The problems of the annexation of the southern regions of Siberia to Russia in the 17th and early 18th centuries, the interaction and mutual influence of Russian and aboriginal cultures, and the formation of the modern Khakass people have repeatedly become the subject of discussion in Russian historical science. The main range of sources covering the events of this period are Russian historical documents, the main body of which was collected in the XVIII century by G. F. Miller. In 1995, the most complete set of documents containing important information about the events that took place in Southern Siberia in the XVII - first half of the XVIII century was published. ¹ The analysis of these sources allowed historians and ethnographers to trace the sequence of events in the "Kyrgyz Land", starting from the first contacts of the Kyrgyz with the Russians and ending with the deportation of a significant part of the indigenous population to Dzungaria and subsequent development of the Minusinsk basin by the Russians ² . These events were also considered in the context of international relations between Russia, the Mongol states, and the Qing Empire in the 17th and 18th centuries. ³ Quite a lot of works cover in detail the problems of Russian development of the Middle Yenisei Valley and the mutual influence of Russian and indigenous cultures ⁴ .

The nature of the annexation of Southern Siberia to Russia and its consequences for indigenous peoples were not evaluated equally by scientists and publicists in different periods. In Russian historiography of the XVIII-XIX centuries, the "acquisition" of Siberia, including its southern regions, was considered as a conquest mainly with the help of weapons, but sometimes without special military efforts. Many scholars have characterized the Yenisei Kyrgyz as a militant nomadic people who strongly resisted the Russian advance to southern Siberia, and noted that after the Kyrgyz were driven into Dzungaria, the Minusinsk Basin was finally annexed to Russia. They emphasized the difference between the ancient culture of the "Bronze Age", which included almost all types of archaeological sites attributed to the mythical "Chudi" people, on the one hand, and the culture of the warlike Mongols and Kyrgyz, as well as the modern indigenous Turkic - speaking population - "Tatars", on the other. The culture of the latter was often assessed as "pathetic and poor", and the process of annexation of Southern Siberia to Russia as an objective and inevitable consequence of the development and spread of European civilization. In this case, for example, G. F. Miller and I. G. Gmelin also noted the negative consequences for the Siberian peoples of joining Russia, the arbitrariness and bribery of the local Siberian administration. ⁵ I. E. Fischer, who did not distinguish between Kyrgyz and Kazakhs, believed that the main reason for the difficulties experienced by the Russian authorities in the process of annexing Southern Siberia was the militancy of the Kyrgyz, who caused Russia a lot of trouble with their raids and instigation of Siberian peoples ' preparation for action against the Russians ⁶ . At the same time, I. E. Siveret was inclined to idealize the "simplicity" and "artlessness" of nomadic mores, and the "freedom" that reigned, in his opinion, in nomadic society ^.7

In the XIX century. to justify the annexation of Siberia, scientists put forward other motives. Thus, P. A. Slovtsov justified the "conquest" of Siberia by the fact that "wild" customs, customs and superstitions were widespread among the Siberian peoples. He considered fur production to be the main incentive for developing the region, and the main success factor was the use of firearms ^.8 In the second half of the XIX century as a result of the fruitful scientific activity of V. V. Radlov,

(c) 2003

page 170

After conducting archaeological, ethnographic and linguistic research in the Sayan-Altai and Central Asia, drawing on information from medieval Chinese sources and translated ancient Turkic runic texts, the source base and modern ideas about the ethno-cultural history of the Turkic-speaking indigenous population of Southern Siberia were formed. V. V. Radlov concluded that the indigenous population of the Minusinsk basin was formed from "various tribes which, wandering, descended in the XVII-XVIII centuries. to the liberated Abakan Valley" after the withdrawal of the Kyrgyz and the annexation of these lands to Russia ⁹ . This point of view, based on information from sources and largely consistent with the previous historiographical tradition, was challenged by the local historian, amateur archaeologist I. P. Kuznetsov. In his opinion, the Kyrgyz could not live in a relatively small area of the Minusinsk basin, but "lived much to the south of the Yenisei province, perhaps between the Tannu-Ola ridges and the southern Altai" ¹⁰ .

