The history of interaction between the two Turkmen tribes Teke and Yomut is one of the most significant episodes in the history of Central Asia. It includes changes in the economy, culture, and worldview. The need to study it is determined by the place that these tribes occupy in the current politics and economy of Turkmenistan. The study covers the period of XVIII-XIX centuries.

Key words: Turkmens, Teke tribe, Yomut tribe, political history, Central Asia, economy, intertribal interactions, tribal oppositions.

Events in the Arab world have caused attention to regions with similar development trends, such as the states of Central Asia [Sistemnyimonitoring..., 2013, p. 5-12]. This territory is a huge transit area full of internal contradictions, the historical boundary of the clash of nomadic and settled civilizations, the Iranian and Turkic cultural areas, the place where the phenomenon of Central Asian syncretism appeared.

In connection with monitoring the situation in the region, Turkmenistan, located in the north of the historical and cultural region of Khorasan, attracted the attention of experts. The development factors of this state largely correlated with aspects of the history of the Arab states [Presidential elections..., 2012]. However, in the publications devoted to this topic, little attention is paid to the causal relationships of the main events in the ethnic history of the Turkmen people.

Experts often turn to the issue of interaction between Turkmen tribes without analyzing their historical foundation. However, this aspect is relevant due to the disproportionate development of the country's regions [Politicheskie sistemy..., 2012, pp. 524-525]. This article will trace the development of relations between the Teke and Yomut tribes in the historical perspective.

TRIBAL UNION "DAIIIKI SALOR"

At the end of the 16th century, the consolidation of Turkmen tribal groups that had separated on the southeastern coast of the Caspian Sea was completed (Vasilyeva, 2003: 89-91). The situation in the Seljuk state, the movement of Kipchak tribes, and the Mongol invasion prompted them to leave unstable areas [Saray, 2012, p. 601]. During these migration flows, various tribes (including Persian and Kipchak groups) consolidated into "unions" (Necef and Annaberdiyev, 2003, p. 205-206; Wood, 1990, p. 27-28).

Since the end of the 16th century, the Turkmens have been affected by the aggression of neighboring peoples, which led to the collapse of the "unions" (Bregel, 1961, p.22). At the same time, the crisis caused by the drying up of the Uzboy (1470-1575) led to a decrease in the productivity of the fodder plant.

page 32
This was one of the factors that led to the beginning of migrations to the oases of Khorasan (Roslyakov, 1956, p. 104). These fertile territories fell into disrepair by the 17th century due to constant conflicts. The development of maritime trade (XV-XVI) contributed to the decline in the importance of the Great Silk Road, which affected the decrease in the flow of goods through the Pan-Asian Trade Corridor [Hojanyyazow, Gurbanow, Öwlüyagulyyew, 2011, s. 18-19]. The crisis weakened the settled centers. Therefore, the Turkmens did not face any opposition from the oasis rulers, but were sometimes accepted by them as a force capable of protecting the territories controlled by the local khans in exchange for land and water.

In this situation, the Teke tribes (Turkm. teke - a mountain goat leading a herd) and yomut (turkm. yomut - a mustachioed brave man, rich in pastures, etc.) [illiyev, 2010, p. 105-114].

According to genealogical traditions, the mother of the Tekin people was an Iranian Khansha1, and the Yomuts were descended from the concubine of Salor-kazan 2 (Salor-Kagan), the legendary progenitor of all the tribes of the Salor group, one of the descendants of Oguz Khan, as well as the legendary leader of the Oguz [Karpov, 1936-1939, pp. 1-3]. Comparison of genealogies shows that they contain common generic names, many of which belonged to older groups (Illiyev, 2010, p. 40-50). Studies have revealed the presence of common brands (Turkm. tagma) [Karpov, 1939(3)]. Genealogical traditions about Salor-Kazan [Necef and Annaberdiyev, 2003, p.207] can be interpreted as a justification for the consolidation of tribal groups in the Salor union [Wood, 1990, p. 37].

According to the testimony of Abu-l-Ghazi (1643-1663), Khorezm received the least tribute from the Teke and Yomuts, which indicates their small number [Karriyev et al., pp. 184-185]. However, in the 17th and 18th centuries, population growth caused civil strife, which weakened the influence of the salors and led to the rise of groups that had previously occupied a low position. This was done at the expense of helping impoverished families [Karpov, 1936-1939, p. 1-3].

Probably, similar factors changed the socio-political organization, and by the XVIII century. alliances have lost their former strength. At the same time, the administrative structures of the tribes maintained a single primary basis for the balance of power within the community [Botyakov, 2001, pp. 294-331]. Economically, both the Teke and the Yomut tried to avoid a settled life. An important role was played by the institute of raid (turkm. alaman) [Botyakov, 2002, pp. 17-49].

According to the analysis of generic names, a hybrid unit, the teke - Yomut tribe, also appeared during this period (Dzhikiev, 1991, pp. 130-132).

MIGRATION TO THE OASES OF KHORASAN

Even during the period of tribal residence in the Balkhans, legends appeared [Karpov, 1939(2), p. 2; Karpov, 1939 (6), p. 2], reports of diplomats [Yudin, 1913, p. 85-87], and historical works [Abul-Ghazi-Bahadur-khan, 1996, p. 180-182], which narrate about the" differences between the brothers " Teke and Yomut. The Kalmyks, using them, paralyzed the trade of the Turkmens, forcing the latter to turn to the Astrakhan voivodes for food aid [Yudin, 1913, p.88]. Later, the Turkmens came under pressure from the Adai Kazakhs (1730s), who captured Mangyshlak (Mikhailov, 1900, p. 24). Despite the migration of a group of tribes to the Kalmyks [Karpov, 1936, p. 4-6], most of the Turkmens chose to go to the oases of Khorasan.

