By
Gulnara Bekirova
The "Memorial" International Historical-Enlightment
and Human Rights Society
Moscow, Russia

The political action, which was defined by the Manifest on Annexation of Crimea to Russia on 8 April 1783, became the dramatic event in the history of the Crimean Tatar people. As a result of a long military confrontation between the Russian and Ottoman Empires which was accompanied by destructive campaigns of the Russian troops on the territory of the Crimean peninsula, the Crimean Khanate lost its independence, and Crimean Tatars were subjected to the colonial policy of the Russian state.

With the annexation of the Crimea, the Russian Empire liquidated the political institutions of the Crimean Tatars. At the same time, the role of traditional bodies of the Crimea Tatar religious and local self-government was significantly diminished. However, the most catastrophic consequence was a purposeful policy of the Russian state to displace the Crimean Tatars from their homeland and to resettle "liberated" lands by the colonists from inner regions of Russia as well as from other states, in particular the German principalities.

The aspects of the Russian dominance in Crimea were reflected in the large body of literature encompassing natural sciences, geography, statistics, history, as well as memoirs from the 19th century to the 1930s. This complex combination of evidence, fragmentary references, and stories has formed a mythology of the views on the Crimean Tatar people — the mythology that is not always accurate, and sometimes is full of downright lies.

Although this literature is huge, it has not been subjected to any serious historical scrutiny. There were so few historiographic studies that their review will not take a large part of our work.

One of the first attempts at such an analysis, and in our opinion a superficial one, was undertaken in 1856 by I. B-n [perhaps, Berezin - G.B.] in his short essay "Krym"[1]. The author describes a few studies of Crimea, mostly the popular scientific ones. He evaluates the sources very sharply and critically, yet not always in an order or in a logical manner. Besides, his analysis is very emotional to be considered scientific. However, his work deserves attention, being perhaps the earliest example because it initiated the historiograpical tradition in Crimean studies.

Two serious monographs on the history of the Crimean Tatar land ownership by G.F. Bliumenfeld (2) and F.F. Lashkov (3) constitute historiographical surveys aimed at presenting a level of understanding of the problem developed by the time of their writing. The historiographical essay in the book by Lashkov is more detailed and comprehensive, but it does not mention, in particular, the publication of the Special Commission on Vakuf of 1886, which was published in 1892 (4). On the whole, one gets the impression that this portion of the work is as an appendix to the main, historical, part. The article by E.I. Chernyshev (5), which was published in 1930, considers a historiography of the Crimean Tatar emigration in 1860. The author analyzes in detail the works by A.I. Markevich (6), A. Ozenbashly (7), S.A. Usov (8), touching mostly upon their interpretation of the reasons for emigrations.

However, in this article his criticism of his colleagues' arguments gradually turns into an evaluation of their ideological principles. In the context of E. Chernyshev 's party politics, S.A. Usov was "a mythological conservative", A. Ozenbashly "a nationalist", and A. Markevich "a great-power chauvinist." Analyzing the opinions of earlier authors through a prism of "the only correct" Marxist theory, E. Chernyshev apparently did not understand the narrowness of such an approach to evaluating the solutions of complicated and multi-aspect historical problems.

Concerning the most recent works, we can name a study on the history of the Crimean Tatar movement by M.N. Guboglo and S.M. Chervonnaya (9). These authors present a description of both Russian-language and foreign sources and a historical assessment of the issue. A concise and logical structure of their work allows us to follow dynamically the evolution of the opinions and positions on this subject. The analysis of the most serious books by foreign historians such as E. Allworth, A. Fisher (10), gives an additional value to this work. The publications in foreign languages, which have not been studied historiographically mentioned by the authors, have a bibliographical significance. This short review, which defined the general directions for historiographical analysis of the issue undoubtedly, can become the basis for a larger comprehensive study on the history of the Crimean Tatar National Movement.

These are the historiographical works related to the study of the history of the Crimean Tatars. However, there were no works of synthesis or works that would provide the "big picture" or attempt to describe the whole body of literature and to analyze its basic ideas and trends. One person cannot do such work, but this doesn't mean that no one should be doing it.

Let us outline, in general terms, how and under what historical conditions the historiographical body of research relating to the life of the Crimean Tatars since 1783, when Crimea was absorbed into Russia, was formed.

The scientific study of Crimea from the end of the 18th century necessarily involves, first of all, the issue of control of the new territory, including its natural wealth. The governmental interest stimulated interest of the first visitors to the Russian Crimea — state officials, diplomats, academics, and foreigners, who left numerous accounts of their visit to this land.

At the turn of the 19th centuries many of them tried to understand the ancient history of Crimea — P.S. Pallas (11), A. Narushevich (12), S. Sestrentsevich- Bogush (13); to register its geographical, natural, topographical features — K.I. Gablits (14), V. D. Zuyev (15), P.S. Pallas (16); and to study its archeological monuments — P.I. Keppen (17), I.M. Muravyev-Apostol (18), and N.A. Murzakevich (19). Such research was frequently carried out with the financial and other assistance from the Russian government.

The research on the new territory was accomplished on a private level as well, as reflected in numerous memoirs, most of them dating from the end of the 18th to the first half of 19th centuries — V. Bronevskiy (20), A. Demidov (21), P. Kleeman (22), B.A. Korf (23), E. Kraven (24), Ludolf de (25), Imperator Joseph II (26), Zh. Romm (27), Segur (28), and P. Sumarokov (29). Travel diaries, notes, and recollections of Crimea appeared in the following years, but they are perhaps more valuable for studying the evolution of the Russian society, the spiritual development of its intelligentsia.

The first attempts of A.A. Andrievskiy (30), M. Goldenberg (31), E. Gorchakova (32), V. H. Kondaraki (33), and F. Khartahay (34) to understand the history of Crimea and Crimean Tatars as people of Russia date to the second half of the 19th century. Significant, critical developments in the life of Tatars have prompted such studies. These developments such as the mass exodus of the Crimean Tatars and the 100th anniversary of the Russian annexation of the Crimea, which stimulated interest and had repercussions in the Russian social and literary life.

But it is obvious that the interest in Crimea or in its indigenous people during this period, was seesaw and sporadic. An eloquent proof of this is that the key Russian historians such as S.M. Solovyev and V.O. Kliuchevskiy remained indifferent to the history of the Crimean Tatars after the collapse of the Crimean Khanate in 1783. The same tendency can be found in later general works on the history of the 19th century, in which Crimea is mentioned only in terms of events most relevant to the history of Russia — V.N. Bochkarev (35), A.A. Kizeveter (36), and A.A. Kornilov (37), and in regard to formulating the eastern and national policies — S. Zhigarev (38), and P.N. Myliukov (39).

Nevertheless, in the latter half of the 19th century, owing to the efforts of local historians, such as F. F. Lashkov, F. Khartahay, A. I. Markevich, and V. H. Kondaraki, a number of issues in the history of Crimean Tatars such as emigrations, education, religion, spiritual life, and land issue, received deeper theoretical and scientific formulations, and their treatment became more pronounced. The publications of the Odessa Association of History and Antiquities of Black Sea Coast (since 1839) and the Tavricheskaya Scientific Archive Commission (since 1887), Zapiski OOID and Izvestiya TUAK respectively, reveal the extent of interest in local history and active research. In the latter half of the 19th century, the treasure house of Crimean studies was replenished by the significant works which were a result of the mushrooming statistical science — K.I. Verner (40), A.A. Skalkovskiy (41), and K.V. Khanazkiy (42); of ethnography and anthropology — P.I. Keppen (43), V.H. Kondaraki (44), K.S. Merezhkovskiy (45), and A.N. Kharuzin (46); and of the archeological works - F.K. Brun (47), Y.A. Kulakovskiy (48), V.G. Tizengauzen (49), A. Fabr (50), and K. Fomenko (51).

Towards the end of the 19th century, the emerging Crimean Tatar intelligentsia began to understand the mutual co-existence of Crimea and Russia, as reflected in works of I. Gasprinskiy (52), in which the idea of rapprochement of the Russian and Islamic worlds was neatly explored.

An important source, which reflected the evolution of spiritual life of the Russian Islam, was the newspaper Terjuman (Perevodchik), first published by I. Gasprinsky in 1883 in Bakhchisaray. Other attempts to publish similar publications for the Turkic people were undertaken previously. However, all of them (up to the revolution of 1905-1907) were short-lived, the publications were confiscated and closed. The Terjuman continued to be published until 1918, even after the death of Gasprinskiy in 1914. Besides, Gasprinsky also published the newspaper Millet [Nation] and the weekly journal for women Alemi nisvan [Women's world] in Bakhchisarai. (53)

The intensive and purposeful studying of culture, history, ethnography of the Crimean Tatar people, which began in the 1920s, nearly came to an end in the 1930s. In that period, the development of historical science in Crimea was practically ignored, and this subject requires separate research. Now it is absolutely clear that these two decades were fundamentally different. The 1920s was the period of active development of the Crimean studies, involving the best scholars of Crimea, Russia and Ukraine. In that period archeologist A.L. Bertie-Delagard, historians G.V. Vernadskyi and B.D. Grekov, who latter became an academician and the chair of the Crimean Central Archive in 1919; orientalists Y.I. Krachkovskiy and A.E. Krimskiy, and epigraphist O. Akchokrakly were affiliated with the Tavricheskaya scientific archival commission, which was established in 1887 and reorganized into Tavricheskaya Association of History, Archeology and Ethnography (TAHAE) in 1923. For many years, the chairman of this well-known center was the notable Crimean studies scholar A.I. Markevich, who became a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1927. In April 1930, the archeologist N.L. Ernst became the head of the commission.

New organizations, which considered as their main task the all-around research on Crimea were appearing as well. In October 1922, on the initiative of a number of well-known scientists and public figures — professor A.V. Zinger, physicians A.V. Kuznezov and A.A. Litkens, publicist and public figure E.D. Leytnekker — the constituent assembly of the Russian Association on Research of Crimea (RARC) was held in Moscow. At the end of 1924, the Leningrad branch of the RARC, headed by professor N.I. Kuznezov, was established. The other branches of the association were established in towns and settlements around Crimea and brought together about 900 scholars of Crimea. Between 1925 and 1929, the RARC published the scholarly travel journal Krym. A lot of popular articles on history, archeology, ethnography, geography and topics of local interest such as construction of health resorts appeared in the ten issues of this journal.

However, already at the end of the 1920s, a general change of policy in the Soviet historical science transformed the development of the Crimean studies in Crimea.

The trial of the group of historians headed by S.F. Platonov (1929-1931) marked the beginning of pogroms of the professional historians not only in Russia, but in the republics as well. The followers and students of M.N. Pokrovskiy, who took leading positions in Soviet historical science in the 1920s, were particularly zealous fighters against the representatives of the non-Marxist school of historiography. Already in 1930, S.A. Piontkovskiy (54), who was a student of M.N. Pokrovskiy and among the most radically disposed towards the "scholarly academics" (S.F. Platonov, S.V. Bakhrushin and M.S. Liubavskiy), attacked A.I. Markevich, head of the TUAK- TAHAE for many years. The charge was "the great-power chauvinism, characteristic of "all bourgeois historians of Russia." In 1931, the authorities suspended the activities of the TAHAE, and many of its members were arrested and eventually died in prison or exile. In 1937 the oldest historian of Crimea, the 82 years old A.I. Markevich was again vilified by a campaign in the newspaper Krasnyi Krym, and accused of authoring the "counter-revolutionary" works on Crimea. (55)

The purges of the 1930s, which were undertaken by the representatives of the M.N.Pokrovskiy school, completed the demolition of the Crimean historical science. At the same time, the representatives of the Crimean Tatar elite — ethnographer and artist U. Bodaninskiy, historian and epigraphist O. Akchokrakly, historian Ya.Kemal, philologist B. Choban-zade, writer A. Lyatif-zade and others — were also executed on charges of nationalism.

In contrast to the effective and undoubtedly valuable achievements in Crimean studies in the 1920s, the achievements in 1930s were meager. At that time the most qualified researchers were repressed, and historical studies, in accordance to the formula "history is politics thrown into the past," became a political and therefore a dangerous pursuit.

******

In the light of the glaring gap in the study of the Crimean Tatar history, the problem of emigration seems to be one of the most developed. However, at a closer look, it becomes clear that this conclusion is a mistake. One can safely claim that the literature on this subject raises more questions than it provides answers. Though the emigration problem is unanimously recognized by researchers as one of the most tragic chapters in the history of Crimean Tatars after the collapse of the Crimean Khanate, there is still no clarity about its main causes and the scale of each emigration wave.

Considering historiography as a whole, one can note the following: Although there are no less than 20 studies on each period or wave of emigration, more detailed research is required. To varying degrees, the supporting evidence for each period remains in various narratives, official publications, memoirs, and historical retrospectives. However, given the number of sources that were included in historiographical studies, they prove nevertheless to be insufficient for the reconstruction of the historical continuum that is of interest to us (Crimea from the end of the 18th to the beginning of 20th centuries), and for research on particular problems.

Poorly defined chronological framework of the Crimean Tatar emigration waves indicates the insufficient study of this topic. A. Ozenbashly defined the first emigration as taking place during the years 1784-1800, and E. Markov (56) and P. Martyanov (57) during the 1785-1788 period. According to The commemorative book of the Tavricheskaya province (58), this emigration wave "was stopped under Richelieu in 1804."

The second emigration wave, which apparently took place between 1800 and 1812, and according to the opinion of E. Markov, there were only "oral stories," not mentioned by most of the researchers at all. Generally this was a result of insufficient sources and lack of a real scientific interest in the problem. A.Ozenbasly thought that the second emigration was from 1804 to1805, V.H.Kondaraki in 1807, and P.K.Martyanov in 1812.

A. Kopchevsky (58) named as the second emigration wave the movement of Crimean Tatars in the period of the Crimean War (1853-1856), and the third one, the emigration of 1862-1865. He didn't mention at all the emigration at the beginning of the 19th century.

The chronological time frame of the third emigration wave, despite the presence of many historiographical sources, is also not clearly established. A. Ozenbashly considered the third wave to be during 1860-1862, E. Chernyshev in 1860, and other authors 1859-1860s (59). In defining the time frame of this emigration, it would be more logical to include the period from the earliest to the latest dates, and not ignoring the emigration wave during the period of the Crimean War, that is 1854-1862. M. Pinson (60), the author of one of the most important monographs on the subject, proposes the same chronological time frame.

The chronology of the subsequent emigration waves gets even more complicated. There are only two studies on the emigration of 1874: the study by P. Martyanov which was already mentioned, and the study by I. Mufti-Zade (61). The emigrations from the end of the 19th to the beginning of 20th centuries, which peaked in 1902-1903, are also covered in newspaper publications (62). Because this emigration was not deemed worth studying by scholars, its chronological time frame is a debatable issue.

Thus, the varying time frames of the first three waves, as well as contradictory evidence for the last two emigration waves, show that the emigration problem was given more attention in popular literature than in the scholarly works, and that it awaits detailed research. This research requires utilization of sources not only in the Russian archives but also the foreign archives in Turkey, Romania, and Poland, where Crimean Tatar immigrants settled.

It is obvious that the historical sources are unevenly balanced, most of them pertain to the first emigration wave (1800-1812) and the third wave (1850-1860s). One can talk about the evolution of the opinions of authors only with respect to the first and in particular the third emigration waves. For the latter, there exists a histriographical tradition and scholarly continuity, as evident in the works by E. Chernyshev and A. Ozenbashly.

There are no general studies on the issue of emigrations that provide a synthesis. Popular literature is prevalent among works especially dedicated to this subject: N. Scherban (63), A. U. (64), P.K. Martyanov, A. Ozenbashly, and G.P. Levitskiy (65), E.I. Totleben (66), A. Volynets, and others. A. Markevich and E. Chernyshev approached the topic more scientifically. The numerous references, which constitute a large body of fragmentary information from different resources, require a careful and detailed analysis.

Let us now move on to the consideration of the main reasons for each emigration wave, their central features and characteristics.

It is understandable that all researchers have studied the reasons for the emigrations of the Tatars, as well as the circumstances and the scale of each of the emigrations.

In the opinions of most of researchers, the main reason for the first emigration, which followed after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire in 1784, was the fear of changes stemming from the establishment of "new economic and legal order of life" by the Russian authorities (A. Markevich). As a result, there was a "belief that government... would not want them to remain in Crimea and will take various measures to exile them" (V. Kondaraki). There was also attraction "to Turkey, which had the same religion, and the encouragement by clerics and mirzas" (F.Lashkov). Even the reported lack of Tatar ties to their land is also cited as one of the reasons for emigration (A. Markevich).

A. Ozenbashly took a contrary position. He thought that the religious and nationalistic reasons were secondary. He named the Imperial government as the principal culprit of all emigration waves of Tatars, which "by way of subtle methods... of the state apparatus" had implemented the policy of "forcing out the indigenous population from the places of long settlement." He thought that this emigration was "in accordance with the desires of the government and Potemkin himself who were engrossed into the "the Greek project." This project had the aim of restoring power of the Byzantine Empire, headed by the monarch of the Russian Imperial House, along the Black Sea coast."

Likewise, there is also no unity of opinions on the size of the first wave of emigrations. Many of researchers noted a widely ranging estimates of the number of Tatars who went to the Ottoman Empire. They referred to contradictory information by their predecessors, but didn't make their own calculations. The estimates range from 4,000-5,000 to 300,000 (K. Khanatsky), from 50,000 to 140,000 (A.Skalkovskiy) and from 350,000 to 500,000 (A. Ozenbashly). Based on the estimate of the size of the population on the peninsula on the eve of Russian conquest in 1783, which was 260,000-280,000, A.I. Markevich thought that a number of emigrants of the first wave didn't exceed 80,000. Thus, he calls into question the most popular figure used by the historians of the 19th century - 300,000.

The second emigration between 1800 and 1812 is even less examined in the historical sources. E.L. Markov doubts the existence of statistical information on that event. At the same time, P.K. Martyanov gives not only the number of emigrants — 3,199 - but also links this emigration with the Bucharest peaceful agreement concluded in 1812. Under this agreement Russia was obliged not to prevent the Budzhukskyi and Edisanskyi Tatars from moving to Turkey.

The third emigration of Crimean Tatars, 1854-1862, has been most thoroughly studied in the Russian historiography. More details of the events have been described by G. Levitsky, E. Totleben and N. Scherban in the journal Kolokol. The number of emigrants during 1860-1862 was, according to the official information, 192,360. Although the spectrum of opinions varies widely, it seems that one can even talk about a certain evolution of assessments as we advance in time from the event itself.

The dominant theme in the studies from the 1860s, which were written during the height of the emigration and soon after, is the need to rapidly colonize Crimea by Slavic and partially by German settlers (N. Scherban, Emigratsiya krymskih tatar i cherkeskih nogaytsev, Ref. 67). The authors of these studies advance numerous proposals on "saving" the region. They openly declare the anti-Tatar sentiments: "...to detain on our land a tribe who does not want to live with us and will only be a burden to us means to bother about something that is impossible as well as disadvantageous" (N. Scherban). From the point of view of state interests "the reduction of the Tatar population" in order to "fill the region with more talented race" is recommended (N. Scherban), because "the Tatars, due to their Moslem-Asiatic character, are not amenable to be improved" (K. Khanatsky). However, Khanatsky confesses that "as a labor force which has become attuned to the local environment" the Tatars "have a significant advantage," but only " the leadership will be in hands of the enlightened people" (I. Khanatsky).

Among reasons for emigration these authors cite religious fanaticism (N. Sherban, A. Markevich), fear of persecutions for "ambiguous behavior" during the war (K. Khanatsky), poor cultural level of Tatars (Krym: The guide-book, Ref. 68; A. Markevich), reluctance to do compulsory military service and "nationalism" (A. Markevich).

Two authors, E.I. Totleben and G.P. Levitsky, demonstrate their attempts to analyze objectively the real reasons of the mass emigration of Crimean Tatars. The two studies were written in the period of this emigration, in the beginning of the 1860s, but were published much later. Both studies are characterized by a historical approach to the problem. The authors consider the emigration wave not a product of an instantaneous irrational drive, but a natural result of the difficult material situation of the Tatars, stemming from the confiscation of their land and the willfulness of numerous Russian chiefs. "The landowners... have often appropriated the land of the Crimean Tatars. ... 30 years ago in Crimea almost all landowners were free Tatar and a small number of others who owned orchards along the Southern shore and in the valleys" (E. Totleben). "All orders of the local officials were flagrantly unfair when they concerned the ownership of land by the Tatar population," and "nothing was exempt from violation and arbitrariness, neither the forests, nor the water" (G. Levitskiy).

Pondering about the life of the Tatars in Russia before the Crimean War of 1853, Levitskiy states with surprise that "even the Russian population wouldn't put up without a grumble or a clear resistance even with one tenth of the hurt and injustices that the Crimean Tatars have suffered. However... they consider Crimean Tatars as harmful and stupid." Levitsky thinks that the real reason for this attitude was "a desire to take the Crimea from the hands of the Crimean Tatars and settle it with Orthodox population."

An article in Kolokol takes the same position on this issue. It critically assesses the role of the government in this emigration and does not hide its sympathies towards the Crimean Tatars: "Upon the end of the war the government realized that the population of Crimea, which is of different origin and religion, can be a danger in case of a new war, and that measures need to be taken to settle this region with the Russians or, at the very least, with the Bulgarians. This is why it was forbidden to prevent the Tatars and the Nogays from emigrating to Turkey." The Tatars suddenly "discovered that government does not require them to stay in Russia." (See: "Goneniye na krymskih tatar," Ref. 59.)

Among the reasons for this emigration were, in the opinion of E.I.Totleben, "information on the intention of the government to deport Tatars from Crimea to the interior provinces," rumors "on converting Tatars into Christianity" after the establishment of a new eparchy in Melitopol, and also talks that the Tatars, like the inhabitants of other provinces, will be drafted to the military service. Totleben doesn't discount religious factor, supposing that emigration of the Nogays from the Caucasus to Turkey, who have "passed through Kerch peninsula and boarded ships at Kerch and at Feodosia ... have unwittingly evoked in the Tatars a desire to follow their religious folks to Turkey."

In answering the question of what could have prompted the entire people "which were patient, faithful, and fatalistic" and, therefore, "of rather high morals" for such panicked escape, Levitskiy names several reasons.

First, in the period of the Crimean War the Cossack patrols roamed the province and often detained the Tatars (on the ground of their intention to join the enemy). If the Tatars refused to pay bribes for their release, the Cossacks presented the Tatars to the officials as traitors. As a result, many Tatars were exiled to Orel, Kursk, Ekaterinoslavl, and Kherson provinces.

The second reason noted by Levitskiy is the "the unequal compensations" paid for damages sustained during the war. The compensations "were paid most unfairly, and this have strongly undermined the Tatar attachment to the Russian government."

Finally, in the opinion of Levitskiy, land quarrels which have gone on for many decades played a big role as well. By the 1850s "the desire to extract all land from the hands of the Crimean Tatars became so strong that the seizure of inheritable plots of land from the Tatar peasants, to be converted first into a communal, and later into personal property, became the law." The researcher also points to "a heavy burden of taxes and duties" that he describes in details, and to the "inadequacy of the judicial system and legal proceedings, inconsistent with the spirit and the character of this people."

As we can see, the reasons that Levitsky highlights are mainly economical. E.I. Totleben refrains searching for the guilty parties. He only alludes that emigration was precipitated by the regional administration. However, he writes that because of the abuses of local bosses, "the Tatars deserve special patronage from the government, similar to the one accorded to them by Count Vorontsov."

The authorof the Kolokol article takes a more radical position on this issue: "The government was ousting the loyal Tatar population in order to populate the Crimea with Russians, and only when 100,000 Crimean Tatars were gone did the government realize that Russians would not go to Crimea. (59) He lays the full blame on the government, personified by the minister M.N. Muravyev. In the works by F. Khartahay written shortly after the emigrations of 1854-1862, the motive for the end of the Crimean Tatar history appears: "The Crimean Tatars now have only their historical significance, which is nevertheless not unimportant for us."

In the publications of a later period, particularly the scientific-popular literature and the memoirs, there emerged a theme of regret about the Tatars who left: "Instead of apprehending and shooting the abusive officials, we have chased out ... the most honest of all Crimean tribes, the Tatars. Nobody was so mistreated in this war as this peaceful and useful tribe. It was defamed with betrayal and was forced to leave its ancient motherland....The Crimea perished after the deportation of Tatars" (Markov). The nostalgia for Oriental Crimea, personified in the remaining Tatars and those Tatar settlements that were preserved, becomes the dominant motive. " In Otuzi there is a special style, a lovable, ancient Crimean style....The Tatars bring a certain tenderness and endearment to the Otuzskaya valley." (Yelpatyevskiy (69).

In the subsequent prerevolutionary historiography, the opinion of G.P. Levitskiy, who attributed emigrations mainly to economic reasons, has become dominant. K.I. Verner interpreted the problem along the same lines as Levitsky (The book of memories). In turn, his analysis is regarded as the most sound by the authors of the study that claims to be a conceptual treatment and generalization of the problem (70).

The Soviet historiography of the pre-war period took a new approach to understanding the reasons for the Crimean Tatar emigration in 1854-1862 (E. Chernyshev). This study, written on the basis of archival documents, leaves a dual impression. On the one hand, the author establishes as his task to study the problem scientifically, and analyzes a lot of sources and archival documents. On the other hand, the study already shows traces of the 1930s publications, when the practice of attaching labels was the norm. Aggressive criticism of predecessors and their arguments constitutes a significant part of the study. The author does so to prove the main reason for emigrations: "the class contradictions and class struggle of the Tatars which unfolded on the territory of Crimea as a result of the new capitalist relations." It is absolutely clear that this reason cannot be an exhaustive explanation of immigration. This conclusion is nevertheless the only possible one for a Marxist historian limited by the class approach as a way of thinking.

The emigration of 1874 and subsequent emigration waves have been nearly ignored in the historiography. About the first one, we know that it was connected with the announcement of compulsory military draft, which led to brooding resentment among the Tatar population. Perhaps the only measure that was taken by the government to prevent a new wave of emigration was the establishment of special Crimean squadron. For this squadron "certain provisions and regulations of troop duty were changed," and "the orders of internal service" which took into account the national and religious particular qualities of Crimean Tatars were introduced (I.Mufti-zade, P.Martyanov).

Emigration processes from the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th centuries are studied even less. There is evidence that at the height of the emigration, in 1902-1903, some 600-800 Tatars left Crimea daily (Krym: The guide-book). Local press presents a glimpse of the emigration wave of that period (Ob emigratsionih planah krymskih tatar...; K voprosu o dvizhenii tatar na yuge Rossii) but there are no serious studies on this issue.

Thus, in the Russian and latter in the Soviet historiography of 1800-1930, the first and third waves of Crimean Tatar emigration are researched the most, while the second, fourth, and fifth waves are only sketched. For researching the latter, it is necessary first of all to create a representative base of sources. This would allow scholarly study of these emigration waves. With regard to the better studied waves, the first and the third, new sources need to be used — archival and print documents, including those from the libraries and the archives of the states where the Crimean Tatars have emigrated (Turkey, Romania, and Poland). The application of the modern methods and approaches is also important in the forthcoming research. Specifically, ethno-psychological methods may be employed to determine the reasons for emigration, while quantitative methods may be used to calculate the scale of emigrations.

Bibliography and Sources Cited

[1] B-n, I. "Krym," Biblioteka dlya chteniya [Library for reading]. Moscow, 1856, t. 35, January, p. 3-15.

[2] Bliumenfeld, G.F. Krymsko-tatarskoye zemlevladeniye [Crimean Tatar landownership]. Odessa: Printing-house of Odeski vestnik, 1888.

[3] Lashkov, F.F. Istoricheskiy ocherk istorii krymsko-tatarskogo zemlevladenia [Historical study of the Crimean Tatar history]. Simferopol: Printing-house of Tavricheskoy guberni, 1897.

[4] Chastno-vakufnoye vladeniye v Krymu [Private-vakuf owners in Crimea]. Simferopol, 1892.

[5] Chernyshev, E.I. Prichiny emigratsii krymskih tatar v Turtsiyu v I860 godu [The reasons of emigration of the Crimean Tatars to Turkey]: Study on archival documents. Works of Association for studying of Tatarstan. Kazan, 1930, t. 5, p. 93-128.

[6] Markevich, A.I. Pereseleniye krymskih tatar v Turtsiyu v cvyazi s dvizheniyem naselenia v Krymu [Emigration of Crimean Tatars to Turkey because of population movement in Crimea]. Izvestiya AS USSR. Leningrad, 1928, t. 4, p. 375-405.

[7] Ozenbasly, A. Rol tsarskogo pravitelstva v emigratsii krymskih tatar [the role of the Tsarist government in the Crimean Tatars emigration.] Zabveniyu ne podlezhit. Iz istorii krymskotatarsoi gosu-darstvennosti Kryma [Not to be forgotten. From the history of the Crimean Tatar statehood in Crimea]. Kazan: Tatar publishing house, 1992, p. 69-72.

[8] Usov, S.A. Istoriko-economicheskie ocherki Kryma [Historical-economic reports on Crimea]. Simferopol, 1925.

[9] Guboglo, M.N. Chervonnaya S.M. "Krymskotatarskoye natsionalnoye dvizheniye." 1992. t. 1. Istoriya, problem, perspectivi[history, problems, prospects]. t .2. Documents. Materials. Chronicle.

[10] Allworth, E, ed. Tatars of the Crimea. Their struggle for survival. Durham and London, 1988; Fisher, A. The Crimean Tatars. Stanford, 1978.

[11] Pallas P.-S. Puteshestviye po Krimu akademika Pallasa v 1793-1794 godah [The academician Pallas' travel over Crimea in 1793-1794). Zapiski Odesskogo obshestva istorii i drevnostey [Notes of Odessa association on history and ancient history]. Odessa, 1881, t.12, p. 62-208; t .13. 1883, t.13, p. 35-107.

[12] Narushevich A. Tavrikia, ili Izvestiya drevneyshaya i noveyshaya o sostoyanii Krima i ego zhiteley do nashih dney [The more ancient history and newest Tavrykia or Izvestia on Crimea and its inhabitants up to now]. Kiev, 1788.

[13] Sestrentsovich-Bogush S. Istoriya tsarstva Khersonesa Tavricheyskogo, sochinennaya Stanislavom Sestrentsevich-Bogush [History of Empire of Khersones Tavriycheskiy, which was written by Stanislav Sestrentsevich-Bogush]. Sanct- Petersburg, 1806.

[14] Gablits K.I. Phisicheskoye opisaniye Tavricheskoy oblasti po yeye mestopolozheniyu i vsem trem tsarstvam prirody [A physical description of the Tavrischeskaya oblast under their location and all their three natural kingdoms]. Sanct-Petersburg, 1785.

[15] Zuyev V.D. Puteshestveniye zapiski Vasiliya Zuyeva ot Sankt-Peterburga do Khersona v 1781 i 1782 [Travel notes by Vasilyi Zuyev from Sankt-Peterburg in 1781 and 1782]. Sanct-Petersburg, 1787.

[16] Pallas P.-S. Kratkoye phisicheskoye i topograficheskoye opisaniye Tavricheskogo poluostrova [A short physical and topographical review on Tavricheskyi peninsula]. Sanct-Petersburg, 1795.

[17] Keppen P.I. O drevnostyah Yuzhnogo berega i gor Tavricheskih [On antiquities of Southern coast and Tavricheskyi mountains]. Sanct-Petersburg, 1837.

[18] Muravyev-Apostol I.M. Puteshestviye po Tavride v 1820 [Travel over Tavrida in 1820]. Sanct-Petersburg, The special office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 1823.

[19] Murzakevich N.A. "Poyezdka v Krim v 1836" [Trip to Crimea]. Magazin of the Ministry of National Education [Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosvescheniya]. 1837, vol. 13, p. 625-691.

[20] Bronevskiy V. Obozreniye yuzhnogo berega Tavridi v 1815 [Review of the Southern coast of Tavrida]. Tula: printing-house, gubernskogo pravleniya, 1822.

[21] Demidov A. Puteshestviye v Yuzhnuyu Rossiyu i Krym cherez Vengriyu, Valahiyu i Moldaviyu, sovershennoye v 1837 Anatoliyem Demidovym [Trip to Southern Russia and Crimea through Hungary, Valahiyu and Moldova, which was made by Anatoliy Demidov in 1837]. Moscow: Printing-house. Semena, 1853.

[22] Kleeman P. Puteshestviye iz Veny v Belgrad i Novuyu Kiliyu, takzhe v zemli Budzhetskih tatar i vo ves Krym i pr., 1768 -1770s [Travel from Vena to New Kyliyu, including lands of Budzhetskih Tatars and Crimea]. Sanct-Petersburg, 1783.

[23] Korf B.A. Prebyvaniye v Krymu [Stay in Crimea]. Syn Otechestva. 1834, t.41, part 143,1 4, p. 249-262.

[24] Kraven E. Puteshestviye miledi Kraven v Krym i Konstantinopol v 1786 [Trip of milady Kraven to Crimea]. Moscow., 1795.

[25] Ludolf de. "Pisma o Krime" [Letters on Crimea]. Russian review. 1892, vol.2. March, p. 155-201.

[26] "Pisma imperatora Dzhozef II k feldmarshalu grafu Lassi vo vremya puteshestviya v Kherson and Krym v 1787 godu" [Letters of imperator Joseph II to Field Marshal graph Lassi during his visit of Kherson and Crimea in 1787]. Russian archive. 1880, vol. 2, p.356-372.

[27] Romm Zh. Puteshestviye v Krim v 1786 godu [Trip to Crimea]. Leningrad: publishing-house of Leningrad University, 1941.

[28] Segur. Zapiski grafa Segura o prebivaniye v Rossii v tsartsovanii Ekateryni II [Notes of graph Segur on his stay in Russia during the period of Katharine II, 1785- 1789]. Sanct-Petersburg, 1865.

[29] Sumarokov P. Puteshestviye po vsemu Krymu i Bessarabii v 1799 godu s istoricheskim i topog-raphicheskim opisaniyem vseh mest [Travel over Crimea and Besarabia in 1799 with historical and topographical description of all places]. M.: Univ. Publishing-house of Ridiger, 1800; Sumarokov P. Dosugi Krymskogo sudyi ili Vtoroye puteshestviye v Tavridu [Leisure of Crimean judge or second trip to Tavrida]. P. 1-2. Sanct-Petersburg, 1803-1805.

[30] Andriyevskiy A.A. Krym i krymskiye tatary [Crimea and Crimean Tatars]. Kiev: Tipographia gubernskogo pravleniya, 1883.

[31] Goldenberg M. "Krym i krymskiye tatary" [Crimea and Crimean Tatars]. Vestnik Evropi. 1883, November, p. 67- 89.

[32] Gorchakova E. Vospominaniya o Kryme [Recollections on Crimea]. Part 1-2. Moscow, 1883-1884.

[33] Kondaraki V.F. V pamyat stoletiya Kryma [On the centenary of Crimea]. Vol.I-4. I.: tip. V. V.Checherina, 1883-1984.

[34] Khartahay F. "Istoricheskaya sudba krymskih tatar" [Historical destiny of Crimean Tatars]. Vestnik Evropi. 1866, June, p. 182-236; 1867, June, p. 140-174.

[35] Bochkarev V.N. Istoriya Rossii XIX stoletiya [A history of 19th-century Russia]. Moscow, pub.h. Rihter, 1912.

[36] Kizivetter A.A. Istoriya Rossii [A history of Russia]. Moscow, 1915.

[37] Kornilov A.A. Kurs istorii Rossii [A course of Russian history]. Moscow, Misl, 1993.

[38] Zhigarev S. Russkaya politika v vostochnom voprose (yeye istoria v XVI-XIX, kriticheskaya ozenka i budushiye zadachi) [Russian policy in eastern issue (its history in XVI-XIX, a critical evaluation and future tasks)]. Moscow, 1896, T.l-2.

[39] Miliukov P.N. Natsionalniy vopros: Proishozhdeniye natsionalnosti i natsionalnogo voprosa v Rossii [National issue: origin of nationality and national issue in Russia]. Praga, 1925.

[40] Verner K.I. Pamyatnaya knizhka Tavricheskoy gubemii [Memorable book of Tavricheskaya province]. Simferopol, 1889.

[41] Skalkovskiy A.A. Chronologicheskoye obozreniye istorii Novorossiyskogo kraya[Chronological review of history of Novorosyisk region], 1731-1823. Part I- 2. Odessa, 1836-1838.

[42] Khanatskiy E.V. Pamyatnaya knizhka Tavricheskoi guberni. No.1 (edition of E.V. Khanatski). Simferopol, 1867.

[43] Keppen P.I. Ethographicheskaya karta [ethnographical map]. Sanct-Petersburg, 1852.

[44] Kondaraki V.H. "Obichai krimskih tatar" [customs of Crimean Tatars)]. Novorosyiskii vedomosti. 1870, March, 1-66.

[45] Merezhkovski K.S. "Otchet ob antropologicheskoy poyezdke v Krim v 1880 godu" [report on anthropological trip to Crimea in 1880]. Izvestiya Russkogo geographicheskogo obshestva. Vol.17, No. 2, 1881, p.104-130.

[46] Kharuzin A.N. "Tatari: Kefalometricheskii nabludenia nad tatarami Yuzhnogo berega Kryma" [Tatars: Kefalometricheskyi observations over Crimean Tatars of southern part of Crimea]. Izvestiya Obshestwa lubiteley yestestvoznaniya, antropologii i etnographii. Vol. 68, 1890, p.14 -36.

[47] Brun F.E. Chernomorye [Black Sea coast]. Vol.2. Odessa, 1880.

[48] Kulakovski Y.A. "Zametki po istorii i topographii Kryma" [Notes on the history and topography of Crimea]. Archeologicheskii izvestiya i zametki. Vol. 4, No. 1. Moscow, 1896, p. 1-6.

[49] Tizengauzen V.G. "? sokhranenii i vozobnovlenii krymskih pamyatnikov drevnosti i ob izdanii opisania i risunkov" [on preservation and restoration of Crimean antique monuments and publication of description and design on them]. Zapiski Odesskogo obshestva istorii i drevnostey [Notes of Odessa association on history and ancient history]. 1872, t.8, p. 363-403.

[50] Fabr A. Dostopamyatneyshii drevnosti Kryma [Memorable antiquities]. Odessa, 1859.

[51] Fomenko K. "Peshernii khrami v Krymu" [cave temples]. Trudy Kievskoy duhovnoy akademii. Vol.3, Kiev, 1894, p. 385-409.

[52] Gasprinskiy I. Russko-vostochnoye soglasheniye [Russian-East agreement]. Bakhchisaray: Terjuman, 1896; Gasprinski I. "Russkoye musulmanstvo" Zvezda Vostoka [Star of East], 1991, 1 4, p. 105-119.

[53] Klimovich L. "Na sluzhbe prosvesheniya: ? pervoy turkoyazichnoy gazete "Terdzhiman" i yeye izdatele I.Gasprinskom" [On service of education: On first Turkish newspaper "Terjuman" and its editor I. Gasprinskyi] Zvezda Vostoka [Star of East], 1987, ? 8, p. 170-186.

[54] Piontkovskiy S.A. "Velikoderzhavnii tendentsii v istoriographii Rossii" [Great-power tendencies in historiography of Russia]. Historian-Marxist. Vol.17, Moscow, 1930, p. 21-26.

[55] Garagulya V.E., A.I.Markevich. "Markevich A.I. Tavricheskaya gubernya v period Krymskoy voyni" [Tavricheskyi province in period of Crimean War: The archival documents]. Simferopol: Business -Inform, 1994, p. 255-267.

[56] Markov E.L. Ocherki Kryma: Kartini krymskoi zhizni, prirodi i istorii [Studies on Crimea: Pictures on Crimean life, nature and history]. Pub. 3. Sanct-Petersburg,: Tovarishchestvo M.I. Volf, 1903.

[57] Martyanov P. "Poslednyaya emigratsia tatar iz Kryma v 1874 godu" [Last emigration of Tatars from Crimea]. Istoricheski vestnik. 1886, vol.24, 16, p. 698-708.

[58] Kopchevski A. Proshloye i nastoyasheye v pesnyah Kryma. Zabveniu ne podlezhit [Last and present songs of Crimean Tatars. Not to be forgotten]. Kazan: Tatar. Pub. house, 1992, p. 250-254.

[59] "Goneniye na krymskih tatar" [persecution of Crimean Tatars]. Kolokol. 1861, December.

[60] Pinson M. Russian Policy and the emigration the Crimean Tatars to the Ottoman Empire, 1854-1862. Istanbul, 1974.

[61] Mufti-zade I. "Ocherk voyenoy sluzhbi krymskih tatar s 1783 goda po 1889 god" [Article on military service of Crimean Tatars from 1783 till 1889]: The archival documents. Simferopol, 1900, Izvestiya Tavrichesk scientific archival commission. 1899, 1-30.

[62] "Ob emigratsionih planah krymskih tatar" [On emigration plans of Crimean Tatars]. Krimskyi vestnik. 1893, March,. 1 52; "K voprosu o dvizhenii tatar na yuge Rossii" [On the issue of the movement of Crimean Tatars]. Krym. 1893, November; Volinets A. "Vyseleniye tatar v Turtsiyu" [Deportation of Crimean Tatars to Turkey]. Krymskiy vestnik. 1901, November, 1 313.

[63] Scherban N. "Pereseleniye krymskih tatar" [Emigration of Crimean Tatars]. Russkii vestnik. 1860, book 12, p. 211-229.

[64] A .U. "O zaselenii Kryma novymi poselentsami" [On colonization of Crimea by new settlers]. Russkii vestnik. 1866, 5, p. 256-269.

[65] Levitskiy G.P. "Pereseleniye tatar iz Kryma v Turtsiyu" [Emigration of Tatars from Crimea to Turkey]. Vestnik Europe. 1882, October, p. 596-639.

[66] Totleben E.I. "O vyselenii tatar iz Kryma v 1860 godu" [On deportation of Tatars from Crimea in 1860]. Russkaya starina. 1893, Odessa, p. 531-550.

[67] "Emigratsiya krymskih tatar i cherkeskih nogaytsev" [Emigration of Crimean Tatars and Cherkes Nogays]. Russkii vestnik. 1860, t .28. p. 371-373.

[68] Crimea: The guidebook. Simferopol, 1914.

[69] Yelpatyevskiy S. Krymskii ocherki [Studies on Crimea]. Moscow: Publishing- house of writers in Moscow, 1913.

[70] M.E.Benenson (ed). Statisticheskiy spravochnik Tavricheskoy guberni [Statistical digest of Tavrichesk province]. Simferopol, 1915.

Posted: 18 August 2002

---

ICC Home Page