The Secrets of the Taras Settlements of the Historical Past of the Nomadic Confederations of North Asia
DOI: 10.23951/2307-6119-2024-3-81-91
The article aims to raise the question of the existence of a deep and, therefore, unexplored Uralic Adstratum in the historiography of the nomadic confederation of the epoch of a certain area – Eastern Transbaikalia. The article is devoted to little-studied topics, the range of which is very wide, as they are related to the results of regional archeology and regional historical onomastics. In connection with the aim of clarifying the issues of cultural genesis and ethnogenesis of the Buryats by providing an example of understanding related sciences, the article attempts to solve a number of problems. First, the article describes the etymology of oikonyms, the topological basis of which is connected with the Dagur language. The names of the settlements (oikonyms) illustrate the Daurian historical period of Eastern Transbaikalia. Secondly, the article attempts to connect the unclear aspects of regional studies with historical onomastics using the example of archeological cultures. Toponyms, which in their possible meaning reveal a connection between the ancient Mongolian tribes and a very distant period, illustrate the presence of fortified settlements – taras’. Thirdly, this article aims to comprehensively understand the presence of adstrate-substrate elements of a particular zone as an area of the diachronic Ural-Altai language union due to the contact of different ethnic elements. The stratigraphy of the toponymic substrate and adstratum makes it possible to declare the presence, in addition to the Ob-Ugric substrate, of a deeper adstratum that reveals a connection with the Ural-speaking tribes of Tartaria. The article contains a comprehensive description of the results of regional archeology (including Lake Baikal) and regional onomastics, which makes it possible to assess the scientific value of the question of the ethnolinguistic origin of the era of the ancient Mongolian tribes of the so-called White Tatars. The unknown White Tatars, who belonged to nomadic confederations, are perhaps those mysterious inhabitants of North Asia, from whom the practice of building fortified settlements – Kars and Taras – as well as palace complexes – the Konduisky Palace – has been preserved.
Keywords: fortified settlements – Taras, Kondui Palace, Dagur language, Burkhotuy, Darasun archeological cultures, toponyms, Eastern Transbaikalia, Tartary, White Tatars
References:
1. Danilov S. V. Goroda v kochevykh obshchestvakh Central’noy Azii [Cities in the nomadic communities of Central Asia]. Ulan-Ude: BNC SO RAN Publ., 2004. 202 p. (in Russian).
2. Kratkiy dagursko-russkiy slovar’ [Dagurski-Russian dictionary in short] / G. Tumurdey, B. D. Cybenov (eds). Ulan-Ude: BNC SO RAN Publ., 2014. 236 p. (in Russian).
3. Aginskiy natsional’niy muzey im. G. Tsybikova [Aginsky National Museum named after. G. Tsybikov]. URL: https://agamuzey.ru/novosti/kondujskij-dvorets-tajna-drevnej-zemli/) (accessed: 20.12.2023).
4. Entsiklopediya Zabaykal’ya [Encyclopedia of Transbaikalia]. URL: http://ez.chita.ru/encycl/concepts/?id=4916 © Энциклопедия Забайкалья. (accessed: 20.12. 2023).
5. Entsiklopediya Zabaykal’ya [Encyclopedia of Transbaikalia]. URL: http://encycl.chita.ru/encycl/person/?id=4916 © Энциклопедия Забайкалья) (accessed: 20.12.2023).
6. Wikipedia. URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki (accessed: 25.12.2023).
7. Artem’ev A. R. Stroitel’stvo gorodov i ostrogov Zabaykal’ya i Priamur’ya vo vtoroy polovine XVII–XVIII veke i tipy oboronitel’nykh sooruzheniy [The fortresses of Zabaikal’e and Priamury’a in the second part of XVII-XVIII centuries and the types of defensive constructions]. Otechestvennaya istoriya – National history, 1998, no. 5, pp. 140–147 (in Russian).
8. Kirillov I. I., Kovychev E. V., Kirillov O. I. Darasunskiy kompleks arheologicheskikh pamyatnikov. Vostochnoe Zabaykal’e [The Darasun archeological complex of Eastern Zabaykal’e]. Novosibirsk: In-t arkheologii i yetnografii SO RAN Publ., 2000. 176 p. (in Russian).
9. Cybenov B. D. K izucheniyu etnonima «Daur» [To the question of the investigation of ethnonym Daur]. Arkheologiya i yetnografiya. Vestnik Buryatskogo nauchnogo centra Sibirskogo otdeleniya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk – Archeology and ethnography. Bulletin of the Buryat Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, no. 1 (5), pp. 140–149 (in Russian).
10. Nesterova E. R. Nekotorye razmyshleniya o svyazi ponyatij «mongoly» i «tatary» v mirovoj istoriografii [Some conclusions about the correlation of Mongol and Tatar in the world’s history]. Chelovecheskiy kapital – Human Capital, 2019, no. 6 (126), pp. 25–32 (in Russian).
11. Balabanov V. F. Istoriya zemli Daurskoy [The history of the Daurski territory]. Chita: Effekt Publ., 2003. 400 p. (in Russian).
12. Cheboksarov N. N., Cheboksarova I. A. Narody. Rasy. Kul’tury [People. Races. Culture]. Moscow: Nauka Publ, 1985. 271 p. (in Russian).
13. Zhamsaranova R. G., Altaeva V. I., Bardahanova Z. D. Slovar’ istoricheskoy antroponimii hori-buryat [Dictionary of the historical anthroponimy of the Khori-Buryat]. Cheboksary: Sreda Publ. 332 p. (in Russian).
14. Zhamsaranova R. G. Mongoloyazychnaya toponimika [Toponymic names of Mongol linguistic origin]. In: Geniatulin R. F. (ed.) Zabaykal’ya: Kul’tura [Zabayakal’ya: Culture]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 2009. Ch. 2. pp. 29–30 (in Russian).
15. Zhamsaranova R. G. Onimy Nelyudskiy ostrog (Nerchinskij ostrog), Nikanskoe carstvo i gosudarstvo Gou-Go v aspekte civilizacionnykh processov Severnoy Azii [the onym Nelyudsky Ostrog (Nerchinsky ostrog), Nikan tsarstvo and Chinese Gou-Go in the aspects of civilization processes on the territory of Northern Asia]. Tomskiy zhurnal lingvisticheskikh i antropologicheskikh issledovaniy – Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology, 2014, no. 2 (4), pp. 42–51 (in Russian).
16. Alekseev M. P. Sibir’ v izvestiyakh inostrannykh puteshestvennikov i pisateley [Siberia in the stories of foreign travelers and authors]. Irkutsk: Vostochnosib. kraevoe izd-vo OGIZ, 1936. Vol. 1, ch. 2, pp. 31 (in Russian).
17. Shrenk L. Ob inorodcah Amurskogo kraya [About the natives of Amur region]. Saint Petersburg, 1863. Vol. 1, pp. 163, 195–196 (in Russian).
18. Kurennaya I. G. Zagadka Nikolaya Vitsena. K istorii kartografii Vostochnogo Zabaykal’ya i ego stolicy [Nikolay Vitsen’s secret. To the history of the cartography of the Eastern Zabaykal’e and it’s capital]. Chita, 2007. 58 p. (in Russian).
19. Okladnikov A. P. Burhotuyskaya kul’tura zheleznogo veka v Yugo-Zapadnom Zabaykal’e [Burkhotuy culture of iron ages in South-Western Zabaykal’e]. Trydy BKNII – Proceedings of the BCRI, 1960, no. 3, pp. 16–30 (in Russian).
20. Aseev I. V., Kirillov I. I., Kovychev E. V. Kochevniki Zabaykal’ya v epohu Srednevekov’ya [The nomads of Zabaikal’e of the Middle centuries]. Novosibirsk, 1984. Pp. 116 (in Russian).
21. Cybiktarov A. D. Buryatiya v drevnosti. Istoriya (s drevneyshikh vremen do XVII veka) [Buryatia and ancient history till XVII century]. Ulan-Ude, 2001. 266 p. (in Russian).
22. Cybenov B. D. Ob etnogeneze dagurov: istoriograficheskie problemy [About the historiography of the ethnogenetic problem of Dagurs]. In: Mongolovednye issledovaniya. Ulan-Ude: Buryat. Publ., 2007. Vol. 5, pp. 49–61 (in Russian).
23. Kyzlasov L. R. Rannie mongoly (k probleme istokov srednevekovoj kul’tury) [Early Mongols (to the problem of the sources of the Middle-Aged history and culture]. In: Sibir’, Central’naya i vostochnaya Aziya v srednie veka (istoriya i kul’tura vostoka Azii) [Siberia, Central and Eastern Asia in the Middle Ages (history and culture of East Asia)]. Vol. 3. Novosibirsk, 1975. Pp. 170–177 (in Russian).
24. Dambuev I. A., Manzhueva Yu. F., Rinchinova A. V. Geograficheskie nazvaniya Respubliki Buryatiya: toponimicheskiy slovar’ [Geographical names of Buryatia: toponimy dictionary]. Ulan-Ude: FGOU VPO VSGAKI Publ., 2006. 241 p. (in Russian).
25. Balabanov V. F. V debryakh nazvaniy [In the jungles of the names]. Irkutsk: Vostochno-Sibirskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, 1977. 77 p. (in Russian).
26. Tal’ko-Grincevich Yu. D. Materialy k paleoetnologii Zabaykal’ya [Materials to the paleo-history of Zabaykal’e]. In: Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki syunnu [Archaeological sites of the Xiongnu]. Saint Petersburg: AziatIKA Publ., 1999. Vol. 4. 124 p. (in Russian).
27. Property of the Planet. URL: https://dostoyanieplaneti.ru/2609-dyrestujskij-kultuk) (accessed: 15.02. 2024).
28. Kert G. M. Saamskaya toponimnaya leksika [Saam toponymic lexica]. Petrozavodsk: RIO Karel’skogo nauchnogo centra RAN Publ., 2009. 179 p. (in Russian).
29. Bykonya V. V. (ed.) Sel’kupsko-russkiy dialektniy slovar’ [Sel’kup-Russian dialect Dictionary]. Tomsk: TGPU Publ., 2005. 348 p. (in Russian).
30. Zhamsaranova R. G. Finno-ugorskiy adstrat v toponimii Vostochnogo Zabajkal’ya [Finno-Ugric toponymic adstrat strata of the Eastern Zabaikal’e]. Fenno-Ugrica 3: Problemy areologii i onomatologii, komparativistiki i kontrastivnoy lingvistiki: trudy nauchno-issled. laboratorii fundamental’nykh issledovaniy po finno-ugrovedeniyu [Fenno-Ugrica 3: Problems of areology and onomatology, comparative studies and contrastive linguistics: scientific research works. laboratory of fundamental research in Finno-Ugric studies]. Yoshkar-Ola: Mariysky gos. un-t Publ., 2016. Vol. 7, pp. 179–190 (in Russian).
31. Zhamsaranova R. G. Ekzonimno-etnonimnyye nazvaniya samoyed i khamnigan [Onyms Khamnigan and Samoyed as Alloethnonym and Ethnonym]. Tomskiy zhurnal lingvisticheskikh i antropologicheskikh issledovaniy – Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology, 2018, no. 3(21), pp. 87–96 (in Russian).
( 420.25 kB ) 
( 404.28 kB )
Issue: 3, 2024
Series of issue: Issue 3
Rubric: ANTHROPOLOGY
Pages: 81 — 91
Downloads: 145