Factors of cultural genesis in the Southern Urals in the Late Middle Ages and Modern Times (based on archaeological materials of the Republic of Bashkortostan)

Akhatov Al'bert Tagirovich PhD in History Scientific Associate, R. G. Kuzeev Institute for Ethnological Studies of the Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences 450077, Russia, respublika Bashkortostan, g. Ufa, ul. K. Marksa, 6 bertik@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The problem of cultural genesis attracts the attention of specialists from various social and humanitarian sciences – cultural scientists, archaeologists, ethnographers, art historians, historians, etc., who study both the genesis and evolution of culture in the past and modern ethnocultural processes. In archaeological science, this issue occupies a special place, since it studies the historical past of mankind from the Paleolithic era to Modern times, largely through the prism of the evolution of the material and spiritual culture of people.

A. V. Bondarev, exploring the history of the development of domestic theoretical studies of cultural genesis, identified five main directions in its study – paleoanthropological, archaeological, ethnocultural, psychological-cultural and philosophical-cultural ^{[8, pp. 16-21]}, each of which has its own approaches to determining the semantic boundaries of the object of research.

In archaeology, the "genesis" of culture created by human society is viewed through the prism of the processes of its transformation and self-renewal. Hence, the concept of "cultural genesis" in archaeological science denotes the general process of cultural functioning: origins, traditions, trends, direction and nature of changes up to extinction ^{[17, p. 62]}.

In Russia, in relation to the period from the Ancient Stone Age to the medieval era, it is traditional for scientists to identify individual complexes of materials and features characterizing a certain archaeological culture ^{[19, p. 6]}. As a result, researchers A. P. Okladnikov, V. M. Masson, B. C. Bochkarev, etc., who studied the problems of archeology and the history of ancient civilizations and cultures, built their own concepts of cultural genesis within individual micro- and macroregions based on specific archaeological material.

In the research of scientists, a special place is given to the Southern Urals, a significant part of which is occupied by the territory of the modern Republic of Bashkortostan. Being at the junction of Europe and Asia, practically in the center of the steppe belt of the Eurasian continent and possessing rich natural resources, the region has attracted the attention of people since ancient times. Having first appeared here in the stone age, they later repeatedly moved here from different territories during the latitudinal migrations of cultures and peoples. It is no coincidence that V. S. Bochkarev, dealing with the problems of cultural development in the Bronze Age, considered "the Volga-Ural region as the largest center of cultural genesis, in which, figuratively speaking, the Late Bronze Age of Eastern Europe and Kazakhstan was born" ^{[9, p. 52]}.

Among all the periods, the archaeology of the late Middle Ages and Modern Times stands out, where the objects of research are not archaeological cultures, but cultural layers of urban and rural settlements, the remains of fortifications and factories, cemeteries, etc. of the XVI – early XX centuries. The specificity of the archaeological sources of this time lies in the fact that, thanks to the mass ethnographic and written material, they have not lost touch with the cultural environment in which they were created and for the most part their ethnocultural affiliation is determined by the available sources.

Throughout the history of archaeological science, principles, methods, and approaches to solving the problem have changed in the study of cultural genesis processes, but one of the main questions – under the influence of what factors culture has changed within certain regions, has not lost relevance to the present time, especially in relation to later periods.

The purpose of this work is based on the results of archaeological research conducted on the territory of the modern Republic of Bashkortostan to consider which factors influenced the processes of cultural genesis occurring in the South Ural region in the late Middle Ages and Modern Times.

This vector of archaeological research began to be developed relatively recently, many of the found and studied monuments have not yet been introduced into scientific circulation, therefore it is worth noting that this publication is preliminary in nature. In the future, it is planned to continue research in this direction with the involvement of not only archaeological materials identified in Bashkortostan, but also in neighboring regions, as well as using ethnographic, written, etc. sources.

Speaking about the factors of cultural genesis, it is worth noting that researchers approached this issue in different ways, depending on the period under study, the source base, research methods, etc. So, according to V. M. Masson, who studied ancient cultures and civilizations of the Middle East, Central Asia, etc., culture transformation in the past was greatly influenced natural factors of environmental stress, the military-political situation, socio-economic problems, colonization and migration, etc. ^{[20, 226-227]}. E. S. Markaryan in his cultural studies paid an important place to traditions and innovations in the processes of cultural genesis ^{[7, pp. 43-46]}. V. Caven, T. V. Bernukevich considering the development of Russian culture in Harbin (China) in the late XIX – mid XX centuries, external and internal factors of cultural development were distinguished. The first group included socio-economic, political, historical, etc. Internal factors are factors arising from internal contradictions between the traditional content of culture and the innovations that arise in it, etc. ^{[18, pp. 105-106]}.

Based on the above, within the designated territory for the late Middle Ages and Modern times, the following external (influencing from the outside) and internal (occurring within the culture itself) determinants determining the development of culture can be distinguished.

The natural and geographical factor has been one of the fundamental factors in the development of cultural genesis in the Southern Urals since the Paleolithic era. On the one hand, during the long–term interaction of people with their habitat in different areas of the South Ural region, special territorial formations were formed - ethno-cultural landscapes occupied by representatives of various ethnic groups.

At the same time, elements of the natural environment were reflected in the specifics of spiritual and material culture, economic activity of people, etc. So, for example, one of the features of Bashkir life and their everyday culture was the preservation of summer nomads until the beginning of the XX century. This tradition was preserved mainly among the Bashkir population living in the southeastern part of Bashkortostan, where natural conditions allowed cattle to graze almost all year round. It was here that the main part of the known remnants of seasonal summer camps (yaylyau) in the form of earthen and stone fences, well–rounded depressions of rounded shape – Atranda-2 (Abzelilovsky district), Yumash-tau-6, Urgaza-5, Urgaza-6 (Baymaksky district) was identified and partially examined, Petropavlovsk-7 (Khaibullinsky district), etc. ^{[22, pp. 15-16, 55-57, 123]}.

The anthropogenic factor is closely related to the previous one, but is due to the influence of man himself on nature. After the Bashkirs joined the Russian state in the middle of the XVI century. the economic development of the territory of modern Bashkortostan began. As a result of the construction of fortress cities, monasteries, factories, villages, villages, mills, etc., the landscape was primarily changing. A large amount of forest was cut down, minerals were being developed, during which the relief features of individual localities were changed, etc. So, during the study of the Ildian plant, located west of Neftekamsk, traces of platinum were recorded, 9 m high, 105 m long along the sole and 426 m on the surface, the construction of which led to flooding of significant land plots, as well as a large number of coal pits ^{[23, p. 84]}. At the same time, the construction of mill complexes not only had an impact on the landscape of a particular area, as was observed during the study of D. Tekeevo of the XVIII century on the Sary-Kunduz river (Salavatsky district) ^[2], but also led to a change in traditional ways of communication, etc. ^{[16, pp. 75, 80]}.

Colonization was also a significant factor in the development of cultural genesis in the Southern Urals, since it led to the "development and appropriation of local space" by the Russian state with the help of established administrative and judicial institutions, common monetary and tax systems, the introduction of a single state language, etc. ^{[11, p. 75]}. As a result, this contributed to the formation of a single socio-cultural space in which the material and spiritual culture of the population living here was transformed and unified.

The colonization processes that began after the Bashkir tribes joined the Russian state in the middle of the XVI century. on the territory of the modern republic, they are reflected in the construction of the first fortified fortresses – Birskaya (Birsk), Eldyakskaya (Karaidelsky district), Ufa (Ufa), Tabynskaya, Solovarny Gorodok, monasteries - Voznesenskaya deserts (Gafuriysky district) and others, during the study of which materials of the XVII–XIX centuries were obtained, and traces of defensive structures were recorded on some ^{[15; 21]}.

Migration was closely connected with the colonization of the region and to a certain extent can be marked by archeologized settlements whose ethnocultural affiliation and time of existence are established by ethnographic, cartographic and written sources. So, in the course of research on the territory of the Buraevsky district of the Republic of Belarus related to the search for the Udmurt village. Asautamak, whose inhabitants moved from place to place several times in the XVIII–XIX centuries, one of its old locations was revealed. During the archaeological study of the territory of the left bank of the river Asavka at the place where in the XVIII – early XIX century. according to archival and ethnographic materials, the disappeared Udmurt village was presumably located, a cultural layer was identified, some of the finds from which belong to the specified time ^{[3, pp. 220-225]}.

Interethnic contacts, on the one hand, were closely connected with migration processes, and on the other with the development of trade and exchange relations, which are also an important factor of cultural genesis in the Southern Urals. Starting from the second half of the XVI century and up to the beginning of the XX century, the territory of Bashkortostan was constantly populated by peoples of different cultures, religions and origins – Russians, Tatars, Udmurts, etc., who often built their settlements in lanes. The indigenous population, Bashkirs, did not stay away from the migration processes either, who periodically moved to fairly remote distances from previous habitats.

Interethnic contacts between representatives of different ethnocultural groups, which had a multi-temporal and diverse nature, are also confirmed during archaeological studies of the cultural layers of settlements of the late Middle Ages and Modern Times, during which coins and purchased (exchange) products were found.

So, during the research of Bashkir D. Aznaevo (Ishimbaysky district) ^[1] and D. Yunusovo (Salavatsky district) ^[5], the Russian village of Nikolo-Berezovka (Krasnokamsky district) ^[13] and Tabyn fortress (Gafuriysky district) ^[12], as well as the Udmurt villages of Baltachevo (Tatyshlinsky district) ^[4], D. Asautamak (Buraevsky district) ^[3] similar items of handicraft and factory production were identified - pottery and metal utensils, iron products, etc. Fragments of porcelain and earthenware dishes were found on almost all monuments, obviously coming from Ufa, where it was found especially in large quantities ^[6].

The military (military-political) factor is primarily associated with the Bashkir uprisings of the XVII–XVIII centuries, during which the rebels attacked fortresses, monasteries and settlements. So, it is known that with. Nikolo-Berezovka (Krasnokamsky district) is the earliest Russian settlement on the territory of Bashkortostan, it was ravaged and burned by Bashkirs in the second half of the XVII century. During the archaeological study, traces of fire were recorded in several pits, expressed in charred fragments of wooden structures, heavily melted glass objects and pottery ^[14].

Ethnic and religious factors are related to each other and to the peculiarities of the development of the spiritual and material culture of certain peoples. On the one hand, they play an important role in the reproduction, transformation and transmission of cultural traditions characterizing different ethnic groups, and on the other hand, they themselves are a certain marker of ongoing changes. Thus, during the study of the Bashkir cemetery of the late Middle Ages of the XVII – early XVIII centuries. (Kadyrovsky-I burial ground) located in the Duvan district of the Republic of Belarus, archaeologist G. N. Garustovich traced the process of changing the early Muslim burial rite among Bashkirs to a modern one (with sustained western and north-western orientations of the head; with a face turn to the qibla; without coffins-tabutes, but with lining). Also, during archaeological research, individual remnants of pagan times were recorded in the form of a bronze cup for drinking kumis found in one of the graves, as well as cases of foot binding during burial ^[10].

Traditions and innovations have a large number of scientific and disciplinary specifications, so different researchers understand their role and place in the process of cultural genesis in their own way. According to E. S. Markaryan, no traditional trait was inherent in any society from the beginning, because it was once an innovation. After going through the process of stereotyping, innovations are consolidated as traditions, which in turn act as the foundation for the emergence of new innovations ^{[7, pp. 43-46]}.

During the excavations of the Aznaevsky settlement of Bashkir (Ishimbaysky district), the period of existence of which is determined within the XVII - turn of the XVIII/XIX centuries, a certain amount of iron slag and ferrous metal products was revealed. Some of them were made using rather archaic (traditional) technologies even for the XVII–XVIII centuries (oblique and U-shaped welding, package), and to create some of them complex equipment was required, possibly in the form of a large-volume forge with uniform heating (surface cementation method) (innovations) ^[1].

Thus, based on the analysis of the available literature and conducted archaeological research, it was revealed that the development of culture in the Southern Urals in the XVI – early XX centuries was influenced by both external (natural-geographical, anthropogenic, colonization, etc.) and internal (ethnic, religious, etc.) factors, which are recorded to varying degrees according to the cultural layer of urban and rural settlements, fortifications and factories, cemeteries, etc. At the same time, speaking about the factors of cultural genesis, it should be borne in mind that they are so closely interrelated that it is often difficult to determine whether a change in culture is the result of the influence of one or another factor or several at the same time.

Also speaking about the factors of cultural genesis in the Southern Urals in the late Middle Ages and Modern Times, it should be noted that, despite some work done in this direction, it is the initial stage of theoretical study. For further study, it is necessary to refer to the archaeological materials of neighboring regions, to introduce into scientific circulation the already accumulated data, taking into account its comparison with written, ethnographic, etc. sources.