The Teke and Yomut movement was often joint. They migrated together to Khorezm [Bregel, 1961, p. 23], which played an important role in the system of trade relations in Khorasan [Nurmukhammedov, 1979, p.69]. Turkmens served in the Khan's army in exchange for land, which caused discontent among the local beks [Tolstoe, 1963, p. 14].

1 In other versions-the second wife of Salor-Kazan.

2 There are references to the Yomut tradition of descent from " Yamud, the son of a Turkoman... and a free woman?", which is more related to the question of purity of origin [Aristov, 1896, p. 416].

page 33
Part of the Teke, having passed along the coast of the Amu Darya, tried to settle in Afghanistan. But because of the conflict with the local rulers, they were forced to leave this territory. Several genera have settled in Merv (Necef and Annaberdiyev, 2003, p. 214). After returning to the Amu Darya, the Teke were subjects of Bukhara.

The influence of the Bayram-Shala Yomuts, who moved to the Khorezm oasis, began to increase. The Yomuts of Kara-Choka moved south of their former nomadic territory. Both branches of the Yomut, despite their differences in everyday life, maintained family ties [Munkacsi, 1994, p. 97-107].

The Tekes who returned to Khorezm were deprived of water because of their refusal to pay taxes, and under the leadership of Gara-Balkhan Khan and Ak-Khal-ishan, they moved to the Balkhans, recognizing the authority of Urgench. They occupied the area between the Balkhans and the Central Karakum Mountains (Bregel, 2003, p. 72-75). The growing number of Tekin residents led to the first episode of "opposition".

It is necessary to identify the structural elements of tribal oppositions. The first element is the reason. Often these were disputes over pastures, water shares. Only later did such factors as the distribution of state posts and the support of various dynastic groups appear. The second element is ideological justification. As a rule, it included legends of origin, stories about wars with each other, in which the characters were legendary leaders. The third element is the transition of the opposition to the domestic level. This includes the activation of tribal endogamy, the appearance of sayings that characterize the opponent. The fourth element is the use of the existing opposition by an external force. It could be either a state seeking to improve the economic situation through an additional source of taxes or strengthen the army, or another tribe in need of resources. At the same time, the rival and ideological "bonds" became an important element of uniting the opposing sides.

It should be noted that the Balkhans could not provide for the existence of a large population (Dzhikiev, 1977, pp. 112-130). Probably, in 1715-1717, the Tekin people gathered for a general meeting (Persians, Jam-i urug), at which it was decided to migrate to Parau (Gizil-Arvat), where there was a conflict with the Yomuts, who did not want to give up their pastures [Military collection, 1897, p. 362].

There are two possible justifications for this opposition. The first was recorded by G. I. Karpov in 1929 at Teke. According to legend, Keimir-Ker, seeking to avenge the insult inflicted on him by Yomut Khan during the toya of the Bujnur ruler, attacked ag-oylithe daughter of the head of the Yomuts, during the wedding [Karpov, 1939(7), pp. 4-7].

An analysis of the legends shows that this model was used by Teke in the 19th century. to explain the Emreli land grab. The legends about Emreli contain real topographical names, unlike the legend about the Yomuts (it does not contain the names of wells, between which the Teke usually roamed). In addition, legends about Emreli are recorded in several districts at once [Nurmukhammedov, 1979, pp. 52-53]. At the same time, one of the features of the Turkmen mentality is obvious. The conflict was explained by a situation that caused an insult to the honor of the tribe, which could lead to chapaul (modern Turkmenistan). çapawulçylyk 'raid') - an attack with the aim of blood feud. The Turkmens, who reimbursed the" fee " for the crime, could also seize the territory of the opponent [Botyakov, 2001, pp. 294-331].

The second genealogical tradition was recorded by G. P. Vasilyeva among the Yomuts in 1955. [Vasilyeva, 2012, p. 148-149]. Analyzing it, it is important to remember the saying that "a true Turkmen is one who values his origin" [Dzhikiev, 1977,

1 Turkm. ag-öyli (white house, white yurt) a special camp, organized, for example, for border protection, gathering of alamans or for friends of the bride.

page 34
pp. 112-120]. Yomuts were considered to be born from a concubine, which was the reason for the split.

The third element - domestic conflict in the form of stereotypical perception of another tribe as opponents-was analyzed on the basis of proverbs of the Teke and Yomut [Botyakov, 2001, pp. 294-331]. Tribal endogamy is also noteworthy-the ban on marriage of Tekinok and Yomutok with neighbors, which served as a way to preserve their own identity and an obstacle to possible pressure from neighbors (including other Turkmen tribes) [Dzhikiev, 1991, p. 12]. Taking into account the developed institution of the raid, this element weakly affected the male half of the tribe. The fourth element of opposition will be discussed in the following sections.

Turkmen migrations were haphazard. They were exposed to external influences. Thus, concerned about the situation in the north-east and the question of the security of residents of the regions bordering the Ottoman Empire, the Safavids relocated some of the Kyzylbash and Kurds to Khorasan [Cambridge..., 2008, p. 3-5]. The Iomuts attacked Abiverd and Tejen, while the Tekinans found themselves in Ahal (Muhammad Kazim, 1960, pp. 28-31, 267). As a result, economic and political contradictions caused confrontations between players of all levels in Khorasan, provoking an outflow of the population from the oases and contributing to further migrations of Turkmens.

KHORASAN POLICY OF NADIR SHAH

By the beginning of the 18th century, the Safavid empire had collapsed. The future ruler of Iran, Nadirshah Afshar (1736-1747), was well acquainted with the Teke and Yomuts even before his accession. While serving the Abiverd ruler Baba Ali Bek [Cambridge..., 2008, p. 8], Nadir participated in the defeat of the Yomut army [Muhammad Kazim, 1960, p. 28-31], and after some time he had to resist the Tekinans [Muhammad Kazim, 1960, p. 85-87], who periodically raided from the Yomut region. There are 4 fortresses on the border of Akhal [Cambridge..., 2008, p. 13]. In 1719, there was another clash between the Persians and the army of "Trukhmen and Uzbeks". The victory of the Iranians only worsened the situation in the region [Posolnik..., 1986, p. 38].

After Baba Ali's death in 1723, Nadir joined the struggle for power. During this period, five expeditions were conducted against the Teke and Yomut [Cambridge..., 2008, p. 22-23]. At the same time, Nadir highly valued the military skills of the Turkmens and sought to attract them to the ranks of his army [Sarai, 1999, p. 25-37]. Campaigns against the Turkmens increased Nadir's authority, but he failed to completely subdue the "Turkmen freemen" (Sarai, 1999, p. 25-37). Turkmens reacted sharply to the actions of tax collectors and recruiters sent by Nadir, raising uprisings or refusing to serve in the army, for which they were subjected to even more severe sanctions and became the target of new punitive expeditions [Amantyev, 1980, p. 33-35].

In 1736, Nadir became the Shah of Iran. He sought to create a large and strong state in which it was planned to eliminate the enmity between Shiites and Sunnis [Rossiya..., 2011, p.14-15]. The first goal of the Shah was the Khanate of Khiva [Materials on history..., 1938, p. 334].

The Teke and Yomut tribes were to play a leading role in this campaign. Muhammad-Ali-Ushak 5 (yomut), Bek-Durdy-Bahadur (teke) and Kuvvat-Vekil (teke) were military advisers to the head of Khiva. After defeating the Khorezm army, Nadir began rebuilding Merv, which became the base for capturing Transoxiana (Muhammad Kazim, 1965, p. 264). After that, a hike to Chardzhou was organized. Nadir, having occupied the city, held negotiations

4 Ersz gala, Ak-hal gala, Khasar gala.

5 Muhammad Kazim calls him " the fox."

page 35
with representatives of the Bukhara nobility, among whom was Muhammad-Hakim-biy atalyk, who surrendered Bukhara.

Khiva, having united tribal military formations, tried to resist Nadir. But after the attack of Iranian artillery, the city was taken. During this period, Turkmens migrated en masse to Mangyshlak. It is significant that the Yomuts who roamed near Mangyshlak ceded part of their pastures to other tribes, claiming that this land used to belong to their common ancestors [Markov, 1976, p.224].

On Mangyshlak, a certain "Dervish Rasul" appeared among the Teke and Yomuts. The Turkmens considered him an emissary to relieve them of their troubles, and they called him "Hazrat-i Ishan" (Persian, "their Holiness, their lord"). This Sufi became one of the leaders of the uprising against the Iranians, for which he was killed [Khazeni, 2007, p. 10].

For the topic under consideration, these events are significant due to the hostility between the Sunni tribes of Khorasan and the Shiite Iranians. Representatives of Sunnis appealed to Islamic theologians to grant them the right to fight against Shiites. Fatwas authorizing Turkmens to fight against Iranians were issued until the Transcaspian region joined Russia (Karpov, 1925, pp. 8-9). The Turkmens used the religious motive as a pretext, which gave them the right to organize raids (alamans), and also as an ideological basis for unification.

The issue of migration to Mangyshlak is also relevant from the point of view of changing the position of some Turkmen tribes. A. Roslyakov suggested that the Tekin people, who occupied the desert areas of Akhal, fled en masse to Mangyshlak and only later gained control of the oasis (Roslyakov, 1956, pp. 115-121). However, Tekin legends describe life in Akhal under Nadir and Teke's participation in the campaigns of the Iranian army (Dzhikiev, 1991). Probably, some clans remained in the oasis, while the main part of the tribe withdrew to Khorezm, where it became part of the local army. For the Yomuts, the flight to Mangyshlak was a tactical retreat. After regrouping their forces, they returned to Khorezm and Astrabad. After unsuccessful attempts at demonstrations, the Yeomut provided recruits for the Shah's army and received a special tax collector. As a result, the Yomut detachment under the command of Muhammad-Ali-Ushak, Ali-Kuli-Bahadir Khan and Ahmad-bey was sent on a campaign against the Kalmyks [Materials on History..., 1938, pp. 182-193].

In 1747, Nadir was killed. Turkmens reacted to the death of the Shah with a series of uprisings [Saray, 1999, p. 27].

TEKE YOMUTSKINRELATIONSHIPS AMID CHANGES IN THE REGION

Even before the 18th century, the authority of the Genghisid dynasties fell sharply [Klyashtorny and Sultanov, 2009, p. 379]. At the same time, the importance of the beks of the Uzbek nomadic nobility, who formed new dynasties, grew.

This also happened in Khorezm, where a power struggle ensued between the Kungrat and Mangyt tribes. The Yomuts supported the Kungrats, who promised their supporters land and water [Russia..., 2011, p. 23-25]. Tekintsy also sided with the Mangyts. In 1763, the Kungrats gained the upper hand, and power over the oasis fell into the hands of Muhammad-Emin-inak (1763-1790), whose refusal to comply with the requirements of the Yomut led to a riot in 1767 (Ivanov, 1958, pp. 152-153).

In 1779, part of the Tekin people tried to return to Khorezm, provoking disturbances in the oasis. Muhammad-Emin, having returned the Yomuts, suppressed this uprising, and then ordered to change the system of settlement of those who returned in order to control the mood among this tribe [Ivanov, 1958, pp. 152-153].

In 1804. Eltizar Kungrat (1804-1806), the grandson of Muhammad Emin, who assumed the title of Khan of Khorezm, invited teke to suppress the revolt of the Yomuts and Emreli [Munis,

page 36
Agahi, 1999, p. 186-201]. But under Eltizar's brother Muhammad-Rahim I (1806-1825), the Yomuts again became the leading military force of the khanate [Bregel, 1961, p.123-142], and the Teke returned to Akhal, ravaged by the punitive campaigns of Nadir. Taking advantage of the departure of the Afshars, they turned against Garadashli, Ali-ili, and Emreli (Necef and Annaberdiyev, 2003, p. 215). Before the conquest of Akhal, the Teke divided the oasis by lot. The genera that received the worst land continued to move East (Botyakov, 2002, p. 40-43), but were forced to move to Merv, faced with the strengthening of Iran and Khiva (Wood, 1998, p.67-68).

Another interesting aspect is the position of the Turkmen Geklen tribe in the relations between the Teke and the Yomuts. In 1817-1847, this tribe migrated to Khorezm as part of the policy of forming the Kungrat army [Vamberi, 2003, p.136], which was supported by the leader of the Heklen Sultan Khan, who together with the Yomuts rebelled against the Iranians under the command of Yusuf Kashgar [Travel..., 1822, p. 1-7]. In 1855-1860, the Goklens returned from Khorezm to the area near Gara-gal, which they had settled in the middle of the XVII century, but the number of the tribe decreased by 4 times, which was probably due to the settling of part of the tribe in Khorezm [Bode, 1847, pp. 213-216]. All this led to the fact that the Geklens began to play the role of a buffer between the Teke and the Yomuts.

The Geklens allowed the Tekin alamans to pass through their territory (Grodekov, 1883, pp. 30-36). The dayy-yegen6 relationship began to develop between the Geklen and the Yomut [Karpov, 1939(4), p. 2]. However, ties with the Yomut were unstable due to the attacks of the Tekin Alamans. These actions forced the Yomuts to organize a border line near Gizil-Arvat [Chteniye..., 1880, pp. 71-72]. At the same time, the Geklen poet Makhtymguly referred to Choudur Khan and Ahmad Shah Durrani as strong leaders capable of uniting the Turkmen people in his works created under the significant influence of the Naqshbandiya brotherhood (Annanepesov, 1984, pp. 40-45; Kazanchi, 2012, pp. 58-66).

In the second half of the XVIII - first half of the XIX centuries, the internal political situation in the states of Central Asia stabilized. Agriculture was restored, trade relations developed. But the internal political struggle in Iran did not allow it to influence the Central Asian political field.

However, the process of agricultural revival did not solve the problem of assimilation of the nomadic periphery by the settled center. The memory of the "Central Asian turmoil of the XVIII century" led to the fear of upheavals and stagnation of established political attitudes, which contributed to the continuation of the confrontation between the nomadic periphery and the settled center. The emerging positive trends in the mid-19th century were offset by a new round of systemic crisis development in these countries [Rossiya..., 2011, pp. 12-26].

The Turkmens who occupied the border position in the region did not always switch to agriculture [Markov, 1976, p.209]. The reluctance to pay taxes and the desire for independence were the reasons for the conflict between the Turkmen periphery and the settled centers.

In addition, Turkmens were active participants in the political struggle in Iran (Sarai, 1999, p. 81). An example of the unification of Turkmens in this period is the inclusion of representatives of both tribes in the Khiva army during the Bukhara-Khiva conflict of 1804-1805 [Karpov, 1939(5), p. 11]. Sufis were a strong source of unifying influence on Turkmens. People who survived the difficult years of the "troubles" were inclined to seek support from religious authorities [Alekseev, 2011, p.13-23] and therefore united under the leadership of individual religious figures who were authoritative among them to fight against the state entities of Central Asia.

6 Turkmens. dayy - uncle, yegen-nephew; such a connection implied a union and the possibility of intertribal marriages.

page 37
Whether hostility between the tribes persisted is indicated by the fact that there are descriptions of mutual raids in the sources, which are explained by the unauthorized nature of the tribal leaders [Munis and Agahi, 1999]. Iran's punitive campaigns, as well as the subjugation of the Turkmens to Khiva, were not effective, being temporary in nature.

THE BIG GAME

In 1859, Jafar Quli Khan, who led the army of Khorasan, made an attempt to capture Gara-gal (Samoilovich, 2005, pp. 427-429). Gara-gala was of great importance in the communication of the Turkmen steppe and the Iranian Khorasan (Grodekov, 1883, pp. 30-36). For this reason, the Persians carefully monitored the situation in this area.'Donovan, 1998, p. 14-15].

At that time, the Alaman was the main source of income for some social groups (Grodekov, 1883, pp. 71-75). Especially important was the capture of slaves, which were sold at an inflated price to relatives. Otherwise, the slave was either accepted into their ranks or taken to the slave markets of Khiva.'Donovan, 1998, pp. 32-33].

By this period, the Turkmens showed a serious property stratification [Markov, 1976, p. 229-231]. The situation with water was also in conflict [Karpov, 1939(1), p. 4-5]. Therefore, in the event of an attack, there was a need to convene a maslahat and seek support from neighbors. This situation contributed to the advancement of the opponent's troops.

These factors were also reflected during the war near Gara-gala. The Heklens, who had suffered several defeats, called on the help of Akhal Nur-Berdy Khan and the Yomut leader Mahmud Ishan [Samoilovich, 2005, pp. 511-518]. The combined Turkmen army defeated the Iranians and collapsed. This is an example of how tribes united against an external aggressor when his actions affected their interests. At the same time, there was an example of unification under the auspices of a third party, namely as part of the Bukhara army in the campaign against Kokand (between 1840 and 1860).

In 1861, the Iranian Shah Nasr al-Din (1848-1896) decided to organize a campaign to Merv (Saparov, 1990: 27-30), where three Turkmen tribes lived: Teke, Salor, and Saryk (Wood, 1998: 68-78). The Tekin people of Merv, who occupied most of the oasis after the departure of the Salors and Sariks, opposed the Qajars, who sought to seize Merv.'Donovan, 1998, p. 14].

The Iranian campaign ended in failure [Grodekov, 1883, pp. 39-40]. Together with the death of Khan Muhammad-Emin of Khiva in 1855 at the hands of Teke, this victory became a factor in the rise of the tribe, which offered the Yomut an alliance [Vamberi, 2003, pp. 32-38]. The rejection of tribal endogamy was announced [Sarai, 1999, pp. 102-106]. However, the idea of the union did not find support among the Yomut.

Merv attracted the attention of the participants of the "big game". The Russians considered this region as a fulcrum in the struggle for Herat [Sergeev, 2012, pp. 158-159]. For the British, Merv was an obstacle to Russian movement from the Caspian Sea.'Donovan, 1998, pp. 75-127; Sergeev, 2012, pp. 76-78]. Thus, the territory that the Teke and Yomut had previously captured became the scene of confrontation between Great Britain and Russia. The first episode of the Big Game in this territory was the fight for Khiva. Khan Sayyid-Muhammad (1856-1864) supported the Yomut-Athabais in the struggle against the Russians, who tried to gain a foothold on the Caspian coast. Russian troops periodically repelled attempts to enslave their soldiers (Vambery, 2003: 122-123). In addition, when trying to buy camels for reconnaissance, the Yomuts turned into an open clash with Russian troops [Grodekov, 1883, p. 105]. In 1873-1874, the Khanate of Khiva was conquered by Russia. The Yomut tried to escape to the Tekin people in order to unite their forces [Saranchov, 1874, pp. 182-184], but this attempt was blocked-

page 38
with the Russian army. Later, Russia and Khiva signed a treaty, one of the points of which was the abolition of slavery [Zhukovsky, 1915, pp. 179-183].

The British used several deterrent forces against the Russians at once. One of them was the Ottoman Empire, whose emissaries went to the Teke and Yomuts and, posing as "brothers of the Turkmens", actively campaigned against Russian influence in the Transcaspian region [Rossiya..., 2011, pp. 196-232].

Another lever of pressure was Iran. In particular, the Persians turned to the Merv Tekes with a proposal to accept their citizenship. The Tekin people sent a Qajar "chosen khan" who had no real power to negotiate, which created a stalemate.'Donovan, 1998, pp. 127-158]. Iran was interested in the security of the northern border, but at the same time feared a decline in its international prestige.

Despite Russia's attempts to control the situation from Krasnovodsk, Chekishlyar, and the Amu Darya division, the lack of a unified position on the organization of control over the Turkmens [Terentyev, 1906, p. 2-10] led to the collapse of the Turkmens into several parties, the confrontation of which was aggravated by the struggle between individual leaders, as well as between well-off members of the community and their poor brethren [Kuropatkin, 1879, pp. 46-47].

Initially, Russia defended the Jafarbai Yomuts from the aggression of the Tekin and Apgabai Yomuts. The military knew that this alliance was not strong and would break up in the event of the slightest failure [Ilyasov, 1960, p.47]. The result of the expedition against the Atrek Yomuts [ibid., pp. 51-62] was the oath of teke Gizil-Arvat led by Sofi Khan and the Atabai Yomuts led by Musa Khan [Kuropatkin, 1879, p. 44].

In response, the Tekintsy of Akhal organized a chapaul to Krasnovodsk, where they were attacked by Russian artillery [Saray, 2012, p. 602]. In 1874, the oasis split for the first time. The Pgogtamysh tribe was in favor of accepting Russian citizenship, while Utamysh, which is less affluent and closely connected with Merv, was against it. At the same time, the Yomut management system was reformed [Kuropatkin, 1879, p. 45].

In 1875, the first four Tekin khans were sworn in at Krasnovodsk. One of the requests they made to Alexander II was to "create peace" between them and the Yomut. An important move of the Russian army was the fair, which turned out to be very profitable for the Tekin people.

These actions led to the opinion that the submission of teke 111 years ago to Khiva 7, as well as the fact that in 1873 the Khan of Khiva became a servant of the Russian tsar, would logically lead to the submission of teke to the "Ag-Padishah" ("White Tsar") [ibid., pp. 46-47]. Almost immediately, according to the reports of Makh-Magametov (Terentyev, 1906, p. 5-10), there was a split into three parties: the pro-Russian one led by Nur-Berdy, the pro-Khiva one led by the Khiva envoy Musa-Mutavalli, and the supporters of Tekin independence, who were attracted to Merv (Kuropatkin, 1879, p.50).

The split between the Eastern Ahal, which tended towards Goshut Khan, the Tekin leader of the Merv oasis, famous for his victories over the Iranian army, and the Western One was also clearly manifested, as was made clear by the visit of the representative of the local Teke Muhammad-Alikadi, who asked to organize trade "between Krasnovodsk and Teke" and give the Tekin people a certificate "similar to that one what Nadir Shah and Genghis Khan gave when they took them into service" [Chteniye..., 1880, p. 72]. In 1876, a pro-Iranian party emerged among Teke, headed by Kurban Murad-ishan and the khans of two Teke clans (Demidov, 2006: 229-230).

In 1877, the Tekin haji returned, who, among other things, paid a visit to the Caliph in Istanbul [Saray, 1999, pp. 123-201]. The Russian garrison heard rumors about their agitation. Ordinary Turkmens believed that they should defend their own freedom

7 The results of the war of 1855 were not mentioned.

page 39
[Dzhurdekov, 2010, p. 77-186]. They were influenced by rumors about Russian policy in Turkestan and the abolition of slavery.

After Goushut Khan's death, Nur-Berdy received Merv's support and held several meetings with the Khan of Khiva [Necef and Annaberdiyev, 2003, s. 264-266], after which he left the pro-Russian party. At the same time, the supply of British weapons from Herat was established [Chteniye..., 1880, p. 77]. In 1878, opponents of joining Russia organized a large chapaul to the West. Legends about him are still preserved in the people's memory [from the informant's message].

In 1877, the Russo-Turkish War broke out, which caused the reduction of the Krasnovodsk garrison (Necef and Annaberdiyev, 2003, p. 268). At that time, a detachment of pro-Russian Turkmens joined the corps based in Krasnovodsk on a voluntary basis [Chteniye..., 1880, p. 77].

The Tekin people used the statement of Muslim unity against the Russian army, which attacked the caliph (the Ottoman Sultan) and the largest Muslim ruler of the region (the Khan of Khiva), as a slogan for the start of hostilities. All actions of the Russian army were carried out under the slogans "protection of the Yomuts" and "pacification of Transcaspia". However, after a quarrel with Dykma-serdar, the leader of one of the Teke tribes, as well as a well-known military leader among the Teke who adhered to pro-Russian positions, the Russian army was in dire need of guides who knew the local roads. Geklens and yomuts were used for this purpose. But even at first, the Russians noted that, unlike the Geklen, most Yomuts do not give out any information to the Tekin people [Grodekov, 1883, p.59].

After two campaigns, the fortress of Geok Tepe, the political center of the Ahal Tekin people, fell. The "pacification of the steppe" began. This term also implied the resolution of intertribal contradictions. In this regard, the question of managing the conquered territories arose. The new area was given to the military, who developed a management model that included: moving the center to the city of Askhabad while maintaining the strategic function of Krasnovodsk, creating places for local elders in the militia system, supporting khans [Botyakov, 1995, p. 194-195], controlling the activities of theologians [Central Asia, 2008, p. 242-243], development of the city of Krasnovodsk. education systems, the creation of the Tekin Cavalry regiment, in which the Yomuts also served [Gundogdyev, 2012, pp. 145-147], etc.

* * *

The confrontation between the Teke and Yomut tribes developed in the XVII-XVIII centuries. as a struggle for economic resources. At the same time, the Tekin and Yomut people never forgot their common roots, which sometimes helped them unite in the face of an external threat. Charismatic leaders, such as major Sufis, and ideologies, such as the Sunni-Shiite opposition, played an important role in these alliances. The Yomut and Tekin actively approached each other when it came to aspects that were important to both tribal groups. Various factors, primarily changes in economic conditions and external influences, played a primary role in the tribal discord.

The history of the relationship between the Teke and the Yomut shows how the relationships between the nomadic periphery and the settled centers of Khorasan developed. From the point of view of studying the phenomenon of development of modern Turkmenistan, the point of view is interesting, according to which Turkmens, who always lived on the periphery, having created an independent state, found themselves in the center of their own worldview [Clement, 2005, p.18-20]. Of course, this leaves its mark on the construction of Turkmenistan as a sovereign state.

page 40
list of literature

Abul-Ghazi-Bahadur Khan. Family tree of the Turks. Moscow-Tashkent-Bishkek: Turkestan Publ., 1996.

Alekseev A. K. On the issue of the intermediary role of the Islamic clergy in Central Asia // Turkological collection 2009-2010. Moscow: Vostochny lit., 2011.

Amantysv O. Turkmenistan and Turkmens in the first half of the XVIII century. Ashgabat: Ylym, 1980.

Annansspssov M. Makhtumkuli and his time. Ashgabat: Ylym Publ., 1984.

Aristov, N. A., Notes on the ethnic composition of Turkic tribes and nationalities and information on their numbers, Zhivaya Starina, St. Petersburg, 1896, Vol. III IV.

Bods K. O turkmenskikh pokoleniyakh: yamudakh i goklany [About Turkmen generations: yamudakh and goklans]. St. Petersburg, 1847.

Botyakov Yu. M. Alaman: Socio-economic aspects of the Institute of raid among Turkmens (mid-19th - first half of the 20th century). SPb., 2002.

Botyakov Yu. M. Institute of violence in the political culture of Turkmens: tradition and modernity / / Anthropology of violence. SPb.: Nauka, 2001.

Butakov Y. M. Some aspects of the traditional political culture of the Turkmen people (XIX-XX centuries) // Ethnic aspects of power. St. Petersburg: Language Center Publ., 1995.

Brsgsl Yu. E. Khorezm turkmens in the XIX century, Moscow: Publishing House of Oriental Literature, 1961.

Vambsri A. Travel through Central Asia, Moscow: Vostochny lit., 2003.
Vasileva, G. P., the Story of an ethnographic study of the Turkmen people in domestic science. Late XVIII-XX century. Essays, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2003.
Vasilyeva G. P. The Goddess of Turkmen Ethnography, Moscow: IFECAS, 2012.
Military collection.SPb.

Grodskov N. I. Voina v Turkmenii [The War in Turkmenistan]. Skobelev's campaign in 1880-1881. In 4 vols. Vol. I. St. Petersburg: Tip. B.C. Balashova, 1883.

Gundogdysv O. A. The fighting path of the Tekin Horse regiment (1914-1918). Ashgabat: Turkmen State Publishing Service, 2012.

Demidov S. M. Kurban-Murad-ishan / / Islam on the territory of the former Russian Empire, vol. I. Moscow: Vostochny lit., 2006.

Jikisv A. Essay on ethnic history and formation of the population of Southern Turkmenistan. Ashgabat: Ylym Publ., 1977.

Jikisv A. Essays on the origin and formation of the Turkmen people in the Middle Ages. Ashgabat: Ylym Publ., 1991.

Dzhurdskov T. The grandson who embodies his grandfather's dream. Ashgabat: Turkmen State Publishing Service, 2010.

Zhukovsky S. V. Snosheniya Rossii s Bukharoy i Khiva za poslednoe trekhsotletiye [Russia's Relations with Bukhara and Khiva over the last three hundred years]. Trudy Obshchestva russkikh orientalistov, No. 2, Petrograd, 1915.

Ivanov P. P. Ocherki po istorii Srednoi Azii (XVI - seredina XIX V.) [Essays on the history of Central Asia (XVI-mid-XIX century)].
Ilyasov A. Annexation of Turkmenistan to Russia (collection of archival documents). Ashgabat: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Turkmen SSR, I960.

Kazanchi M. O. Vliyanie Dovlstmammsd Azadi na tvorchestvo Makhtumkuli [The influence of Dovlstmammsd Azadi on Makhtumkuli's creativity]. Ashgabat, 2012, no. 2.

Karpov G. I. Tribal and generic composition of Turkmens. Poltoratsk, 1925.

Karpov G. I. Stavropol Turkmens (historical and ethnographic essay). On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1936.

Karpov G. I. Stories of old men of the Tekin people of Akhal about the history of their tribe (XIX century). Recorded in the Geok-Tepinsky district, in 1936. On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1936-1939.

Karpov G. I. On the Turkmen Khans, Sardars, Aksakals, mirabahs, jarchi, etc. in Akhal (XIX century). Based on the stories of old Turkmens (materials for the study of the history of the Turkmen people). On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1939 (1).

Karpov G. I. Reference on the Keraili Turkic tribe (from the book: Materials on the History of Turkmens and Turkmenistan, vol. 11, 1938, ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow-L.). On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1939(2).

Karpov G. I. Turkmen " Tagma "(materials for the study of the history of the Turkmen people). On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1939(3).

Karpov G. I. Turkmen tribe of kara-dashly (yazyri). Materials for the study of the history of the Turkmen people. On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1939 (4).

Karpov G. I. Turkmen tribe of Salyr (materials for the study of the history of the Turkmen people). On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1939(5).

Karpov G. I. Turkmen tribe saryk (materials for the study of the history of the Turkmen people). On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1939 (6).

Karpov G. I. Ethnographic studies from the past of Turkmens (materials for the study of the history of the Turkmen people). On the rights of the manuscript. Ashgabat, 1939(7).

Karpov G. I. Essays on the history of Turkmenistan and the Turkmen people. Ashgabat: Ylym Publ., 1940.

Karrysv A., Moshkova V. G., Nasonov A. N., Yakubovsky A. Yu. Essays from the history of the Turkmen people and Turkmenistan in the VIII-XIX centuries. Ashgabat: Ylym Publ., 1954.

page 41
Klyashtorny S. G., Sultanov T. I. Gosudarstva i narody Evraziyskikh steppey [States and Peoples of the Eurasian Steppes].
Kuropatkin A. N. Turkmenia i turkmeny [Turkmenistan and Turkmens], St. Petersburg: Polstiki V. A., 1879.

Markov G. E. Kochevniki Azii: struktura khozyaistva i obshchestvennoi organizatsii [Nomads of Asia: structure of Economy and Public Organization]. Moscow: MSU, 1976.

Materials on the history of Turkmens and Turkmenistan. In 2 vols. Vol. 11. XVI-XIX centuries. Iranian, Bukhara and Khiva sources. Moscow, Leningrad, 1938.

Mikhailov F. A. Natives of the Transcaspian region and their life. Ethnographic essay. Askhabad, 1900.

Muhammad Kazim Marvi. Nameh-yi alam apa-yi Nadiri (Miroukrashchaya Nadirova kniga), Moscow: Vostochny lit., 1960-1966.

Nurmukhammsdov K. Ethnic processes and settlement of Turkmens in the XVIII-XIX centuries. Ashgabat: TSU Publishing House named after Makhtumkuli, 1979.

O'Donovan E. Merv. Ashgabat: Rukh Publ., 1998.

Politicheskie sistemy sovremennykh gosudarstv: Entsiklopedicheskii spravochnik: v 4-kh t. Vol. 2: Aziya [Political Systems of Modern States: An Encyclopedia Guide].
Peter I's envoy to the East. The Embassy of Florio Beneveni to Persia and Bukhara in 1718-1725. east lit. Nauka Publishing House, 1986.

Presidential elections in Turkmenistan: political and Economic risks of the second term of Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, Moscow: MIPE, 2012.
Journey to Turkmenistan and Khiva in 1819 and 1820 of the Guards General Staff of Captain Nikolai Muravyov, sent to these countries for negotiations. Moscow, 1822.

Roslyakov A. A. Brief outline of the history of Turkmenistan (before joining Russia). Ashgabat: Turkmengosizdat Publ., 1956.

Russia Central Asia. 1. Politika i islam v kontse XVIII nachale XIX v. Politika i Islam v kontse XVIII nachale XIX v. [Politics and Islam in the late 18th and early 19th centuries].

Samoilovich A. N. Tyurkskoe yazykoznanie, filologiya, runika [Turkic linguistics, Philology, runika].
Saparov M. "Zheng-e Merv" as a Persian source for studying the history of Southern Turkmenistan in the middle of the XIX century.

Saray M. Torkmankha dar ' asar-i zmpzrialismm: pazhukheshi dar bar-yi mardom-i torkman, enzemym-i keshvareshan be Rusiye (Turkmens in the Era of imperialism: a study on the Turkmen people and their country's annexation to Russia). Tehran, 1378 (1999).

Saranchov E. Khiva expedition of 1873. Notes of an eyewitness sapper E. Saranchov. SIIb., 1874.

Big Game, 1856-1907. Moscow: KMK, 2012.

System Monitoring of Global and Regional Risks: Central Asia: New Challenges, LENAND Publ., 2013.

Tsrsntsv M. A. Istoriya obedianiya Srednoi Azii [History of the Conquest of Central Asia]. In 4 vols. Vol. III. SPb., 1906.

Tolstoe S. P. Parody Srednoi Azii i Kazakhstanii [Parods of Central Asia and Kazakhstan]. In 2 volumes, Vol. II. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1963.

Central Asia as Part of the Russian Empire, Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2008.
Reading for Soldiers, St. Petersburg, 1880. Books V VI.

Yudin M. L. Nachalo snosheniy s turkmenskim narodom [The beginning of relations with the Turkmen people]. Issue XXIX. Orenburg, 1913.

Bregel U. A Historical Alias of Central Asia. Lcidcn Boston: Brill, 2003.

Cambridge History of Iran: Vol. 7: From Nadir Shah to Islamic Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Clement V. Rewriting the "Nation": Turkmen Literacy, Language and Power, 1904-2004. Ohio: The Ohio State University, 2005.

Hojanyyazow T., Gurbanow A., Öwlüyagulyycw M. Beyik yüpek yoly we Türkmenistan. Ashhabad: Ylym, 2011.

Illiycv M. Türk tarihinde secere gelenegi: Turkmen Secereleri Örnegi. Ankara: Ankara Univcrsitcsi, 2010.

Khazcni A. The Turkmen in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Persian Chronicles // Central Eurasian Studies Review. 2007. Vol. 6. N 1/2.

Munkaesi K. Dividing the Chodor// Hali. N 77. October-November 1994.

Necef E., Annabcrdiycv A. Hazar otesi Turkmenleri. Istanbul: Kaknus tarih, 2003.

Saray M. Turkmenistan. Tarih // Islam Ansiklopedisi. Cilt 41 (Tcvckkul Tustcri). Istanbul: ISAM, 2012.

Shir Muhammad Mirab Munis, Muhammad Riza Mirab Agahi. Firdaws al-iqbal. Lcidcn-BostonKoln: Brill, 1999.

Wood W. The Sariq Turkmens of Merv and the Khanate of Khiva in the Early Nineteenth Century. Indiana University: UM1, 1998.

Wood W. Turkmen ethnohistory // Vanishing Jewels: Central Asian Tribal Weavings. Rochester Museum & Science Center, 1990.

page 42

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: