CC BY
14
resources, one of the means of solving the problem could be the introduction of a simpler procedure of border crossing for people living in near-border districts.
Central Asian countries are not striving for close cooperation with one another to create a uniform economic, political and cultural area. They adhere to the principle of multi-vector geopolitics.
The newly-independent Central Asian states have not yet shown a desire for a compromise in the legal establishment of their state borders, although this problem is a crucial one, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of states and non-interference in their domestic affairs. It is also one of the barriers to such outside threats to national security as snuggling, international criminal activity, extremist and terrorist movements, and illegal migration.
2018.04.005. DENIS MALTSEV. HISTORICAL MYTHS OF THE COUNTRIES OF MIDDLE ASIA // "Moskva," Moscow, 2016, № 7, P. 161-181.
Keywords: mythologization of history, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, pan-Turkism, folk-histories, concept of "nomadic civilization," indigenous ethnos, "colonial period," 1916 uprising.
Denis Maltsev,
PhD(History),
Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
Countries that have gained independence use history as one of the main ideological tools within the framework of national and state construction throughout the Modern and Recent history. After the First World War, Turkey acts as an example close to Central Asia with its official historiography of Turanism (Pan-Turkism) and later the Turkish nationalism of Ataturk. In the second half of the 20th century, historical myths arose massively in
the course of colonization, with the aim of strengthening the emerging states and regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
During the 1990s and the beginning of the 21st century, the history of Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - was also mythologized. There was a pronounced tendency to embellish, idealize distant historical events, mythologize the ancient and medieval history of peoples Central Asia. The authors of many contemporary publications magnify the distant past of their people and, on the contrary, belittle the significance of the history of other peoples of the region. The true historical sources and scientific methods of research are ignored in this case.
Modern historical science in post-Soviet reality has experienced a crisis of changing methodological grounds. There was a reassessment of Marxist methodology, a transition from formational to civilizational periodization, familiarization with the methods developed by Western schools, and attempts to use them. These processes, which are typical for all CIS countries, have also affected the countries of Central Asia. Here there are processes of building state and national identity on a predominantly ethnic basis during the post-Soviet years. Each of the five states of the region has its own "indigenous" ethnos from the Soviet times. Their state ideology and practical internal policy are based precisely on this basis, directly affecting the historical consciousness of the Central Asian nations. In such political realities, the historical science of the republics came to mythologization and the artificial construction of history. The following methods, approaches and concepts were involved in this: the use of folk tales and legends as historical sources; propaganda of the greatness of the "golden age" of its people in antiquity and the Middle Ages, the artificial aging of its ethnonym (self-name) and statehood; the denial of the provision on the equal value of the contribution of all the peoples of the region to the development of the historical and cultural heritage; the theory of the "phenomenon" of an individual people, their ethnic selectivity
towards other peoples of the region; a comparatively controversial approach to history on the principle: which people are older, who founded the earliest states and cities; The use of history for the purposes of the current political situation.
Myths develop in two main directions: the deep antiquity of the "indigenous ethnos" and its statehood, as well as the absolutization of "the sufferings of the colonial period." The first theme in the ideological plan is to prove this republic superiority over other Central Asian republics, and the second justifies separation from the "Russian metropolis." But the states of Central Asia were unable to create full-fledged historical schools in the post-Soviet period and are forced to build their structures in many respects on the factual basis of Soviet historical science. The ancient history of Central Asia was not the main object for the construction of Soviet historical myths. It was based on easily verified data from annalistic and archaeological sources.
The ideas of the falsifiers of history, writing in the genre of the so-called folk-history, can be considered as popular science books for the people, which can create a strong historical myth combined with more balanced works of academic scholars. Target audience is invited to the so-called "scientific work" that distorts reality to the extent that this group is capable of distorting uncritically. For example, this is the concept of "nomadic civilization." Modern historians actively joined in the development of this idea, voiced by A. Toynbee, one of the founders of the civilizational approach, in the first half of the 20th century. A. Toynbee's formulation regarding the stagnation of the economy of nomadic unions, with a general lack of progress moving in a circle, is unacceptable for contemporary Central Asian historians. But with the presentation of Lev Gumilev, who wrote in the genre of historical journalism, a series of discussions was held on the nomadic civilization in the 70-80s of the 20th century, which made this concept acceptable in scientific circles. Even different directions and schools have been identified in the study of nomadic civilization. The existence of this civilization is virtually
unchallenged in academic circles already. This approach leads to the fact that all outstanding achievements of modern civilization are associated with nomads. This concept is popular among the descendants of the same nomads, and most of the Central Asian peoples belong to them. "Nomadic civilizations" in the territories of the former USSR were popularized by the works of Lev Gumilev, and one of his epigones was M. Adzhiev.