At the beginning of the 20th century, historians and publicists of the "oblastnik" and Marxist trends received critical assessments of the tsarist government's policy towards indigenous peoples, emphasizing the negative consequences for the Siberian ethnic groups of the annexation of Siberia to Russia. Active discussions about the "extinction of foreigners" coincided with the resettlement of landless peasants from the European part of the country to some regions of Siberia, which was carried out in line with the Stolypin reform. For example, V. A. Vatin in his works focused on the" oppression " of the indigenous population of Southern Siberia by the tsarist administration ^.11 As M. B. Sheinfeld noted, some assessments were expressed by this scientist in a polemic with official historiography ^.12 At the same time, V. A. Vatin noted that during the XVII century, the Kyrgyz repeatedly agreed to become Russian citizens, pay tribute, and also offered to build a prison on their land. He drew attention to the existence of "a fairly lively trade exchange between Russians and foreigners." ¹³

The sharpest assessments of the policy of the tsarist authorities in relation to the indigenous population during the annexation of Southern Siberia are contained in the works of the "oblastnik" N. N. Kozmin. He claimed that the reason for military actions between Russians and Kyrgyz in the 17th century was solely "violence" on the part of Tomsk voivodes who robbed the wife of Prince Nomchi, who came to Tomsk for negotiations. The scientist highly appreciated the activities of Prince Irenak, who "delayed the catastrophe for almost forty years", although he noted that already in the mid-1660s, the princes discussed plans to "leave for Kalmaki with all their uluses and not live on Kyrgyz land" ¹⁴ . He called the Kyrgyz military actions against the Russians a "struggle for independence", but he believed that the Kyrgyz princes were dependent on the Altan Khans and the Dzungarian Kontaish. Describing the Kyrgyz as the "dominant tribe" in each of the four Kyrgyz principalities, he argued that "the Kyrgyz themselves were divided into separate tribes" ^.15 However, in an attempt to justify the historicity of the term "Khakass" adopted in 1923 as an ethnonym for the indigenous population, the scientist in the preface to his book published in 1925 contrasted "Kyrgyz" and "Khakass", referring them to different ethnic groups; at the same time, in the text of the first chapter, he speaks about the state "Khakass-Kyrgyz", identifying both terms ¹⁶ . Later, N. N. Kozmin was forced to admit his mistakes and tried to master new methodological guidelines. Assessing his scientific heritage, M. B. Sheinfeld came to the conclusion that "identifying positive content in Kozmin's scientific heritage, it is necessary to resolutely reject reactionary tendencies in his work, especially nationalist stratifications" ¹⁷ .

In the 1950s, N. N. Kozmin's views and assessments on the annexation of Southern Siberia to Russia were sharply criticized in the works of L. P. Potapov, who considered it inappropriate to call the policy of the Kyrgyz princes a "struggle for independence", since they were dependent on the Mongols and Dzungars. L. P. Potapov explained the military actions between the Russians and the Kyrgyz by the "aggressiveness" of the Kyrgyz princes and "retaliatory measures" on the part of the Russian authorities. He assessed N. N. Kozmin's book as written from "anti-scientific, nationalistic positions" ¹⁸ . He also expressed disagreement with S. V. Bakhrushin, who expressed in an article on the Yenisei Kyrgyz of the XVIII century the opinion that the Kyrgyz during this period "led" the process of merging the Yenisei tribes into a "single nationality" ¹⁹. L. P. Potapov argued that the Kyrgyz language and culture differed from the Kyshtym tribes, and the conditions for "the formation of a nation from a heterogeneous and mixed population in the Minusinsk basin" arose only after the departure of the Kyrgyz and the annexation of these lands to Russia; that the process of con --

page 171

the consolidation of different ethnic groups into a single small nation ended only "at the end of the XIX and beginning of the XX centuries"; that the name "Khakas" was proposed "at the very beginning of the 20s" by representatives of the local intelligentsia, who proceeded "from the erroneous idea that the Minusinsk or Abakan "Tatars" are descendants of the ancient population of the Sayan-The Altai Highlands recorded in the Chinese chronicles under the name "hyagas" " ²⁰ .

Since the publication of the works of L. P. Potapov, the opinion about the voluntary annexation of Khakassia to Russia has become generally accepted. Since the late 1950s, L. R. Kyzlasov has been actively promoting and further substantiating this point of view. He first described it in an article devoted to the "ethnogenesis of the Khakass" in the Middle Ages, in which he emphasized that "only thanks to the voluntary annexation of Khakassia to the Russian state 250 years ago, the Khakass were able to overcome centuries of fragmentation and the threat of physical destruction, and were able to rally into a single nation ..." ²¹ . Later, in the 1960s and 1980s, he repeatedly spoke about the benefits for the indigenous population of Southern Siberia of "voluntary annexation" to Russia, even in works not specifically devoted to this topic, for example, in books about the Tashtyk culture of the Hunno-Sarmatian period, about the medieval history and archeology of Tuva and Southern Siberia in general, in the section of the collective monograph on the history of East and Central Asia, dedicated to the Middle Ages ²² . Evaluating the scientific research of the Khakass scientist K. G. Kopkoev devoted to this topic ²³, L . R. Kyzlasov noted that "this author proved the fact of voluntary annexation of Khakassia to Russia" ²⁴ . V. G. Kartsev's book, of which he was the executive editor, states that the initiators of the annexation of Khakassia to Russia were "ordinary Khakass" who, after 1703, appealed to the Russian authorities with a "plea" to build a prison on their land ^.25 In the polemic between L. R. Kyzlasov and N. A. Serdobov, the latter notes that L. R. Kyzlasov's desire for a " one-sided assessment "of the ancient Khakass" state", which follows from his concept of the Kyrgyz as a dynastic clan of the "ancient Khakass", is a distortion of the history of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, who became part of not only the modern Khakass, but also the ancient Khakass people. "Tuvans, Central Asian Kirghizs, Altaians" and other peoples. N. A. Serdobov believes that it is unacceptable to turn them into a" dynastic "Seok clan or" Khakass " ²⁶ . Such a "transformation" inevitably leads to a diminution of the role of other peoples in the history of Southern Siberia. L. R. Kyzlasov tried to counteract these just criticisms with a clumsy passage about "deep antiquity", in which "kinship, brotherhood and friendship between the peoples of our multiethnic Homeland arose and strengthened", and even the special "Khakass period in the history of Tuva" highlighted by him ^.27

In a book on the history of Khakassia, in a section written jointly with K. G. Kopkoev, L. R. Kyzlasov almost verbatim repeated V. G. Kartsev's assessment of the "pleas of ordinary Khakass" after 1703 - 1704, addressed to the Russian authorities, to build a prison in their lands so that "they could live safely under the great sovereign power". However, the very period of "voluntary annexation" in this book is called "100 years of struggle for independence" ²⁸ .

Perhaps even further in the search for the origins of this "voluntariness" went in his research I. L. Kyzlasov, according to whom the "ancient Khakass" already in the XI-XII centuries. made their "choice of ancestors", when they sent "ancient Khakass explorers" on behalf of their "world power" to Russia, obviously in an attempt to find those who were still alive. who could be "voluntarily joined" ²⁹ . It is only surprising that when, finally, in the 17th century, the Russians responded to this "choice", the mythical "Khakass power" needed 100 years of war to ask for admission to Russian citizenship.

When the winds of change "blew out" in the country, L. R. Kyzlasov's opinion on this issue changed dramatically. In a paper published twice in 1992, he first described the" voluntary annexation "of Khakassia to Russia as" the violent seizure of Khakass lands by Krasnoyarsk, Tomsk, and Kuznetsk Cossacks. " ³⁰ In a book about the ancient cities of Siberia, the author has drawn an impressive picture of the severe consequences of the "Russian conquest" for the indigenous peoples of Siberia: "The conquest interrupted the process of original historical development of the indigenous Siberian peoples and ethnic groups... Tsarism turned a beautiful and free land into a" harsh and gloomy country." He turned blooming, almost virgin Siberia into a country of exile and hard labor, a country of universal horror, terrible for all civilized humanity..." ³¹ .

page 172

In addition to angry accusations against "tsarism", this book contains a very unflattering description of some historians of Siberia and Russian historical science in general, which, according to L. R. Kyzlasov, was dominated by"ossified ideas about stagnant archaic and conservative socio-economic relations among the indigenous peoples of Siberia." This "erroneous tradition that distorted the historical past of the vast region of Northern Asia", which originated in the XVIII century, turned out to be "so tenacious" that it still dominates the minds of historians of Siberia. "Official Soviet historiography, not without the influence of the same traditional view, continued to belittle the level of socio-economic development of the indigenous peoples of Siberia and neglect the difficult historical path they had traversed." L. R. Kyzlasov accused Siberian historians of bias and incompetence. He is struck by the degree of" immorality "of some of the authors of the" History of Siberia " - "this learned work "(by the way, he was one of them) ^.32 L. R. Kyzlasov accused the historians of Russian cities of Siberia of the XVI-XVIII centuries of "shamelessness" ³³ , but he was particularly irritated by the views of the" representative of academic circles " V. I. Shunkov, although in the 1970s he appealed to the authority of this scientist ^.34

In the 1970s, L. R. Kyzlasov declared himself a follower of the "traditions of Russian and Soviet science", the very "official Soviet historiography", without seeing in it "a virus of bias and tendentiousness". His own assessment of the level of development of the indigenous peoples of Southern Siberia did not differ from the scientists he criticized today. In the 1980s, he wrote that the "huge interest" generated by the Mongol conquest "explains why Siberia was later inhabited by a relatively small population in the 16th and 17th centuries, which was experiencing a deep economic and cultural decline." ³⁵ According to L. R. Kyzlasov and his co-author N. V. Leontiev, this decline was overcome by the Khakass people only in Soviet times, when "the old national culture was long gone," and "a small Khakass people rose from the darkness of ignorance to the heights of universal culture." ³⁶

In 1996, L. R. Kyzlasov published a pamphlet on the issue of joining Khakassia to Russia. In fact, this is a retelling of well-known events in the history of South Siberia of the XVI-XVIII centuries, drawn from the works of its predecessors, with pretentious comments by the author. There are no references to new archival materials in the list of notes ³⁷ . According to L. R. Kyzlasov, with the campaign of Russian service people in the early XVII century on the right bank, the "Russian-Khakass war" began, which, flaring up, then fading, lasted "over 120 years". "The Khakass state turned out to be the strongest stronghold of the political power of the local Turkic-speaking princes of Northern Asia" ³⁸ . The new assessment of the "resilience of the Khakass state" is really impressive. The author calls the four small principalities of the Yenisei Kyrgyz located in the Middle Yenisei valley a "Khakass power", a "powerful and stable state entity" that preserved "highly developed economic and military potentials and a strong political organization". It is known that during this period the Kyrgyz princes were in vassalage from the Mongols and Dzungars and repeatedly applied for citizenship to the Moscow tsars. The author's ideas about the real scale of events and common sense finally change when he claims that this was a "120-year" period of "struggle between the two feudal states of Russia and Khakassia". At the same time, he is very dismissive of the Siberian Khanate, calling it an "ephemeral state" ³⁹ .

According to him, " it is the economic, political and military power of the Khakass state, the centuries-long smooth functioning of the administrative apparatus, and the highest diplomatic ability to skillfully maneuver between three formidable external forces and enemies... "the main reason for the 120-year-long struggle of the Khakass state to preserve its centuries-old dominance over the fertile lands of Southern Siberia and its population." Moreover, "strength and power" was possessed not only by the "very stable Khakass state", but also by the "eternal royal family of Khakass", which had "dignity, fortitude and love of freedom". "In fact, the ruling Khakass family left the historical arena undefeated." ⁴⁰ It is strange, however, that the "freedom-loving" rulers of the "powerful Khakass state" already at the very beginning of the "120-year" struggle with Russia repeatedly appealed to the Moscow tsars with a request for citizenship, and the case was always disrupted, according to L. R. Kyzlasov, only because of the greed of the Siberian voivodes. And after the hijacking to Dzungaria in 1703, the people of the "famous royal family", os-

page 173

those who were hiding in their homeland, "hid and hid. After repeated pogroms, they were completely demoralized and had no strength to resist. " ⁴¹

I think that with an objective approach to the analysis of even such a modest range of sources as L. R. Kyzlasov knew, it would be possible to avoid the numerous errors, contradictions and absurdities that abound in his pamphlet42 . There was no need to invent the "120-year Russian-Khakass war", the mythical "Khakass power" and the "freedom-loving royal family". The ancestors of the modern Khakas in the XVII century were in the position of Kyshtyms in the principalities of the Yenisei Kyrgyz. They had neither a "royal family" nor a "state", and they did not wage independent wars with anyone. Military clashes between units of the Yenisei Kyrgyz and the Russians were explained by the desire of each side to collect yasak from the Kyshtyms. At the same time, the Kyrgyz princes, while offering stubborn resistance to the Russians, were not opposed to becoming vassals of the Moscow tsar under certain conditions, as evidenced by their embassies. However, the Kyrgyz principalities were already dependent on the Mongols and Dzungars, so the transition to Russian citizenship would have entailed a large-scale war, which the tsarist government, with its limited military resources in Siberia, could not go to.

Many tribal groups of Siberian aborigines, who were on the position of "dvoedants" or "Troedants", preferred to pass into Russian citizenship,which promised them an orderly and easier tax collection. The initiator of this transition was representatives of the local nobility, who were recognized as class privileges and paid a "salary" for assistance in collecting yasak. As early as the 16th century, "serving" foreigners from among the indigenous inhabitants began to be attracted to the "sovereign service"; they were used as guides, translators, and participated in military operations against their fellow tribesmen. For example, in 1628, the "Khakass-Kachintsy", according to L. R. Kyzlasov himself," voluntarily "surrendered their" Kachin land "to the Yenisei Cossacks, and then" some of them passed from the yasach class to the category of tsarist service soldiers " ⁴³ . They took part in the wars with the Yenisei Kyrgyz, playing a role in the annexation of Southern Siberia and the Christianization of the indigenous population. Entering the royal service, local princes could count on a career in the service and receiving the nobility, if they swore allegiance to the tsar and converted to Orthodoxy. Sometimes local princes, with the help of the Russian authorities, tried to resolve sharp contradictions in their favor ^.44 Despite the existing antagonism and military clashes, in the XVII century and later there was a process of mutual influence of the Russian and aboriginal cultures of Siberia, as evidenced by historical, archaeological and ethnographic sources. With the accession to Russia, the progressive development of indigenous Siberian peoples and cultures did not stop, but took on a different direction.

Despite the dramatic change in his views on the process of annexation of Khakassia to Russia from "voluntary annexation" to "forcible seizure" and sharp criticism of domestic historical science, L. R. Kyzlasov, on occasion, is not averse to joining the "unified system" with Russian historians, among whom he names L. P. Potapov and even "proud of it. " ⁴⁵ However, as it was shown above, L. P. Potapov's views and assessments on the nature of Khakassia's annexation to Russia are diametrically opposed to L. R. Kyzlasov's statements published in recent years.

When analyzing the question of the annexation of Southern Siberia to Russia, it is necessary to approach it objectively and be guided by the search for scientific truth, and not by political conjuncture. Artificially inflaming passions, contrasting aborigines and immigrants did not bring any benefit anywhere, but only aggravated relations. Estimates of this process should be based on the analysis of all types of sources on this topic. The history of the issue shows that it was a complex process that had both positive and negative consequences for the indigenous population and their traditional culture.

notes

^{Butanaev V. Ya., Abdykalykov A.} 1 Materials on the history of Khakassia of the XVII-early XVIII centuries. Abakan, 1995, pp. 246-250.

^{Bakhrushin S. V.} 2 Yenisei Kirghizs in the XVII century / / Bakhrushin S. V. Nauchnye trudy. Moscow, 1955. Vol. III. Ch. II. pp. 176-224; Potapov L. P. Kratkiej ocherki istorii i etnografii khakasov (XVII-XIX vv.). Abakan, 1952.

page 174

Pp. 39-106; same name. Origin and formation of the Khakass people. Abakan, 1957. pp. 11-168; Butanaev V. Ya.Etnicheskaya istoriya khakasov XVII-XIX vv. [Ethnic history of the Khakass people of the XVII-XIX centuries]. Issue 3. Khakasy, Moscow, 1990, pp. 15-54; Bykonya G. F. Russian settlement of the Yenisei Region in the 18th century. Novosibirsk, 1981, pp. 55-57.

^{Moiseev V. A.} 3 Russia and the Dzungarian Khanate in the XVIII century. Barnaul, 1998, pp. 13-16.

^{4. Butanaev V. Ya} 4 Etnicheskaya kul'tura khakassov [Ethnic culture of the Khakass people]. Abakan, 1998. p. 83, 91; Skobelev S. G. Sayanskii ostrog - pamyatnik russkoy epokhi v istorii Evrazii [Sayan Prison as a monument of the Russian Epoch in the history of Eurasia]. Issue 2. Horizons of Eurasia. Novosibirsk, 1999, pp. 191-193.

^{Miller, G. F.} 5 Istoriya Sibiri [History of Siberia], T. I. M., 1999, pp. 309, 317, 318; Gmelin, I. G. Pozdka po Rudnom Altayu v augusta-sept. Issue No. 2. Novokuznetsk, 1994, p. 147.

^{Fischer I. E.} 6 Siberian history from the very discovery of Siberia to the conquest of this land by Russian weapons. SPb., 1774. p. 53.

^{7 Pis'ma iz Sibiri [} Letters from Siberia] / / Falk I. P. Opisanie vsekh natsionalnostey Rossii [Description of all nationalities of Russia]. Almaty, 1999. pp. 83-85.

^{Slovtsov P. A.} 8 Istoricheskoe obozrenie Sibiri [Historical Review of Siberia]. Novosibirsk, 1995, p. 89.

^{Radlov V. V.} 9 From Siberia. Pages of the diary, Moscow, 1989, p. 222.

^{Kuznetsov I. P.} 10 Ancient graves of the Minusinsk district. Tomsk, 1883. p. 36.

^{Vatin V. A.} 11 Minusinsk region in the XVIII century Etude on the history of Siberia. Minusinsk, 1913. p. 1, 2.

^{Sheinfeld M. B.} 12 V. A. Vatin-Bystryansky kak istorik Sibiri [Vatin-Bystryansky as a historian of Siberia]. Issue IX. Abakan, 1963. pp. 77-78.

^{Vatin V. A.} 13 Decree. op. s. 26, 27, 28.

^{Kozmin N. N.} 14 Knyaz Irenak. Epizod sibirskoy istorii [An episode of Siberian history]. 1916. N 1. pp. 45-58.

^{Kozmin N. N.} 15 Khakas. Historical, ethnographic and economic sketch of the Minusinsk region. Irkutsk, 1925. pp. 49-70, 77.

¹⁶ Ibid., pp. VII, 11.

^{17.Sheinfeld M. B.} 17 N. N. Kozmin's Creative path / / Voprosy etnografii Khakasii. Abakan, 1982. p. 183.

^{Potapov L. P.} 18 Brief essays on the history and ethnography of the Khakass people (XVII-XIX centuries). pp. 62, 63.

^{Bakhrushin S. V.} 19 Decree. op. S. 176, 224, 189.

^{Potapov L. P.} 20 Proiskhozhdenie i formirovanie khakasskoi narodnosti [Origin and formation of the Khakass people]. pp. 8, 278.

K voprosu ob etnogenez khakasov [On the question of ethnogenesis of the Khakass people]. Issue VII, 1959, p. 92.

. The Tashtyk Epoch in the history of the Khakass-Minusinsk basin, Moscow, 1960, p. 195. Istoriya Tuva v sredniye veka [History of Tuva in the Middle Ages], Moscow, 1969, p. 175. History of Southern Siberia in the Middle Ages, Moscow, 1984, pp. 155-156. Southern Siberia / / History of the peoples of Eastern and Central Asia from ancient times to the present day. Moscow, 1986. pp. 286-287.

^{Kopkoev K. G.} 23 Voluntary joining of Khakassia to Russia / / 250 years together with the great Russian people. Abakan, 1959, pp. 19-37.

^{Kyzlasov L. R.} 24 Once again about the terms "Khakas" and "Kyrgyz" / / Soviet Ethnography. 1971. N 4. P. 66.

^{Kartsov V. G.} 25 Khakassia in the period of decomposition of feudalism (XVIII-first half of the XIX century). Abakan, 1970. pp. 4-5.

^{Serdobov N. A.} 26 O nekotorykh voprosy etnicheskoi istorii narodov Yuzhnoy Sibiri [On some questions of the ethnic history of the peoples of Southern Siberia]. 1971. N 4. pp. 35, 58.

^{Kyzlasov L. R.} 27 Once again about the terms "Khakas" and "Kyrgyz". p. 67.

²⁸ Istoriya Khakasii s drevneyshikh vremeni do 1917 goda [History of Khakassia from ancient Times to 1917]. Moscow, 1993, pp. 192, 170.

^{Kyzlasov I. L.} 29 Vybor predkov [The choice of ancestors]. Yearbook of the Institute of Sayano-Altaisk Turkology. Issue II. Abakan, 1998, pp. 84-85.

On the title of the Khakass sovereign "azho" and the time of the disappearance of runic writing on the Yenisei // Severnaya Evraziya ot drevnosti do srednevekovye [Northern Eurasia from Antiquity to the Middle Ages]. SPb., 1992, p. 218. On the title of the Khakass sovereign "azho" and the time of the disappearance of runic writing on the Yenisei / / Oriental Studies in Bashkortostan: History. Culture. Ufa, 1992, Issue II, p. 47.

Pis'minye izvestiya o drevnykh gorod Sibiri [Written news about ancient cities of Siberia], Moscow, 1993, p. 129.

³² Istoriya Sibiri [History of Siberia], L., 1968, Vol. I, Pp. 284-291.

^{Kyzlasov L. R.} 33 Once again about the terms "Khakas" and "Kyrgyz". pp. 61, 66.

Pis'isnye izvestiya o drevnykh gorod Sibiri [Written news about ancient cities of Siberia]. pp. 3-6.

page 175

Bor'ba narodov Yuzhnoi Sibiri protiv inozemnykh perederatelei v XIII v. [The Battle of Kulikovo in the History and Culture of our Motherland]. Moscow, 1983, p. 98.

^{Kyzlasov L. R., Leontiev N. V.} 36 Narodnye risinki khakasov [Folk drawings of the Khakass people], Moscow, 1980, p. 83.

On the accession of Khakassia to Russia and pages of history and modernity. Issue 2. Abakan-Moscow, 1996, pp. 55-59, notes 1-65.

³⁸ Ibid., p. 2.

³⁹ Ibid., pp. 34-35.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 40.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 52.

^{Khudyakov Yu. S.} 42 Perelistyvaya "pages" / / Evraziya: kul'turnoe nasledie drevnykh tsivilizatsiy [Eurasia: cultural heritage of ancient civilizations]. Issue 2. Horizons of Eurasia. Novosibirsk. 1999. p. 218.

^{Kyzlasov L. R.} 43 Khakas and Cossacks // Pages of history and modernity. Issue 1. Abakan-Moscow, 1994, p. 57.

^{Kozmin N. N.} 44 Khakas. P. 52.

^{Kyzlasov L. R.} 45 Conjectures and facts / / Yearbook of the Institute of Sayano-Altaisk Turkology. Issue V. Abakan, 2001, p. 218; onk. Historians of the peoples of Siberia and their antipodes // Bulletin of the Moscow State University, Ser. 8. History. 2001. N 3. P. 14.

Permanent link to this publication: