unification of the Teleut princes could not please the Russians, and in March 1657 the Tomsk governors sent an embassy to the khan led by the boyar’s son Ivan Petrov. This time with a protest about the “provision of asylum” to Baschilar Maichyk. Petrov, referring to one of the clauses of the agreement “not to refer to traitors,” demanded that Koka expel Maichyk from his uluses. At the same time, a provocative proposal was made to Maichyk to exchange the Machikova yasyr family in Tomsk for amanats (which meant accepting citizenship), but he did not agree, and it was not possible to quarrel between the princes. The Russians send the next embassy to the princes, headed by T. Putimets, who suggested that the princes, to ensure their loyalty, bring hostages to Tomsk, “and their yasyr will be given away to the wives and they will be timid.” Naturally, this ambassador also left with nothing.

The Russians began to strengthen. At the beginning of 1657, new forts were erected between Tomsk and Kuznetsk: Sosnovsky, Verkhotomsky, Mungatsky. Khan Koka considers these lands his own. On June 21 of the same year, he made a military campaign against the Tomsk district and destroyed the Sosnovsky fort. In the battle, the head of the Sosnovsky garrison, the boyar’s son R. Kopylov, and 6 servicemen were killed. The rest retreated under the protection of Tomsk. A threat looms over Tomsk again. The governors send a barrier to the south “for the unknown arrival” of the Teleuts. Along the entire border of the Russian kingdom and the Telenget Khanate, border skirmishes take place - small and larger. There is a relentless struggle for fishing grounds, “ruin is being caused,” horses and cattle are stolen, the Teleuts are taking refuge with the fugitive Chats, the Barabins.

On April 11, 1658, the Tomsk governors received a royal letter, dated December 2, 1657, with categorical demands in relations with the Telenget Ulus. On June 20, 1658, the embassy led by Dmitry Vyatkin finally finds Khan Koku. His large camp turns out to be on the left bank of the Ob. The next day, Vyatkin announces an ultimatum “to leave behind all untruths”..., as well as the tsar’s threat, in case of non-compliance, to “send to them from Kazan and from Astrakhan and from the Terek and from the Don and from distant rivers and from Siberia many of our military people with with fiery battle and a large outfit...". A serious threat, but six days later the khan faced a decisive battle with the Dzungar Oirats. Koka postponed the solution of the Russian question until the outcome of the battle and invited Vyatkin to take the latter with him to the battlefield. The ambassador protested, but “strongly” went with Khan Koka. Before the eyes of the Russian ambassador, the Telengets were defeated. The embassy was also damaged - one was killed, the other was wounded twice. (Zlatkin I.Ya. “History of the Dzungar Khanate”, M., 1964, p. 210). More than two weeks later, on July 14, 1658, Khan Koka proposed to Vyatkin a joint program of action to resolve the relationship between him and the Russians: first, an exchange of prisoners, then the resumption of a military-political alliance and sending ambassadors of the Telenget Khanate to Moscow. Khan Koka hoped that his ambassadors in Moscow would be able to obtain military assistance to fight the Dzungar khans. The governors of Tomsk were satisfied with the results of the embassy. On September 2, 1658, a large embassy headed by the boyar’s son Dmitry Kopylov arrived in Urga. Captured Telengets also arrived with the embassy. Khan Koka, the bashchilars Maychyk and Entugai, the best people of the Telenget Khanate shertovat (“drank gold”) about the renewal of the treaty of 1609.

On September 12, the embassy of the Telenget Khanate left for Moscow, consisting of the “best people” Mamrach, Kelker, Daichin, accompanied by Dmitry Vyatkin and the Cossacks. On December 30, the embassy arrived in Moscow, and a month later a reception took place in the Embassy Chamber of the Kremlin Palace. On the Russian side, negotiations were conducted by the head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, Almaz Ivanov, and clerk Efim Yuryev. And although de facto this meant recognition of the sovereignty of the Telenget Khanate, and the negotiations were held decorously, the ambassadors did not achieve the main goal - military support in the fight against the Dzungar Khanate. Moreover, upon the embassy’s arrival back in Tomsk, the letter of the Ambassadorial Order to the governors did not mention the issue of military assistance at all, but the king’s forgiveness of Koki and Machika, a “royal salary” to them and a mechanism for issuing it in exchange for amanats “from the direct wives of children” were spelled out. . This guaranteed the Teleuts “mercy” and “defense from enemies.” In fact, the Telengut princes were offered vassal service.

For some time, the Teleut mission to Moscow yielded positive results - the Oirats quieted down, military clashes between Russians and Teleuts stopped, Koka and Machik from the left bank of the Ob returned to Meret (three days from Tomsk), bargaining intensified, not only in Tomsk and Kuznetsk, but and in the uluses themselves, where merchants and servants came. In 1958, the Telenguts returned the Telyos to Altyn Lake, and they again began paying yasak to the royal treasury. In September 1659, Koka asked for military assistance to repel the raids of the Oirat taisha Sakyl Kulin - the Russian authorities refused him. In the voivode’s letter, the Ambassadorial Order dated September 14, it is written: “And we, your servants, without your sovereign’s decree, did not dare to send military men to the White Kalmyks because now the Nevo, Koki, has a quarrel with the black Kalmyks, and so that quarrels with them don't do it. And the messengers, sir, before us, your servants, verbally said that he, Koka, with those enemies of his, with the black Kalmyks, wants a manager. And the black Kalmyks, sir, have great uluses, and even so, your sovereign’s people never felt bad about them.” The issues of explaining dvoedants and general fishing fees in our Chernolesye (between the Berdi and Ini rivers) also remained acute and unresolved.

The dispute over lairs also flared up among the Teleuts themselves. In 1661-1662, a group of Teleuts, led by Prince Irka Udelekov, brothers Balyk, Bashlyk and Kochkanak Kozhanov, because of the “heart” for fishing grounds, migrated from the Iskitim River to the Tomsk fort. Single families of Teleuts (Koshpak (Koshnakai)) began to emigrate to the “white king” since the late 1620s. In 1650, in the first, Uskat group, their number was only “6 paying souls.” (B. O. Dolgikh, Clan and tribal composition of the peoples of Siberia in the 17th century. M., 1960. p. 106). In the yasak books of the 70s, the Russians called the Teleuts who fled from Koka “traveling white Kalmyks of the former departure,” then “the last departure.” They mostly roamed along the Tom and its tributaries. They settled near Tomsk and Kuznetsk, performed military “guard duty in border volosts,” received “sovereign salaries” and paid preferential yasak. The opinions of researchers vary regarding the time of departure and the number of “traveling Teleuts,” but it is clear that in comparison with the chats and Yeushtins who surrounded them, they constituted a small group, which was gradually replenished with prisoners and defectors. The governors in every possible way encouraged the acceptance of Russian citizenship by fugitive Telengets and their military service in the Tomsk and Kuznetsk forts. Requests for the extradition of defectors by the Russian authorities have always been rejected.

In 1661-1664, the Russians carried out the Chat colonization of Black Forest. Teleuts resist the settlement of chats on their lands as best they can - from disputes with the Russian authorities over their “traps” to simple horse theft. Already considering the Teleuts to be their subjects, the Russian authorities tried to prohibit them from taking tribute from their own Kyshtims. And judging by the complaints of the governors, the Teleuts “stole” again from 1662, driving away livestock from servicemen and beating all kinds of ranks and yasash people. Han Koku is again forced to abandon contractual obligations and curtail trade relations. The Russians begin open war. In 1663, the blacksmiths, under the command of the Pole R. Grozhevsky, went on a military campaign to the Meret River, where Urga Khan Koki was then located. A year later, the Tomsk governors march against the Telenget Khanate “in peace and army.” Khan Koka is again forced to conclude an agreement on peace and cooperation with another enemy of the Russian kingdom - the Dzungar Khan Sengi and retreat to the south, to the foothills of Altai. Koka moves Urga from Mereti to the left bank of the Ob. In 1663-1664, the Russians persuaded Khan Koki's nephew, Bashchilar Chatkara Torgoutov (Chotu Koroy), to commit treason. Koka demanded that the traitor be handed over. He was refused, but Chatkar, on the contrary, was given assistance in a military campaign against Koku and Maichyk.

In 1665-1669, the Teleuts continued baranta. In 1668, Kokin people ravaged the monastery village of Pachu near Tomsk. Around 1670 Coca dies. His eldest son Koki, Tabun, becomes the Khan of the Telenget Ulus. He continues to fight against the Oirat taisha Sakyl Kulin (the Russians are again denied help by the warriors) and against the colonialists. Leaving the pressing Oirats, the Herd with the uluses again crossed to the right bank, at the mouth of the Chumysh. After Senga’s death, Maychyk also migrated there, who, together with the Dzungar khan, was actively preparing a campaign near Kuznetsk. The herd again asks the Russians for “protection”, again receives a refusal and in the summer of 1671 “from the hearts that the great sovereign did not give him people... he sent his people to the district near Tomsk to fight.” The exchange of military campaigns takes place very actively - in 1672, the blacksmiths “beat the Telenguts Zamakhashka and with him 50 tents of people...”. Tomsk residents also “many times” “came in war” and killed “the best people of Udelei and Tuban and captured their wives and children.” (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, pp. 120-121).

In 1672, the Cossack foreman Mikhail Popov, the Cossack Evstafiy Savinov and the solicitor Afanasy Zubov announced in Moscow in the Siberian order that silver ore was found on Teleut land near Lake Teleskov. In the fall of 1673, the boyar’s son Savva Zhemotin and the clerk Ivan Losev were sent from Tobolsk “for a genuine visit to these places,” but the expedition did not take place and... the find was consigned to oblivion.

The tsarist government was interested in Teleut defectors, and in the fall of 1672, the senior Tomsk traveler, Balyk Kozhanov, was summoned to Moscow with petitions, where he received the highest audience of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. In 1673-1674, Kuznetsk servants bombarded the governor with petitions about the great grievances perpetrated by the bandits of the “Tabunkov People” of Vaska Krivoy and Ivan Biy. “They set fire, burned, beat, drove away...” In 1673, Tomsk residents launched a campaign against Chumysh, where they beat Builachak and the “little people.” In May 1673, “traveling Teleuts” - Prince Irka Udelekov and Baskaul - fled from the Russians, “from the troubles of the vod” to the Oirats. Voivode Dmitry Baryatinsky sends Roman Starkov after him. Kozhanov, who had returned from Moscow, also spoke with him. Starkov caught up with the fugitives beyond the Ob River, near the Ileus River, seven days' journey from Tomsk; they beat many and captured Sham, the son of Prince Udelekov. The rest managed to take refuge in the depths of the “Teleut land”. “Traveling Teleuts”, for their faithful service as mounted Cossacks, receive meadows and vast pastures for eternal use.

On June 3 of the same year, a large detachment of Teleuts ravaged the Kuznetsk district, the village of Shebalina was burned, and the serviceman Tikhonov and his entire family were burned in the hut. The blacksmiths send a detachment of 250 people under the command of Ivan Bedar (Bedarev) in search of the “thieves’ Teleuts”. At the mouth of the Chumysh, the servicemen destroyed the ulus of Ivan Abakov, the men were killed and wounded, and their families (including the prince’s son Bol Ivanov) were taken away. In 1959, archaeologists discovered at the site of the battle (Lake Kokuyskoye) the remains of a ditch, a burnt gate and a palisade of the settlement. Umansky in his work “On the issue of dating and ethnicity of the Upper Ob settlements - “Kokuev”” (1972) believes that since 1621 there was a settlement of Khara-Khuly, which was later used by the Teleuts - Boydon in 1663 and Abakov in 1673.

Lake Kokuyskoye near the village of Ust-Chumysh

Then Tabun turns to Kegen-kutukhta for help and receives it. He concentrates his forces and prepares a big campaign against Kuznetsk. The Kersagalians Uruskai and his ulus man Melgeda reported the exile to Kuznetsk, for which they were killed by Tabun’s son-in-law, Kornai Taichi. The Kersagalians immediately avenged the death of their prince by attacking the Teleut-Oirat detachment of Koronai Taichi, killing two and wounding eight Oirats.

The proactive governor, in order to eliminate the threat and still return the traitorous Irka and Baskaul, in November sends a large detachment (250 people) under the command of Pospel Lavrov up the Ob, to the “Teleut Land”. Kozhanov’s “travelers” again come with him. Prince Tabun set out to meet the invasion, but was defeated, suffering significant losses. However, Lavrov’s detachment was not allowed into the depths of the Teleut land. And a month later, the detachments of Irka Udelekov and Ivan Biy again fought and burned villages up the Tom River. Rumors are being circulated again about preparations for war against Kuznetsk and Tomsk. In the spring of 1674, Baryatinsky sent Starkov’s detachment against the militant traitor Udelekov. Tabun again stood up for the fugitives, lost the battle again, losing “more than 400 people” (including the best people), “wives and children,” but the Cossacks turned back again. Historians mark this battle as the largest clash between Russians and Teleuts in the 17th century.

The Kozhanov Herds seriously offended them. And already on June 24, 1674, the treacherous Baskaul destroyed Tomsk villages and the “traveling” of the eldest of the brothers, Balyk Kozhanov. Balyk himself, his brothers and children were killed. And again Starkov catches up with the raiders at the crossing of the Tom, beats them (albeit with significant losses) and recaptures “their bellies, horses and all cattle.” In the fall, the Kersagalians again whisper to the Kuznetsk governor about the unification of Tabun, Maichyk and Abakov and the impending attack. But fears are in vain - Tabun and Maichyk move Urga to the south, to the area between the Aley and Chares rivers. The Russians were already much stronger, and this winter the Teleuts chose to intensify the collection of alman from their kyshtyms.

The struggle for Teleut “animals” intensified between the Berdi and Ini rivers, as well as on the Chumysh. Among the “last departure” are the Teleuts of the Kuznetsk group: Baskaul Mamrachev, Mamyt (Tabyt) Torgaev, Surnoyakov, Izybekov, Telemyshev. (Nikolai Torgaev. The history of the origin of the Torgaev surname, “Kuznetsky Worker.” 10/06/2011). Baskaul's father, Mamrach, headed the Telenget embassy to Moscow, and, probably, the strength of the stone city influenced his decision to transfer to Russian citizenship. Baskaul himself led the traveling Teleuts near Kuznetsk. The migrants ruled Chernolesye as if they were at home, and from time to time minor skirmishes and murders occurred between them and the “herd people.” The enmity between the Teleuts and the “immigrants” came to the fore in Teleut-Russian relations. The demands to extradite Kozhanov, Mamrach and others to Tabunu or to punish them with his own power were the main ones for the Russian embassies of 1672-1675. Relations were so tense that in May 1675 it again came to the murder of “Yzsechka and comrades” (Izsechka, Ilzek) from the embassy of I. Kulugachev. (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, pp. 126-128). Judging by the denunciations of the “travelers,” Tabun was again preparing a campaign against Tomsk and Kuznetsk. The anti-Russian coalition includes Tabun himself, Udelekov, Maichyk with his son Chaavaiko (Shaadai), the Karagai prince Kooken-Matur Sakylov, the traitor Tuduchka, who fled from Tobolsk, and others. Messengers were sent to the Oirat Matur-taisha. But the campaigns never took place; perhaps the informers were simply trying to get their money's worth on the "hot market."

On October 2, 1676, Kutuy, sent by Tabun to search for the traitor Mamrach, finally finds his son Baskaul in Berdsk-Insk Tavolgan with a group of fishermen from the “traveling Teleuts” and Russians. Baskaul Mamrachev then led the foothill Teleuts of Kuznetsk. In the shootout, Baskaul was killed. The raping of the heads of the Teleut “excursions”, albeit in a completely distorted heroic form, entered the folk legends and fairy tales of the Teleuts. They were recorded by Verbitsky, Kostrov, Potanin, Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky.

The murder of an important Russian subject caused a protest from Tomsk servicemen, who called on the governor to “humble Tabunka with war.” We prepared seriously. The son of the Kuznetsk governor Grigory Volkov was appointed commander of the army, the deployment of the troops was determined on the Bulahta river (Berdi basin), and the exit was by the first autumn route (when the river was filled, but the snow did not cover it). When the troops were already on the road for the third day, Baryatinsky recalled them back. He tried to play the “Dzungarian card.” Even earlier, with a request to calm the Teleuts, the governor turned to the ambassadors of Khan Kegen, who were trying to get a pass to travel to Moscow. On October 21, Ambassador Konzhin (Donzhin) brought news that Kegen allegedly promised the governor to “calm down the White Kalmyks.” But this did not bring any effect - until the end of the 70s, the Teleuts continued to raid Russian villages of the Tomsk district, Chat, Eushta camps and detachments transporting yasak and alman. Raids were carried out twice on the Verkhnetomsk fort, on the villages of the Sosnovsky fort, and on the Tagan River. Umansky calls the period of the 1670s the darkest time in the history of Teleut-Russian relations in the 17th century.

But the possibility of such a large campaign against the Teleut land was nevertheless perceived adequately by Tabun. Plus the threat from the struggle for power in Dzungaria, significant human and material losses from the clashes of the last decade. At the end of 1676, through the Azkeshtim people, having come to ransom Ivan Starchenko, captured by Kutuy in Tavolgan, Tabun sent a request for a “direct agreement” to Tomsk.

In 1677, the governor of Tomsk changed. Prince Pyotr Lukich Lvov refused to apply the intimidating policies of his predecessor, the “fierce governor” Prince Daniil Baryatinsky. In the fall, Lvov sent an embassy of I. Danilov to the Telenget Khanate, and at the end of the year, Vasily Bubenny. Tabun did not give Shert, but assured him of a “peaceful settlement.” The raids have noticeably declined. But in August 1679, two khans expressed a desire to give shert to the Russian Tsar: Tabun and the Oirat Kooken-Matur. Their ambassadors Baaran and Sebi, respectively, said that the Dzungarian contaishi Galdan Khan allegedly ordered this to be done. And he even punished “to give amanats in Tomsk.” In the fall of the same year, the Kyrgyz prince Shandy Senchikeyev encouraged Tabun from the “far too far away side to fight in the Tomsk district,” but he refused him. The Kyrgyz raid was repulsed by Starkov's detachment of 417 people. (Khromykh A.S. “Features of the external frontier in the south of central Siberia.” Minusinsk, 2007). The inspired governor equipped a solid embassy of 12 people, headed by the same Bubenny, to the Karagay and Teleut lands. With the order to accept extensive shert and take “direct” amanats. But either Prince Lvov did not understand the ambassadors, or he was simply deceived by the ambassadors or interpreters, but Tabun, enraged by the demands of the amanates, refused to sacrifice, took away the “royal salary” by force, and caused all sorts of inconvenience to the embassy. To demonstrate his determination, Tabun, in front of the ambassadors, personally went out to collect Albans from the Dvoedans of the Kuznetsk district.

Subsequently, through Galdan Khan, Tomsk still extracts from Tabun a promise not to send his people to Tomsk and Kuznetsk. In July 1680, in Urga of the Dzungarian kontaishi (beyond the Imel River), in the “judge's yurt”, a detailed complaint from Prince Lvov against the Teleuts and Kyrgyz, brought by the embassy of Grigory Pushin, was examined. The herd justified his actions by blaming the responsibility for them on the Russian side, and the khan’s zaisans “firmly ordered” the prince’s royal subjects “not to make any troubles.” On the way back, Tabun assured Pushchin of his peacefulness, escorted him to the Telenget border and provided him with “food” for Tomsk.

Baranta stopped and trade picked up. Contradictions persisted only in relation to defectors and double givers (the collection of almanas only intensified). When in 1682 Matur-taishi and Kooken-Matur went to Kuznetsk, Tomsk and their districts, they invited Tabun with them, but he refused and “didn’t want anything bad.” The next year, the embassy of Matvey Rzhitsky goes to Tabun with an offer of sherti, and a royal salary: a piece of cloth and a bucket of “Goryachev wine”. The herd refused. In November 1684, Rzhitsky’s message was repeated, and the result was repeated. In addition, Tabun put forward demands for land in Tavolgan, the issuance of “external Teleuts” and the transfer of Urga back to Meret. The first was formally satisfied, the second and third were not - Prince Andrei Koltsov-Mosalsky was inconveniently close proximity. On October 31, 1685, the governor makes the next attempt - the embassy of I. Verbitsky goes to the Teleuts. The parties haggled a fair amount - the ambassador lied that after issuing the “travelers” and migrating to Meret, the governor turned to Moscow, and Tabun kept promising to go to Galdan Khan to ask permission for wool to the king. But, having accepted the gifts “with honor,” the prince still promised not to go to war, not to beat or rob the yasash people, and not to take his tribute from them, and again expressed the desire “to be under the Tsar’s Majesty’s high hand ... on the Meret River.”

In 1686, Kooken Mathur approached Tabun about a joint military campaign against Tomsk and Kuznetsk, but “Tabun did not give him, Kokon, people and refused, but told him Kokon that there would be no quarrel with the government’s people.” In the spring of 1688, Khan Tabun refused to help the Dzungur Khan Galdan-Boshogt, who fought with the Buruts for dominance over Khalkha, thereby effectively declaring a break with the Oirats. Twelve years earlier, in 1676, Tabun had already refused to help Galdan (then Kegen-kutukhta) in the internecine struggle of the Western Mongols. Both then and now the Dzungars did not have the strength and ability to punish their outlying Kyshtyms. The Russians hastened to send as many as two embassies to Khan Tabun. In April 1688, an embassy headed by the boyar’s son Semyon Lavrov left Tomsk for the purpose of “calling him into citizenship” to Urga. Two months later, the embassy of Andrei Smetannikov and Ivan Bedarev arrived from Kuznetsk with the goal of “calling under the high sovereign’s hand into eternal servitude” on the terms of sending amanat and paying preferential yasak (1 fox per bow). Smetannikov was somewhat discouraged by Tabun’s harsh refusal to the Kuznetsk ambassadors, since a new, uncomplicated allied agreement had already been concluded by Lavrov’s embassy, ​​and the khan would not sacrifice “out of the blue.” Thus, after 25 years of military confrontation, an uncomplicated agreement on a military-political alliance between the Russian kingdom and the Telenget Khanate of 1609 was restored with an additional obligation on the part of Khan Tabun “not to go to war with Sarsky cities and districts and not to go to war with his children and brothers and nephews and ulus people.” do not send." This agreement is also important because Tabun gave the shert in full form for the first time, which he had evaded earlier, citing the fact that he was Galdan Khan’s kyshtym (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N. , 1980, p.152).

And yet, fearing the revenge of the Dzungars, Tabun continues to insist on the migration of the uluses back to Meret. In 1689, Khan Tabun sent his embassies to Tomsk twice - in March Sobaya Tyuryaev with Toyan Umraev and in December Nomoy Kireev. Tabun was interested in three main issues: guarantees from the Russian authorities that Khan would not attack Urga if the headquarters was moved to its original location on Meret; on the passage of the Telenget embassy to Moscow to consolidate the union at a higher level and on the extradition of fugitive subjects of the Telenget Khanate. In September 1690, Tabun received a positive response from the Tomsk governor Ivan Durnovo regarding the passage of the Telengeti embassy to Moscow, but without a decision to migrate to Meret, and without extraditing the fugitives. In this situation, Khan Tabun also refused to send an embassy to Moscow. And the number of traveling Teleuts increased by 1688. There were already 144 people, and they were led by Mamyt Torgayev, who was baptized and named Davyd. Traveling Teleut servicemen had to participate together with the Russians in military skirmishes against the Kyrgyz and Dzungars. Naturally, they suffered losses in killed and captured, and after the 90s their numbers dropped to 100, 75, and by 1703 to 63 people (Dolgikh B.O. “Clan and tribal composition of the peoples of Siberia in the 17th century,” M, 1960 . p.106).

Consolidation of the Russians and departure of the Telengits.

Nevertheless, for seven years, from 1688 to 1695, good relations existed between the neighbors, trade and cultural ties expanded and strengthened. The place of the “Kolmatsky trade” from Tomsk has moved to the boundary. The Russians began to move more actively to the south. Since 1695, after the founding of the village of Kruglikovo on the Iksa River, one by one the arable lands on the right bank rivers Oyash, Inya, Berd became black, and the villages of Pashkovo, Krasulino, Gutovo, and Morozovo appeared. Two years later, the village of Krivoshchekovo appears on the left bank, on the site of the future Novosibirsk. The dispute over fishing grounds continues. Tomsk traveling Teleuts Bobosh and Taulai “secretly devastated” the beaver tracts “up the Berda River.” Hiding of fugitive yasashs also occurs. In 1694-95, many conflicts arose in the barter trade due to direct deceptions of the Teleuts by Russian and Chat merchants; out of resentment “for their belly” the Teleuts robbed anyone they came across, even ambassadors. So, for the deception perpetrated by Ivan Shumilov, Matai Tabunov robs the embassy of Matvey Rzhitsky, returning from Karagai from Irka Udelov. The message of Kalina Grechaninov (Manuilov) and Alexei Kruglikov, which arrived at Tabun “with a reprimand for lies,” was also robbed, and with the threat of war against Tomsk. Later it turned out that the Bukharan merchants also started a “quarrel” in the Teleut village, that “without leave” they came here from Tara to trade “protected goods” - gunpowder and lead, and also talked about the Russians’ intention to “fight” Tabun.

In order to settle the outbreak of anti-Russian sentiments, to restore allied relations, governor Vasily Rzhevsky sends an embassy to Urga, headed by N. Prokofiev. Against the background of the Russian threat to “fight”, the embassy was more successful for the Russians than ever. “On January 6, 1696, Khan Tabun assumes the following additional, specific obligations: neither he himself, nor his children, nor his relatives will carry out military operations against Russian cities and districts; do not ruin or beat Russians and Yasash people; observe and act in accordance with the treaty of alliance concluded between the Russian Tsardom and the Telenget Khanate. A month later, upon returning from Karagai, the eldest son of Khan Tabun, Bashchi Shal Tabunov, brought a similar wool to the Russian ambassadors.” (Tengerekov I.S. “Telengets”, 2000). There's a funny thing about this shit. Russian governors were well aware of the impact on the loyalty of the other side of the “salary” of “hot wine”. So, at the last sherti of Khan Tabun, the “sovereign salary” was not enough for the late arrival of the khan’s son Shalu, who was a great lover of “hot wine.” And the ambassadors had to apologize profusely and promise him “salaries in the future.” Temptation won, and Shal gave the wool “dry”. The parties also agreed to exchange the “robber belly” and continue fair bargaining. Maichyk's son Baikon, who has just become head of the ulus after the death of his older brother Shaadai, also gives wool. With the Karagai prince Irka Udelov, who separated from the Machikov Ulus, the Russians by that time were also able to normalize relations.

The Teleut nomads moved further and further to the south. At the very end of the 17th century, the Herd roamed in northern Altai along the Boronoul, Kasmel and other rivers. Along Alei and Chares to Biya and Katun, the Maychikov uluses roamed. After Tabun's death in 1697, Shal became the last khan of the Telengeti state. In 1699, the Kyrgyz prince Korchin Erenyakov approached the Teleuts with a proposal for a joint campaign against Tomsk, but was refused. Having learned about this, the Tomsk governor Grigory Petrovo-Solovo sends the son of the boyar I. Yadlovsky and his comrades with a “reprimand” about relations and with an order to impose tribute on the Teleut princes. The ambassador receives a harsh refusal from Bazan Tabunov and Bacon Machikov: “We didn’t give our sheep to the great sovereign so that we could be given yasak.” (Umansky A.P. “Teleuts and Russians in the 17th-18th centuries”, N., 1980, p. 14).

Apparently, life was not sweet for those “going out”. In 1700, a group of Yasash “foreigners” fled from the Russians to the Telenguts with a large theft of cattle and horses. However, the following year, N. Prokofiev’s embassy agreed that “those thieves in Tomsk would be expelled.” In 1702, the “traveling Teleuts” asked the tsar to collect yasak from the serving Teleuts, for which Davyd Torgayev (after the death of Baskaul, who became the head of the ulus), Kulcheman Sarchin and Piglet Bekhtuchakov went to Moscow with a petition. Their petition did not receive satisfaction - the yasak, although preferential, was not collected from them. After 1703, from the ulus of the Uskat Teleuts of Davyd Torgayev, the ulus of Sartaev and Vaska Porosenkov was separated. Some Teleuts moved to the Bachat River, where the core of the modern Teleut people gradually formed. Over the next two centuries, living mainly among the Chats and Ueshtins, the Teleuts adopted their language, culture, religion and became Tatars. (Verbitsky V.I. “Altai foreigners”, M. 1893, pp. 121-122).

Over the next years, the Russians will overrun individual Teleut “kibitas,” and here and there military skirmishes take place between the parties. The last Russian embassy to the Telengets was sent in 1705. Nothing is known about his goals, but perhaps the subsequent conclusion by Khan Shalom Tabunov of an agreement on a military-political union with Dzungaria is connected with him.

In the south, the Dzungarian Ulus entered its heyday. In the internecine struggle for the khan's throne, Tsevan Rabdan finally wins. In 1703, Khan Tsevan Rabdan completely conquered the Kyrgyz, whom he resettled from the Yenisei deep into the Dzungarian Ulus into the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan. After the conclusion of the Teleut-Dzungar treaty, Khan Shal placed part of the Telenget troops at the disposal of Khan Tsevan Rabdan. Khan Tsevan Rabdan initially uses them to guard his headquarters, located in the Ili Valley. “So, for example, in 1707, during the attack of the enemies of the Dzungar Khan on his Urga, out of 700 people of the Yenisei Kyrgyz and Teleuts, taken to Urga for caution from the Buruts,” the vast majority were killed, in particular, 30 people remained from the Teleuts at the head with Matai Tabunov."

After 1710, the Telenget Ulus turned into a vassal of Dzungaria in Southern Siberia. The Mundus bashchilars with their military squads participate in Albanian gatherings and in military expeditions of the Dzungars. But this is the history of Kuzbass, Altai, northeastern Kazakhstan and the Teleuts themselves. Let us note only the most important further points.

The last diplomatic communication between representatives of the Telenget Ulus and the Russian Empire took place in 1715-1716. In 1714, the blacksmiths disrupted the Albanian collection from the Dvoedants in favor of Khan Tsevan Rabdan. When it was collected in the taiga regions of the Kuznetsk district by a detachment of the boyar's son Serebrennikov, the brother and son of the Telenget khan, Baygorok Tabunov and Chap Shalov, were captured. “News of grievances” writes that in 1715 “the mountain Telenguts, namely the Todoshev, Kiptsakov, Telioshev... having fought three times with an attack, they were brought by force into tributaries...”. (Samaev G.P. “Gorny Altai in the 17th-mid 19th centuries: problems of political history and annexation to Russia”, G-A., 1991, p. 78). In the spring of 1915, troops of the Oira taiji Cheren-Donduk, a cousin of Tsevan Rabdan, numbering 3,000 soldiers, entered the territory of the Telenget Ulus. Due to the replenishment of it by Telengets, Sayans, and Tochints, the army is quickly replenished to 7,000 people. Telenget Batu Nekerov comes to Kuznetsk. He conveys to governor Boris Sinyavin a written message from Taiji Cheren-Donduk, military leader Manzu Boydonov and Khan Shala Tabunov demanding the extradition of Baygorok, Chap and other captured Telengets and the threat of a military campaign against Kuznetsk. “If you want peace, give up my people; if you want a warrior, tell me.” 15 days were given for a response. But a change in the situation in the west forced Cheren-Donduk to turn his army to the Irtysh and besiege a new Russian fortress near Lake Yamyshevskoye. (Tengerekov I.S. “Telengets”, 2000).

In September 1715, Telenget Khan Shal Tabunov wrote to Sinyavin: “The White Tsar and the two kontaishi live peacefully. Why did you and I win? Let's live peacefully - our hair will turn white. Let’s take up the iron and the bones will turn white.” And in the summer of 1716, Shal sent his ambassador to Kuznetsk, the Telenget Nomoy, whose son was also among the captives. The Khan sent a ransom for the captives. Voivode Sinyavin accepted the ransom, but never gave them to Nomoi. Moreover, for his “discourtesy,” Colonel Sinyavin ordered Ambassador Nomoy to be “shackled, placed in prison, and then sent to Tobolsk, and the governor appropriated ten of his horses.” “On his order, the Berd clerk Ivan Butkeev destroyed the Teleut yurts, while three were killed and two were wounded.” (“Monuments of Siberian history”, St. Petersburg, 1885, book 2, p. 298). That same summer, half of the Tomsk garrison, led by Alexei Kruglikov, was sent to Kuznetsk for service. This is how the last peace proposal to the Russians ended for the Telengets.

The first signs of unhindered penetration to the south, into the territory of the Teleuts, began to appear around 1713. In 1716, the Berdsky fort was founded on the southern bank of Berdi. It became the first surviving Russian fortification beyond the “Teleut boundary.” In 1717, the feudal state of Telenget Ulus ceased to exist. It became part of the Dzungar Khanate on a voluntary basis.

One fine day, Russian patrols went out into the steppe and did not find a single camp there. The main population of the Telenget Khanate, as before that of the Kyrgyz Khanate, since 1713, “on four thousand carts,” began to be resettled by the Dzungar Khan deep into their country beyond the Ili River. These were the descendants of the Mundus of Abak and Qashqai-Bura: Shal, Baygorok, Matai, Bazan, Koen, Zhiran, Manzu, Mogulan, Bekin, Batu-Menko, Mergen-Kashka, Angir, Mekei, along with their fellow tribesmen and ulus people. At first, Contaisha Tsevan Rabdan explained to the Russian ambassador, centurion Ivan Cheredov, that the Russian authorities “inflicted many insults on the Telenguts... and it became impossible for the Telenguts to live, and he did not even take the quarrels and the Telenguts to himself,” but a few years later he directly told another ambassador, Ivan Unkovsky, that took the Yenisei Kyrgyz and Teleuts to himself, “so that they would not leave him for the Russians.” (Samaev G.P. “Gorny Altai in the 17th-mid-19th centuries: problems of political history and accession to Russia”, G-A., 1991). After this, the “foreign campaign” began. Russian colonialists began to actively move along the Ob to the south of Siberia and build military fortifications to secure the lands of the former Telenget Khanate to Russia. Berdsky fortress, Beloyarsk fortress, Biysk fortress, Ust-Kamenogorsk fortress. There was no one left to attack the forts, although isolated military skirmishes continued for several more decades.

Here opens another page full of secrets in the history of the “development” of Siberia. Burogation - the plunder of pagan burials, has been practiced in the Irtysh region for a hundred years. After the huge territory left by the “White Kalmyks” was revealed to the Muscovites, the mounding reached its climax. The Ob region turned out to be full of untouched mounds, which were filled with gold and silver! As usual, officials immediately took the profitable business into their own hands. “The heads of the cities of Tara, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk, Isetsk and other places sent free detachments from local residents to explore these graves and made a condition with them that they must give up a certain or tenth part of the gold, silver, copper, stones, etc. they found ." writes the captured Swedish officer Philip Stralenberg, who was in Siberia at that time. Excavated treasures of high artistic level were sold for next to nothing, and gold and silver items were melted down. Grave gold and silver were used by almost all Siberian magistrates. In the capital's mansions of the then Siberian governor, Prince Matvey Gagarin, there were jewelry worth more than three million rubles (for comparison: the estimated cost of building and launching all Nevyanovsky factories in the Urals was 11,888 rubles). Enraged, Peter ordered Gagarin to be hanged as a warning and issued a decree according to which the excavated “antiquities” from precious metals were required to be surrendered to the state for a “plenty of money.” This was not the case - objects taken from the “mounds” began to end up almost exclusively in European collections. But bugging is not the topic of our research, so I will refer those interested to the note of journalist Fyodor Grigoriev, who examines this issue on the website http://n-vpered.ru/2011/02/09/bugrovanie.html, and to other sites: http: //www.metallsearch.ru/nenkladi/b36.html, http://www.vn.ru/index.php?id=103551 ...

For us, Siberian “antiquities” once again serve as proof of the former power and wealth of the state of the Telengets and other Siberian peoples. Some Teleuts (descendants of Bashchi Entugai) managed to get rid of forced relocation to the Dzungar regions. Some remained in the foothills of Altai, others left without permission to the right bank of the Ob and the southern part of the left bank. There they waited for the Russians. In 1756, the Dzungar Khanate was defeated by the Great Qing Empire. The winners carried out a real massacre. “The Mongol-Chinese exterminated everything living they encountered - they killed men, raped and tortured women, and smashed children’s heads against a stone or wall, burned houses, slaughtered livestock; they killed up to 1,000,000 Kalmyks..." (Potapov L.P. "Essays on the history of the Altaians", M-L., 1953, p. 179). Fleeing from genocide, and wanting to become Chinese subjects, the Telengets, back in August 1755, asked “to be accepted into the Russian Empire” (AVPR, f. 113, op. 113/1, d.4, 1755-1757, l. 48). Then the request remained unsatisfied. And only on June 21, 1756, in the Biysk fortress, the senior zaisans of the Telengets Buktush Kumekov and others voluntarily entered into citizenship of the Russian Empire ... and the next year almost all were deported to the Volga, where they dissolved in the Kalmyk environment and among other peoples of the Volga region.

This is the story of another indigenous population of the Novosibirsk region.

What did the Russian conquest give to Siberia? A little later, Europeans began to explore the New World. Over the years, they turned the new continent into a prosperous land. What did the aliens bring to the indigenous people of Siberia? The Siberian regionalist of the 19th century Nikolai Yadrintsev wrote that “the discovery of a new huge region like Siberia, having aroused Russian minds, at the same time most clearly revealed the mental impotence of the Russian people” (Yadrintsev N.M. “Siberia as a colony.” On the anniversary Tercentenary - St. Petersburg, 1882, pp. 228,444). How I would like these words to be refuted by real history.

More than a hundred years have passed. The phantom of Siberian statehood is on horseback again. Will Russia be able to change the situation?

Place of publication.

History of Siberia

Translation of the word Siberia into Russian means “you are the first or the main one.” Siberia from the name of the Shibir people, who are mentioned in one of the Mongol chronicles among the forest peoples who fell under the rule of the Mongol conquerors. Siberia comes from the name of the people who inhabited at the end of the 1st millennium BC. e. territory of the forest-steppe zone of Western Siberia. These were the ancestors of the ancient Ugrians - the Sipyr tribes.

Ancient historians about the peoples of North Asia

Herodotus in the 5th century. BC e. wrote about Scythia, referring to the steppe spaces between the Danube and Don. All Iranian-speaking peoples who came to the southern steppes of Eurasia to replace the Scythians received the common Greek name Sarmatians (the earlier name Sauromatians). Therefore, from the 1st century. BC e. the entire territory of Scythia on ancient maps is called Sarmatia.

The ancient Greek historian and geographer Strabo made a description of the ecumene based on a comparison of all the information known by his time. His work “Geography” in 17 books is the first experience of historical geography and a generalized summary of ancient knowledge. It reports only meager fragmentary facts about Northern Asia: it talks about a continuous series of mountain ranges dividing the continent of Asia into two parts along its entire length, from west to east, and hiding its North, where, according to ancient scientists, there was an immense snowy desert.

If we recall our Russian Vedas, what is striking is the fact that the Boreal Russians did not accept the Eurasian archanthrope.

All the heroic legends of the Boreal Russians tell of the cruel struggle of the grandchildren of the Gods with dog-headed cannibals.

Moreover, the bestial inhabitants of mountains, forests and fields are described in the legends of the Russians as cruel and evil opponents.

They kidnap women, eat human flesh, attack, as a rule, at night and in bad weather, they personify dark evil forces.

And therefore, in not a single narrative there is the slightest hint that there were any genetic connections between the dog-headed shaggy animal people and the Aryan Russians or Boreals.

For kidnapped women, dog heads were exterminated by entire tribes.

And no one was spared.

According to the Boreal Russians, it was necessary to clear the earth of beast-like animals. Animal people carried evil and cleansed the earth. It was a real war. A war that lasted for more than a millennium. But for science there is still an unsolvable mystery as to where the Neanderthals disappeared.

At the same time, for unknown reasons, the same Proto-Russians from Atlantis or Indo-European Russians, for some reason, began to mix with beast-like ones.

They began to mingle with the archanthrope immediately after their migration to the continent.

What made them do this is unclear, and it was they who subsequently occupied the territory of Europe and part of the Mediterranean territories.

This ancient psychotype, inherited by the Europeans, still conflicts with us, where it prevails, there is greater rejection of Russian culture.

Modern genetics and anthropology have long proven, even at the beginning of the 20th century, that most of the peoples of the Earth come from a mixture of Cro-Magnons and archanthropes.

It is believed in science that Indo-Europeans were mainly involved in this genetic mixing.

Obviously because their range was further south, precisely in those regions where archanthropes lived from time immemorial.

Well, in the north this mixture did not exist due to the fact that Neanderthals and Pithecanthropes lived there in insignificant numbers; they preferred a moderate, warm climate, without sudden changes in temperature.

The orthodox, as always, rejected the Vedas.

For them, Vedic legends are simply literary narratives, and they stubbornly do not realize that literary phrases are just a way of packaging sacred knowledge.

Now these “dog heads” live among us, they have undergone assimilation, for the most part they can no longer be distinguished from an ordinary person, but they can still be distinguished, they have a different psyche, they are predators.

They are generally aggressive, often in the ranks of the leaders of murderers and rapists, they are haunted by a thirst for profit, a craving for things, money, power, for the possession of which nothing will stop them.

They try to impose their worldview on others.

In their circle, honest people who stand for the truth and have moral qualities are usually called suckers, i.e. underdeveloped, those who can be easily deceived and our youth fall into these networks.

Such concepts as conscience, decency, compassion are unknown to them. In confronting this infection, we must raise our sons in our native historical spirit of protector-warrior.

In the mentality of Europeans with the genetics of an archanthrope, their minions and Russian people, conflict is inevitable.

Recent events in Ukraine clearly show this to us.

Europeans with this genotype are characterized by meanness; throughout their history they tried to enslave and colonize many peoples, killing millions for their own purposes.

A Russian person, due to his moral concepts, is not capable of this, but when “the knife is already put to the throat,” he sweeps away all enemies in his path, clearing the earth for the growth of a new generation, pure in soul and thoughts.

The latest events in the war of 1941-1945 also clearly show us this.

Decades after the war, the archanthropic European is again at our borders.

Destroying our moral foundations, he wants to colonize us, but if this happens, then this will be the last, furious and cruel resistance, and an unenviable fate awaits their minions and traitors.

In general, history repeats itself, and its lessons are not learned, because over time, the truth about it is hidden.

For a long time, there was an opinion among many Russian and foreign archaeologists and historians that before the arrival of Ermak, the diverse population of vast Siberia lived in primitive dwellings - tents and huts, completely unaware of the urban way of life.

However, research and discoveries made at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries somewhat shook this belief.

Research over the last hundred years has revealed many traces of a wide variety of tribes and peoples in Siberia, and not only in unexpected archaeological finds.

These are various paleotoponyms, linguistic convergences, direct indications of ancient authors in literary sources, ancient burials, rock carvings - (paintings, petroglyphs), various artifacts, ancient settlements, ancient Siberian runes on steles, etc., finally, these are ancient geographical maps.

Doctor of Historical Sciences V.E. Larichev in the article “Finds in Siberia” writes that in 1982 in the north of Khakassia, in the valley of the White Iyus, sanctuaries of the Bronze Age (mid-III-II millennium BC) were discovered, representing a stone observatory dating back to the Bronze Age .

As a result of research at the White Iyus Observatory, the conclusion was made: “... the people of the Bronze Age of Siberia had a perfectly developed lunar-solar calendar and were able to record time with exceptional accuracy throughout the day, weeks, months and years.” (Larichev V.E. “Island of the Purple Lizard”. M., 1984).

In ancient times, Siberians had lunar and solar calendars. The most ancient calendar was found by archaeologists in Siberia during excavations of the Achinsk settlement of the Old Stone Age. It is about 18 thousand years old.

Achinsk calendar rod

The general conclusion of the study of the Achinsk rod suggests that our ancestors, who lived in Siberia 18 thousand years ago, i.e. long before the formation of the Sumerian, Egyptian, Persian, Hindu and Chinese civilizations, they had a perfect lunar-solar calendar.

The found rod turned out to be the oldest calendar of Paleolithic man, with the help of which he could calculate the length of the lunar and solar years, as well as the duration of the annual rotation periods of the five planets - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

This calendar allowed the Siberian to accurately calculate the time of solar and lunar eclipses.

For the first time, the French aristocrat Count Arthur de Gobineau wrote in the mid-19th century that Siberia was the ancestral home of the Indo-European Aryans.

The Aryans left behind a powerful toponymic trace and the ruins of numerous cities. The last to leave Siberia were the Scythian Slavs, next to whom in Vasyugan (Western Siberia) lived the proto-Germans, known as the Goths.

22994 BC: Siberians on the Angara mastered the art.

2500 BC: Arkaim is the oldest city, the cultural center of the Slavs.

Young man from Arkaim (reconstruction)