In Kazakhstan, scientists who adhere to the idea of "nomadic civilization" were involved in historical myth-making. E. Tursunov, a specialist in the mythology of ancient Turks, believes that Samarkand experienced periods of special prosperity precisely with nomads: with Ushans, Ephtalites, then with Turks. Kazakh archaeologist R. Ismagilov argues that the Turkic-speaking groups were found among the Scythian and Sak population, who lived in ancient times on the territory of Kazakhstan. This, in his opinion, is the direct ancestors of modern Kazakhs. But there is no evidence of this version. The idea of autochthonousness became the core of the state "Concept of the formation of historical consciousness in the Republic of Kazakhstan," which emphasized the direct continuity from the Andronov culture of the Bronze Age and the Saks to modern Kazakhs. According to the language, all these cultures were interpreted as "mostly Turkic-speaking."
The history of Turkmenistan is much more mythologized, where the "historical myth" was formed with the participation of Turkmen President S. Niyazov. He focused on the Seljuk roots of Turkmen statehood, which corresponded to the local folklore tradition that relates Turkmen to the ancestor Oguz-khan, the head of Oguz-Seljuks. A sort of competition of falsifiers was launched. The favorite of the "creation of history" was one of the advisers of President Niyazov - archaeologist O. Gundogdyev. He included the Medes, Scythians, Saks, Massagets and Parthians among the ancestors of the Turkmen, said that they were all Turkic-speaking. And he refreshed the old constructions of Turkish Pan-Turkists with new fantasies. In fact, this is the revival of an ideology based on the
Pan-Turkic theory of world development, as it was represented in Ottoman Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century.
Ch. Aitmatov, writer, and A. Akayev, the first president of Kyrgyzstan, played a key role in the historical myth-making of Kyrgyzstan. The idea of the Millennium celebration of the Manas epic belonged to the first of them, and the transformation of the content of the epic into a modern national ideology, and its use for popularization Kirghiz culture and history belonged to A. Akayev. "The Seven Commandments of Manas" were formulated on the basis of the materials of the epos "Manas," which were put in the basis of national ideology.
Speech of A. Akayev on August 31, 2003 at the II World Kurultai of Kirghiz became a landmark for the formation of the Kirghiz historical myth, where he presented a version of the Kyrgyz history since the Kyrgyz state in 201 BC. The Kyrgyz state in the Upper Yenisei appeared in the middle of the 1st century, according to his interpretation of history. He reported on receiving a gift from the Chinese leadership of new information about the Kyrgyz state of the era of the Kyrgyz Great Power, dated 843-845 years. Pro-Chinese historical myths ceased to exist after the removal of A. Akaev from power.
Ancient history was distorted in Uzbekistan relatively little. In Soviet times, the most popular approach was the approach based on the multicomponent composition of the peoples of the world, which indicated a long process of mixing local Aborigines, carriers of East Iranian languages, and foreign Turkic-speaking tribes. The result of this process was the formation of the ancestors of Uzbeks and Tajiks, according to Soviet authors. The tribes of the early Iron Age (Saks, Massagets and others), associated with the world of Iranian nomads, were called among the ancestors of the Uzbeks. In the second half of the 1990s Academician A. Askarov claimed that the Turks appeared on the territory of Uzbekistan at the end of the Bronze Age. Later, he made more specific statements, endowing the Turkic language of the creators of the Andropov culture of the late Bronze Age and the nomads of the early Iron Age. As the
researcher notes, all such conclusions were made in the context of polemics with Tajik specialists mainly. Uzbek scientists claim that the Turks live in Central Asia for at least 3,500 years and thus justify that they are "indigenous people."
The Tajik historical myth is different from the Turkic myths of this kind. Turkization of Tajiks was carried out for decades in Uzbekistan, their historical heritage was appropriated by Uzbeks. Today, Tajik intellectuals contrast this with the "Aryan spirit" of the Tajiks, emphasize their belonging to the European race, trying to build an insurmountable wall between themselves and the Uzbeks. In the early 2000s, these intellectual aspirations reached the authorities of Tajikistan, who were looking for a national idea. The first attempt to do so was made in October 1996, when the government of Tajikistan turned to the heritage of the Samanid dynasty for the first time. President E.Rahmon chose the folk etymology of the ethnonym "Tajik" from numerous hypotheses about the origin of this name, which erects the word "Tajik" to "hajj" ("crown"), and artificially linked it with the etymology of the word "Aryan." The word "Tajik" ("crowned," "noble family") is supposedly equivalent to the word "Aryan," which means "noble origin." And these Aryans-Tajiks are "the most ancient people of Central Asia." In this case, he does not give any reasoning, except for the etymological. According to E. Rahmon, all achievements of the ancient and early medieval periods of the history of Central Asia belong to the Tajiks.
Tajik historians present the Samanid state as the "highest point of Islamic civilization," developing creatively the ideas of their president. The combination of Samanid and Aryan historical myths gives the necessary antiquity of the ethnos for the heroic history, for the fixation of the appearance of the first representatives of a particular ethnos in this or that geographical region is an important feature that attests to the history of the people. In the case of Tajiks, there is a myth about "historical Tajikistan," covering the significant territories of modern Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan. It exists for at least 2500 years and was created by the Achaemenids, according to some Tajik authors. The Aryan civilization on the territory of the
so-called Ariana has an even more ancient origin, at the present time numbering about 8000 years. The myth of the Aryan civilization has become one of the key segments of the historical ideology of the Tajik regime, as well as one of the bases of its opposition to neighboring Uzbekistan.
A slightly different situation has arisen with the interpretation of the "colonial period" in comparison with the coverage of ancient history. The "atrocities of tsarism" in the conquest and management of the Central Asian territories were exaggerated and absolutized after Soviet historians. Conflicts were highlighted extremely unilaterally within the framework of Marxism and the class approach, where any speech against the central Russian government was viewed as "progressive," and all the activities of the Russian authorities in Central Asia were presented in a negative, "aggressive" way, considered through the Leninist concept of imperialism. Such Soviet concepts formed the basis for nationalist interpretations of the history of the countries in question. Post-Soviet historians had to place "necessary" accents, add the Soviet period of history to the "colonial" period.
History events related to Russia were presented to the mass consciousness of a number of newly created states as debatable, or even mostly conflict, after gaining independence. The situation in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan is most alarming in this regard. There are two historical issues that are painful for the local intelligentsia and national patriots: the problem of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan joining Russia and the uprising of 1916. The question of joining Russia is discussed in two aspects: was it necessary, was there an alternative, and also was it act voluntary? Historical interpretations are gradually shifting from the interpretation of the fact of joining Russia as a "voluntary entry into the composition of Russia" to the allegations that this was basically a forcible adherence. The work to discredit the policy of the Russian Empire in Central Asia, carried out by Soviet historians, played a role here. Local historians could only slightly increase the emphasis in describing the "colonial policy of tsarism." Joining Russia is assessed in both Kazakhstan
and Kyrgyzstan rather negatively. At best it is relied upon as a lesser evil. The entry of these countries into the EEU is unlikely to change anything in the already formed historical consciousness.
The situation with regard to the uprising of 1916 underwent significant changes. These changes are radical in Kyrgyzstan especially. If it was regarded as an element of the class struggle in the Soviet era, then in modern Kyrgyz historiography the issue of the insurrection is discussed in the pledge of the historical fault of Russia, and the insurrection is regarded as anti-Russian and even anti-Russian itself. Several scientific conferences were held on which the assessments of the events of 1916, which had already been given at the beginning of the last century, were recorded. However, then they were adjusted or ignored in the later Soviet period. These assessments were extremely ideologized and written from russophobic positions and were used as the basis for the modern view of Kyrgyz historians for the uprising.
The researcher concludes that the emergence of new states in Central Asia is accompanied by the creation of their national myths there, the most important component of which is the narrative of great ancestors. Such narrative is built on the model of national superiority. The place of the main hero of history is occupied by the local title people. Henceforth it is his ancestors, who are destined to perform great feats, create outstanding cultural achievements and influence the ancestors of those who dominated during the previous historical epoch, which they will certainly declare to be "colonial." The author concludes that the revived idea of pan-Turkism, spread among the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, presents a remote, but real, danger of the fall of these republics from the orbit of the civilizational influence of Russia.
Author of the abstract - Valentina Schensnovich
