CC BY
60
Due to separation of North region adjacent to Leningrad region into two Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions, the latter included the northeast and east districts with the Veps Soviet of Settlements (8,000 people) of Leningrad region in September 1937 [7, p. 13]. Vinnytsia district of Leningrad region was transformed from Vepsian (as “synthetically made”) into ordinary in 1938.
Hereby, we can come to the conclusion that the first phase of the Veps national renaissance was over. The federal authorities stopped supporting ethnic and cultural development of the Veps, as an ethnic group. Administrative and territory isolation of the Veps as well as the lack of transport communications linking territory units of the USSR (in particular between Leningrad and Vologda regions) resulted in further weakening of ethnic, cultural and language relations. New political situation created the necessary prerequisites allowing accelerate language and political assimilation of the Veps [7, p. 14].
Undeveloped road infrastructure on the territory of compact settlement of the Veps as well as federal approach to national minorities reasoned to carry out some reorgani-zational measures. Settlement consolidation campaign along with abolition of certain national unpromising communities happened to be one of the most negative trends in post war period. Following the tendency Sheltozersky district of Karelo-FinskaB SSR was abrogated in 1956; Vinnytsia district of Leningrad region was abrogated in 1963. The districts became part of other administrative units. As we mentioned above, those districts had never been Vepsian by the time of their abolition.
In the 1990s there was another wave of revival and strengthening processes of national identification of the Veps. That was the time when the plans to restore national status appeared. In fact, the official administrative status of national territory was attached to the area separated out of the Karelian Republic only There was the Veps national volost from 1994 till 2006. This territory is resided by the Northern (Lake Onega) Veps. The Oyat and Southern Veps, who used to inhabit the territories of Leningrad and Vologda regions, never obtained their national administrative units in the 1990s.
According to the data obtained in 2002, 59.1% of all the Veps resided the territory of the Karelian Republic (from the ethnic and cultural point of view, they could be referred to the northern (the Onega) group). Shokshinsky, Sheltozersky and Ryboretsky communities are the places of the
Veps residence in the Republic (since 2006 as the parts Onega cost district). In 2002, some 28.4% and 5.2% of all the Veps settled the area in Leningrad and Vologda regions respectively. Nowadays the residence of the Oyat and Southern Veps in Leningrad region is located in the four districts which are: Podporozhsky and Lodeynopol-sky (the Oyat Veps), Tikhvinsky and Boksitogorsky (the Southern Veps). The geography of these regions is in the watershed of the Veps upland (Oyat, Pasha, Kurba, Kolp and Lid river basins). These days very few of the Oyat Veps live in Vytegorsk and Babaevsk districts of Vologda region.
Today as a part of Leningrad region, Vinisk rural colony has appeared to be a municipal unit (the southeastern part of Podporozhsk district). We believe that it's reasonable to attach national official status to this municipal unit as it was done in the neighboring Karelian Republic in 1994, when the Veps national volost was established. This measure could hardly escape slowing down the assimilation processes, but will make possible to attract the ethnic representatives into local government, to preserve cultural traditions, infrastructure of healthcare and education.
1. См.: Голубева Л.А. К проблеме этногенеза вепсов // Древние славяне и их соседи. М., 1970. Р. 143 - 146; Ее же. Весь и славяне на Белом озере. X - XIII вв. М., 1973; Проблемы истории и культуры вепсской народности. Петрозаводск, 1989; Вепсы: история, культура и межэтнические контакты. Петрозаводск, 1999; Современная наука о вепсах: достижения и перспективы (памяти Н.И. Богданова). Петрозаводск, 2006.
2. Название данной этнолокальной группы происходит от гидронима - река Оять.
3. Прибалтийско-финские народы России. М., 2003.
4. Пименов В.В., Строгальщикова З.И. Вепсы: расселение, история, проблемы этнического развития // Проблемы истории и культуры вепсской народности. Петрозаводск, 1989.
5.Составлено на основе карты З.И. Строгальщиковой.
6. См. подроб.: Петухов А.В. Административная разобщенность - фактор ускорения ассимиляции вепсов // Проблемы истории и культуры вепсской народности. Петрозаводск, 1989.
7. См.: Вепсы: модели этнической мобилизации: сб. материалов и документов / под ред. Е.И. Климентьева, А.А. Ко-жанова, З.И. Строгальщиковой. Петрозаводск, 2007.
удк 94(47) I.G. Ibragimov
HEROIC RESISTANCE OF THE AGULS AGAINST IRANIAN CONQUEROR NADER SHAH in the first half of the 18th century
The paper deals with the period of resistance of people of Dagestan against the Iranian conqueror Nader Shah. The Aguls together with the people of Southern Dagestan put up considerable resistance to an ominous invader despite numerical superiority of the enemy. This event was reflected in folklore, legends and traditions of the Dagestan people.
Key words: revolt, domination, conquest, feudal possessors, destruction, liquidation, heroic resistance, legends, folklore.
И.Г. Ибрагимов
ИЗ ИСТОРИИ ГЕРОИЧЕСКОЙ БОРЬБЫ АГУЛОВ С ИРАНСКИМ ЗАВОЕВАТЕЛЕМ НАДИР-ШАХОМ в первой половине XVIII века
В статье рассматривается период борьбы народов Дагестана против иранского завоевателя Надир-шаха. Агулы вместе с народами Южного Дагестана оказали грозному завоевателю достойный отпор, несмотря на то что враг численно превосходил горцев. Это отразилось в фольклоре, легендах и преданиях народов Дагестана.
Ключевые слова: восстание, господство, завоевание, феодальные владетели, разрушение, истребление, героический отпор, предания, фольклор.
In the 1730s - 1740s Dagestan was occupied by the Iranian conqueror Nader Shah, whose campaigns had a negative influence on development of productive forces of the country. That period turned to be one of the most tragic periods in the life of the Dagestan people. The Dagestan people upheld the liberty and ethnic independence struggling against the conquerors. To cover the topi, we should consult papers of Dagestani authors who made a valuable contribution to study of mediaeval history and the Dagestan people struggle against foreign oppressors. Among these authors are R.M. Magomedova, V.G. Gadzhiev, P.A. Satavova, A.I. Tamai, Kh.Kh. Ramazanova, A.R. Shikh-saidova, B.G. Alieva, M-S. K. Umakhanova [1].
In January 1732 a peace treaty between Russia and Iran was signed in Rasht. According to the treaty the Persian provinces of Gilan, Mazandaran, and Astrabad were given back to Iran. The Russian troops were drawn off beyond the Kura River.
In 1734 the Goretz of Dagestan rebelled against the Persian forces. Nader Shah sent out a detachment to suppress the rebellion of the Dzharsky Lezgins and the Tavli-nets or the Goretz [2]. That year Nader Shah demanded from Turkish protwgM Surkhay Khan in Shemakha to clear Shirvan. But Surkhay Khan, holding sway over Shirvan, did not obey and killed Astafa Musy Talyshinsky who brought that order [3, p. 136].
In summer 1734 Nader Shah, being at the head of an enormous army, invaded Shirvan. A.K. Bakikhanov writes, “the Goretz and some Shirvans fortified their position in Midgi, three farsangs from Shemakha” [4, p. 138]. The Goretz under the command of Surkhay Khan accepted the battle in the tract of Deve-Batan situated between Shemakha and Kabala. The Goretz did not withstand the violent attack of the Persians and retreated. Nader Shah and his army numbered 12,000 men in a roundabout way set out to Dagestan to seize Kazi-Kumukh. Surkhay Khan outran the Quizilbashes and, moving along the shortest mountain path through Agul, reached the settlement of Khorsekh. Now it was Nader Shah's time to chase Surkhay Khan. But Nader Shah managed to overcome the distance for ten day's march. Professor VG. Gadzhiev writes, “It goes without saying that Nader Shah had to make forced stops as well, mostly due to resistance of the Goretz in rural settlements on the line of march” [5, p. 85]. It was really true. The Goretz put up the violent resistance to the conqueror, particularly the inhabitants of Mogu-Dere gorge, through which Nader Shah moved to Kazi-Kumukh. “Devastating everything on their way and having losses in killed and wounded, the Persian troops entered Kazi-Kumukh on August14, 1741” [6, p. 180]. Nader Shah cruelly suppressed the re-
sistance of the Goretz [7, p. 80]. By orders of Nader Shah the Quizilbashes on the line of march took infants and children all over the neighborhood and ran the cavalry through them before their parents' eyes and trampled them”. The notion “Shah-kerman” or “ threshing of Shah” is connected with the name of Nader Shah [8, p. 17]. Nader Shah got to the border of Lakia moving through dangerous Mogu-Dere gorge and the settlement of Tchyrak. When Nader Shah's forces left Kazi-Kumukh, they went through guerilla raids of the armed inhabitants. Patrol men were sent to find out about the strength of the retreating Persian troops. If they caught sight of enemies, patrol men gave notice to their brothers-in-arms. Then they chose the right time and attacked the Persian troops.
Embittered hordes of Nader Shah committed acts of violence in the settlements, killed hundreds of people, and destroyed houses. We can give a lot of examples when entire auls were mercilessly demolished. Nader Shah wrecked the settlement of Kokaz, situated in the middle course of the Kurah-chai River, the settlement of Kulardge in Koshansky magale, just because the inhabitants rose in arms against foreign oppressors [9].
Nader Shah's troops, having great difficulties and being attacked many times by the inhabitants of Lezgin, Agul, and Tabasaran settlements, reached Derbent. Punitive expeditions against rebellious residents were sent from Derbent to Tabasaran, Lezgin, Dargin, and Kumukh settlements. The people of Southern Dagestan suffered the greatest losses, in particular the Aguls, Lezgins, and Tabasa-rans. The Iranian invaders mercilessly looted local residents imposing big duties. The Tabasarans and Dokuz-parins paid 1,000 horses and a lot of amanats as a tribute to Nader Shah, who hoped to keep them from struggling against Persia [4, p. 199].
When Nader Shah was in the T rans-Caucasus, Crimean Khan on orders from Turkey carried out a raid on Dagestan. Surkhay Khan came down on the side of Crimean Khan. Having learned about it, Nader Shah started to prepare for the second campaign to Dagestan. To Nader Shah's order food for the Persian army was taken away from the inhabitants of Tabasaran magal of Dere. Nader Shah sent his son Reza Qoli Mirza from magal of Dere to magal of Shabran, while he went to magals of Eteg and Khinalarik to punish their rebellious inhabitants. The second detachment (6,000 soldiers) was sent to suppress insurrections of Dokuzparins and Akhtyparins. Nader Shah ordered the third detachment to go to the settlement of Kapir. Having ruined houses and killed most people, all three detachments of Nader Shah's army united in Lezgin village of Giliyar.
On November 11, 1735 Nader Shah went to Derbent. He set up a camp in the Northern part of Derbent. Nader Shah left a great number of soldiers in Dagestan to continue struggling against rebellious residents and returned to Persia.
In 1739 national struggle with foreign invaders came up with a bang. While Nader Shah was in India, Dzharo-Belokansk communities rebelled. The Persian troops were defeated utterly in the battle and their Commander-in-Chief (Nader Shah's brother Ebrahim Qoli) was killed. It was natural that “World Conqueror”, “Terror of the Universe” could not accept the situation and put up with the boldness of the Dagestan Goretz, who did not want to submit to the Persians. Nader Shah became more embittered when he learned about the death of his beloved brother Ebrahim Qoli. A Persian author, a contemporary of those events wrote, “the bud of heart of the shahriar was similar to a blood-stained and all in wounds tulip owing to sorrow and grief for his beloved brother He spent days and nights, thinking over his revenge and punishment for the Dagestan people” [10, p. 72]. When Nader Shah returned from India, he prepared thoroughly for his campaign to Dagestan. In summer 1741 Nader Shah, being at the head of one-hundred or one-hundred-fifty-thousand-strong (according to different resources) army, decided to strike a final blow for the rebellious Goretz and have done with them forever.
That time the Aguls had to experience Nader Shah’s savage malice. Nader Shah and his army moved along Mogu-Dere showing utmost cruelty. “The Lezgins, Tabasa-rans, Aguls, Rutuls as well as other tribes maintained obstinate resistance to the Persians as the book “Essays of the Southern Dagestan” says” [6, p. 178]. During the whole summer the Southern Dagestan people and other Goretz put up a reckless resistance to the troops of Nader Shah. Nader Shah fought back with relentless savageness. He ruined all the auls on his way, putting them to fire and sword. There were battles around the Samur River with the inhabitants of Lezgin alliances of rural communities close to Darvakh, in Kaitag, near Kazi-Kumukh. The Goretz heroically fought with good armed and trained troops of Nader Shah. Having occupied the mountain passageways around the Samur River, the Goretz made a desperate attempt to stop the Iranian troops. Enormous armed detachments of Goretz kept on arriving there at the call of the Dagestan leaders. Muhammad Kazim informed that the Dagestan leaders decided to block the gorge passageways and place the guards. When Nader Shah learned that Surkhay Khan was preparing to the battle, he “went from Samur-chai to Tchyrak” [10, p. 65 - 66]. Some feudal lords came obediently to that place. The Goretz, failed to resist numerous forces of Nader Shah, had to retreat after the fierce bloody battle.
In autumn 1741 Nader Shah's forces, pursuing the Goretz army, intruded into Andalal (mountain part of Avaria). There the united forces of Dagestan people gained an outstanding victory over the “invincible” Persian army. The defeated Persians, chased by the detachments of Goretz, retreated in confusion on the way through Kumukh -Khorsekh - Tchyrag - Richa - Kurakh - Derbent. Hardened by the defeat, the retreating forces of Nader Shah mercilessly annihilated everything on their way. They ruined a lot of Agul settlements, took many prisoners and cattle. The Aguls economy was heavily damaged. The auls
were completely destroyed. The fields were trampled down. Cattle were butchered.
In 1741, in his reports to the Foreign Affairs Ministry Board, the Russian resident in Iran I. Kalushkin wrote about evil deeds of the Persian troops in Dagestan. I. Kalushkin accompanied Nader Shah in the campaign and witnessed those events. He moved together with the main forces of Nader Shah through Southern Dagestan along Mogu-Dere. For example, he wrote,“To Nader Shah's order nobody remained alive, all people were cut on the spot” [11, p. 145]. By July 1741 all the settlements on the approaches to Kazi-Kumukh (Tpig, Fite, Usug, Richa, Tchyrag, etc.) were ravaged. But the inhabitants of the settlements did not give up. “The rivers filled with blood. The mountains turned colored scarlet bloody. The black gorges were spread with dead bodies. Glorious cities and auls were in ruins, where only crows nested. Once the flourishing land was devastated” [12, p. 178].
Though Nader Shah suffered a terrible defeat and had to retreat to Derbent, he did not drop the idea of conquering and punishing the Dagestans. Nader Shah started to prepare for a new campaign to Dagestan. With that end in view he began to build walls or strongholds. The fortress “Iran-Kharab” (“Downfall of Iran” [13, p. 324] or “Ruins of Iran” [3, p. 75]), strengthened with high ramparts and towers, was built in Utsmiate of Kaitag north of Derbent. There Nader Shah concentrated his main forces and led punitive expeditions to Southern Dagestan, destroying crops, capturing cattle, demolishing settlements, and exterminating rebels. The Southern Dagestan people were not alone in their struggle against the Quizilbashes. Muhammad Kazim writes, “A lot of Lezgins all over Dagestan came to help the Tabasarans. There were so many unmounted Lezgin riflemen who occupied the mountain and its slopes as well as the ground... The heated fight started. The Quizil-bashes did their best but could do nothing. The might of Lezgins grew step by step. Two armies did not spare each other all day long. There were great losses in dead among soldiers of both armies. But the Quizilbashes, many of whom were wounded, lost courage. They were surprised at the Lezgins fortitude and their thirst for victory” [10, p. 78].
We should mention that the Lezgins, Aguls, and Tabasarans were not on the defensive only but also attacked the camps and walls of the Quizilbashes. It worsened the conditions of the troops of Nader Shah in Dagestan. R.M. Ma-gomedov writes, “The flame of national uprising flared up in Dagestan. That uprising joined the ceaseless revolts against Shah in Georgia and Azerbaijan” [14, p. 178]. Small but mobile detachments of Goretz occasionally and suddenly attacked the Quizilbashes and their unit transports and terrorized the Persians. The guerilla war in Southern Dagestan, in which the Tabasarans, Aguls, Lezgins, Kaita-gians took part, continued without a break from 1734 till 1743 and demoralized the army of Nader Shah. P.G. Butk-ov writes: “Famine stuck Nader Shah's army. Camp followers produced katlamas (flat cakes) from dead human bodies and sold them” [15, p. 227].
Selfless struggle against the Persian invaders in the first half of the 18th century is widely reflected in folklore and traditions of the Aguls. Songs and legends, dealing with the struggle against Nader Shah, tell about freedom-loving heart of the Aguls and their hate towards invaders. That period events were so cruel and impressive that the Aguls still remember the evil deeds of Nader Shah's forces.
In conclusion, we would like to say that Nader Shah was decisively repulsed by the heroic Dagestan peoples. It made Nader Shah and his defeated, demoralized, and disorganized army retreat in disgrace. Starving and freezing they lost people and equipment at every step [16, p. 113]. Nader Shah, being in such insufferable conditions, had really nothing to do but withdraw his remained army from Dagestan, and, finally, did it in February 1743. The Goretz closely chased the Iranian army before the Samur River crossing. New campaigns of Nader Shah to Dagestan failed. The Dagestan peoples, including the Aguls, managed to resist and rout the army of “Terror of the Universe” despite of atrocities of outnumbered and perfectly armed enemy. Thus, the Dagestan peoples proved the Persian proverb: “If shah is a fool, let him go to war with the Lezgins” [17, p. 9].
