CC BY
1The History of the Chuvash People through the Eyes of an Ethnographer
Anton K. Salmin
Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography Russian Academy of Sciences. Saint Petersburg, Russia. Email: antsalmin[at]mail.ru ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1072-9933
Received: 13 December 2023 | Revised: 3 March 2024 | Accepted: 23 August 2024
Abstract
Ethnic history presupposes an interdisciplinary analysis of primary sources and basic publications on the subject. For this reason, the researcher must possess the skills not only of a historian; he is obliged to include the scholarly achievements in the study of ethnonyms, geography, genetics, anthropology, archeology, religion, ethnography, linguistics, art history, and folklore studies. In this instance, we turn our attention only to several fundamental characteristics and events in the traditional ethnography of the Chuvash people. The article covers the Caucasian, Volga-Don, and Middle Volga stages, according to the historical period in which the ancestors of the Chuvash were living. They are space-time boundaries in the history of the Chuvash. An interdisciplinary approach (history <-> ethnography) is used. The chronology of events extends from the 2nd to 10th centuries. At the same time, we try to trace the historical dynamics of one or another tendency. All of this should further the study of the ethnic history of one of the numerous peoples of the Russian Federa -tion.
Keywords
Ethnography; Chuvash History; Caucasus; Middle Volga Region; Space-Time Boundaries; Interdisciplinary Approach
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons "Attribution" 4.0 International License
История чувашского народа глазами этнографа
Салмин Антон Кириллович
Музей антропологии и этнографии имени Петра Великого (Кунсткамера) РАН. Санкт-Петербург, Россия. Email: antsalmin[ar]mail.ru ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1072-9933
Рукопись получена: 13 декабря 2023 | Пересмотрена: 3 марта 2024 | Принята: 23 августа 2024
Аннотация
Этническая история предполагает междисциплинарный анализ первоисточников и основных публикаций по теме. Поэтому исследователь должен владеть навыками не только историка, он обязан включить в свою работу научные достижения из области этнонимики, географии, генетики, антропологии, археологии, религии, этнографии, языкознания, искусствоведения и фольклористики. В этот раз обратим внимание только на некоторые основные положения, характеризующие традиционную этнографию чувашского народа. Соответственно историческим периодам, которые прошли предки чувашей, статья содержит кавказский, волго-донской и средневолжский разделы. Они являются пространственно-временными ориентирами в истории чувашей. Применяется междисциплинарный подход (история <-> этнография). Хронологический охват - со II по X в. Попытаемся при этом проследить историческую динамику тех или иных тенденций. Все это должно содействовать изучению этнической истории одного из многочисленных народов Российской Федерации.
Ключевые слова
этнография; история чувашского народа; Кавказ; Среднее Поволжье; пространственно-временные ориентиры; междисциплинарный подход
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons "Attribution" («Атрибуция») 4.0
Background
Today, many questions that were once problematic are no longer burning issues or have already been resolved (Salmin, 2016; 2020, pp. 523-532; 2022). For example, the fact that the Suvars of Volga Bulgaria mentioned by the Khazar ruler Joseph together with the Bulgars are in fact Savirs who lived in the Northern Caucasus is no longer open to doubt (Petrukhin, Raevskii, 2004, p. 230). Peter Golden also writes about the ethnic continuity of the Suvar of Volga Bulgaria with the Savirs. He asserts that the Suvars of the Northern Caucasus are definitely related directly to the Suvars/Suvaz, whom Ibn Fadlan encountered on the Volga (Golden, 2011, pp. 146-147). In scholarly research, a widely accepted thesis is that the "Suvars (Suvaz) were the underlying factor in the formation of the Chuvash people, and gave them their name" (Krasnov, 1974, p. 113). The ethnic lineage of Savirs ^ Suvars ^ Chuvash is also accepted. It has been proposed that the Khazars are also descendants of the Sabirs/Savirs (Budanova, 2000, p. 395). That view is not entirely unfounded either. According to another opinion, the Khazars were at the head of a reorganized union of the Savirs (Iskhakov & Izmailov, 2001, p. 53).
The Caucasian Period
The Savirs, like many other peoples, did not settle down in one place. Individual groups of Savirs dispersed, for various reasons, to all parts of the Caucasus. Thus, in the 6-7th centuries, the local inhabitants in Armenia called the Savirs, when they arrived there, the Sevordik people "Sevardicy." Some of the Savirs became Armenianized (Novoseltsev, 1990, p. 83).
Primary sources confuse the Savirs with the Huns and the Khazars. Thus, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, in the 43rd chapter of Book II of The History of the Country of Aluank (History of the Caucasian Albanians), says that the great, devout convert to Christianity prince Ilituer of the Huns despatched two noblemen of his country to Bishop Israel with the request to let him be appointed spiritual leader of the land of the Huns. From the 45th chapter, entitled "Reply to the Letter of the Huns," we learn that Eghiazar, Catholicos of the country, and Prince Varaz-Trdat, refused the ambassadors' request, as they were unwilling to give Israel up to be spiritual leader to the Khazars. In fact, the text is referring to the Savirs, the prince of whom at that moment (684) was Alp-Ilituer, and his people believed in the power of the god of lightning, Kuar. The Savirs were called the Huns because, at that time, the ethnonym "Hun" referred primarily to the Savirs. But the Huns and the Savirs were confused with the Khazars, because at that time the Savirs were already part of the Khazar Khanate. In 724, an Arabic source noted that the 300,000 warriors of Khakan consisted of "Khazars and other tribes of pagans" (Al-Kufi, 1981, p. 22). Of course "other tribes of pagans" was a veiled reference to the Savirs. The Turkic peoples did not call the Khazars "Sabirs" for nothing. Today, researchers are in agreement that the ethnonyms "Savirs/Sabirs" and "Khazars/Khazarans"
mentioned together serve as a "strong argument in favor of the closeness of these peoples" (Kalinina, 2015, p. 40). Besides this, the Savirs and the Khazars strengthened their ties through dynastic marriage. Thus, Alp-Ilituer, the Elteber of the Savirs, took as his wife the daughter of the Khazar khagan (Komar, 2013, p. 182).
Relations between the Hunno-Savirs and the Turkic-speakers in the Caucasus were not easy. Researchers think that with the arrival of Turkic tribes, some of the Hunno-Savirs were forced to leave for the mountains, where they banded together with local highland population (the Sarir, for example). The Hunno-Savirs themselves called this mountain country Tavyak "Mountain Side". The name Dag-i Stan (Dagestan) is a complete calque of the toponym Tavyak (Alikberov, 2010, pp. 45, 6). The name Tavyak corresponds to the Chuvash tav ayk(ki) "slope," "foot of the mountain" (literally, "mountain" + "slope"). Archeological material also provides evidence for the mass migration of some Huns (i.e., "Huns, who were called Savirs") to the mountains. Excavations on the territory of upland Balkaria have revealed a number of burials containing material traces characteristic of the Huns.
The Savirs were the dominant tribe in the Northern Caucasus steppe (Pilipchuk, 2019, p. 63-85). It has been observed that the name "Hunno-Savirs" encompassed the local (autochthonous) population of Northeastern Dagestan— ancestors of the modern inhabitants of Kayakentsky, Karbudakhkentsky, Kumtorkalinsky, Buinaksky and part of the Kaitaksky districts. After the expulsion of the Khazars from the territory of today's Dagestan by the Arabs, the Tersko-Sulaksky interfluvial area with the city of Semender was also taken up into the state of the Suvar-Zhidan. At the same time, one must agree with the opinion that "Hunno-Savir" is a collective or generalizing ethnonym (Fedorov-Guseynov, 2000, pp. 155-156). This view is very important and fully justified. For this reason, not only the Suvaro-Chuvash should be considered ethnic descendants of the Savirs, but also the inhabitants of the aforementioned districts of Dagestan, including the locality of the Shah-Senker archeological site (now Kayakentsky district of Dagestan). Nowadays, the Kumyks, as well as the Avar and Dargin peoples, primarily inhabit these parts.
Of course, the Hunno-Savirs are not Bulgars. It is impossible to agree with the claim that the Savirs, along with the Utrigurs and the Kutrigurs, formed the proto-Bulgar population (Botalov, 2007, p. 268).
In 555, the immediate neighbors of the Savirs were the tribes of Augars, Burgars, Kurtagars, Avars, Khazars, Dirmars, and others. The settled nature of the traditions of the indigenous population of Dagestan is also undeniable. In the fortified and non-fortified settlements, people pursued agriculture, animal husbandry, and various crafts and trades (Gmyrya, 1980a, p. 165). Entire amphitheaters of terraces descending the slopes of the mountains in gigantic steps can be seen in mountainous Dagestan to this day. The land between Bab al-Abwab and Semender was occupied by innumerable vineyards belonging to Semender (Al-Istakhri, 1901, p. 49). The Savirs, thus, grew grapes. Undoubtedly, the word
ugéM/ígém "grape, raisins," age-old among the Chuvash, was also current in the Caucasus. The name then spread among the Turkic colonizers as well.
Among the Circassians, by custom a family could not dispose of the harvested grain until a special prayer was performed by the hama umukho. Close relatives were invited to join in this ritual. After a feast the new grain could be used: eaten, sold, or given as a loan (Chursin, 1913, p. 57). The Abkhazians and other peoples of the Caucasus performed similar ceremonies. A comparable celebration among kinfolk on the occasion of starting to use the new harvest was also common among the Chuvash; it was called chükleme (Salmin, 2016, pp. 79-87).
The Volga-Don Interfluve
As research (first and foremost, archeological) has shown, the Suvars apparently did not practice farming per se in the Saltovo-Mayaki period. Most likely, they bought grain from others (they did, for example, mill flour at home). At the Chuguevka archeological site, there is no evidence of implements associated with agricultural production (plowing tools, hoes, sickles, or scythes). This is also the case with other early medieval sites in the Seversk-Donetsk region. It is likely that the fertile soil of the region allowed for the division of labor. This facilitated the development of craftsmanship and the exchange of goods. In this way, a "nest" of settlements took shape. In other words, towns merged with rural settlements in such a way that locating the boundary between them was impossible. For this reason, sprawling sites like Chuguevka are referred to in the literature as either "nests," or "proto-towns" (Svistun & Gorbanenko, 2011, pp. 39-40).
On the Middle Volga_
The inhabitants of the city of Suvar in Volga Bulgaria had a great amount of sown acreage and grain in abundance (Al-Muqaddasi, 1994, p. 289). In the 10th century, the population used sophisticated agricultural implements. The transition to actively tilling the soil required ironwork in large amounts (plowshares, blades, axes), which prompted the still greater development of metallurgy. The saban, a wooden plow of primitive construction with metal cutting edges, used by the Chuvash until the middle of the 20th century, was introduced in the cultivation of land in the 10th century. Its metal parts (the plowshare — téren; the blade — shart) can now be seen in museums. It is likely that this kind of implement appeared on the Middle Volga, since it was suited to hard soil. Most likely, the saban was employed in the region before the arrival of the Bulgars and the Suvars. Grain, meat, and millet were the basic everyday foodstuffs among the people of Volga Bulgaria. It was precisely with these that the four rulers greeted the embassy that arrived from Baghdad (Ibn Fadlan, 2016, p. 32). In the 11th and 12th centuries, for the ancestors of the Chuvash in the basin of the Cheremshan (a left-bank tributary of the Volga), millet and oats were the staple agricultural produce (Gazimzyanov &
Nabiullin, 2011, p. 22). In the 18th century, rye, oats, and spelt were most widely grown here. Linen and hemp were cultivated in the exact amounts needed. Buckwheat was not popular, and wheat was not grown very much (Lepexin, 1771, p. 144).
Squirrels and beavers were native to Volga Bulgaria. The locals traded the animal pelts (Ibn Sa'id, 2009, p. 32). At the beginning of the 16th century, Muscovy acquired fox fur and squirrel pelts from Siberia: "And those, which were most noble of all, are from Chuvashia, not far from Kazan" (Gerbershtejn, 1988, p. 129).
The ethnography of the layout of the dwelling allows us to follow the dynamic, determine historical neighbors, and analyze the transformation. For example, according Priscus, writing at the end of the first half of the 5th century, in the home of Attila "benches stood by the walls of the room" (Prisk, 1860, p. 67). A similar arrangement of long benches fashioned from floor planks running the whole length of a wall was characteristic of the Chuvash, especially in the southern districts of the republic. Store-bought, factory-made beds began replacing these kinds of massive benches, which also served as sleeping places, only in the late 20th century.
Agathias Scholasticus wrote about the temporary camps that were established by the Savirs: "Around 500 Savirs (ZafisiQuv) settled on some sort of elevation." The barriers around these temporary fortresses were low enough that it was possible to see the face of a mounted man immediately outside the palisade. The camp was an enclosure made of stakes, inside of which were "huts, built of stakes and skins" (Agathi, 1828, p. 180). Such settlements arose very quickly and consisted of tents on framework structures. The episode refers to events of the year 554 in Lazica (Western Georgia). The dwellings of the Hunno-Savirs had a lattice or wattle frame. They were covered with animal skins or felt, and the permanent or long-term structures were woven with rushes or daubed with clay. They are referred to in different ways in the literature: tents, canopies, or Turkic houses (Gmyrya, 1980, p. 9). In the Western Caucasus, archeologists find that dwellings with walls of daubed clay bear the impressions of sticks. The inhabitants seem to have erected light wattle structures and then coated them with clay. The local materials and climatic conditions facilitated this kind of building. It was still possible to see structures like this in the 19th century in Western Georgia, Abkhazia, and Adygei (Fedorov, 1983, p. 63). In the Hunno-Savir city of Varachan (the Shah-Senker arche-ological site), the fortification was a wooden paling. At Shah-Senker there are still vestiges of wattle covering. The place had dwellings "with plaited or raw earth walls" (Gadzhiev, 1995, p. 33). Such dwellings would later be widespread in sites belonging to the Saltovo-Mayaki culture. Similar structures were common in Volga Bulgaria from the 10th century onward. In the buildings in the city of Khulash, the walls were also "made as a framework support from wattle, daubed with clay" (Kakhovskiy & Smirnov, 1972, p. 21).
In 555, a Syrian source observed tent dwellings among the Savirs (Zakhariya, 2011, p. 595).
At the beginning of the 10th century, on the territory of what are now the southern districts of the Chuvash Republic, the Suvars had settlements in the form of a round fortress. The Suvars had already evolved the practice of building such places in the Caucasus. They very much resembled the Avar "khringi" with circular fortifications. The dwellings and other buildings in Khulash were packed closely together. In this respect, the site resembles southern settlements, Sarkel in particular. It is thought that in Khulash, dwellings may have been erected around the house of the head of the community (Kakhovskiy & Smirnov, 1972, pp. 10-11).
Dwellings discovered by archeologists in the city of Suvar were primarily of two types: either wattle and daub houses or wooden structures. Reconstructions allow us to imagine the typical layout. It was a building with an overall area of 7.1 by 7.2 meters, with wooden floors and a cellar around 70 cm deep, where grain was stored. Many such granaries have been unearthed in Suvar. Remnants of rotted oak have been found in several pits. This is evidence that the pit - and, possibly, the walls above - were lined with oaken boards. Traces of organic matter from cereals were also discovered. The stove was placed close to the wall. According to the description left by a traveler in the 19th century:
the Chuvash dwelling is a wooden hut with a span roof and small porch. It is separated into two halves by a corridor, to the left of which is a storeroom for grain, and to the right, a living room with an enormous Russian stove. Around the perimeter of the fenced rectangular farmyard stand barns, cow sheds and storerooms, and behind the huts are orchards. On the whole, the Chuvash farmstead resembles a Cheremis [Mari] farmstead . . . In this case, the benches and table in the big room were care -fully sanded smooth, and the walls scraped clean (Rabo, 2021, p. 84).
It should be noted these observations were made in the Upper Chuvash lands. The verbal pictures of official banquets on the occasion of a Byzantine embassy to Attila, the leader of the Huns, in the year 448, and to Almush, the ruler of the Volga Bulgaria, by an Arab mission in 922 are indisputably valuable. Of special interest is a comparative study of the feasting ceremonies. Priscus of Panium and later Ibn Fadlan described these. Both of them recorded what they saw with their own eyes. There is no reason not to believe their accounts. At the same time, Priscus's text is more detailed than Ibn Fadlan's.
Apart from stylistic nuances (Attila's simplicity and Almush's lavishness, etc.), both feasts followed the same scenario. In other words, at the court of Almush the same ritual was repeated as at that of the Huns five centuries earlier.
Traces of the feasting ceremonial witnessed by Priscus and Ibn Fadlan are clearly evident in the Chuvash tribal ritual meals chukleme and al valli (Salmin, 2016, pp. 79-87). The invited guests are seated at the table in the front corner. Here the preliminary part of the ritual is conducted. Women are allotted a certain place in the chukleme. The wife of the host, for example, repeats the same actions and words as her husband. In the ritual she is seated at the table after her spouse. Right away, beer in a large wooden vessel is placed on the table, and nine jugs are passed around. Each of the participants in the ritual must have food and drink
presented by the host. These serve as the official beginning to the ritual in general, and to the communal repast in particular. This share, received personally, is called al valli (literally, "for the hands," "in the hands"). Both those seated at the table, and the other participants face the door. At a wedding, prayer begins with the serving of beer from a freshly tapped barrel and bread. The head of the house or his wife passes each of those present a piece of bread and butter. Both the process itself (the ritual act) and the piece of bread received are called al valli. Everyone stands up, looks toward the slightly opened door, and holds the bread in their right hand. A candle is lit. First, they address Tura and Pulekh, then the other deities. They ask for health for the new couple, express the wish that they will have a whole floor full of lambs and a whole bench full of children. They also ask the divinity Tura for the opportunity to visit one another as guests. After this collective prayer and consumption of the pieces of bread and butter, the wedding ceremony is considered de facto to be over.
Researchers into the history of the ethnic structure of the Chuvash paid attention to the social term turkhan. P. K. Kokovtsev, A. P. Novoseltsev, V. I. Abaev, and A. V. Dybo consider it an Iranian borrowing (more precisely — Sogdian tr^'n). It indicated the notion of "judge" "translator," "title". Then the word made its way into the Khazar, Turkic, and Russian languages. Evidently it was used in combination with a personal name (like, for example, the Turkish title "pasha"). In Khazaria, the term indicated membership of some elite. It occurs as an anthroponym, the name of a group of people, neighborhoods and streets; it signifies a privileged class, the name of deities and spirits, toponyms, and heavenly bodies. In the Kazan province of imperial Russia there were fifteen populated areas with such a name. Of those, one was Tatar, one was Chermis, and the others were Chuvash. For this reason, it is thought that the social class of tarkhans consisted primarily of Chuvash (Artem'ev, 1866, p. LXXIV). In addition, they also existed in the Simbirsk province. In the modern-day Chuvash Republic, there are Turkhan-populated areas in Batyrevsk, Krasnochetaisk, Shumerlinsk, Tsivilsk, Morgaushsk, and other districts. R. G. Kuzeev noted that toponyms with the element tarkhan are widespread in almost all the territory to the west of the Altai and Central Asia: "Contacts between these formations could have occurred in the Northern Caucasus and the basin of the Sea of Azov, where ethnonymic parallels formed that were then transported to the Danube and the Volga" (Kuzeev, 2010, p. 323). And indeed, from Movses Kaghankatvatsi's History of the Country of Aghvank, we find that the Hunno-Savirs in the 7th century had the title Tarkhan (Kalankatuaci, 1984, p. 132).
The ceremonial rites of the peoples of the Caucasus and the Chuvash had much in common. For example, the same ritual actions occur among the Caucasian peoples and Chuvash in the rites "From the Eclipse of the Sun and Moon," and "Walking under the Rainbow"
Rites intended to induce rain are, as a rule, carried out near water. Researchers point to the semantics of the choice of locus. Thus, the Genukh (Dagestan) cut
the sacrificial sheep in such a way that the blood of the animal mixed into some nearby body of water (Rizakhanova, 2003, p. 80). The Chuvash carried out a similar ritual by a spring or a river (Salmin, 2016, p. 28). With the request to bring water down on the earth, the participants in the rite addressed the spirits of the ancestors: representatives walked to the cemetery and spilled water over several graves, supposing that it was the dead that were not allowing the rain to fall. Then the dead ancestors appeared to their children in dreams and complained: "While I was at the sowing, my house was flooded with water" Generally, water was poured on the graves of those who had died a wrongful or bad death (drunkards, victims of drowning or hanging). The burial mounds of sorcerers were also the targets of water-spilling. It was said that there was a small hole through which they came out. The sources of this rite seem to go back to the Caucasus. In the 7th century, a custom of pouring water on the grave of a famous personage was observed among the nomads of the Caspian Dagestan. In dry weather, they carried out a coffin containing bones and asked for rain over it. But the rite itself, with the use of relics of prominent people, had deeper traditions, in all likelihood, among the population of the Caspian region. Scholars believe that the rite is of local origin. In an earlier version, the corpse of a "stranger" was supposed to be buried in the earth (Gmyrya, 2009, p. 58-62). According to sources, during droughts, Baranjars dug up the bones of the Arab commander Salman Ibn Rabi'a and exposed them to the open sky. "Among the Svans, Karachaevans, Abkhazians, Circassians, and Russians of the Northern Caucasus, the immersion of bones of the dead in water was practiced until recently, with a magical purpose" (Genko, 1941, p. 101).
The majority of sources speak of the Chuvash holding weddings at the time of their movable summer festival honoring ancestors called s'imek ("semik," in Russian). "On 'semik whoever wished to would marry"; "And on 'semik' weddings made abundant noise," — we read in notes from the 19th and 20th centuries. "All" or "on the whole" — such claims regarding weddings on s'imek are encountered in an enormous amount of material to which the author has access. Some of the informants stress that all Chuvash (meaning those who adhere to ancestral traditions) weddings occurred on s'imek. There are only a few clarifications: after the completion of the sowing, at the same time as the young peoples' round dances, Vaia, on the day of s'imek, a day or two before s'imek or one day after s'imek or more vaguely — in summer.
Weddings might be held before the start of field work, more precisely, before haymaking. Indirect evidence of that fact could be found in popular sayings, such as "The stupidity of our father [is evident from that fact that] he marries off his daughter before the field work begins." Or: "Maidens incapable of working are given in marriage before the field work" (Ashmarin, 1929, p. 141).
We find a direct echo concerning the proper time for nuptials among the Danube Bulgars — the historical neighbors of the Chuvash in the Caucasus (Arnaudov, 1931, p. 9). Strict dates for holding weddings were steadfastly observed
in the districts of Macedonia and the northeastern part of Bulgaria. A specific day is even named: June 29. The Macedonian Bulgars considered the time between July 20 and August 15 to be the appointed period. The community conformed with the observance of traditions.
There is evidence that weddings were also celebrated at the beginning of winter. Of course, in this case economic considerations took priority: the harvest has been gathered in, the cattle have been fattened, and it is cheaper to lay on a feast. Nevertheless, Chuvash weddings at the end of autumn, the beginning of winter, and the middle of winter, are not common. "In the olden days, there were few Chuvash weddings in winter. If they did occur, they were marriage celebrations among the poor. Or those weddings that did without matchmaking," A. S. Semenov reported from the village of Novoe Aksubaevo in the Chistopolsky district of the Republic of Tatarstan in 1928. One might assume that instances of Chuvash weddings being held in the autumn and winter were influenced by Russian traditions. For example, in 1886, a pupil of the Simbirsk Chuvash School by the name of Yakov Egorov, from the village of Novye Atai in the Kumyshsk district of Simbirsk province, wrote: "If the Chuvash arrange a wedding, they do not hold it in winter, like the Russians. Weddings are always timed to be around s'imek, before the field work". In fact, Chuvash nuptials last exactly a week, but the preparations were carefully executed. The Chuvash call this period, literally, "the celebration of weddings". Among the Chuvash, according to extant sources, it always began on a Friday.
The ritual of the young bride walking to fetch water after the wedding night, accompanied by her new relatives, is similar, on the whole and in each detail, among certain peoples of the Caucasus and the Chuvash (Seferbekov, 2009, p. 145-146; Salmin, 2016, p. 166). The purpose of this ritual is to placate some water deity. In the rituals of the Vainakh, the Abkhazian-Adygeyan peoples, and the Dargins, the young bride strewed about a handful of grain in a spring as a gift to the divinity, then offered each person present a ladleful of water. The Kaitags poured water over the feet of the young bride. The Tabasarans in their ritual expressed the desire that she might bear seven sons. The Dagestan Azerbaijanis had similar rituals. Among the Chuvash, on the morning after the wedding, the young bride was supposed to go to fetch water. She did not go to the well, but to the river or to the nearest spring. Evidently, the well was considered to be "domesticated." The bride was accompanied by a woman, a little girl, youths, and maidens. Usually, she took pails on a yoke. By the water, the little girl or accompanying woman drew water two or three times, but each time the bride poured it out intentionally. Then she gave a ring to the little girl and with the words "I can do it myself," proceeded to draw water. She thus-paid for the water with the ring. At the same time, the bride was supposed to say: "I take water for the deity Tura, not for ourselves, the water is not for us" If she said: "For Tura," the deity who was in the water (Shyv turri), would not prevent her. If she failed to say this, the water deity would send a curse.
The Hunno-Savirs had the custom of burying the dead who died of natural causes in a coffin, while those who perished in battle were burned. For example,
Attila, who died at home, was buried in a coffin. The method used for cremation among the Chuvash was not observed and recorded; it does, however, lend itself to reconstruction. When speaking of a relative who died in war, the Chuvash would say: Tavranman, i.e. "He did not return." In other words, no physical remains were left of the body. Analogously, among the Hunno-Savirs the saying was "He flew away."
The tradition of burials in pits with a lining was characteristic of the flat regions of Dagestan in Hunnic times. Underneath a long wall, a pit was dug where the bodies, as well as their possessions and accoutrements, weapons, adornments, and earthenware were placed (Gmyrya, 1980a, pp. 167-169). It is evident that the burial pits of the Chuvash (Salmin, 2016, pp. 191-192) have a direct connection to Caucasian tradition. The bearers of the Saltov-Mayaki archeological culture (8th-9th centuries) buried their dead in pits with fewer grave goods. At the same time, their burial rites closely parallel the forms of interment practiced by the Volga Bulgars, and also in Danube Bolgaria (Pletneva, 1981, p. 70).
L. B. Gmyrya analyzes the peculiarity of the burial practices of the nomads of the Western Caspian which took the form of intentionally spoiling the decoration on a woman's costume, observed in materials of the Palasa-Syrt barrows of the 4th-5th centuries. The rite reflects notions of an opposition between the world of the living (middle world) and the world of dead tribal members (lower world). Researchers of the Palasa-Syrt burial ground note the shifting of the decoration from its original position. Such disturbances of the pattern or order of things are not the results of grave-robberies: "The manipulations of adornments of the dead were carried out in the burial chamber just before the interment, that is in the process of performing the burial rite, which allows these actions to be qualified as a ritual" (Gmyrya, 2015, p. 224). Archeologists (S.A. Yatsenko, A.V. Mastykova & L.B. Gmyrya) note intentional damage and deformation of objects accompanying the dead. Among the Chuvash, the shattering of pottery accompanying a dead relative during the funeral-requiem ritual bears a systematic character (Salmin, 2016, p. 96, 229, 576). For example, on the day when the final passage of the spirit from the body of a newly interred relative is considered to take place, utensils considered necessary in the other world (wooden buckets and ladles) are deliberately broken.
G. F. Miller described an interesting case, according to which the Chuvash and Mari, on the day of the final passage of the soul of the dead, drive two sticks into the ground in the farmyard -
and between them they stretch a thick rope and hang a large ring from it. Then all the young kinfolk, or the guests, without approaching closer than about ten paces, shoot arrows at the ring, and whoever is first to land an arrow in the ring takes the horse, which the deceased rode; if the deceased was a woman, he takes some other horse in full regalia, and rides at a gallop three times to the grave and back. Then, among the Cheremis at home, and among the Chuvash at the graveyard, in memory of the deceased, the horse is slaughtered, stewed and eaten (Miller, 1791, p. 79).
Vestiges of such ritual races were published in notes from the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. For example, upon returning from the graveyard, the rider who reaches home first is offered beer. Later, the sacrifice of the horse after its race was replaced by an act of gifting the animal that had belonged to the deceased to the one who raced to the graveyard and back. Later still, the practice was limited to the race itself. A truncated, "spoiled" variant of the motif of racing the deceased's horse may also be seen in the practice of sending one rider to the late relative's grave at the end of the funeral repast (Salmin, 2016, pp. 219-220).
According to the views of the Chuvash, the animal slaughtered for the funeral repast became part of the property of the deceased. Since there was no absolute death, the relative who passed on to the other world would use the same animals that were sacrificed in his or her honor. The traditions took into account the idea that in the other world a man would ride a horse, while a woman would need a cow or sheep. In Svanetia (Georgia), as late as the 1930s, a vestige of the practice of burying a dead man with his favorite horse still endured. When the deceased was being taken to his last rest, a rider galloped off and began to race at full speed through the surrounding area. The doomed horse was driven so hard that, upon reaching the grave, it dropped down dead. In other variants, the rider would not seek to ride the horse to death. Friends of the deceased sought to persuade the relative to spare the exhausted horse so that it might serve the descendants of the deceased (Shanshiev, 1931, p. 115). The primary significance of this ritual is the sanctioned passing on of the deceased's horse to the most deserving relative.
A week that lasts seven days was not necessarily common for all peoples. Among the African Yoruba people, for example, a "week" consists of five days, and among the ancestors of the Calabar, eight days. Among the Tatars, in the distant past, a week consisted of five days, and Wednesday was considered the middle of the week. This is analogous to the Russian (sreda, "Wednesday" < seredina = "middle") and the German Mittwoch. This parallels the practice of the Chuvash. It is well known that the Easter festival munkun lasts for five days, and, according to another source, a week. On the fifth — final — day, seren is performed, with the purpose of purification. Iun kun (Wednesday) — means, literally, "day of blood" i.e., "day of sacrifice and rest." This name was preserved among the Tatar-Kriashen, the Bashkirs, the Karaims, the Crimean Tatars (kan kun), as well as the Mari, the Mordvinians, the Udmurts (vur, viar, vir). Naturally, this concerns sacrifice on Wednesday among these peoples. Ethnographers do not dispute this (Salmin, 2016, pp. 414-419).
For comparison, the notions of the Ingush about time, and in particular about the week and the days of the week, are interesting. As scholars confirm, from time immemorial the Ingush kept track of the five days of the week by the number of digits on the hand. The names of most of the days of the week corresponded to the Ingush numbers with the addition of the suffix -ra, indicating the genitive
case: shi ^ shinara "second"; kkhob ^ kkha'ra "third." Specific beliefs were associated with each day. For example, Wednesday (ker-seli) the third day, is named in honor of the divinity Seli. On this day, i.e., the day of the deity of thunder and lightning, people avoided lending things and especially giving anyone fire (Akieva, 2016, p. 36, 40-41).
The Suvars had a very close relationship to the peoples around them. They developed common cultural traditions, particularly in costume. For example, "long rod-like toggles with little cubes on the ends and loops in the middle for sewing onto clothes" appeared on their dress (Fedorov, 1972, p. 37). This tradition can also be observed among the archeological sites of Volga Bulgaria. Materials from Palasa-Syrt burial mounds of the 4th-5th centuries, which belonged to the nomads of the Western Caspian region, include a rich collection of temple and breast ornaments made for women with a fairly high position in the hierarchy of the population (Gmyrya, 2014, pp. 37-38). All of them were taken over in the festive costume of the Chuvash in the form of surpan s'akki, khalkha s'akki and shyulkeme.
In the Volga region, the clothing and ornaments of the Chuvash continued Caucasian traditions; the influence of the eastern Finnish and Turkic worlds was also significant, however. Thus, chest ornamentation made from pieces of leather with clasps, and coins embroidered or affixed on them (prototypes of the modern surpan s'akki and shyulkeme Chuvash decorations) bore a strong resemblance to the pectoral decoration of the Erzyas and Mari peoples. Ornaments made from woolen plaits with tassels inserted into copper tubes (Chuvash khure) were close to the Mari bone ornamentation. When it comes to the leather caps decorated with coins, the khushpu and masmak, the headscarf, the surpan, and the sashes or cross belts, those have no analogies among the Mari and the Mordovians, but are uniquely Chuvash, originating in the Volga-Bulgar era (Krasnov, 2011, p. 272-273).
After the Mongol campaign against Volga Bulgaria, in the southeastern part of Chuvashia around 200 urban settlements and large villages were left in ashes. This whole territory turned into "wild expanses" roamed by the Nogai hordes. The surviving population moved closer to Kazan and to the northern regions of Chuvashia. As a result of the Mongol-Tatar genocide between the 13th century and the beginning of the 15th, only one-fifth of the populace remained alive to become ancestors of the Chuvash (Dimitriev, 1994, p. 27). The Black Death of 1340-50 inflicted terrible losses on the Suvar-Chuvash, as it did on the entire populace of the Volga basin. Those years led to depopulation, collapse of authority, anarchy, and the fall of the general culture. The claim made by Yulay Shamiloglu about the demise of the Volga-Bulgar language during the plague years (Shamiloglu, 2001, pp. 18-19) also holds true for the Suvar-Chuvash.
Частные вопросы российского фронтира | https://doi.org/10.46539/jfs.v9i4.561
Figure 1. A Chuvash woman in traditional dress [Georgi 1776, engraving No. 14]
The events of the year 922, which saw a major breach between Suvars and Bulgars over the adoption of Islam, with the former moving to the other side of the Volga, encouraged an upsurge of awareness of an identity as a separate people, although, later, differences between the northern and southern groups emerged. These distinctions, in the form of two cultures with basic dialects of forest and steppe Chuvash, have persisted in rudimentary form up until the present. They did not in any way prevent the emergence of a single ethnic group. The year 922 should be considered the beginning of the formation of the ancestors of the Chuvash as a people and the acquisition of their third homeland. The first homeland was part of the Khazar Khanate with the city of Varachan in the middle. The centers of the second homeland, around the Cheremshan and the northern territories of
Ulyanovsk region, were the city of Suvar and the Bilyar Fortress (895-922). The third was the Tigashi site on the right bank of the Volga, on the river Bula (after 922). The fourth capital (from 1236) was Veda Suar (Shupashkar, Cheboksary). The time between 922 and 1469 was the formative period for the Chuvash people and the establishment of their ethnic self-consciousness. At the same time, one must agree yet again with the opinion that the Savars/Savirs/Suvars composed the substratum for the formation of the modern Chuvash (Baskakov, 2008, p. 107). Speaking of events in the forest -steppe Volga region in the 13th to the 15th centuries, the archeologist Yu. A. Zeleneev considers that it was precisely in those years that the formation of the Chuvash ethnic group took place (Zeleneev, 2013, p. 42). What motives moved this people across its many centuries of existence and its complicated history is not a simple question. Indeed, the "momentum or drive of ethnicity resembles more a chain of ad hoc reactions, than a linear evolution, and its direction does not follow the zigzags of political history: the rise of ethnicity is often born out of political turmoil, and its fall occurs in a phase of social prosperity" (Golovnev, 2009, p. 120). Paradoxical, but true. One thing is clear: tribes and peoples live on as long as they do not lose their ethnic identity.
Conclusion
This article has analyzed the main positions taken by traditional ethnography of the Chuvash people in the Caucasus, in the Volga-Don Interfluve and in the Northern Volga region. The historical connections with the peoples of the Caucasus, the Bulgars, the Huns, and the Khazars, as well as the peoples of the Middle Volga (the Kazan Tatars, Mari, Erzyas, and the Moksha) have been examined. The year 922 was a pivot point and it positively impacted the rise of national consciousness in the history of the ancestors of the Chuvash. It is known that traditional culture, in a broad sense, preserves the vocabulary, etiquette, mentality, as well as the knowledge about living conditions, nourishment, clothing, religious rituals and beliefs of the ethnic group. All these primordial elements of culture in living existence and ways of life are now evident only among the non-baptised and non-Islamized Chuvash (primarily around Cheremshan). The research of their daily life promises the most fruitful scholarly and practical results. Thus, ethnographic data serve as an important support for studying the history of the Chuvash people.
Acknowledgments
The study was performed under the R&D plan of the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (the Kunstkamera) of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Factors of ethnocultural identity".
References
Agathiae, M. (1828). Historiarum libri quinque. Impensis Ed. Weberi. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112408681
Akieva, P. Kh. (2016). Arkhetipicheskoe v etnokul'ture ingushey (na materiale mifologii, nartskogo eposa i obryadov zhiznennogo tsikla). DD. IIAE DNTs RAN. (In Russian).
Al-Istakhri, A.-I. (1901). Kniga putey i tsarstv. Kantselyariya Glavnonachal'stvuyuschego grazhdanskoy chast'yu na Kavkaze. (In Russian).
Al-Kufi, A. M. (1981). Kniga zavoevaniy (izvlecheniya po istorii Azerbaydzhana VII-IX vv.). Elm. (In Russian).
Al-Mukaddasi. (1994). Luchshee razdelenie dlya poznaniya klimatov. Nauka. (In Russian).
Alikberov, A. K. (2010). Rannie khazari (do 652/653 g.), tyurki i Khazarskiy kaganat. In Khazari: Mif i istoriya (pp. 42-65). Mosti kul'turi; Gesharim. (In Russian).
Arnaudov, M. (1931). Ethnological and Folklore Studies. Part I. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publishing House. (In Bulgarian). (In Russian).
Artem'ev, A. [I.] (Ed.). (1866). Kazanskaya guberniya. Spisok naselennikh mest po svedeniyam 1859 goda. Tsentral'niy statisticheskiy komitet MVD. (In Russian).
Ashmarin, N. I. (1929). Slovar' chuvashskogo yazika. Vipusk IV. Narkompros ChASSR. (In Russian).
Baskakov, N. A. (2008). Tyurkskie yaziki. LKI. (In Russian).
Botalov, S. G. (2007). Gunni i tyurki (istoriko-arkheologicheskaya rekonstruktsiya). YuUF IIA UrO RAN. (In Russian).
Budanova, V. P. (2000). Varvarskiy mir epokhi Velikogo pereseleniya narodov. Nauka. (In Russian).
Chursin, G. F. (1913). Ocherki po etnologii Kavkaza. Tipografiya K. P. Kozlovskogo. (In Russian).
Dibo, A. V. (2006). Khronologiya tyurkskikh yazikov i lingvisticheskie kontakti rannikh tyurkov.
In Sravnitel'no-istoricheskaya grammatika tyurkskikh yazikov: Pratyurkskiy yazik-osnova. Kartina mira pratyurkskogo etnosa po dannim yazika (pp. 766-817). Nauka. (In Russian).
Dimitriev, V. D. (1994). Istoriya i natsional'nie problemi chuvashskogo naroda. Vestnik Chuvashskoy natsional'noy akademii, 2, 26-33. (In Russian).
Fyodorov-Guseynov, G. S. (2000). Gosudarstvennoe obrazovanie SuvarZhidan i ego rol' v istorii Yugo-Vostochnoy Evropi. In Kavkaz i stepnoy mir v drevnosti i srednie veka (pp. 155-162). IIAE DNTs RAN. (In Russian).
Fyodorov, Ya. A. (1972). Khazariya i Dagestan. V Kavkazskiy etnograficheskiy sbornik. Vipusk V (pp. 18-40). Nauka. (In Russian).
Fyodorov, Ya. A. (1983). Istoricheskaya etnografiya Severnogo Kavkaza. MGU. (In Russian).
Gadzhiev, M. S. (1995). O mestopolozhenii Varachana. Rossiyskaya arkheologiya, 2, 29-35. (In Russian).
Gazimzyanov, I. R., & Nabiullin, N. G. (2011). Antropologiya naseleniya Dzhuke-tau (po materialam Donaurovskogo nekropolya). Uchenie zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta, 153(3), 21-28. (In Russian).
Genko, A. N. (1941). Arabskiy yazik i kavkazovedenie. In Trudi Instituta vostokovedeniya: Vol. XXXVI (pp. 81-110). Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR. (In Russian).
Georgi, I. I. (1776). Izobrazhenie odezhd prinadlezhaschikh k Opisaniyu vsekh narodov, obre-
tayuschikhsya v Rossiyskoy imperiy. Sobranie 1. Artilleriyskiy i inzhenerno-kadetskiy korpus. (In Russian).
Gerbershteyn, S. (1988). Zapiski o Moskovii (A. V. Nazarenko, Trans.). MGU. (In Russian).
Gmirya, L. B. (1980a). Nekotorie svedeniya o gunnakh Dagestana. In Drevnie i srednevekovie arkheo-logicheskie pamyatniki Dagestana (pp. 153-169). IIYaL DF AN SSSR. (In Russian).
Gmirya, L. B. (1980b). «Tsarstvo gunnov» (savir) v Dagestane v IV-VII vv. IA AN SSSR. (In Russian).
Gmirya, L. B. (2014). Visochnie priveski kak sotsial'nie markeri u kochevnikov Zapadnogo Prikaspiya. Kratkie soobscheniya Instituta arkheologii, 234, 25-42. (In Russian).
Gmirya, L. B. (2015). Namerennoe iskazhenie ubora zhenskogo kostyuma v pogrebal'noy praktike kochevnikov Zapadnogo Prikaspiya. In Drevnie kul'ti, obryadi, rituali: Pamyatniki i praktika (pp. 194-228). ZKM. (In Russian).
Gmyrya, L. B. (2009). Peculiar Rite of Calling Rain in the Religious Practice of the Population of Littoral Dagestan (652/653). Bulletin of Hgher Education Institutes. Northern-Caucasus Region. Social Sciences, 3, 58-62. (In Russian).
Golden, P. B. (2011). Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes (Cätalin Hriban, Ed.). Editura Academiei Romane.
Golovnyov, A. V. (2009). Antropologiya dvizheniya: (Drevnosti Severnoy Evrazii). Volot. (In Russian).
Ibn Fadlan, A. (2016). Kniga (V. S. Kuleshov, Trans.). In Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana: Volzhskiy put' ot
Bagdada do Bulgara. Katalog vistavki (pp. 18-47). Izdatel'skiy dom Mardzhani. (In Russian).
Ibn Sa'id, al-M. (2009). Kniga rasprostraneniya zemli v dlinu i shirinu. In I. G. Konovalova (Ed.), Vostochnaya Evropa v sochineniyakh arabskikh geografov XIII-XIV vv.: Tekst. Perevod. Kommentariy (pp. 19-75). Vostochnaya literatura. (In Russian).
Iskhakov, D. M., & Izmaylov, I. L. (2001). Etnopoliticheskaya istoriya tatar v VI — pervoy chetverti XV v. In Tatars (pp. 41-100). Nauka. (In Russian).
Kakhovskiy, V. F., & Smirnov, A. P. (1972). Khulash. In Gorodische Khulash i pamyatniki srednevekov'ya Chuvashskogo Povolzh'ya (pp. 3-73). NII pri SM ChASSR. (In Russian).
Kalankatuatsi, M. (1984). Istoriya strani Aluank (v 3-kh knigakh) (Sh. V. Smbatyan, Trans.). Matenadaran. (In Russian).
Kalinina, T. M. (2015). Problemi istorii Khazarii (po dannim vostochnikh istochnikov). Russkiy fond sodeystviya obrazovaniyu i nauke. (In Russian).
Komar, A. V. (2013). Khazarskaya dilemma: Tyurki ili tele. In Tyurkologicheskiy sbornik: 2011-2012 (pp. 171-203). Nauka. (In Russian).
Krasnov, Yu. A. (1974). Problema proiskhozhdeniya chuvashskogo naroda v svete arkheologicheskikh dannikh. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, 3, 112-124. (In Russian).
Krasnov, Yu. A. (2011). Izbrannie trudi. IA RAN. (In Russian).
Kuzeev, R. G. (2010). Proiskhozhdenie bashkirskogo naroda: Etnicheskiy sostav, istoriya rasseleniya. AN RB. (In Russian).
Lepekhin, I. (1771). Dnevnie zapiski puteshestviya po raznim provintsiyam Rossiyskogo gosudarstva v 1768 i 1769 godu. Imperatorskaya AN. (In Russian).
Частные вопросы российского фронтира | https://doi.org/10.46539/jfs.v9i4.561
Miller, G. F. (1791). Opisanie zhivuschikh v Kazanskoy gubernii yazicheskikh narodov, yako to cheremis, chuvash i votyakov. Imperatorskaya AN. (In Russian).
Novosel'tsev, A. P. (1990). Khazarskoe gosudarstvo i ego rol' v istorii Vostochnoy Evropi i Kavkaza. Nauka. (In Russian).
Petrukhin, V. Ya., & Raevskiy, D. S. (2004). Ocherki istorii narodov Rossii v drevnosti i rannem sredn-evekov'e. Yaziki slavyanskoy kul'turi. (In Russian).
Pletnyova, S. A. (1981). Saltovo-mayatskaya kul'tura. In Stepi Evrazii v epokhu srednevekov'ya (pp. 62-74). Nauka. (In Russian).
Prisk, P. (1860). Skazaniya (G. S. Destunis, Trans.). Imperatorskaya AN. (In Russian).
Pylypchuk, Ya. V. (2019). Migrations of Oghur Tribes (V-Vii Centuries). Turkological Studies, 2(4), 63-85. (In Russian).
Rabo, Sh. (2021). Puteshestvie po Srednemu Povolzh'yu i Severu Rossii (I. V. Kuchumov, Ed.; A. Sh. Gubaydullina, Trans.). Aleteyya. (In Russian).
Rizakhanova, M. Sh. (2003). Agrarnie prazdniki i obryadi v traditsionnom bitu genukhtsev.
In Lavrovskie (sredneaziatskie) chteniya 2002-2003 gg (pp. 80-81). MAE RAN. (In Russian).
Salmin, A. (2020). The Beer Tradition of the Chuvash. Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 2, 523-532. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v15i2.8
Salmin, A. K. (2016). Prazdniki, obryadi i verovaniya chuvashskogo naroda (S. A. Arutyunov, Ed.). Chuvashskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo. (In Russian).
Salmin, A. K. (2022). Akademicheskie issledovaniya etnicheskoy samobitnosti chuvashskogo naroda. Nestor-Istoriya. (In Russian).
Seferbekov, R. I. (2009). Panteon yazicheskikh bozhestv narodov Dagestana (tipologiya, kharakteristika, personifikatsii). DINEM. (In Russian).
Shamil'oglu, Yu. (2001). Napravleniya v issledovanii Zolotoy Ordi. In Istochnikovedenie istorii Ulusa Dzhuchi (Zolotoy Ordi): Ot Kalki do Astrakhani. 1223-1556 (pp. 15-29). II AN RT. (In Russian).
Shanshiev, Z. (1931). Po Svanetii: Putevie ocherki. Zakkniga. (In Russian).
Svistun, G. E., & Gorbanenko, S. A. (2011). Potrebitel'skie predpochteniya produktov zemledeliya kak proyavlenie gradoobrazuyuschikh tendentsiy na primere Chuguevskogo gorodischa saltovo-mayatskogo vremeni. In Istoriya i arkheologiya vostochnoevropeyskoy derevni. Vipusk I (pp. 34-48). BGSKhA. (In Russian).
Zakhariya, R. (2011). Khronika. V N. V. Pigulevskaya (Ed.), Siriyskaya srednevekovaya istoriografiya. Issledovaniya i perevodi (pp. 570-597). Dmitriy Bulanin. (In Russian).
Zeleneev, Yu. A. (2013). Etnokul'turnaya istoriya Povolzhya v XII-XV vv. II AN RT. (In Russian).
Список литературы
Agathiae, M. (1828). Historiarum libri quinque. Impensis Ed. Weberi. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112408681
Golden, P. B. (2011). Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes (Catalin Hriban, Ed.). Editura Academiei Romane.
Salmin, A. (2020). The Beer Tradition of the Chuvash. Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 2, 523-532. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v15i2.8
Акиева, П. Х. (2016). Архетипическое в этнокультуре ингушей (на материале мифологии, нарт-ского эпоса и обрядов жизненного цикла). ДД ИИАЭ ДНЦ РАН.
Аликберов, А. К. (2010). Ранние хазары (до 652/653 г.), тюрки и Хазарский каганат. В Хазары: Миф и история (сс. 42-65). Мосты культуры; Gesharim.
Ал-Истахри, А.-И. (1901). Книга путей и царств. Канцелярия Главноначальствующего гражданской частью на Кавказе.
Ал-Куфи, А. М. (1981). Книга завоеваний (извлечения по истории Азербайджана VII-IX вв.). Элм.
Ал-Мукаддаси. (1994). Лучшее разделение для познания климатов. Наука.
Арнаудов, М. (1931). Българските сватбени обреди: Етноложки и фолклорни студии. Часть I. БАН. (На болгарском).
Артемьев, А. [И. ] (Ред.). (1866). Казанская губерния. Список населенных мест по сведениям 1859 года. Центральный статистический комитет МВД.
Ашмарин, Н. И. (1929). Словарь чувашского языка. Выпуск IV. Наркомпрос ЧАССР.
Баскаков, Н. А. (2008). Тюркские языки. ЛКИ.
Боталов, С. Г. (2007). Гунны и тюрки (историко-археологическая реконструкция). ЮУФ ИИА УрО РАН.
Буданова, В. П. (2000). Варварский мир эпохи Великого переселения народов. Наука.
Гаджиев, М. С. (1995). О местоположении Варачана. Российская археология, 2, 29-35.
Газимзянов, И. Р., & Набиуллин, Н. Г. (2011). Антропология населения Джуке-тау (по материалам Донауровского некрополя). Ученые записки Казанского университета, 153(3), 21-28.
Генко, А. Н. (1941). Арабский язык и кавказоведение. В Труды Института востоковедения: Т. XXXVI (сс. 81-110). Издательство АН СССР.
Георги, И. И. (1776). Изображение одежд принадлежащих к Описанию всех народов, обретающихся в Российской империй. Собрание 1. Артиллерийский и инженерно-кадетский корпус.
Герберштейн, С. (1988). Записки о Московии (А. В. Назаренко, Пер.). МГУ.
Гмыря, Л. Б. (1980a). Некоторые сведения о гуннах Дагестана. В Древние и средневековые археологические памятники Дагестана (сс. 153-169). ИИЯЛ ДФ АН СССР.
Гмыря, Л. Б. (1980b). «Царство гуннов» (савир) в Дагестане в IV-VII вв. ИА АН СССР.
Гмыря, Л. Б. (2009). «Диковинный» обряд вызова дождя в религиозной практике населения Прикаспийского Дагестана. Известия высших учебных заведений. Северо-Кавказский регион. Общественные науки, 3, 58-62.
Гмыря, Л. Б. (2014). Височные привески как социальные маркеры у кочевников Западного Прика-спия. Краткие сообщения Института археологии, 234, 25-42.
Гмыря, Л. Б. (2015). Намеренное искажение убора женского костюма в погребальной практике кочевников Западного Прикаспия. В Древние культы, обряды, ритуалы: Памятники и практика (сс. 194-228). ЗКМ.
Головнёв, А. В. (2009). Антропология движения: (Древности Северной Евразии). Волот.
Димитриев, В. Д. (1994). История и национальные проблемы чувашского народа. Вестник Чувашской национальной академии, 2, 26-33.
Дыбо, А. В. (2006). Хронология тюркских языков и лингвистические контакты ранних тюрков.
В Сравнительно-историческая грамматика тюркских языков: Пратюркский язык-основа. Картина мира пратюркского этноса по данным языка (сс. 766-817). Наука.
Захария, Р. (2011). Хроника. В Н. В. Пигулевская (Ред.), Сирийская средневековая историография. Исследования и переводы (сс. 570-597). Дмитрий Буланин.
Зеленеев, Ю. А. (2013). Этнокультурная история Поволжья в XII-XV вв. ИИ АН РТ.
Ибн Са'ид, ал-М. (2009). Книга распространения земли в длину и ширину. В И. Г. Коновалова (Ред.), Восточная Европа в сочинениях арабских географов XIII-XIV вв.: Текст. Перевод. Комментарий (сс. 19-75). Восточная литература.
Ибн Фадлан, А. (2016). Книга (Вяч. С. Кулешов, Пер.). В Путешествие Ибн Фадлана: Волжский
путь от Багдада до Булгара. Каталог выставки (сс. 18-47). Издательский дом Марджани.
Исхаков, Д. М., & Измайлов, И. Л. (2001). Этнополитическая история татар в VI — первой четверти XV в. В Татары (сс. 41-100). Наука.
Каланкатуаци, М. (1984). История страны Алуанк (в 3-х книгах) (Ш. В. Смбатян, Пер.). Матена-даран.
Калинина, Т. М. (2015). Проблемы истории Хазарии (по данным восточных источников). Русский фонд содействия образованию и науке.
Каховский, В. Ф., & Смирнов, А. П. (1972). Хулаш. В Городище Хулаш и памятники средневековья Чувашского Поволжья (сс. 3-73). НИИ при СМ ЧАССР.
Комар, А. В. (2013). Хазарская дилемма: Тюрки или теле. В Тюркологический сборник: 2011-2012 (сс. 171-203). Наука.
Краснов, Ю. А. (1974). Проблема происхождения чувашского народа в свете археологических данных. Советская археология, 3, 112-124.
Краснов, Ю. А. (2011). Избранные труды. ИА РАН.
Кузеев, Р. Г. (2010). Происхождение башкирского народа: Этнический состав, история расселения. АН РБ.
Лепехин, И. (1771). Дневные записки путешествия по разным провинциям Российского государства в 1768 и 1769 году. Императорская АН.
Миллер, Г. Ф. (1791). Описание живущих в Казанской губернии языческих народов, яко то черемис, чуваш и вотяков. Императорская АН.
Новосельцев, А. П. (1990). Хазарское государство и его роль в истории Восточной Европы и Кавказа. Наука.
Петрухин, В. Я., & Раевский, Д. С. (2004). Очерки истории народов России в древности и раннем средневековье. Языки славянской культуры.
Пилипчук, Я. В. (2019). Миграции огурских племен (V-VII вв.). Тюркологические исследования, 2(4), 63-85.
Плетнёва, С. А. (1981). Салтово-маяцкая культура. В Степи Евразии в эпоху средневековья (сс. 62-74). Наука.
Приск, П. (1860). Сказания (Г. С. Дестунис, Пер.). Императорская АН.
Рабо, Ш. (2021). Путешествие по Среднему Поволжью и Северу России (И. В. Кучумов, Ред.; А. Ш. Губайдуллина, Пер.). Алетейя.
Ризаханова, М. Ш. (2003). Аграрные праздники и обряды в традиционном быту генухцев. В Лавровские (среднеазиатские) чтения 2002-2003 гг (сс. 80-81). МАЭ РАН.
Салмин, А. К. (2016). Праздники, обряды и верования чувашского народа (С. А. Арутюнов, Ред.). Чувашское книжное издательство.
Салмин, А. К. (2022). Академические исследования этнической самобытности чувашского народа. Нестор-История.
Свистун, Г. Е., & Горбаненко, С. А. (2011). Потребительские предпочтения продуктов земледелия как проявление градообразующих тенденций на примере Чугуевского городища салтово-маяцкого времени. В История и археология восточноевропейской деревни. Выпуск I (сс. 34-48). БГСХА.
Сефербеков, Р. И. (2009). Пантеон языческих божеств народов Дагестана (типология, характеристика, персонификации). ДИНЭМ.
Фёдоров, Я. А. (1972). Хазария и Дагестан. В Кавказский этнографический сборник. Выпуск V (сс. 18-40). Наука.
Фёдоров, Я. А. (1983). Историческая этнография Северного Кавказа. МГУ.
Фёдоров-Гусейнов, Г. С. (2000). Государственное образование СуварЖидан и его роль в истории Юго-Восточной Европы. В Кавказ и степной мир в древности и средние века (сс. 155-162). ИИАЭ ДНЦ РАН.
Чурсин, Г. Ф. (1913). Очерки по этнологии Кавказа. Типография К. П. Козловского.
Шамильоглу, Ю. (2001). Направления в исследовании Золотой Орды. В Источниковедение истории Улуса Джучи (Золотой Орды): От Калки до Астрахани. 1223-1556 (сс. 15-29). ИИ АН РТ.
Шаншиев, З. (1931). По Сванетии: Путевые очерки. Заккнига.
