The reader has obviously noticed that I avoid using the term "Mongol" in relation to the people led by Chinggis Khan at the beginning of the 13th century. In my opinion, it is more correct to use the ethnonym "Mogul". First, the Mughals of the 13th century are not at all the ancestor people of the modern Mongols-Khalkhins. In the same way, like today's Italians are not the heirs of the ancient Romans, and neither in any physical sense, nor in the cultural. The fact that in modern Rome the remains of the ancient Colosseum are proudly flaunting does not mean the continuity of the Roman Empire and modern Western civilization. Moscow became the heir to Rome, and this civilization itself did not cease to exist after 476. At that time, only its western part perished and it perished just under the blows of savages, whose descendants today decidedthat it would be advantageous and honorable to appropriate such an ancient history.
Surprisingly, Moscow has combined seemingly incompatible things - Rome and Karakorum. However, why are they incompatible? The same principles worked here and there. Anyone could become a citizen of Rome and a Mogul, a follower of the Great Yasa of Genghis Khan. That is why the Mughals and Jalair and Oirats and many tribes of the Turkic, and not only Turkic, root began to be called Moguls. Secondly. Let us, nevertheless, see how the name of the people subordinate to Genghis Khan sounded in the XIII century.
Rashid-ad-din calls our "Mongols" Muguls and writes "… about those Turkic tribes that were called Mongol [Mugul] in ancient times." The country of the Muguls he calls accordingly Mugulistan, for example: "His deputy was Takuchar-noyon … His region and yurts were in the northeast in the remote part of Mongolia [Mugulistan]"
Byzantine authors called our Mongols tsouo'bKhgots i.e. again, it was the Mughals. Wilhelm de Rubruck writes about the moals. "At that time among the Moal people there was a certain artisan Chinggis …".
Thus, the use of the term "Mogul" is quite justified, especially if we want to divide today's Mongol-Khalkhins and that multi-tribal and multilingual community that acted in the XIII century under the name "Mongu". And believe me that in their midst there was a place for everyone - both Caucasians and Mongoloids. Both Indo-Europeans and Turkic-speaking and Mongolian-speaking.
Rashid ad-din divides the Mughals into two categories: 1st. "True", so to speak, Mughals ("about those Türkic tribes, which in ancient times were called Mongol [Mugul]"), 2nd. Mughals self-proclaimed from boasting ("about the Turkic tribes, which at this time are called Mongols [Mugul], but in ancient times each [of them] had a special name and nickname").
The first category includes the niruns and darlekins, as described above, but the second category ("self-proclaimed" Mughals) Rashid ad-din includes the following peoples:
1. The Jalair. “It is said that their yurt was [the area] of Kim [kim] in Karakorum; they have [so] blind devotion that they gave oil [for food] to the male camels of the gurkhan, who was the sovereign of the Uighurs. For this reason they were called by the name belage”.
Promotional video:
2. Sunites.
3. Tatars. “The places of their nomad camps, camps and yurts were [precisely] identified separately by clans and branches near the borders of the Khitai regions. Their main habitat [yurts] is the area called Buir-naur (Buir-nor, or Boir-nor - a lake in the northeastern part of Mongolia - approx. Transl.) ". Genghis Khan treated the aforementioned Tatars extremely cruelly: “since they were the murderers and enemies of Genghis Khan and his fathers, he ordered a general massacre of the Tatars and not one left in
alive to the limit determined by the law [yasak]; so that women and small children
also to interrupt, and to cut open the womb of pregnant women in order to completely destroy them."
4. Merkits. “Genghis Khan decreed that none of the [Merkits] should be left alive, but [all] should be killed, since the Merkit tribe was rebellious and warlike and fought with it many times. The few survivors were either [then] in the womb or were hidden with their relatives. [4]
5. Kurlauts. “This tribe with the Kungirat, Eljigin and Bargut tribes are close and united to each other; they all have one tamga; they fulfill the requirements of kinship and keep [the capture of] sons-in-law and daughters-in-law among themselves."
6. Targuts.
7. Oirats. “The yurt and residence of these Oirat tribes was the Eight Rivers [Sekiz-Muren]. Rivers flow from this place, [then] they all join together and become the river that is called Cam; the latter flows into the Ankara-Muren River (the upper reaches of the Yenisei (Kem) River, which, according to the author, flows into the Angara - approx.
transl.).
8. Bargut, measles and tulas. "They are called barguts due to the fact that their camps and dwellings [are] on the other side of the Selenga River, on the very edge of the areas and lands that were inhabited by the Mongols and which they call Bargujin-Tokum."
9. Tumats. “The residence of this tribe was near the above-named [area] Bargudzhin-Tokum. It also branched off [from] the relatives and branches of the Barguts. [Tumats] lived within the country of the Kirghiz and were an extremely warlike tribe and army."
10. Bulagachins and keremuchins. “[Both] they lived within [the same area] Bargudzhin-Tokum and at the very edge of the country of the Kyrgyz. They are close to each other."
11. Urasuts, Telenguts and Kushtemi. "They are also called the forest tribe, because they inhabit the forests within the country of the Kyrgyz and Kem-Kemjiuts."
12. Forest Uryankats. “During their migrations, they loaded their luggage on mountain bulls and never left the forests. In the places where they stopped, they made some sheds and shacks from the bark of birch and other trees and were satisfied with this. When they cut a birch, [sap] flows out of it, like sweet milk; they always drink it instead of water."
13. Kurkans.
14. Sakaita.
We will need all of the above information later, but for now, we should note this. Firstly, all of the above peoples are Mughals, albeit "self-proclaimed". Secondly, all of them Rashid-ad-din also belong to the Turkic tribes. Thirdly, we have before us a list of peoples that are sharply different from each other, both in terms of the method of economic management, and in terms of religion and, which is very possible, in terms of anthropological characteristics. Thus, we are faced with a motley mixture of some "Turkic-Mongols". Meanwhile, it is worth considering whether it is worth lumping them all in one heap? There are big differences between the Turks and the same Mongols-Khalkhins, whatever you say. The main difference is language. There is nothing like the "Turkomongol" language and has never existed. In the Khalkha-Mongolian language, there is a large number of Turkic borrowings,which testifies to the unconditional Turkic cultural influence, but in the Russian language there are enough such definitions, while there are practically no Mongolian ones, and even those that are came at a later time from the Kalmyk language.
Furthermore. The study of the Khalkha-Mongol funeral rituals shows that the Turks were the ruling stratum in this society, since only noble people were buried in the graves, for example, Setsen-khans, Dzasaktu-khans and other princes of Northern Mongolia, which corresponds to the Turkic burial customs, while the Khalkha common people buried their dead by the method of expose, that is, they simply left the dead in the steppe, where they were quickly disposed of by a certain kind of bird.
Another thing is who, in fact, does the same Rashid-ad-din mean by the Turks? Just like most of his contemporaries, Rashid-ad-din calls all nomadic pastoral peoples of Asia as Turks, both Turkic-speaking and Mongol-speaking, in addition to the Tungus and, as one should assume, the tribes of the Aryan root, take at least the same Yenisei Kyrgyz … For example, the Tanguts, that is, the northeastern Tibetans, are ranked among the Turks. In other words, as I. Petrushevsky writes in the preface to the Collection of Chronicles: “for our author,“Turki”is not so much an ethnic term as a social and everyday term”. However, this is observed not only "by our author."
L. N. Gumilev writes about this: "The Arabs called all the nomads of Central and Central Asia Turks without regard to language." Yu. S. Khudyakov about the same: “Already in the early Middle Ages this term (Türks - K. P.) acquired the meaning of a political name. He was called not only the ancient Turks, but also the Turkic-speaking nomads, subjects of the Turkic kagans, and sometimes in general all the nomads who lived in the steppes of Eurasia, on the territory adjacent to Muslim countries."
The above words of the most famous Türkologists can be confirmed, for example, by extracts from the work of the Arab author Abulfeda “Geography”, who once reported, for example, about the Alans: “The Alans are the Turks who adopted Christianity. In the neighborhood (with the Alans - K. P.) there is a people of the Turkic race, called Ases; this people is of the same origin and the same religion as the Alans,”which words are sometimes used to assert that the Alans are of Turkic origin. However, as a rule, they try to pass over in silence the following words of Abulfeda: "The Russians are a people of the Turkic race, who in the east are in contact with the Guzzi, the people of the Turkic race as well." Here one should marvel at the work of the translators, who, as one should assume, invented a kind of "Turkic race" in the course of translation. Actually, there is no Turkic race. As there is no Indo-European race or Japanese. But. Anthropologists distinguish in the composition of the small North Asian race (part of the large Mongoloid race) the small Turanian race, or rather the racial division, which is the result of a mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid components. However, confusion, it is confusion, even if significant. However, we are a little distracted. Alans are not Turks. The descendants of the Caucasian Alans, as it has already been established in historical science, are the Ossetians, who have the self-name "iron", i.e. simply "arias". The Ossetian language belongs to the Indo-European language family, more precisely to the Iranian languages. However, Alans already at the time of Ammianus Marcellinus were a conglomerate of peoples, but nevertheless. Anthropologists distinguish in the composition of the small North Asian race (part of the large Mongoloid race) the small Turanian race, or rather the racial division, which is the result of a mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid components. However, confusion, it is confusion, even if significant. However, we are a little distracted. Alans are not Turks. The descendants of the Caucasian Alans, as it has already been established in historical science, are the Ossetians, who have the self-name "iron", i.e. simply "arias". The Ossetian language belongs to the Indo-European language family, more precisely to the Iranian languages. However, Alans already at the time of Ammianus Marcellinus were a conglomerate of peoples, but nevertheless. Anthropologists distinguish in the composition of the small North Asian race (part of the large Mongoloid race) the small Turanian race, or rather the racial division, which is the result of a mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid components. However, confusion, it is confusion, even if significant. However, we are a little distracted. Alans are not Turks. The descendants of the Caucasian Alans, as it has already been established in historical science, are the Ossetians, who have the self-name "iron", i.e. simply "arias". The Ossetian language belongs to the Indo-European language family, more precisely to the Iranian languages. However, Alans already at the time of Ammianus Marcellinus were a conglomerate of peoples, but nevertheless.even significant. However, we are a little distracted. Alans are not Turks. The descendants of the Caucasian Alans, as it has already been established in historical science, are the Ossetians, who have the self-name "iron", i.e. simply "arias". The Ossetian language belongs to the Indo-European language family, more precisely to the Iranian languages. However, Alans already at the time of Ammianus Marcellinus were a conglomerate of peoples, but nevertheless.even significant. However, we are a little distracted. Alans are not Turks. The descendants of the Caucasian Alans, as it has already been established in historical science, are the Ossetians, who have the self-name "iron", i.e. simply "arias". The Ossetian language belongs to the Indo-European language family, more precisely to the Iranian languages. However, Alans already at the time of Ammianus Marcellinus were a conglomerate of peoples, but nevertheless.
And of course, the crown of the total Turkification of everything and everyone is the recognition of Russians by the Turks. However, no matter how ridiculous the words of Abulfeda looked for a modern reader, nevertheless, one should think about it - maybe the Arab geographer, after all, had some reason for such statements? Definitely had. The answer is simple. In Russia they knew the Turkic language quite well, which was widespread on the expanses of the Great Silk Road, and in Russia in the XIV century, i.e. at the time of Abulfeda, the lands of today's Ukraine were called (here I ask the reader to carefully read the text of "Zadonshchina").
However, there is more to come. Those. It is not that simple. Al-Masudi in the 10th century reported: “The first of the Slavic kings is King Dir, he has vast cities and many inhabited countries; Muslim merchants arrive in the capital of his state with all sorts of goods. Next to this king of the Slavic kings lives the king Avandzha, who has cities and vast regions, many troops and military supplies; he is at war with Rum, Ifrange, Nukabard and other nations, but these wars are not decisive. Then this Slavic king is bordered by the king of Turk. This tribe is the most beautiful of the Slavs in face, the greater number of them and the bravest of them in strength (emphasis mine - KP). " Here, of course, it is not entirely clear whether we are talking about the king of the Turk or, nevertheless, the tribe of the "Turk", however, the message of al-Masudi gives food for thought. The Arab authors called the Slavs "Sakaliba"which term is a borrowing from the Greek skHyaRo ^ "Slav". However, from the middle of the XIX century. and later, a number of the most authoritative Orientalists substantiated the point of view according to which, by Sakaliba, the oriental authors meant, in some cases, in general all fair-skinned people from northern regions, in relation to Islamic countries, including non-Slavs. Nevertheless, before writing the Turki into Sakaliba, one should clearly understand that this term means people of a certain appearance, as the same Muslim authors report. Abu Mansur (d. 980?) Reported: "The Slavs (ie Sakaliba - K. P.) are a red tribe with light brown hair," and the same Al-Masudi wrote: "We have already explained the reason formation of the color of the Slavs (Sakaliba - KP), their blush and their red (or light brown) hair. "You can read more about Sakaliba in the book by D. E. Mishina "Sakaliba (Slavs) in the Islamic World in the Early Middle Ages" M., 2002 It contains comprehensive information on this topic.
Thus, it should be concluded that throughout the Middle Ages, at least up to the XIV century, inclusively, under the name "Türks", tribes of the Caucasian race, moreover, of the northern section of the Caucasian race, speaking Indo-European languages, but using Turkic in as a means of interethnic communication.
Where does the ethnonym "Mogol" (Mugul), aka "Mongol", originate from?
There are two main versions. The first version belongs to Rashid ad-din, i.e. refers to the official historiography approved by the Mughal rulers themselves. Vezir Gazan-khan states: “The word Mongol sounded at first [lit. was] mungol, that is, "powerless" and "simple-hearted."
Speaking in today's Russian language, the term "Mongol" (Mogul) can be interpreted as "simpleton", "fool", "schmuck", "burdock". In general, the Russian language is rich in this sense, however, as in any other.
In this regard, the words attributed to Genghis Khan by the Mongolian historian Sanan-Sechen, allegedly said at the kurultai of 1206, are somewhat incomprehensible: “I want this people of the Bidet, like before reaching the goal of my aspirations, he bore the name "keke-Mongol" and was the very first of all living on earth! " In connection with the interpretation of Rashid ad-din, the term "Keke-Mongol" looks extremely curious.
The second version is based on the testimony of Chinese authors who asserted: “The state of the black Tatars (ie, the northern Shanyu) is called Great Mongolia. In the desert there is a mountain Mengushan, and in the Tatar language silver is called Mengu. The Jurchens called their state the "Great Golden Dynasty", and therefore the Tatars call their state the "Great Silver Dynasty".
The explanation of Peng Da-ya, one of the authors of the quoted notes, is quite logical. In addition to the fact that the Jurchens called their dynasty Jin (Golden), the Khitan (Chinese) are also known as the Liao (Steel) dynasty. Thus, the dynastic names of the states of North China contain the entire spectrum of useful metals. The commentator of the text takes the matter somewhat differently, since in Mongolian "silver" is "mungyu" or "mungyun" and "Mengu", which mentions Peng Da-ya as the name of the mountain in the sense of "silver", is a well-known Chinese transcription of the word "Mongyol" … The terms "mungyu" or "mungyun" and "Mongyol", according to the commentator, were hardly mixed in the Mongolian language, while Peng Da-ya had the Chinese transcription of the word "Mongyol" - "Mengu", in all likelihood, associated with the Mongolian "mungyu "Or" mungyun "by external phonetic similarity. The picture here, by the translator of the text, is somewhat confusing, although one opinion does not reject the other, since Peng Da-ya most obviously had to ask the local Mughals about the meaning of the word "Mengu". Is it just the Moguls?
The fact is that both Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting traveled to the Tatars, or rather to the Dada, about which the semi-official Rashid-ad-din, that the unofficial "Secret Legend" unanimously reported as victims of the total massacre perpetrated by the Mughals (see above the list of "self-proclaimed" Mughals).
It is known about the trips of Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting that they were part of the missions headed by Zou Shen-chih. Peng Da-ya was in the first mission of Zou Shen-chzhi, which, according to the Song shih, left South China within January 12 - February 10, 1233, and made its journey through North China in 1233. The mission was sent to the Mongolian court by the commander of the border troops of the Jianghuai region (Yangtze-Huaihe interfluve) to "express gratitude" in response to the Mongolian ambassador's visit to South China with a proposal for joint military action against the Jurchens. The second mission of Zou Shen-chzhi, which included Xu Ting, was sent by the imperial court on January 17, 1235. On August 8, 1236, the mission was already in North China on its way back to South China. Thus, Peng Da-ya made his journey in 1233,Xu Ting - in 1235-1236 By that time, according to the information of Rashid-ad-din and The Secret Legend, Genghis Khan had long ago slaughtered all the Tatars in the most decisive manner.
One more source does not clarify the matter at all - "Men-da bei-lu" ("Full description of the Mongol-Tatars") written by the Chinese ambassador Zhao Hun based on the results of a trip made around 1220/1221, while Chinggis Khan was still alive. Those whom he went to, he called "meng-da", and the commentator believes that "meng-da" is an abbreviation for two ethnonyms: meng-gu (mongo [l] and yes-da (tata [r]). Thus, an outlandish hybrid - "Mongol-Tatars" has turned out, while one should believe that one half of the ethnonym cut the other. And, most interestingly, all this disgrace happened, twenty years before Zhao Hong's trip, in 1202 in the year of Nokai beginning in [month] Jumada I 598 AH [January 27 - February 5, 1202 AD] The Tatars were completely exterminated, there is no doubt about that.
Even more interesting is the following message contained in "Meng-da bei-lu": "In Gu-jin tszi-yao i-pian Huang Dong-fa it is said:" There was still some kind of Mongol state. [It] was located northeast of the Jurchens. In the time of the Jin Liang [it], together with the Tatars, caused evil on the borders. Only in the fourth year of our [period of reign] Chzia-din [17. I.1211 - 4. I.1212] the Tatars appropriated their name and began to be called the Great Mongolian state (emphasis mine. - K. P.)”.
Thus, the matter is completely and completely confused. Historians have untied this Gordian knot decisively, but with a certain amount of compromise. That is, they called the Mughals "Tatar-Mongols", they say, all one is Busurmans and what difference can there be between them.
So. It is likely that there is little in common between the Tatars mentioned by Rashid-ad-din and in the "Secret Legend" and between the Tatars-Dadans of Chinese sources. Firstly, if the translators of Chinese documents cite Russian and Chinese transcriptions of the ethnonym "Tatars" (Dada or simply yes) and its hieroglyphic spelling, then the translators of the first volume of the text of the Collection of Chronicles do not give any transcription of the original spelling in Farsi (in which "Collection chronicles "was written) are not given. Meanwhile, in other volumes, in particular in the second, the original names (without any transcription is true), for example, of certain names or settlements, are present all the time. Secondly, in the case of the Tatars, Rashid ad-din has the same story as with the Mughals, that is, this name could have been appropriated by others,tribes not belonging to the Tatars. Rashid-ad-din informs quite definitely: “Because of [their] (Tatars - K. P.) extraordinary greatness and honorable position, other Turkic clans, with [all] the difference in their categories and names, became known by their name and all were called Tatars. And those different clans believed their greatness and dignity in the fact that they attributed themselves to them and became known under their name, just like now, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his family, since they are Mongols, - [different] Turkic tribes, like the Jalaiirs, Tatars, Oirats, Onguts, Kerait, Naiman, Tanguts and others, of which each had a specific name and a special nickname, all of them, because of self-praise, call themselves Mongols, despite the fact that in antiquity they did not recognize this name. "“Because of [their] (Tatars - KP) extraordinary greatness and honorable position, other Turkic clans, with [all] the difference in their ranks and names, became known under their name and all were called Tatars. And those different clans believed their greatness and dignity in the fact that they attributed themselves to them and became known under their name, just like now, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his family, since they are Mongols, - [different] Turkic tribes, like the Jalaiirs, Tatars, Oirats, Onguts, Kerait, Naiman, Tanguts and others, of which each had a specific name and a special nickname, all of them, because of self-praise, call themselves Mongols, despite the fact that in antiquity they did not recognize this name. "“Because of [their] (Tatars - KP) extraordinary greatness and honorable position, other Turkic clans, with [all] the difference in their ranks and names, became known by their name and all were called Tatars. And those different clans believed their greatness and dignity in the fact that they attributed themselves to them and became known under their name, just like now, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his family, since they are Mongols, - [different] Turkic tribes, like the Jalaiirs, Tatars, Oirats, Onguts, Kerait, Naiman, Tanguts and others, of which each had a specific name and a special nickname, all of them, because of self-praise, call themselves Mongols, despite the fact that in antiquity they did not recognize this name. "with [all] the differences in their categories and names, they became known under their name and all were called Tatars. And those different clans believed their greatness and dignity in the fact that they attributed themselves to them and became known under their name, just like now, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his family, since they are Mongols, - [different] Turkic tribes, like the Jalaiirs, Tatars, Oirats, Onguts, Kerait, Naiman, Tanguts and others, of which each had a specific name and a special nickname, all of them, because of self-praise, call themselves Mongols, despite the fact that in antiquity they did not recognize this name. "with [all] the differences in their categories and names, they became known under their name and all were called Tatars. And those different clans believed their greatness and dignity in the fact that they attributed themselves to them and became known under their name, just like now, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his family, since they are Mongols, - [different] Turkic tribes, like the Jalaiirs, Tatars, Oirats, Onguts, Kerait, Naiman, Tanguts and others, of which each had a specific name and a special nickname, all of them, because of self-praise, call themselves Mongols, despite the fact that in antiquity they did not recognize this name. "due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his clan, since they are Mongols, - [different] Turkic tribes, like the Jalaiirs, Tatars, Oirats, Onguts, Kerait, Naimans, Tanguts and others, of which each had a specific name and a special nickname, - all because of their self-praise, they call themselves [also] Mongols, despite the fact that in ancient times they did not recognize this name. "due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his clan, since they are Mongols, - [different] Turkic tribes, like the Jalaiirs, Tatars, Oirats, Onguts, Kerait, Naimans, Tanguts and others, of which each had a specific name and a special nickname, - all because of their self-praise, they call themselves [also] Mongols, despite the fact that in ancient times they did not recognize this name."
In fact, the "theft" (or rather plagiarism) of tribal names in the East in the Middle Ages was very common. For example, the following fact is widely known. Theophylact Simokatta reports the following about such “plagiarists”: “When Emperor Justinian occupied the royal throne, some part of the Huar and Hunni tribes fled and settled in Europe. Calling themselves Avars, they gave their leader the honorary name of Kagan. Why they decided to change their name, we will tell, without deviating from the truth. The Barcelt, Unnugurs, Sabirs and, besides them, other Hunnic tribes, seeing only a part of the Huar and Hunni people who fled to their places, were filled with fear and decided that the Avars had moved to them. Therefore, they honored these fugitives with brilliant gifts, hoping thereby to ensure their safety. When the huar and the hunni sawhow favorable the circumstances are for them, they took advantage of the mistake of those who sent the embassies to them, and began to call themselves Avars; they say that the Avar tribe is the most active and capable of the Scythian peoples."
And here's another example. About the appropriation by the Mongolian (late Mongolian) tribes of the name “Kyrgyz” Abul-gazi, at one time, wrote: “There are very few true Kyrgyz left now; but this name is now appropriated by the Mongols and others who have migrated to their former lands."
Any tribal name could be extended to other peoples not only in cases of "self-capture", but also, for example, conquests. So Ammianus Marcellinus in
IV century writes about the Alans the following: “Their name comes from the name of the mountains. Little by little, they (Alans - K. P.) subjugated the neighboring peoples in numerous victories and spread their name to them, as the Persians did."
As for the assignment of the name "Mughal", then on this occasion Rashid-ad-din reports: "… due to their (Mughal - K. P.) power, other [tribes] in these regions also became known by their name, so that most of the Turks [now] are called Mongols."
Thus, we can have a certain confusion in terms due to the assignment of alien tribal names. Besides, there is one more nuance. The population of the Golden Horde was also called Tatars (or rather Tartars), and this was precisely the name of the Western Europeans, although the Golden Horde themselves called themselves “Mongu” or “Mongals” and, in particular, V. N. Tatishchev. And he also wrote the following: “Until now, as I said above, apart from European ones, they themselves are not called Tatars. As for the Crimean, Astrakhan and others called Tatars, they, hearing this from the Europeans and not knowing the meaning of the name, do not accept it for vileness. " The same Plano Carpini wrote a book whose title explains a lot: "The history of the Mongols, whom we call Tatars."
And here, among other things, there is confusion due to the fact that historical science, trying to justify the term "Tatars" as Asian, and not at all given out by the Europeans, found "Tatars" where, apparently, they did not exist at all. I beg your pardon, but I undertake to assert that the terms “Dada” or even “Tata”, with all their certain consonance with the “Tatars”, hardly have anything to do with the Zolotordyn warriors. Otherwise, using similar methods, this tribe, the "Urasuts", which was mentioned above, can be quite safely recorded in the "Uruses", that is, in the Russians. At the same time, how it turned out in Southern Siberia is not our business. Modern science is not shy about proving that the ancestors of the Khalkhin Mongols conquered all of Eurasia. And it was much easier to migrate to the vicinity of the Minusinsk Basin,how to get with battles from the Khalkha steppes to Hungary and Poland.
By the way. About these same "Uruses". It seems that this name was a fairly popular name in the upper strata of Mughal society, along with such a name as Timur and others. All lovers of Mughal history know the name of Urus Khan (Russian Khan), who for some time ruled in the Blue Horde. She is also sometimes called White, but, most likely, this is mistaken. The Blue Horde just controlled the present Kazakhstani steppes, i.e. Desht-i Kipchak. Urus Khan seized power in the Golden Horde in the mid-70s of the XIV century and was famous for his evil and quarrelsome disposition.
Less known to the reader is the ruler of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, Khan Urus (or Urus-Inal), who lived at the same time as Genghis Khan and quite peacefully passed under his citizenship. Here I would like to convey to the reader what these very “Kyrgyz” looked like, whose name modern Kyrgyz people now use. Chinese sources, in particular, "The History of the Tang Dynasty" reports: "The inhabitants generally grew up, with red hair, with a ruddy face and blue eyes."
However, other Mughal khans and military leaders with the name Urus are even less known. Thus, the famous commander Jebe-noyon had a nephew Urus, about whom Rashid-ad-din reports: “He came here to serve Hulagu-khan as a bodyguard [in the khan's] kezik. His brothers were [also] there. When Abaga Khan was appointed to the region of Khorasan, he deigned to make Urus the emir of four keziks and gave him a high appointment. When Abaga Khan became sovereign and returned from Khorasan, he returned Urus back and sent [him] to guard the borders of Herat and Badgis, ordering him to command the troops of those borders. and he stayed there."
Kaidu Khan, who was at enmity with Khubilai, had a son, Urus. “Urus was born from the elder wife of Kaidu named Derenchin. After the [death] of his father, he disputes the kingdom. Tokma, the son of Tokma, the son of Ogedei Kaan, entered into an alliance and agreement with him regarding this. His sister Khutulun is leaning on his side, but since Duva is leaning on the side of Chapar, she tried and put him on the khan throne. Kaidu entrusted Urus with the border area with the Kaan and gave him a significant army."
Mingkadar's son Buval, son of Jochi Khan, son of Genghis Khan also had a son Urus, who was not famous for some special deeds and died childless.
G. V. Vernadsky assumed that Urus, who was the khan of the Blue and Golden Horde, was named so because of the nationality of his mother, who could be Russian. But this is just an assumption, nothing more. If in relation to the khans of the Golden Horde such hypotheses look completely justified, then how they can be justified in relation to the Kyrgyz Urus-khan is completely incomprehensible. At least within the framework of the historical picture that is painted in school textbooks, there is no answer. In addition, the mother of Urus, the son of Kaidu Khan, was called Derenchin and I will not argue that her name has a clearly Slavic sound. Maybe everything can be, but nothing more.
But this is all one side of the issue. The other side is that among the Mughal khan names there were a lot of names that sound the same as tribal names. Examples:
“In the last war of Tayan Khan, the sovereign of the Naiman tribe, Toktai-beki was with Chingiz Khan with him; he fought hard. When Tayan-khan was killed, Toktay-beki with one of his son fled to Buyuruk-khan "naiman". Genghis Khan again sent an army to Toktai-beki, and he was killed in the battle. His brother Kudu and his sons: Jilown, Madjar and Tuskan wanted to take his body away and bury him."
Madjar is Hungarian, or rather Ugrian (Magyar).
USheiban, the son of Jochi Khan, was the son of Madjar. Shingkur, the son of Jochi Khan, had a son, Majar, etc. In addition, in the genealogical thickets of the Borjigin family, names such as Kipchak or, for example, Hindu, also appear.
Here we can assume that the Mughal khans named their sons after the conquered peoples. But, Kaidu-khan, he did not conquer any Rus, which is also true of the father of the Kyrgyz Urus-Inal. In addition, the Kiev land was actually called Rus in the XIII century, and the inhabitants of this land were called Uruses, and their total number (about 200 thousand) in the XIII century, even by those standards, was not in any way outstanding.
However, this is not all.
In the document of the first half of the 18th century - "Report of the Verkholensk administration about the peoples living in the district", the following is reported: "There are Brattsky (Buryat - K. P.) foreigners and Tunguses, they call themselves such a title. By the same aforementioned naming and from outsiders they name. They call the Russian peoples the Russian people, according to their brotherly name mangut, and by the Tunguska ray. And they do not know which date the year begins. There is never any legend about their antiquity between them. In this place they dwell from their own kind, how they conceived and where their grandfathers came from, they do not know, since their settlement was before the Verkholensk prison. And before that, before the settlement of the Russian people, they themselves had power over themselves, but as the Russian people tipped the tsar's arm into the yasak, then they have no power. There were no wars and battles in their memory”.
So that's it. The Manguts are one of the Nirun Mughal tribes and above in the text they were mentioned in the list of tribes belonging to these same Niruns, that is, to those whose origins date back to the legendary Alan-goa. Rashid-ad-din writes the following about the origin of the Manguts: “The name of the eldest of the nine sons of Tumbine Khan was Jaksu. Three branches originate from his sons: one is called the Nuyakin tribe, the other the Urut tribe, and the third - the Mangut tribe."
Tumbine Khan was the son of Baysonkur, the fifth ancestor of Genghis Khan and will be (the fourth ancestor) of Genghis Khan. From Tumbine Khan came the Kabul Khan Elinchik (third ancestor) of Genghis Khan.
However, if we return to our Buryats and take the word of the report of the Verkholensk administration about the lack of any historical memory among the Buryats, then we can only guess what connection there might be between the manguts of the 13th century and the Russians of the 18th century. The only version that comes to mind is that the Buryats called the Russians "manguts" in appearance. Thus, based on this version, it should be assumed that the manguts of the 13th century had a Caucasian appearance. There is nothing surprising here, if we take for the truth the Caucasoidness of the Mughals, and especially the Niruns.
One cannot but ignore another interesting problem of Mughal history. The general public knows that Chinggis allegedly had the title of khan, which term certainly refers to the Turkic social vocabulary, but in reality he was not a khan. In the same "Secret Legend" Chinggis is referred to as kagan (khagan). His heir, Ogedei, was called "kaan". Kaan is a kagan and it is usually considered that this term means "khan of all khans" on the principle of "shahinshah - shah of all shahs". The word kagan, like khan, refers to the Turkic vocabulary by modern science, and here there are certain objections.
Four kaganates are widely known in history - the Turkic, Khazar, Avar and the so-called Russian kaganate. About the most famous, Türkic, we can say the following. The ruling clan in this state, which controlled the transit of goods along the Great Silk Road, was the Ashina clan, whose Turkic origin can be questioned. First. The word "Ashina" itself should be derived, most likely, not from some Turkic dialect, but from Indo-European languages. According to S. G. Klyashtorny, one should look for the original form of the name Ashina not in the Turkic languages, but in the Iranian and Tocharian dialects of East Turkestan. “As one of the hypothetical prototypes of the name, one can single out the Saka asana -“worthy, noble”. In this sense, the naming "Ashina" was used later along with the personal names of the rulers of the First Kaganate, for example,"Western Chzhuki-prince Ashina Nishu was the son of Sunishiev". Second. The Ashina clan burned their dead and burned them, at least until 634, about which there is a corresponding record in the sources: “In the eighth year 634, 634, Hyeeli died. Upon death, he was awarded princely dignity and the name Juan. It was ordered to the nobles to bury him. The corpse of the Khyeliev, according to nomadic custom, was burned. His grave was poured on the eastern side of the Ba river. " In connection with this circumstance, it is usually assumed that at some stage the rite of cremation was inherent in the Turks. However, the justification for this assumption is very shaky and far-fetched. In addition, the Turkic kagans, although they were related to the Han emperors, had in their appearance a considerable number of Caucasoid racial characteristics. Example: “Shehu-khan Chuloheu. Chuloheu had a long chin, stooped back, sparse eyebrows, light eyes;was brave and gifted with consideration. " The long chin and light eyes of the khan do not testify in favor of his belonging to the Mongoloid race. Above, I gave information about the relationship of hair pigmentation with a specific eye color. The very term tukyu (tugyu, tukue, tutszue) was "deciphered" by P. Peliot rather arbitrarily. There are a lot of "transcripts" of this kind. To build any generalizations on them is simply ridiculous. Here, as a conclusion, I would like to say definitely that the Ashina clan cannot be unconditionally ranked among the Turks and this circumstance should be taken into account. In my opinion, one should accept the version about its Indo-European origin. The very term tukyu (tugyu, tukue, tutszue) was "deciphered" by P. Peliot rather arbitrarily. There are a lot of "transcripts" of this kind. To build any generalizations on them is simply ridiculous. Here, as a conclusion, I would like to say definitely that the Ashina clan cannot be unconditionally ranked among the Turks and this circumstance should be taken into account. In my opinion, one should accept the version about its Indo-European origin. The very term tukyu (tugyu, tukue, tutszue) was "deciphered" by P. Peliot rather arbitrarily. There are a lot of "transcripts" of this kind. To build any generalizations on them is simply ridiculous. Here, as a conclusion, I would like to say definitely that the Ashina clan cannot be unconditionally ranked among the Turks and this circumstance should be taken into account. In my opinion, one should accept the version about its Indo-European origin.the version about its Indo-European origin should be accepted.the version about its Indo-European origin should be accepted.
Another kaganate, the Khazar, has a very negative assessment in the Russian public consciousness. Firstly, the Khazars, again also unconditionally, are considered Turks, and secondly, a particularly negative attitude towards this medieval state is due to the wide presence of Jews in its political life. Accordingly, historians, when covering the events of the Khazar history, often take two extreme positions. Some of them consider the kaganate almost a paradise on earth and precisely because of the presence of Jews in it, others label it a "chimera" and revile it in every possible way. However, we are not interested in the Jews, but in the Khazars. Another famous researcher of the Khazar Kaganate A. P. Novoseltsev in his book "The Khazar State", which can be easily found on the Internet, notedthat the assignment of the Khazars to the Turks does not occur immediately in medieval sources, and A. P. Novoseltsev notes this temporal evolution of the opinions of Eastern authors. So that's it. The earliest known author who covered the Khazar history, al-Istakhri, writes that the language of the Khazars differs from the languages of the Turks and Persians and does not resemble any of the known languages at all. These words are repeated much later (in the 11th century) by al-Bekri, who reports: “The language of the Khazars is different from the languages of the Türks and Persians (emphasized by me - K. P.). This is a language that does not agree with any language in the world. " But later Arab authors, as a rule, rank the Khazars among the Turks, and Ibn Khaldun, for example, even identifies them with the Turkmens. Al-Mukaddasi noted the similarity of the Khazars with the Slavs (or with the Sakaliba, as you like), and the anonymous author of the "Collection of Histories" (Mujmal at-Tavarikh, 1126.): noted that "Rus and Khazar were from the same mother and father." The army of the Khazar Kagan consisted of Slavs and Rus, and Al-Masudi reports on this: "The Rus and Slavs, about whom we said that they are pagans, make up the army of the king and his servants."
Here the question arises, what were these Russians in the army of the Khazar Kagan, whose presence in the Kaganate was very significant? The Normanists, with a zeal worthy of better use, argue that these were Swedes, who, probably out of old habit, moonlighted as rowers on the Volga crossing. At the same time, it is completely incomprehensible who, in this case, at least from the 9th century, they were called "svei" and "sveons"? However, all this "Normanism" is a political-ideological construction and has nothing to do with science. Meanwhile, the presence of the Rus in the Khazar Kaganate should be especially noted, since it was located in the vicinity of the Russian Kaganate, the existence of which is to a certain extent hypothetical and associated with reports from various medieval authors about the presence of a ruler with the title of "kagan" among the Russians.
The fact is that in the "Bertine Annals", in a message dated 839 about the Russian embassy to Louis the Pious, it is said: "He (the Byzantine emperor Theophilus - K. P.) also sent with them those who themselves, that is, their people were called Ros, whom their king, by the nickname Kagan (emphasis mine. - K. P.), had sent earlier in order for them to declare friendship to him, asking through the said letter, since they could [this] receive the favor of the emperor, the opportunity to return as well as help through all his power. He did not want them to return by those [paths] and would find themselves in great danger, because the paths along which they went to him to Constantinople, they traveled among the barbarians of very cruel and terrible peoples."
Oriental authors, for example, Ibn-Rust, also write about the kagan (khakan) of the Rus: “As for ar-Rusiyya, it is located on an island surrounded by a lake. The island on which they (the Rus) live, a three-day journey, is covered with forests and swamps, unhealthy and cheese to the point that as soon as a person steps on the ground, the latter shakes due to the abundance of moisture in it. They have a king called the Khakan of the Rus (emphasis mine - KP). " The Slavic (Sakaliba) authorities were called by the eastern authors "knaz" (prince), about which there is information from Ibn-Khordadbeh: ". Lord al-Sakaliba - knaz". Thus, if the Russian kagan existed, then the Russian kaganate also existed. This logical conclusion led historians to the need to search for this state. There is some information that could shed light on its localization.
Thus, Al-Istarhi reports: “. and these Rus trade with the Khazars, Rum (Byzantium) and the Great Bulgar, and they border on the northern borders of Rum, there are so many of them and they are so strong that they imposed a tribute on the border regions of Rum …,”.
The Nikon Chronicle reports about the events of 860: “give birth, the denounced Rus, Even the Cumans [Polovtsians], living near the Exinopont [Black Sea] and begin to take captivity in the country of Rome [Byzantium] and want to go to Constantin- grad … ".
A note in the "Life" of George of Amastrid "(VIII century) reads:" Everything lying on the shores of the Black Sea. ravaged and devastated the dew fleet in raids (the people grew up - Scythian (emphasis mine. - KP), living near the Northern Taurus (Taurida - Crimean Peninsula - KP), rough and wild."
In short, some well-known modern historians, for example, V. V. Sedov and E. S. Galkin confidently localize the Russian Kaganate in the lower reaches of the Don (this should be remembered and noted separately) and identify it with the Saltovo-Mayatskaya culture. E. S. Galkina connects the Saltovsk Rus (at least the ruling layer of the Kaganate) with the Alans and claims about their migration, after the collapse or extinction of this state. The most interesting thing is that Alans (sometimes referred to as Ases, Asians) are identified by many historians (for example, G. V. Vernadsky) with the Usuns of the Chinese chronicles, but the last mention of Usuns in them seems to date back to the 5th century, according to TSB. And here it should be noted, regarding the language of the Usuns, that “Puliblank gave some data in favor of the assumption that the real (eastern) Tochars (arsi and kuhan - K. P.) moved to Central Asia together with the Yuechzha (Yatii) at the beginning of this period from the northern periphery of China and already here they adopted Iranian speech, and before the migration, both peoples, together with the Usuns (Asians), spoke the same Indo-European language as the Arsi and Kuhan »8 What kind of speech it is easy to guess. This is an Indo-European language close in vocabulary to the Slavic-Balto-Germanic languages, with phonetics characteristic of the Slavs (not characteristic of the Germans), i.e. with the opposition of hard and soft (palatalized consonants), similar to the Russian language. As the famous linguist R. Jacobson notes: “. among the Slavic languages, palatalizing languages include Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian, most of the Polish dialects and East Bulgarian dialects; of the Germanic and Romance languages, not one takes part in this opposition,with the exception of Romanian dialects, on the one hand, and the Yiddish language in Belarus, on the other. And speaking about the connection of the Tochars with the Usuns
(Asians), it should be noted that even Pompey Trog spoke about the Asians (Asians) of the Tocharian kings.
Generally speaking, Alans in linguistic terms usually refer to Iranians, however, there is reason to consider Alans a Tocharian-speaking community. This is the first thing. The second is that there is reason to suspect in the term Alans not an ethnonym, but a socionym or a political name. However, more about all this later.
And finally, among all the kaganates, we should also mention the Avar kaganate, led at one time by the legendary kagan Bayan. On this occasion, it is appropriate to recall the letter (871) of Louis II, written by him in response to a message from the Roman emperor Basil I. Louis II, arguing about the titles of foreign rulers, declares that the Franks (unlike the Byzantines) call only the Avar sovereign khan, and not Khazars or Normans. The Normans here again mean the Rus, about whom Liutprand of Cremona wrote: “The city of Constantinople, which was previously called Byzantium, and now called New Rome, is located among the wildest peoples. Indeed, in the north, its neighbors are the Hungarians, Pechenegs, Khazars, Russians, whom we call by another name, i.e. Normans. In the northern regions there is a certain people, which the Greeks call Rusios by their appearance,we call them "Normans" at their place of residence. Indeed, in the Teutonic language, "nord" means "north" and "man" means "man"; hence - "Normans", that is, "northern people". The king of this people was [then] Igor; having collected more than a thousand ships, he came to Constantinople. " There is no question of the Scandinavians, since in Northern Italy everyone living north of the Danube was called "Normans" (which is actually confirmed by the example with Liutprand of Cremona), and in southern Italy the Lombards themselves were identified with the northern Veneti.since in Northern Italy everyone living north of the Danube was called "Normans" (which is actually confirmed by the example with Liutprand of Cremona), and in southern Italy the Lombards themselves were identified with the northern Veneti.since in Northern Italy everyone living north of the Danube was called "Normans" (which is actually confirmed by the example with Liutprand of Cremona), and in southern Italy the Lombards themselves were identified with the northern Veneti.
By the way, the Russian princes continued to be called "kagans" for a long time. Thus, Metropolitan Hilarion in his treatises "The Word of Law and Grace" and "The Confession of Faith" calls Vladimir Kagan ("the great kagan of our land") and his son Yaroslav the Wise ("the faithful kagan Yaroslav"). A short inscription on the wall of the Cathedral of St. Sophia of Kiev reads: "Save, Lord, our kagan." Here it is believed that we are talking about the son of Yaroslav the Wise - Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, who reigned in Kiev in 1073-1076. And, finally, the author of The Lay of Igor's Campaign (end of the 12th century) calls the Kagan of the Tmutorokan prince Oleg Svyatoslavich.
However, we are distracted.
In the Avar Kaganate, the Türkic language was, as it should be supposed, widespread. As evidenced by the administrative and social vocabulary of the Avars. The kagan stood at the head of the state. His first wife was called katun (khatun). The governors of the kagan were tudun and yugur. The so-called tarkhans collected tribute in the country. Anthropologically, the bulk of the Avars were Caucasians, and among the Avars there was a large proportion of Caucasians of the Nordic type, that is, light-headed dolichocephals. Istvan Erdeli considers the Avars to be a mixed racial and ethnic community. And he calls the Iranians from the Volga region one of the components of this community. Hungarian anthropologist Tibor Toth, examining the burials of Avars from various regions of Hungary, came to the following conclusion: “Without denying the presence of the Mongoloid element in the population of the Avar Kaganate, it should be noted thatthat these local groups are very small in number and are lost in the general mass of the Caucasian population of the Avar Khaganate. And more: "… There is no doubt that in most cases we are talking about the spread of things and traditions from the Altai-Sayan plateau or Central Asia, not accompanied by a massive resettlement of Mongoloid ethnic groups to the Carpathians."
Among the scientific community, there are rather heated disputes as to who was the leading layer among the Avars, some speak for the Mongoloid group, others for some eastern Iranians, and in general, it should be admitted that most issues of Avar history are very controversial.
Avars in Russian history are known under the name "obrov" and also due to the fact that they "tortured" the Duleb tribe and especially mocked the Duleb women, harnessing them to carts. It is difficult to say now whether the harnessing of Duleb women into carts had the appearance of a system or was just one of a number of outrageous cases of Avar arbitrariness. Meanwhile, the fact remains that the participation of the Slavs (Sakaliba, Sklaven) in the life of the Kaganate was so great that they were either often confused with the Avars or mistaken for Avars, or the Avars and Sklaven are one and the same people. The latter is evident from the testimony of the Roman emperor Constantine Porfirogenit, who wrote: "… and the Slavs (in the original Sklavens - K. P.) on the other side of the river, also called Avars …", "… Slavic unarmed tribes, which are also called Avars" or " Let the Slavs sit down, they are Avars. "The identification of the Slavs with the Avars is also found in John of Ephesus, in the Monemvasian Chronicle and other early medieval sources.
What will be the conclusion? Without denying, in general, the likelihood of the origin of the word kagan from the Turkic language, I would like to say only that it is impossible to deny the possibility of its origin from some Indo-European dialect. Historians of the West still see in the history of Asia only the Turks, only the Turks, and no one except the Turks, recording in this environment everyone who is possible. In this they are completely like the Arab authors of the Middle Ages, for whom everyone went to the Turks up to the Slavs.
Konstantin Penzev
From the book “Demugin Hingei. Legend of the White Tsar"