1. См.: Магомедов P.M. Разгром войск персидского завоевателя Надир-шаха в горах Дагестана. Махачкала, 1940; Гаджиев В.Г. Разгром Надир-шаха в Дагестане. Махачкала, 1996; Сатавов П.А. Крах грозы вселенной. Махачкала, 2000; Тамай А.И. К вопросу о провале дагестанской кампании шаха Надира (1741-1743 гг.) // УЗ ИИЯЛ Дагфилиала АН СССР Махачкала, 1958; Рамазанов Х.Х., Шихсаидов А.Р. Очерки истории Южного Дагестана. Махачкала, 1964; Алиев Б.Г., Умаха-нов М-С.К. Союзы сельских общин в борьбе за независимость Дагестана в XVII - пер. пол. XVIII в. // Освободительная борьба народов Дагестана в эпоху средневековья. Махачкала, 1986.
2. Акты, собранные Кавказской археографической комиссией (АКАК). Т. 1. Док. № 6, 7.
3. История Дагестана. Махачкала, 1996.
4. Бакиханов А-К. Гюлистан и Ирам. Баку: «Элам», 1991.
5. Гаджиев В.Г. Разгром Надир-шаха в Дагестане. Махачкала, 1996.
6.Рамазанов Х.Х., Шихсаидов А.Р. Очерки истории Южного Дагестана. Махачкала, 1964.
7. Апкадари Г.Э. Асари - Дагестан. Махачкала, 1994.
8. Агулы. Махачкала, 1975.
9. Центральный государственный архив Республики Дагестан (ЦГА РД). Ф. 214. Оп. 1. Д. 2. Л. 3.
10. Козлов А.Н. Наме-йи аламара-йи Надири: Мухаммад-Казима о первом этапе подхода Надир-шаха на Табасаран // Освободительная борьба народов Дагестана в эпоху средневековья. Махачкала, 1986.
11. Арунова М.Р, Ашрафян К.З. Государство Надир-шаха Афшара. М., 1958.
12. Тамай А.И. К вопросу о провале дагестанской кампании шаха Надира (1741-1743 гг.) // УЗ ИИЯЛ Дагфилиала АН СССР Махачкала, 1958.
13. Гасанов М.Р. Из истории Табасарана XVIII - нач. XIX вв. Махачкала, 1978.
14. Магомедов Р.М. Разгром войск персидского завоевателя Надир-шаха в горах Дагестана. Махачкала, 1940.
15. Бутков П.Г Материалы для новой истории Кавказа с 1722 по 1803 гг.: в 3 ч. Ч. 1. СПб., 1869.
16. Левиатов В.Н. Очерки из истории Азербайджана в первой половине XVIII в. Баку, 1975.
17. Неверовский А.А. Краткий исторический взгляд на Северный и Средний Дагестан до уничтожения влияния лез-гинов на Закавказье. СПб., 1887.
удк 94(47) Yu. V. Ishchenko
PROBLEMS OF LABOR RESOURCES IN POST-WAR RURAL COMMUNITIES (based on the materials from the Saratov and Stalingrad regions)
The paper defines the state of labor resources in rural communities after the Great Patriotic War, examines demographic processes and results of the state policy aimed at developing human resources from rural population for the needs of the national economy. The analysis of labor resources structure in rural regions is given. The author identifies labor resources problems in the countryside which had become aggravated as a result of demographic, migratory and other processes in the second half of the 1940s - first half 1950s.
Key words: productive forces in rural areas, labor resources, demographic processes, migration, population, population size, birth rate, death rate, post-war years, gender and age structure, demobilization, natural increase, labor, organized set, collective farm, cultural and living conditions and safety arrangements, industry, educational institutions.
Ю.В. Ищенко
ПРОБЛЕМЫ ТРУДОВЫХ РЕСУРСОВ ПОСЛЕВОЕННОЙ ДЕРЕВНИ (на материалах Саратовской и Сталинградской областей)
В статье характеризуется состояние трудовых ресурсов села после Великой Отечественной войны, исследуются демографические процессы, результаты государственной политики, направленной на формирование рабочих кадров для народного хозяйства за счет сельского населения. Дается анализ структуры трудовых ресурсов села. Автор выявляет ряд проблем трудовых ресурсов сепа, обострившихся в результате демографических, миграционных и других процессов во второй половине 1940 - первой половине 1950-х гг.
Ключевые слова: производительные силы села, трудовые ресурсы, демографические процессы, миграция, население, численность, рождаемость, смертность, послевоенные годы, половозрастная структура, демобилизация, естественный прирост, рабочая сила, организованный набор, колхоз, культурно-бытовые условия и меры по охране труда, промышленность, учебные заведения.
From the second half of the 1940s up to the first half of es in rural areas on the basis of industrial and technical
the 1950s there was recovery and growth of productive forc- modernization which had been started in the prewar years.
