Tatars, Mongols, who are they? Mongols, Tatars and the Mongol-Tatar yoke

Stairs. Entry group. Materials. Doors. Locks. Design » Entry group Tatars, Mongols, who are they? Mongols, Tatars and the Mongol-Tatar yoke

Tatars, Mongols, who are they? Mongols, Tatars and the Mongol-Tatar yoke

Iskhakov Damir Mavlyaveevich

Keywords

MONGOLS / MONGOLO-TATARS / TATARS / KIMAKS / UYGURS / NAIMANS / MERKITS / MEDIEVAL TATAR ETHNIA / TURKO(TATAR)-MONGOL PERIOD OF HISTORY/ MONGOLS / MONGOL-TATARS / TATARS / KIMAKS / UIGHURS / NAIMANS / MERKITS / MEDIEVAL TATAR ETHNOS / TURKIC (TATAR) MONGOL PERIOD OF HISTORY

annotation scientific article on history and historical sciences, author of the scientific work - Iskhakov Damir Mavlyaveevich

Despite the increased attention of researchers in recent years to the ethnic aspects of the formation process at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries. Great Mongol State, one of the key problems of this period, related to the determination of the ethnicity of the Tatar and other related clans, still remains debatable. This article is devoted to the analysis of this issue in order to develop a more unambiguous understanding of the ethnic situation in Central Asia during the formation of the Eke Mongol Ulus there. As a result of considering the approaches existing in historiography regarding the ethnic nomenclature used by Mongolian and Chinese sources in relation to the Turkic and Mongolian groups settling in this zone, the author of the article is inclined to the opinion of the Turkic ethnicity of the Tatars and some others (Naiman, Merkits) known from the sources , clans that Genghis Khan encountered during the formation of the “Mongol people.” At the same time, a historical connection between the pre-Mongol Tatars and the Kimak and Uyghur Khaganates is established, including their belonging to the elite “royal” strata of the named Turkic states. And this, in turn, allows us to identify the presence of the Tatar component element among the eastern Kipchaks-Kimaks (Yemeks), who had close ties with the last dynasty of the Khorezmshahs. The general conclusion that follows from the material subjected to a detailed and comprehensive study from the given perspective is that a new understanding of the term “Mongol-Tatars” is necessary, which is not a concept imposed by Chinese officials, but a meaningful polytonym marking the two-part Turkic (Tatar)- Mongolian character of the state-forming “people” of the Great Mongol Empire. The publication also makes an application to continue this topic in relation to the Ulus of Jochi.

THE TERM OF THE “TATAR-MONGOLS/MONGOL-TATARS”: THE ETHNIC OR POLITICAL CONCEPT? AN EXPERIENCE OF THE SOURCE STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

In recent years, researchers have begun to pay greater attention to the ethnic aspects of the Great Mongolian State’s formation at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries. However, a key problem of this period still remains controversial. This problem is related to the definition of ethnicity of the Tatar and other kindred clans. This article analyzes the problem in order to achieve a clear understanding of the ethnic situation in Central Asia during the formation of Eke Mongol Ulus. As a result of consideration of historiographical approaches to ethnic nomenclature, which the Mongolian and Chinese sources used with respect to the Turkic and Mongolian groups that settled in this area, the author is inclined to the view of Turkish ethnicity of the Tatars and some other ( Naimans, Merkits) clans known by source, whom Chinggis Khan faced in the process of formation of the “people of the Mongols”. At the same time, the author establishes a historical connection between the pre-Mongol Tartars and Kimak and Uyghur khaganates. In particular, he reveals their affiliation to the elite, “royal” layers of these Turkic states. In turn, this allows us to reveal the presence of a Tatar component among the eastern Kipchak-Kimaks (Yemeks) with close ties with the last dynasty of Khwarezm shahs. On the basis of a detailed and comprehensive review of material, the author points to the need for a new understanding of the term “Mongol-Tatars”. This term was not imposed by the Chinese officials, but it was a meaningful politonym marking a two-part (Turkic (Tatar) Mongol) nature of the “people” who established the Great Mongol Empire. The author informs in his article about his plans to consider in detail this issue in relation to the ulus of Jochi.

Text of scientific work on the topic “The term “Tatar-Mongols/Mongol-Tatars”: a political or ethnic concept? Experience in source and conceptual analysis"

DISCUSSION

THE TERM “TATAR-MONGOLS/MONGOL-TATARS”: A POLITICAL OR ETHNIC CONCEPT? EXPERIENCE IN SOURCE AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

D.M. Iskhakov

Institute of History named after. Sh. Marjani AN RT 420014, Kazan, Russian Federation

Despite the increased attention of researchers in recent years to the ethnic aspects of the formation process at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries. Great Mongol State, one of the key problems of this period, related to the determination of the ethnicity of the Tatar and other related clans, still remains debatable. This article is devoted to the analysis of this issue in order to develop a more unambiguous understanding of the ethnic situation in Central Asia during the formation of the Eke Mongol Ulus there. As a result of considering the approaches existing in historiography regarding the ethnic nomenclature used by Mongolian and Chinese sources in relation to the Turkic and Mongolian groups settling in this zone, the author of the article is inclined to believe that the Tatars and some others (Naimans, Merkits) are Turkic ethnicities, known from the sources , clans that Genghis Khan encountered during the formation of the “Mongol people.” At the same time, the historical connection of the pre-Mongol Tatars with the Kimak and Uyghur Khaganates is established, including their belonging to the elite - “royal” layers of the named Turkic states. And this, in turn, makes it possible to identify the presence of a Tatar component among the eastern Kipchaks-Kimaks (Yemeks), who had close ties with the last dynasty of the Khorezmshahs. The general conclusion that follows from the material subjected to a detailed and comprehensive study from the given perspective is that a new understanding of the term “Mongol-Tatars” is necessary, which is not a concept imposed by Chinese officials, but a meaningful polytonym marking the two-part Turkic ( Tatar)-Mongolian character of the state-forming “people” of the Great Mongol Empire. The publication also makes an application to continue this topic in relation to the Ulus of Jochi.

Key words: Mongols, Mongol-Tatars, Tatars, Kimaks, Uyghurs, Naimans, Merkits, medieval Tatar ethnicity, Turkic (Tatar)-Mongolian period historical

For citation: Iskhakov D.M. The term “Tatar-Mongols/Mongol-Tatars”: a political or ethnic concept? Experience of source and conceptual analysis // Golden Horde Review. 2016. T. 4, No. 2. P. 420-442.

Formation at the beginning of the 13th century. Eke Mongol Ulus (Great Mongol State) - the largest Eurasian empire in world history, created by the nomads of Central Asia, was not only political,

This means, but also an ethnopolitical process. However, despite this, interest in it has become widespread only in recent decades. The approach to clarify the ethnic basis of the new Golitia turned out to be quite productive from a scientific point of view, but not without some problems. Among them, oraocrn^ and the question of that, so from the original “people of the Mongols” Eke Mongol Ulys, labeled in the sources not only as “Mongols”, but also as “Mongol-Tatars” or just “Tatars”, after the collapse of this ethnopolitical association, in part of its territory - in Ulyse Jochi, better known as the Golden Orda, for the politically dominant decay there, the name “Tatars” was finally assigned, allowing one to refer to this medieval empire, which played an outstanding role in the Gothoria of Northern Eurasia XIII - œp. XV centuries, among the Turkic-Tatar rocy-gifts. If we keep in mind that the medieval Tatar ethnicity that formed in Ulys Jochi was not at all ephemeral, but a completely real community that continued to exist not only after the deconsolidation of Gold oh Expeditions and liquidations in the 16th-18th centuries. the Turkic-Tatar statehood that arose on its basis, but also better, taking, nevertheless, the beginning precisely from the “people of the Mongols” or “Mongol-Tatars”, the existence of modern ethnic groups, the following ethnonyms: “Mongols” and “Tatars” , whose national histories intersect both due to the double labeling of the “Mongol people” already during the formation of Eke Mongol Ulysa, and due to the rule in the Golden Orda and its political heirs Chingizids and “Tatar” clans, the question of the content of the term “Mongol” -Tatars/Tataro-Mongols”, turns out to be very difficult. It is even more complicated by the fact that until now the ethnic affiliation of those Tatar clans with which the Mongol tribes lived at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries has not been clarified. A year of Genghis Khan's leadership of the unification process collided in the historical Turkic territories. In reality, this was only part of the “Tatar world”, which was perfectly demonstrated by Rashid ad-din and emphasized by some modern studies.

In general, behind the tangle of problems of labeling the political core of the Great Mongolian state not only as “Mongols”, but also as “Tatars”, the usefulness of the new analysis is hidden an ethnopolitical panorama of Central Asia in the pre-Mongol period, allowing us to determine its beginning stage at the conceptual level, which began at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries, not as the Mongolian, but as the Turkic-Tatar-Mongolian period, more consistent with the data of the sources. This understanding, by the way, was laid down in the work of the Persian historian Rashid ad-Din, which was not fully understood by researchers until now.

A meaningful consideration of the issues raised can be divided into two groups. The first should include those that are associated with the YCTa-new ethnicity of the Tatar clans, among which, first of all, it is necessary to include those known from the “Secret azania" and "Collection of chronicles" by Rashid ad-din Tatar ktans barky (alaxy) , dutayt (tutukulyut), alchi, chagan (chaan), quin and terat. ^and remembering that part of the Tatars by the beginning of the 13th century. already lived far to the west, in the absence of the Uyghurs or in common with them.

The second group includes a range of issues related to the problem of Kimak-Tatar ethnic ties, which have already attracted the attention of individual researchers, but still require further study, including due to the need to more accurately establish the ethnicity of the Naimans, Merkits and some others clans that clashed with the Mongols in the initial period of the formation of Eke Mongol Ulus. Finally, as a result of the analysis of the problems noted above, the possibility arises of a different understanding of the content of the ethnic processes that took place in the Ulus of Jochi in the 13th-19th centuries than was the case until now.

About the ethnicity of the Tatars of Central Asia

Regarding the ethnicity of the Tatars, with whom Genghis Khan fought and whom he allegedly completely destroyed, the opinions of researchers differ.

The dominant view in historiography is that this community, by the beginning of the 13th century. closely associated with China and occupying the territory of eastern Khalkha, it was Mongol-speaking. The same understanding is presented in popular science literature, sometimes interpreted to mean that the Tatars were “an eastern people of Turkic origin who spoke a Mongolian dialect,” which suggests their eventual assimilation by the Mongols. A special, more complex version of the stated position is the approach proposed by N.N. Kradin and T.D. Skrynnikova in the framework of their formulation of their own hypothesis of the reasons for the double nomination of the Mongols (Men/Menwa) as “Men-da” (Mongol-Tatars) or even as “yes-yes”, i.e. like "Tatars". According to them, the double nomination “men-da” was fixed due to the fact that the Mongols who migrated from Ergen-Kun, being on the territory of their new homeland, where the Tatars lived before them, with whom they partially mixed due to marriage ties (the “anda-kuda” relationship "), in order to separate themselves from their relatives who remained in the old territories, they began to use the indicated complex ethnonym. The formation of this ethnic marking was influenced, as they believe, by the long-standing Chinese tradition of naming the steppe people with the term “da-da.” As a result, the dual identity of “Men-da/Mongol-Tatars” began to be used by the Mongols not only as an external marker (exoethnonym), but also as a term of self-identification (endoethnonym). According to these authors, as a result, the concepts of “Meng/Menwa” (Mongols) and “Da-Da” (Tatars) from Chinese sources began to designate the same ethnic reality, as well as the paired concept “Meng-Da”. Regarding the term “Mongol-Tatars”, another hypothesis, in some points similar to the interpretation of N.N. Kradin and T.D. Skrynnikova, but still different from it in basic aspects, was proposed by P.O. Rykin. If we talk about the commonality of the explanatory model of this researcher with the hypothesis of the above two authors, it should be noted that P.O. Rykin also proceeds from the fact that the name “Tatars” was also extended to the entire nomadic population of Khalkha by the Chinese, or rather Chinese officials. But, in his opinion, this was not a mechanical transfer of the ethnonym of one ethnic group to another - and such a point of view is expressed even very

thoughtful researchers - and not even a consequence of intergroup marriages, about which there is not much data, but the result of the Mongols falling into the orbit of influence of the official classification of peoples in the Middle Empire, but in a very unique way. The author in question believes that no “original” Mongols existed, and, moreover, due to the ambiguity of the sources, it is not possible to draw an unbroken chain of identities from the ancient Menwu/Menwa to the “Mongol people” of the era of Genghis Khan. He also believes that the “Mongolian” identity was “constructed” only during the formation of the Great Mongol Empire, and not without the participation of Jin officials who defected to the victors, taking into account the needs of the Mongolian imperial elite. As he thinks, in the course of the “introduction” of Mongolian identity into the minds of representatives of the “Mongol people,” it was necessary to “do away” with the official classification of the Jing people, who were accustomed to uniting all the steppe inhabitants under the heading “Tatars,” which was done by renaming the state-forming core of the empire as “Mongols.” . At the same time, the name “Tatars” was subject to liquidation because it was associated with subordination to China, dependence on it, and this was unacceptable for the imperial elite of the emerging Eke Mongol Ulus. This author, in line with precisely this understanding, spoke in the spirit that the message about the “destruction” of the Tatars appearing in some sources actually does not imply an act of physical extermination, but a change in the official identity of the steppe inhabitants, adopted by the Jing people, by introducing it instead of the category “Tatars” of the new concept “Mongols”. Finally, according to the interpretation under consideration, the double (“complex/mixed”) form of identity of the “Mongol-Tatar” was “transitional” to the “Mongolian” nomination itself, therefore it should be considered a stage towards the “internalization” of the latter. At the same time, being associated with the official classification of peoples adopted in China, the category “Tatars” was not immediately replaced by a new “native”, actually “Mongolian” identity.

Thus, among those researchers who consider the Tatars to be representatives of the Mongol-speaking community, there are quite diverse explanations of how the same ethnic group received a double ethnic nomination. Since representatives of this group recognize the Mongol-speaking Tatars as if a priori, their main efforts are focused not on the question of the ethnogenesis of the Tatars, but on the problem of the functioning of the dichtomous ethnonym in Eke Mongol Ulus and its political heirs.

Other researchers tend to consider the Tatars of the pre-Mongol period as Turks. In an article by the famous domestic Turkologist S.G. Klyashtorny, published shortly before his death, also contains indirect recognition of the possible Turkic ethnicity of the Tatars, although he previously preferred to avoid this issue. In particular, we should pay attention to the work of B.E. Kumekov (he was then followed by L.R. Kyzlasov), who noted the importance in determining the ethnicity of the Tatars of such sources as “Hudud al-alam” (10th century), “Divan lugat at-Turk” by Mahmud Kashgari (11th century) and work “Zayn al-akhbar” Gardizi (XI century). Work by M.I. Erzina, despite her

popular science in nature, valuable in that it, along with other materials, introduces into scientific circulation little-known data from the research of the Japanese historian Yanai Watari “Study of the Tatars” (first edition - in 1931, second - in 1932) and the Chinese (Taiwanese) scientist Wang Guowei's “Study of the Tatars” (1962), testifying to the Turkic identity of the pre-Mongol Tatars.

To understand who is right regarding the ethnicity of the pre-Mongol Tatars, one should understand the argumentation system of the two groups of researchers noted above, as well as consider the source base on which their conclusions are based.

When moving on to the analysis of works whose authors insist on the Mongolian ethnicity of the Tatars, one should discard those works, mostly popular ones, in which they are declared a “Mongolian tribe/people” a priori. This should also include the “History of the MPR”, published in Russian during the Soviet period, which contains an unsubstantiated passage that “the southern Mongols... were called “white Tatars”, as directly contradicting the sources. It is well known that this is how Chinese materials called the Ongut-Turks, ethnically related to the Nai-mans. And this, as will be shown below, is very important. But the approaches proposed by N.N. Kradin, T.D. Skrynnikova, as well as P.O. Rykin, it is advisable to carefully study, because they set a certain paradigm that characterizes not only the question of the ethnicity of the Tatars, but also the problem as a whole ethnic situation in Eke Mongol Ulus at the beginning of the 13th century.

Let's start with the fact that when turning to the sources, the key link in N.N.’s constructions turns out to be non-disputable. Kradina and T.D. Skrynnikova about two (on Ergun-Kun and within the so-called Three Rivers - in the basins of the Onon, Kerulen and Tola rivers) homelands of the early Mongols, the first of which was purely “Mongolian”, and the second “Tatar-Mongolian” (a thorough criticism of these authors according to For this paragraph, see: ).

The thing is that the sources themselves, telling about the resettlement of the Mongols from their ancient ancestral home to new lands, are contradictory - in one case they we're talking about about the exit of ancestors from mountain gorges, in another - about their crossing across the “sea” (“Tengiz”). Consequently, they are not very reliable; rather, we can talk not about a one-time resettlement, but about a fairly long and gradual advance of the Mongol clans into steppe zone, which does not allow us to accept the opinions of the above-mentioned authors regarding the fact that the Mongols used the “Tatars” marker to separate themselves from their relatives who remained on Ergune-Kun. Another basis for the conclusion about the migration of the Mongols to the west, which supposedly allowed them to “mix” with the Tatars, is the reasoning of the author of “Meng-da Bei-lu” (1221), the Chinese official Zhao Hong, who wrote about two “Mongolian” states “distanced from each other.” friend from east to west for a total of several thousand li,” in his opinion, it is not clear why “united under one name” as “men-gu” (“Mongol state”) or “men-da” (“Mongol-Tatar state "). A careful reading of the source actually allows one to notice that it already confuses the Mongols with the Tatars. Let’s say it directly says: “Now the Tatars call themselves (emphasis added by us - D.I.) the Great Mongolian state-

vom" [Ibid.]. And if this is so, the question arises: weren’t the Tatars, even before the “closure” of their territory with the Mongols, part of the Uyghurs, who lived in the river basin until 840? Orkhon, then partially migrated with them to the west, where they were in the 10th-11th centuries. and lived (see: the above-mentioned works of S.G. Klyashtorny). And since the other part of them remained in their former territories (by the way, a group of Uighurs also remained there - see:) with Chinese officials, who already called it in the 12th century. Mongols by “Tatars”, conclusions appeared about two “Mongolian” (actually Mongol-Tatar) states, which in reality were Turkic, and not Mongolian, polities. The Mongols, after the beginning of their strengthening in connection with the creation in the 12th century. favorable external conditions, in the area of the old political center of the Uyghurs - in the river basin. Orkhon and neighboring territories were faced with their ethnic heirs, among whom were the Tatars, and by no means in the last roles, being, most likely, as we will see, a “royal” group. In this case, we can cite the following statement by Rashid ad-din: “...If, in the presence of their numbers, they (i.e. the Tatars - D.I.) had unanimity with each other, and not enmity, then other peoples.. . would not be able to resist them... They [already] in ancient times, most of the time, were the conquerors and rulers of a large part of the [Mongol] tribes and regions, [distinguished by their] greatness, power and complete honor.” This assessment of the Persian historian can hardly apply to those Tatars with whom Genghis Khan fought in 1198 and 1202, since they, although they were quite numerous, were in no way superior to their neighboring Naimans or Kereits. Most likely, Rashid ad-din implies something else, namely, the involvement of the Tatars in the “royal” Turkic clans, primarily the Uyghurs, and through them the Kimak-Kypchak, in turn dating back to the noble ancient Turkic clans of the period of the Turkic Kaganate (about See below for more details). It was precisely this origin of the Tatars, presumably known to the Chinese, that made it possible to consider them not just an ordinary union of tribes, but a kind of supra-clan community, allowing them to act in the eyes of Chinese officials not only in the role of a specific polity, but also in the role of a certain “generalizing” category, synonymous with the concept of “Turks”. The next place of Rashid ad-din, it seems, testifies precisely to this: “...Because of [their] extreme greatness and honorable position, other Turkic clans, with [all] the differences in their ranks and names, became known under their name, everyone was called (emphasis added by us - D. I.) Tatars” [Ibid]. Consolidation in Central Asia in the 12th-13th centuries. This understanding of the category “Tatars” was clearly facilitated by the existence of specific Tatar clans near the Mongols, who were real bearers of “Tatarness” and possessed charisma.

Regarding the concept of P.O. Rykin regarding the process of formation of Mongolian identity through its staged form of “Mongol-Tatars”, then in it, in our opinion, there is an excessive fascination with the constructivist approach, when, when studying the course of formation in the process of forming the Great Mongolian state, new ethnic markers were used to designate “the people” Mongols", the main attention is paid to the bureaucratic classification of peoples - which is undoubtedly

should be taken into account - to the detriment of fixing real ethnic processes in which not nomenclature “categories” participated, but actually existing ethnic (ethnopolitical) communities, in particular, “Tatars” and “Mongols”, who had cultural historical extent, as well as socio-political significance. It seems that this kind of ethno-formation would be difficult to eliminate (as well as create) through simple manipulations of ethnic nominations inscribed in the imperial “categorizations” of ethnic designations. In general, the hypothesis of P.O. Rykin about the transitional nature of the nomination “Mon-Golo-Tatars” to the actual “Mongolian” identity is called into question. First of all, because, contrary to the opinion of this researcher, the early Mongolian ethnic community, which was the bearer of the Mongolian identity itself, still existed (for a detailed argument on this matter, see:). Another thing is that initially it was probably quite local, not even “overlapping” all the Mongol-speaking (Khitan-speaking?) clans. In any case, it is not clear from the sources that in the 12th century. The Kungrats, Oirats and some other clans, for example, those belonging to the “forest” tribes, had a Mongolian identity. Therefore, the formation in the XII - early XIII centuries. Mongolian statehood was simultaneously accompanied by the consolidation of Mongolian clans, which gradually developed a common identity and a single ethnonym “Mongol”. Naturally, this was facilitated by the “constructivist” efforts of the political and bureaucratic elite of the “Eke Mongol Ulus”. One of the areas of such activity, related to the introduction among the Mongol clans of the idea of their universal “kinship” by manipulating genealogies, was outlined quite well by P.O. Rykin. Let us note that this consciousness of “brotherhood” within the Mongols arose not only through the “gluing together” of genealogies, it was also based on the actually existing extensive marriage contacts of the Chingizids from “Altun Uruk” with the clan nobility (see: about the extension of these relations to the Tatars: ), which clearly contributed to the development of a pan-Mongolian identity, primarily among the clan nobility. Another direction in the introduction of Mongolian identity was direct state coercion to be called Mongols of those clans that were gradually included in the Great Mongol State through conquest or “voluntary” annexation. Although there are no government decrees on this matter, indirect evidence confirms what has been said. For example, the European Guillaume de Rubruk notes: “...the Maols now want to destroy (emphasis added by us - D.I.) this name (Tatars - D.I.) and elevate their own." In connection with the above, we will cite the following passage from Rashid ad-din, who wrote: “...at the present time, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his family, since they are Mongols (sic! - D.I.), - [various ] Turkic tribes..., each of which had a specific name and a special nickname - they all call themselves [also] Mongols, despite the fact that in ancient times they did not recognize this name. Their present descendants... imagine that since ancient times they have been related to the name of the Mongols and are called [by this name]...". The fact that those who entered the service of the new rulers also took part in consolidating the ethnonym “Mongol” in the Mongol Empire

kam former Jurchen officials, can be seen from the following statement of the South Song ambassador Zhao Hong, who visited Beijing in 1221: “[Tatars] also admire the Mongols (Meng) as a warlike people (state - D.I.) and therefore designate the name of the dynasty as the “Great Mongolian State” (da men-gu guo). [This] was also taught to them by the fleeing Jurchen officials."

The results of the consolidation of the Mongolian tribes, achieved in different ways (let’s not forget how Genghis Khan “mixed” the old clans when creating military units), including the “constructivist” influence of the political and bureaucratic elite of the empire, by the middle of the 13th century. were present. For example, Guillaume de Rubruk, who visited in 1253-1255. in the Mongol Empire, reports that during his stay at the headquarters of Batu Sartak’s son, one of the officials of Ulus Jochi told Rubruk: “Do not say that our master (Sartak - D.I) is a Christian, he is not a Christian, but a maol.” Further, commenting on the reluctance of the Mongols to be called Christians, Rubruk points out that they “want their name, i.e. maol, exalt above every name." But even from the above sources it is clear that the ethnonym “Mongol” was introduced not only by the bureaucracy of the Mongol Empire, there were also Mongols themselves, incl. and among the nobility, who were bearers of this name, defended it. In addition, as can be seen from Rashid ad-din, there was a “counter movement” of non-Mongol groups who sought to be labeled with the now prestigious ethnonym “Mongol” (for the reasons, see:).

The real ethnic situation in Eke Mongol Ulus end of XII- beginning of the 13th century. However, it was such that the ethnonym “Mongol,” as already noted, was not even characteristic of all Mongol-speaking tribes, not to mention the Turkic clans that were annexed to this polity in 1206. It is clear that in such conditions the ethnonym “Mongol” could not be the only marker “covering” the entire ethnopolitical core that was being formed within the framework of the Great Mongolian State. In addition, Chinese officials, who played an increasingly prominent role in it as the North Chinese territories were included in this state, did not contribute to the consolidation of one single designation for this core, since they were familiar with the concept of “Tatars”, which was used in Northern China to designate northern steppe inhabitants, extended to the Mongols. A number of examples can be given in this regard, but we will limit ourselves to two. For example, the South Song ambassadors Peng Da-ya and Xiong Ting, who visited Northern China between 1233-1236, referred to the population of “Great Mongolia” as “black Tatars” or simply “Tatars”. Zhao Hong, already familiar to us, another South Song ambassador, who visited the Mongols a little earlier - in 1220-1221, in his note left after this trip, prefers to call the same population “Tatars”, dividing them into “black” Tatars (to them he classified Genghis Khan and the entire Mongol elite), "white" and "wild".

Although in the light of recent data it can be concluded that the ethnonym “Tatars” for the Mongols was external (exoethnonym) - and such a point of view is widespread in the literature (for an analysis of the literature on this, see:) - such a conclusion seems erroneous. It is no coincidence that N.N. Kradin and T.D. Skrynnikov, who devoted

in their research, serious attention to the problem of the formation of Mongolian identity, eventually came to the conclusion that the double marker “Mongol-Tatars”, including not only the “Mongolian” component, but also the “Tatar” one, was a designation of not only “external identification, but also self-identification ". One should agree with this opinion, but in this case the question arises quite acutely about the reasons for the consolidation of a double nomination among the Mongols, which cannot be reduced to the problem of two homelands (T.D. Skrynnikova, based on a common concept with N.N. Kradin, even expressed that spirit that the “Tatar” component of the double marker of the Mongols “faded away” after the loss of the significance of their old homeland), clearly insufficiently substantiated, nor to the interpretation of P.O. Rykin about the elimination of the “Tatar” component of the double marker of the Mongols, which was, in his opinion, a transitional form to the Mongolian identity proper, due to the reluctance of the Mongolian elite to be associated with the Tatars, who were dependent in the past on China. The fact is that existing sources say otherwise. Thus, Zhao Hong talks about his meeting with the viceroy of Genghis Khan in Northern China, Muhuli, who, in a conversation with the ambassador, “each time called himself “we, Tatars”; all their dignitaries and commanders [also] called themselves “we...”.<Подозреваю, что [после этого слова] пропущены три иероглифа: «да-да жень»>They don’t even know (attention - D.I.) whether they are Mongols and what kind of name this is, what the name of the dynasty is.” A common interpretation of this source passage is a reference to the fact that in this case the Mongols talking with the Chinese switch to the self-nomination characteristic of the latter (see a similar commentary by N.Ts. Munkuev [Ibid.]). However, another explanation for the self-identification of Gao-wan Muhuli and his associates is also possible, which was pointed out by N.N. Kradin and T.D. Skrynnikova. The point is that although Muhuli was a “genuine” Mongol who participated in the organization of “Eke Mongol Ulus” from the very beginning, he came from the Jalair clan (from the Jat/Chat division), i.e. Most likely he was a Turk. When Rashid ad-din reports that the Jalairs served the Gur Khan, who was the “sovereign of the Uyghurs,” he also clearly implies the Turkic origin of the Jalair clan. In this case, when Mukhuli declares himself a “Tatar”, he is actually recording his Turkic identity. In terms of the problem under discussion, the statement of another Southern Song author, Huang Tung-fa, is also of interest, in whose work “Gu-jin ji-yao yi-pian,” dating back to the mid-13th century, there is a phrase that in 1211- 1212 “the Tatars appropriated (sic! - D.I.) their (i.e. the Mongols - D.I.) name and began to be called the Great Mongol State.” Is it not that the Mongols already existed by this time, and the Tatars, who were a completely different ethno-social community that also had their own “name,” after the successes of the former, simply began to label themselves with the name of a more successful group? This is precisely what Rashid ad-din wrote about, as we have already seen. But the problem is that in the sources you can also find information that contradicts what was said above. In particular, Zhao Hong, after stating that “the current Tatars (here we mean the Mongols - D.I.) are very primitive and savage,” adds: “[I] Hong often asked them [about their past] and found out that the Mongols have long been exterminated and disappeared."

How is it that by the 1220s everything was exactly the opposite, the strengthened Mongols were definitely no longer “exterminated” and “disappeared”, and the Tatar clans had not yet been “absorbed” by them to the point of adopting their “name” " Moreover, at least two circumstances prevented the “dissolution” of the Tatars into the Mongols. The first, of course, is the special function of the term “da-da” (Tatars), according to the Chinese, which was “more capacious and better known than “men, mankhol”, capable of acting as a generic concept in relation to the specific concept “Mongols”. This is eloquently evidenced by the above example with the division of the “Mongol people” into “black”, “white” and “wild” Tatars, of which not all were actually ethnic Mongols. The second is that after the formation of “Eke Mongol Ulus”, according to all data, the consolidation of the Mongols was still continuing, and the ethnonym “Mongol” in the 1220s was not adopted by all Mongol-speaking groups, not to mention the Turkic groups that became part of the state . Finally, what is especially important, the concept of “Tatars” had not only prestige and an aura of former greatness, but was also a “generalizing” term, acting in relation primarily to Turkic communities as a synonym - a marker of the concept “Turks”, while also having a real ethnic content due to the existence of Tatar clans proper of Turkic origin.

Here, on the basis of the last provision, in connection with its significance,

should dwell in more detail based on the observations and conclusions of those studies

authors who make a conclusion about the Turkic ethnicity

features of the pre-Mongol Tatars.

First of all, you should pay attention to the opinion of Mahmud Kashgari, who directly called the Tatars “one of the Turkic tribes.” Since there is no reason to doubt the linguistic knowledge of this medieval philologist, we must also take into account that in his dictionary he cites the word “kat” and points to its existence among the Tatars, as well as the Yemeks, Kipchaks and the Kay group, in the first two cases they were definitely Turks . In addition, one cannot ignore the fact that Mahmud Kashgari places the Tatars among the 20 main Turkic tribes. The opinion of this author, who lived in the possessions of the Karakhanids, i.e. It is impossible to bypass quite close to the Uighurs and the Western groups of Tatars closely associated with them [about them in more detail, see: 23], settled in the neighborhood of the Karakhanids.

But there is one obstacle to the unconditional acceptance of the ethnolinguistic definition of Tatars given by Mahmud Kashgari. The fact is that in the course of enumerating the groups of Kay, Yabagu, Tatars and Basmyl (Yasmyl), it is noted that they “have their own language, but at the same time they speak Turkic well.” It looks like the Tatars Turkic language was the second, and not “his own”. This author has the same definition regarding the Uyghurs - according to Mahmud Kashgari, their language is “pure Turkic, as well as another language that they speak among themselves” [Ibid; see also 27, p. 172]. Although such formulas do not leave room for an unambiguous conclusion about the language of the Tatars, they, nevertheless, do not exclude the possibility that in both cases Turkic languages are meant, but dialectically very different, i.e. in this case, different from the “pure” or “standard” Turkic language. In this regard, we have to recall that the name of the legendary ancestor

“Toguz-Oguzov”, i.e. Uighurs - Oguz Kagan, had the archaic form “ogur”, which gave its name to the Oghur languages, which, as is known, had significant differences from other Turkic languages.

But still, doubts about the ethno-linguistic identity of the Tatars, based on the statements of Mahmud Kashgari, remain. Therefore, to overcome them, new sources should be attracted.

We believe that the publication of Yu.A. is interesting in this regard. Zuev, who deciphered the ethnicity of the Bomo (“piebald horses”) group, known from Chinese sources since the ancient Turkic era, called “khela” [ala-at] in Turkic, known in documents of the Tang period as eloji/gelochzhi. Having considered this issue, this researcher came to the conclusion that in the sources the Bomo clan refers to the Alachi tribe (alach/alchi), which was also part of the Kipchaks (ulash/alash). It can be assumed that the named clan should be identified with the Alchi/Alchyn tribe, well known among the Eastern Tatars, which was part of the Tatar alliance that fought against Genghis Khan.

Here we should also take into account the connection of this group with the Kipchaks, which allows us to present new evidence regarding the Turkic ethnicity of the Tatars. Thus, the literature has already examined the information of the Persian anonymous “Hudud al-alam” (982/983) and “Zayn al-akhbar” Gardizi (mid-12th century). As noted by B.E. Kumekov, according to “Hudud al-Alam” the Tatars were part of the Toguz-Oguz, i.e. Uyghur. On the presence of Tatars in X-X! centuries in the western Uyghur principalities created after the fall of the Uyghur Kaganate, as noted, S.G. Klyashtorny and A.G. Malyavkin.

Even more revealing is the information of Gardizi, who cites an ethnogenetic legend (for the text, see:) about the origin of the Kimaks. According to it, a certain “chief of the Tatars” named “Shad”, who fled from his relatives to the “big river” (Irtysh), laid the foundation for the Kimaks. Then 7 more “relatives of the Tatars” (Imi, Imak, Tatar, Bayandur, Kipchak, Lnkiaz, Ajlyad) arrived to him. The given names are eponyms reflecting the tribal composition of the Kimak Khaganate, including the presence of at least one clan of Uyghur origin (them), thereby confirming the observations of S.G. Klyashtorny about the connections of the Tatars with the Uyghurs in the X-XI centuries. The presence of the Tatar clan in the Kimak Confederation is also significant.

It should be borne in mind that the fixation among the Kimaks of a “chief” from the Tatars with the title “shad” (it was assigned to the closest relatives - the younger brother or son of the kagan, in fact his deputy (see:) allows us to say that the Tatar clan in the Kimak Kaganate was one of the ruling ones, i.e. the Tatars, were, of course, an elite group, which also speaks of their Turkic origin.

Along with the information noted above, these data allow us to draw a conclusion about the original Turkic ethnicity of the Tatars.

At the same time, the presence of Tatars (along with the Uyghurs) in the elite of the Kiman Kaganate in the “Tatar question” creates a turn that has been little understood until now, requiring attention, which will be done further.

About Tatar-Kimak ethnic ties and the “Tatarism” of the Naimans and other ethnic groups

V.V. Bartold, in his article “Tatars,” drew attention to the message of Jujani related to the campaign of Khorezmshah Muhammad b. Tekesh in 1218/1219 against the Kipchaks, led by Kadyr Khan b. Yusuf Tatarsky. In its entirety, this passage from Jujani’s work “Tabakat-i Nasyri” looks like this: “In 615 AH. he (Muhammad b. Tekesh - D.I.) went for Kadyr Khan, who was the son of Yusuf of Tatar, to Turkestan and penetrated into Turkestan so far that [he reached] Uyghur [he advanced] so far to the north that he reached the North Pole ". Although this area was northern (Judzhani even talks about the merging of day and night there), it was not so remote, for we know that it was during this campaign that the first clash of the Mongols led by Jochi, who were pursuing the Merkits and Naimans, took place there with the troops Khorezmshah. We know about this event from various sources. Thus, the “Secret History of the Mongols” talks about the pursuit by the troops of Genghis Khan of the Merkits and Naimans, the first of whom, after their general defeat, having crossed the Irtysh River, “took direction towards the Kanlins and Kipchauds.” In “Yuan shi”, which also talks about the persecution of the Merkits by Su-bedei-bahadur, it is said about this: “Their leader (the Merkits - D.I.) obok Khutu (Khudu - D.I.) fled to the Kipchaks, Subetai pursued him and Yuyu (Uighur - D.I.) fought and defeated the Kipchaks near the mountain valley.” Juvaini conveys the same event in two pieces of news. The first tells how the head of the Merkits, Tok-Togan, ended up with the leader of the Naimans, Kuchluk, and then from there went to the “Kam-Kemchik region” (more precisely, Kum-Kibchak - D.I.). In the second, returning to the same events, he notes that Muhammad b. Tekesh "received news of the flight of Tok-Togan" from the Mongols to "Karakum, the habitat of the Kangly". The data presented are very important, since they allow us to reveal the ethnicity of the community, the head of which Kadyr Khan, on his father’s side, was labeled a “Tatar” leader by Jujani.

First, let’s look at the “area” where the Merkits fled. As established by S.M. Akhinzhanov, it was located somewhere between the Kayla and Kimach rivers, in the river basin. Irgiz (on the border of the modern Aktobe region of Kazakhstan and the Orenburg region of the Russian Federation). It was there, as this researcher believes, that there was an independent possession of the Kipchaks and Kanglys, not accidentally labeled as “Uighur” (“Yugur”). The fact is that in this possession, in addition to the Kangly, there were not only Yemeks, but also Uighurs, and the eastern Kipchaks themselves, i.e. Yemeks and Kanglys, even large tribal groups are known, called Uran/Oran, Alparly (Ilbari), Bayaut. Perhaps, when Jujani, talking about the transfer of power in the Ulus of Jochi from Jochi to his son Batu, notes that Genghis Khan put his son in the “place of his father”, as a result of which “all the lands of Turkestan” starting “from Khorezm” came under his rule , it is not for nothing that he clarifies that Batu then “conquered all the Kipchak, Kangly, Yemek, Ilbari tribes in these parts,” for in this case, as we will see, we are talking about the habitat of the eastern or “wild” Kipchaks (for more details about them, see .:). But to be sure

we will have to deal with the personality of Kadyr Khan b. Yusuf Tatarsky, which will allow us to better understand the features of the ethnic situation not only on the northern borders of the Khorezmshah state, but also within it.

The issue of Kadyr Khan’s ethnicity was dealt with by S.M. Akhinzhanov, so further we will rely on his observations with certain additions. According to this researcher, Kyran (Ik-ran/Akran), who had the Muslim title “Kadir” (Gair/Gayyr), was a Kipchak khan, also known as “Kadir/Kair-Buku Khan”. His father was Alp-Kara Uranus (Uranus is the name of the clan), whose name is mentioned in the message of the penultimate Khorezmshah Tekesh for 1182, which refers to the fact that in the winter of that year in the city of Jend, where his eldest son then ruled ( Sygnak, Barchinligkent and Ribat were also subordinate to him), an embassy from the above-mentioned Kipchak leader, led by his son Alp-Kara, who was accompanied by the “sons of the Yugurs,” came to the negotiations. As a result of subsequent negotiations with the Khorezmshah Tekesh, he married the daughter of Alp-Kara Uran (her name was Terken-Khatun), entering into an alliance with him and this was not the first such alliance with the Kipchaks who lived north of Khorezm - the father of the Khorezmshah Tekesh was also in allied relations with the Kipchak khan, unnamed in the sources. Further, in 1195, the campaign of Khorezmshah Tekesh followed to suppress the uprising of the Kipchaks in the vicinity of Sygnak and Jend, led by the already familiar Kadyr-Buku Khan. During these events, the latter's nephew Alp-Derek went to the Khorezmshah, as a result, Kadir-Buku Khan was defeated, captured and in 1198 was brought to Khorezm. According to S.M. Akhinzhanov, named Alp-Derek, was the grandson of the above-mentioned Alp-Kara Uranus, thus being the cousin of the wife of the Khorezmshah Tekesh Terken-Khatun. He was also the viceroy of Khorezmshah Muhammad b. in 1218. Tekesha in the city of Otrar with the title “Gayir/Kadir Khan” and with the name “Inalchuk” (this is possibly a title, because “inal” is an heir, and “inalchuk” means a younger heir), through whose fault the conflict with Genghis Khan, which ended with the famous “Otrar” disaster. We need such detailed information in order to understand the ethnopolitical situation of the pre-Mongol period in the Khorezm region.

Generally speaking, we should take into account the possibility of the Kipchak origin of the last dynasty of the Khorezmshahs (it began with Anush (Nush)-Tegin or his son Qutb ad-Din Aibek Turk, who arrived to Jend and Khorezm at the end of the 11th century “from Sahra” , “from among the Kipchaks and Kangly”), which led to extensive connections of this dynasty with the “Kypchak world”, when the family-kinship relations of the Khorezmshahs with the Kipchak khans were reinforced by the conscription of Kipchaks to serve in the army of the Khorezmshah state (in fact, of them here from the second half of the 12th century c. and consisted of a military class). But it should be noted that in this case we are dealing with the eastern Kipchaks - the Yemeks and other groups associated with them, among whom there was an ethnic Uyghur element - it is no coincidence that Anush-Tegina, as Dzhudzhani notes, was considered by some to come from the Uyghur tribe Begdeli (Bekdali) , although in general its connection with the “Kangli and Kipchak tribes” is clearly visible. Now, against this background, we must understand the ethnicity of the last Khorezmshahs.

Terken-Khatun, who was the mother of the last Khorezmshah Muhammad (died in 1199/1200), known under the title “Khudavanda Jihan” (“Princess of the World”), who was the daughter of the Kipchak Khan Ikran, according to one source, belonged to the Kangli. In reality, closer to reality will be the belonging of Terken-Khatun’s relatives to the Uran clan - part of the Yemeks, which, in addition to the above-mentioned relationship with Alp-Kara Uranus, is also evident from other data contained in Juvayni. For example, during the campaign of Khorezmshah Tekesh in 1194/1195. On Kayr-Buku Khan, those urans (orans) who were in his army (there were many of them) left his troops at the decisive moment, clearly not wanting to fight with their relatives. Or, when Muhammad the Khorezmshah went to Iraq under the onslaught of the Mongols, “most of his army,” as Juvaini notes, “were Turks from a tribe related to his mother, called the Oran.” Rashid ad-din confirms this information, indicating that Muhammad the Khorezmshah left “accompanied” by a group of Turks “from his mother’s relatives, called the Uranians.” In practice, these data indicate that a powerful group of relatives of Terken-Khatun belonged (her grandson Jelal ad-Din had a wife from the same clan, and one of the sons of Jelal ad-Din was married to the daughter of the leader of the Kangls) primarily to the Yemeks, and through them already to their specific branches (uranium or by-out). In fact, representatives of this elite group occupied key positions in the state of the Khorezmshahs of the pre-Mongol period. For example, Ibn al-Asir indicates that the maternal relatives of Khorezmshah Muhammad “sat” in Nishapur, Herat, Hamadan, being rulers assigned to the sons of Khorezmshah, who owned separate appanages. According to materials extracted from Jujani’s “Tabakat-i Nasyri”, it is clear that from the side of Arzali Shah, the son of Muhammad the Khorezmshah, married to the daughter of Ulugh Khan Azam (during the Mongol campaign, he went first to Baghdad, then to Delhi , where he eventually began to rule), representatives of the Ilbari clan (Alpari / Albarly) were also included in the family line of the Khorezmshahs, about whom Jujani reports that “their fathers were important persons from the clan of the Ilbari tribe, bore the title of khan, had a large clan and dependent." Jujani, at the end of his work about the above-mentioned Ulug Khan Azam, makes the following remark: “he [was] the Khan of Ilbari and the Shah of Yemek.”

After the important role of the eastern Kipchaks-Yemeks in the state of the Khorezmshahs during their last dynasty was established, we can return to labeling Kadyr Khan’s father Yusuf as a “Tatar” leader. However, first it should be clarified that this “Tatarism” given to the line of noble Kipchak-Yemeks in different sources does not have exactly the same characteristics. So, according to Jujani Gair (Kadr)-Buka Khan, i.e. Kadyr Khan, the son of Alp-Kar, from the Uran tribe, was the “ruler of the Uyghurs.” At the same time, this author also calls him “Khan of the Kipchak.” In other places in Jujani’s work about the same event it is said that Muhammad Khorezmshah “invaded Turkestan pursuing Kadir Khan, the son of Yusuf of Tatar,” when he “penetrated as far as Uyghur of Turkestan” or it is reported that he “went to ravage the tribes of Kadir Khan

T^p^CTaroTOro, son of Safaktan-i Nemeth." Describing the same events, Rashid ad-din Kadyr-Buky (he has “Kair-Taky”) Khan calls the owner “Yyghur”.

What do these somewhat contradictory, but very significant, data testify to?

To understand this, we must once again return to Gardisi’s information regarding the origin of the Kimaks. Despite the fact that they date back to early times (8th-9th centuries), the very legitimacy of fixing the Tatar origin of the “ruling house” of the Kimaks, stating, as Polden notes, “the key role in formation of the Kimak Union" of this particular ethnic group, not subject to doubt. And since ^ima^ was singled out from among the Kimaks, the so-called “Tatar” ethnic heritage was also typical for them, however, one should take into account the heterogeneous guest ethnic composition of the Kypchaks XII-XIII centuries (for more details on this, see:), therefore, Tatar identity should be sought first among the eastern Kipchaks, especially among the Gothic Yemeks and the associated Kangly ethnicities. The latter were the main military contingent of the Khorezmshaks during the Mongol conquest of Central Asia. In particular, Juvaini notes that Sultan Myxhammed-Khorezmshah, who left Khorezm in 1220, left 90 thousand there at the head of his son and military leaders. "Kangly Turks" Further, Juvayni, coraacro which Terken-Khatyn and her clan belonged to the “Turkic tribes called Kangly”, when describing the battle of Jalal ad-Din b. Myxhammed in paröro Parvana, indicates that one wing of his army is 40 thousand people. consisted of tangle.

It is also indicative how the ethnic affiliation of the Naymans Jujani and Ibn al-Athir who fled to the Kipchaks is assessed. The first of them, about Kychlyk, the leader of the Naimans, writes: “...unexpectedly Kychly-khan Tatarsky, who came from Tyrkestan, attacked Gyr-khan” (i.e., the head of the Kara-Kitaev - D.I.). In another place in Jujani’s work, when the same event is discussed, the same “Kashlu-khan-i Sankur” is also defined as “Tatar”. Ibn al-Asir, describing the events that preceded those noted above, writes: “... a large tribe of Tatars (attention, we are talking about naymans! - D.I.) in ancient times came out of their Otpa! near the borders of al-Sina and settled behind the country of Tyrkestan. Between them and the Chinese (i.e. the Kara-Kitai - D.I.) there was enmity and a war was going on [and they fought at the head] with their king Kyshlu Khan." After the armies of the Rapa-China were defeated, Ibn al-Asir, “Khorezmshax sent [a proposal for an alliance] to Kyshlu Khan, the king of the Tatars.”

It is necessary to pay attention to these data because the Merkits and Naimans, it seems, fled to the Yemek and Kangly Kipchaks not only because of the proximity of their territory of residence to the lands inhabited by the eastern Kipchaks, but also thanks to the old ethnic ties of the Turks (Naimans, Tatars, Merkits, Ke-reits, etc.) Mongolia with the Kimaks and Kanglys, headed by the Tatar elite, - this is evidenced by the data recorded in the sources on the influence of the Uyghurs on the Kyreits , Naimanov, Ongytov and Jalairov. And since there is a high probability of correspondence to the previously noted ethnonym “uran” (in the interpretation of S.M. Akhinzhanov - “snake”) this

nonim "kai" with the same meaning in Mongolian, then given the connection of these groups with the Kimaks and Kuns (for more information on this, see:), the Tatar identity of the nobility from the Uran clan is not surprising - it reflects its truly Tatar origin, dating back to the period of the Kimak Khaganate . Note that researchers recognize the presence of a group of Uighur origin among the Kimaks, according to P. Golden, which penetrated into their composition after the fall of the Uyghur Kaganate in 840. In this regard, the story from “Chingiz-name” by Utemish - Haji is also of interest, which says that after the death of Khan Tokta (died in 1312), a certain Bajirtuk-Buga from “omak Uyghur”, who was “an [and] strong clans [and] tribes,” tried to proclaim himself a khan, being not Genghisid, but just an atalyk of the deceased khan. Most likely, in this case we are dealing with those Uyghurs who were associated with the eastern Kipchaks and were part of their elite part (see Gardizi's message above), which allowed them to lay claim to the khan's power in Chinggisid's possession.

Despite the above, P. Golden, proceeding from his theory about the Mongolian ethnolinguistic affiliation of the Kai group (like the Tatars), allowed for its bilingualism. Therefore, his attempt to challenge S.M. Akhinzhanov’s hypothesis about the identity of the Kai and Uran ethnic groups cannot be accepted. To this still debatable problem of the ethnicity of such groups as the Kai and Tatars, in addition to the information already given, one observation by S.G. should be added. Aghajanov, who noted that Ghaznavid poets of the 11th century, when describing ghulams from the Kay tribe, almost always mention Tatars next to them, which is hardly accidental: we are talking about related, but Turkic ethnic entities.

It is well known that the Ulus of Jochi already in the initial period of its formation included a significant group of eastern Kipchaks (Yemeks/Kimaks, Kanglys, etc.), inhabiting the territory from Yaik in the west to the Irtysh in the east and headed, as we have seen, by the elite Tatar origin, which had not forgotten by the period of the Mongol conquests of the 13th century. your ethnicity. Its entry into the “people” of the Jochids could strengthen the Tatar identity within it, which, however, did not happen immediately, because in the Ulus of Jochi, there were also bearers of the Mongol identity itself, which was well known to external observers (see, for example:) . In reality, however, there were certain internal prerequisites for the consolidation of the Tatar identity precisely within the political framework of the Ulus of Jochi. But this is an independent topic that requires separate consideration.

Based on the material presented above, the following conclusions can be formulated:

1. Numerous Tatar clan formations that the Mongols encountered at the turn of the 16th-13th centuries. in the eastern regions of Khalkha, had a Turkic identity. The Tatars were also part of the ruling elite of the Kimak Khaganate, having historical ties to the Uyghur Khaganate and its population. Subsequently, partly the Kimaks, with their elite of Tatar origin, along with the Uyghurs closely associated with them, found themselves in neighboring

relationship with the state of the Khorezmshahs, whose last dynasty generally came from this environment, which led to the active participation of the eastern Kipchak-Kimaks and Kanglys, as well as their specific tribes (Alparly, Uran, etc.) in the military contingent of this state as its important composite.

2. The concept of “Mongol-Tatars” is not at all the result of an bureaucratic classification of peoples, which was established in relation to the politically dominant population of Eke Mongol Ulus thanks to the Chinese, but was a meaningful term close to a polytonym that reflected the two-part Turkic-Mongolian character of the “Mongol people.” Due to the fact that these two ethnic cores of this “people” coexisted for a long time in Central Asia, in relation to this ethnopolitical organism, sources could use both the term “Mongols” (men-wa) and “Tatars” (yes, yes) , turning in this case actually from ethnonyms into political names. But it should be emphasized that the concept of “Tatars” was broader, capable of “overlapping” the term “Mongols”.

3. In the future, a separate study requires the question of how in the Ulus of Jochi, which separated from the Great Mongol State, instead of the concept of “Mongols”, “Mongol-Tatars”, the term “Tatars” gradually became stronger, which eventually became an ethnonym. Preliminarily, we can say that, not least of all, such a transformation occurred due to the significance of the Turkic population in the Ulus of Jochi, primarily groups descended from the Kimaks, whose elite was of Tatar origin,

4. Analysis of the range of issues related to the interpretation of the term “Mongol-Tatars” allows us to pose the problem of the need to further label the so-called Mongol period of history as the Turkic (Tatar)-Mongol stage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ablyazov K.A. The historical fate of the Tatars: in 2 volumes. T. 1. From tribe to nation. Saratov: Scientific book, 2012.

2. Agadzhanov S.G. Essays on the history of the Oguzes and Turkmen of Central Asia in the 19th century. Ashgabat: Ylym Publishing House, 1969.

3. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat-at-Turk. Almaty: Dyke-Press, 2005.

4. Akhinzhanov S.M. Kipchaks in the history of medieval Kazakhstan. Alma Ata: “Science” Kazakh SSR, 1989.

5. Bartold V.V. Twelve lectures on the history of the Turkic peoples of Central Asia. Lecture VIII // Bartold V.V. Works on the history and philology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples. Let's go to the ed. S.G. Klyashtorny; resp. ed. A.N. Kononov. M.: Vost. Lit-ra, 2002. pp. 116-129.

6. Bartold V.V. Tatars // Bartold V.V. Works on the history and philology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples. Let's go to the ed. S.G. Klyashtorny; resp. ed. A.N. Kononov. M.: Vost. Lit-ra, 2002. pp. 559-561.

7. Viktorova L.L. Mongols. The origin of the people and the origins of culture. M.: Publishing house "Science", ch. ed. "East. literature", 1980.

8. Golden P. Kipchaks of medieval Eurasia: an example of non-state adaptation in the steppe // Mongol Empire and the nomadic world. Ulan-Ude: Publishing house of the Buryat scientific. Center SOR AN, 2004. P. 103-110.

9. Grousse Renault. Genghis Khan. Conqueror of the Universe. 3rd ed. M.: Young Guard, 2007.

10. De Rubruk Guillaume. Travel to the Eastern countries / Plano Carpini G. del. History of the Mongols (3rd ed.) / Guillaume de Rubruck. The Book of Marco Polo (4th ed.) / Intro. Art., comment. M.B. Gorunga. M.: Mysl, 1997. P. 8-188.

11. De Hortog Leo. Genghis Khan Conquerors of the world. M.: Olimp; AST; Astrel, 2007.

12. Juvayni Ata-Melik. History of the Conqueror of the World. M.: Publishing house. House "Magister-Press", 2004.

13. Erzin M.I. From the depths of Eurasia: popular science publication / Munir Erzin. Almaty: Economics, 2015.

14. The Golden Horde in the sources. T. 1. Arabic and Persian sources. M., 2003.

15. Zoriktuev. B.R. Current problems in the ethnic history of the Mongols and Buryats. M.: Vost. literature, 2011.

16. Zuev Yu.A. From ancient Turkic ethnonymy according to Chinese sources (Bomo, Gui, Yanmo) // Questions of the history of Kazakhstan and eastern Turkestan. Alma-Ata: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, 1962. P. 103-122.

17. Ibn al-Athir. Al-kamil fi-t-tarikh (Complete history). Tashkent: Uzbekistan, 2006.

18. History of the Mongolian People's Republic. M.: Publishing house "Science", ch. ed. "East. literature", 1983.

19. History of the Tatars from ancient times in seven volumes. T. I. Peoples of steppe Eurasia in ancient times. Kazan: Rukh Il Publishing House, 2006.

20. Kadyrbaev A.Sh. Essays on the history of medieval Uyghurs, Jalairs, Nai-mans and Kireits. Alma-Ata: Rauan, Demeu, 1993.

21. Kara-Davan E. Genghis Khan as a commander and his heirs. Cultural and historical sketch of the Mongol Empire of the XII-XIV centuries. Alma-Ata: KRAMD-Ahmed-Yassawa, 1992.

22. Klyashtorny S.G. Ancient states in Central Asia // Golden Horde Review. 2013. No. 1. P. 22-35.

23. Klyashtorny S.G. State of the Tatars in Central Asia (pre-Chingiz era) // Mongolica. To the 750th anniversary of the “Secret Legend”. M.: Nauka, 1993. No. 1. P. 139-147.

24. Kradin N.N., Skrynnikova T.D. Empire of Genghis Khan. M.: Publishing house. Company "Vost. Literature" RAS, 2006.

25. Kumekov E.B. Kimak state of the 9th-11th centuries. according to Arabic sources. Alma-Ata: Publishing house "Science" of the Kazakh SSR, 1972.

26. Kumekov E.B. Ethnocultural contacts of the Kipchaks and Tatars (according to Arab-Persian sources) // Historical and cultural contacts of the peoples of the Altai linguistic community. Abstract. report XXIX session of the Permanent International Altaic Conference (PIAC). Tashkent, September, 1986. I. History, literature, art. M., 1986. pp. 39-40.

27. Kyzlasov L.R. Early Mongols (On the problem of the origins of medieval culture) // Siberia, Central and East Asia/ History and culture of East Asia. T. III. Novosibirsk: Publishing house "Nauka", Siberian department, 1975. P. 170-177.

28. Kychanov E.I. The life of Temujin, who thought of conquering the world: Genghis Khan. Personality and era. M.: Publishing house. Company "Vost. Literature" RAS; School-Press, 1995.

29. Kychanov E.I. History of ancient and medieval states bordering China (from the Huns to the Manchus). 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 2010.

30. Kychanov E.I. Mongols in the VI - first half of the XII century. // Far East and neighboring territories in the Middle Ages. History and culture of Asia. Novosibirsk: Publishing house "Nauka", Siberian branch, 1980. P. 136-148.

31. Malyavkin A.G. China and the Uighurs in 840-848. // Siberia, Central and East Asia in the Middle Ages / History and culture of East Asia. T. III. Novosibirsk: Publishing house "Nauka", Siberian department, 1975. P. 62-82.

32. Munkuev N.Ts. Comments // Men-da Bei-lu (Full description of the Mongol-Tatars). Woodcut facsimile. Transl. from Chinese, introduction, comment. and appl. N.Ts. Munkueva / Monuments of the East. T. XXVI. M., 1975. S. 87-199.

33. Men-da Bei-lu (Full description of the Mongol-Tatars). Woodcut facsimile. Transl. from Chinese, introduction, comment. and appl. N.Ts. Munkueva / Monuments of the East. T. XXVI. M., 1975.

34. Peng Da-ya and Xu Tina “Brief information about the Black Tatars” // Problems of Oriental Studies. 1960. No. 5. P. 133-158.

35. Rashid ad-din. Collection of chronicles. T. I, book. 1-2. M.: Scientific Research Center "Ladomir", 2002.

36. Rykin P.O. The creation of Mongolian identity: the term “Mongol” in the era of Genghis Khan // Bulletin of Eurasia. M., 2002. No. 1 (16). pp. 48-85.

37. Skrynnikova T.D. Charisma and power in the era of Genghis Khan. St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 2013.

38. The hidden legend of the Mongols. Translation by S.A. Kozina. Ulan-Ude: Buryat book. publishing house, 1990.

39. Utemish-haji. Chinggis-name. Fax, translation, transcript, text. approx., and research by V.P. Yudina. Preparation for publication SOUTH. Baranova. Comment. and decree M.H. Abuseitova. Alma-Ata: Gylym, 1992.

40. Hoang Michel. Genghis Khan / Ser. "Mark on history". Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1997.

41. Yuan shi (Official chronicle of the Yuan dynasty) // Khrapachevsky R.P. Military power of Genghis Khan. M.: LLC “AST Publishing House”: OJSC “VZOI”, 2004. P. 432-540.

42. Colden P.B. Cumanica II. The Olberli (Olperli): The Fortunes and Misfortunes of a Inner Asian Nomafdic Clan // AEMA. Vol. VI. 1986, pp. 5-30.

43. Golden P.B. Ethnicity and state formation in pre-Cinggisid Turkic Eurasia. Indiana University, 2001.

44. Golden P.B. Studies on Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes. Ed. by Catalin Hriban. BucureLti-Braila, 2011.

45. Golden P.B. Cumanica V: The Basmils and Qipcaks // AEMA. Vol. 15. 2006/2007, pp. 101-118.

46. Golden P.B. The Polovci Dikii // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. Vol. III-IV. 1979190. Part 1, pp. 296-309.

47. Ratchnevsky P. Jenghis Han. His Life and Legacy. Translated and ed. by T. Nivison, Haining. Oxford UK, Cambridge: US Blackwell Ltd, 2000.

48. Tabakat-i Nasiri: A General History of the Muhammadian Dynasties of Asia, Including Hindustian; from a.h. 194 (810 a.d.) to a.h. 658 (1260 a.d.) and the Irruption of the Infidel Mugals into Islam by Maulana, Minhaj-ud-dln, Abu-" Umar-i-" Usman. Vol. I-II. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1970.

Information about the author: Damir Mavlyaveevich Iskhakov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, chief researcher at the Institute of History. Sh.Mardzhani AS RT (420014, Kazan, Kremlin, entrance 5, Russian Federation). Email: [email protected]

Received 04/07/2016

Accepted for publication 06/07/2016

fl.M. HcxaKOB. TepMHH "TaTapo-MOHronti/MOHrono-TaTapti".

THE TERM OF THE "TATAR-MONGOLS/MONGOL-TATARS": THE ETHNIC OR POLITICAL CONCEPT? AN EXPERIENCE OF THE SOURCE STUDY AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

Sh.Marjani Institute of History of Tatarstan Academy of Sciences

Kazan 420014, Russian Federation

E-mail: monitoring_vkt@mail. ru

In recent years, researchers have begun to pay greater attention to the ethnic aspects of the Great Mongolian State's formation at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries. However, a key problem of this period still remains controversial. This problem is related to the definition of ethnicity of the Tatar and other kindred clans. This article analyzes the problem in order to achieve a clear understanding of the ethnic situation in Central Asia during the formation of Eke Mongol Ulus. , which the Mongolian and Chinese sources used with respect to the Turkic and Mongolian groups that settled in this area, the author is inclined to the view of Turkish ethnicity of the Tatars and some other (Naimans, Merkits) clans known by source, whom Chinggis Khan faced in the process of formation of the "people of the Mongols". At the same time, the author establishes a historical connection between the pre-Mongol Tartars and Kimak and Uyghur khaganates. In particular, he reveals their affiliation to the elite, "royal" layers of these Turkic states. In turn, this allows us to reveal the presence of a Tatar component among the eastern Kipchak-Kimaks (Yemeks) with close ties with the last dynasty of Khwarezm shahs. On the basis of a detailed and comprehensive review of material, the author points to the need for a new understanding of the term "Mongol-Tatars". This term was not imposed by the Chinese officials, but it was a meaningful politonym marking a two-part (Turkic (Tatar) - Mongol) nature of the "people" who established the Great Mongol Empire. The author informs in his article about his plans to consider in detail this issue in relation to the ulus of Jochi.

Keywords: Mongols, Mongol-Tatars, Tatars, Kimaks, Uighurs, Naimans, Merkits, Medieval Tatar ethnos, Turkic (Tatar) - Mongol period of history.

For citation: Iskhakov D.M. The Term of the "Tatar-Mongols/Mongol-Tatars": The Ethnic or Political Concept? An Experience of the Source Study and Conceptual Analysis. Golden Horde Review. 2016. Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 420-442.

1. Ablyazov K.A Istoricheskaja sud"ba tatar: v 2-h tomah. Vol. 1. Otplemeni k nacii. Saratov, Nauchnaja kniga, 2012. (In Russian).

2. Agadzhanov S.G. Ocherki istorii oguzov i turkmen Srednej Azii IX-XIII vv. . Ashkhabad, Ylym Publ., 1969. (In Russian).

3. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat-at-Turk. Almaty, Dayk-Press Publ., 2005. (In Turkic).

4. Ahinzhanov S.M. Kypchaki v istorii srednevekovogo Kazakhstan. Alma Ata, Nauka Publ., 1989. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat-at-Turk. Almaty, Dajk-Press Publ., 2005. (In Russian).

5. Bartol "d V.V. Dvenadcat" lekcij po istorii tjurkskih narodov Srednej Azii. Lekcija VIII.

Bartol"d V.V. Raboty po istorii, filologii tjurkskih i mongoTskih narodov. Pod-ka k izd. S.G. Kljashtornyj; otv. red. A.N. Kononov. Moscow, Vostochnaja literatura Publ., 2002, pp. 116-129. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat-at-Turk. Almaty, Dajk-Press Publ., 2005. (In Russian).

6. Bartol"d V.V. Tatary. Bartol"d V.V. Raboty po istorii, filologii tjurkskih i mongol"skih narodov. Pod-ka k izd. S.G. Kljashtornyj; otv. red. A.N. Kononov. Moscow, Vostochnaja literatura Publ., 2002, pp. 559-561. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat -at-Turk. Almaty, Dajk-Press Publ., 2005. (in Russian).

7. Viktorova L.L. Mongoly. Proishozhdenie naroda i istoki kul "utry. Moscow, Nauka, Vostochnaja literatura Publ., 1980. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat-at-Turk. Almaty, Dajk-Press Publ., 2005. (In Russian).

8. Golden P. Kipchaki srednevekovoj Evrazii: primer negosudarvtennoj adaptacii v stepi . Mongol "skaja imperija i kochevoj mir. Ulan-Ude, Burjatkogo nauch. centra SORAN, 2004, pp. 103-110. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat-at-Turk. Almaty, Dajk-Press Publ., 2005. (In Russian).

9. Grousset R. Chingishan. Pokoritel" Vselennoj. 3rd izd. Moscow, Molodaja gvardija, 2007. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat-at-Turk. Almaty, Dajk-Press Publ., 2005. (In Russian).

10. De Rubruk Guillaume. Puteshestvie v Vostochnye strany. Plano Carpini Giovanni del. Istorija mongolov. (3rd ed.). Book Marko Polo. (4th ed.). Vstup. st., comment. M.B. Gorunga. Moscow, Mysl" Publ., 1997, pp. 8-188. Al-Kashgari Mahmud. Divan Lugat-at-Turk. Almaty, Dajk-Press Publ., 2005. (In Russian).

11. De Hartog Leo. Chingishan Zavoevateli mira. Moscow, Olimp; AST; Astrel, 2007. (In Russian).

12. Juvaini Ata-Melik. Istorija Zavoevatelja mira. Moscow, Ma-gistr-Press Publ., 2004. (In Russian).

13. Erzin M.I. Iz glubin Evrazii: scientific-populjarnoe izdanie. Munir Erzin. Almaty, Jekonomika, 2015. (In Russian).

14. Zolotaja Orda v istochnikah. Vol. 1. Arabskie i persidskie istochniki. Moscow, 2003. (In Russian).

15. Zoriktuev. B.R. Aktual"nye problemy jetnicheskoj istorii mongolov i burjat. Moscow, Vostochnaja literature Publ., 2011. (In Russian).

16. Zuev Ju.A. Iz drevnetjurkskoj jetnonimii po kitajskim istochnikam (bomo, guj, jan "mo). Voprosy istorii Kazahstana i vostochnogo Turkestana. Alma-Ata, Akademiya Nauk Kazakhskoy SSR Publ., 1962, pp. 103122. (In Russian).

17. Ibn al-Athir. Al-kamil fi-t-tarih (Polnyj svod istorii). Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2006. (In Russian).

18. Istorija Mongol "skoj Narodnoj Respubliki. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1983. (In Russian).

19. Istorija tatar s drevnejshih vremen v semi tomah. T. I. Narody stepnoj Evrazii v drevnosti. Kazan, Ruh Il Publ., 2006. (In Russian).

20. Kadyrbaev A.Sh. Ocherki istorii srednevekovyh ujgurov, dzhalai-rov, najmanov i kireitov. Alma-Ata, Rauan, Demeu, 1993. (In Russian).

21. Kara-Davan Je. Chingis-khan kak polkovodec i ego nasledniki. Kul"turno-istoricheskij ocherk Mongol"skoj imperii XII-XIV vv. . Alma-Ata, KRAMD-Ahmed-Jassaua, 1992. (In Russian).

22. Klyashtornyy S.G. Drevnie gosudarstva v Central "noj Azii. Golden Horde Review. 2013, no. 1, pp. 22-35. (In Russian).

23. Klyashtornyy S.G. Gosudarstvo tatar v Central "noj Azii (dochingisova jepoha). Mongolica. K 750-letiju "Sokrovennogo skazanija". Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1993, no. 1, pp. 139-147. (In Russian).

24. Kradin N.N., Skrynnikova T.D. Imperija Chingis-hana. Moscow, Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 2006. (In Russian).

25. Kumekov E.B. Gosudarstvo kimakov IX-XI vv. po arabskim istochnikam. Alma-Ata, Nauka Publ., 1972. (In Russian).

26. Kumekov E.B. Jetnokul"turnye kontakty kypchakov i tatar (po arabo-persidskim istochnikam). Istoriko-kul"turnye kontakty narodov altaj-skojjazykovoj obshhnosti. Tez. dokl. XXIX session Postojannoj mezhdu-narodnoj altaisticheskoj konferencii (PIAC). Tashkent, sentjabr", 1986. I. Istorija, literatura, iskusstvo. Moscow, 1986, pp. 39-40. (In Russian).

27. Kyzlasov L.R. Rannie mongoly (K probleme istokov srednevekovoj kul"tury). Sibir", Central"naja i Vostochnaja Azija / Istorija i kul"tura Vostoka Azii. Vol. III. Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 1975, pp. 170-177. (In Russian).

28. Kychanov E.I. Zhizn" Temuchzhina, dumavshego pokorit" mir: Chingis-han. Lichnost" i jepoha. Moscow, Vostochnaya literatura Publ., Shkola-Press, 1995. (In Russian).

29. Kychanov E.I. Istorija prigranichnyh s Kitaem drevnih i srednevekovyh gosudarstv (ot gunnov do man "chzhurov). 2nd izd. St. Petersburg, 2010. (In Russian).

30. Kychanov E.I. Mongoly v VI - first half XII v. . Dal "nij Vostok i sosednie territorii v srednie veka. Istorija i kul"tura Azii. Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 1980, pp. 136-148. (In Russian).

31. Maljavkin A.G. Kitaj i ujgury v 840-848 gg.

Sibir", Central"naja i Vostochnaja Azija / Istorija i kul"tura Vostoka Azii. Vol. III. Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., Sibirskoe otd., 1975, pp. 62-82. (In Russian).

32. Munkuev N.C. Commentarii. Mjen-da Bjej-lu (Polnoe opisanie mongolo-tatar). Faksimile xilografa. Perev. s kit., vvedenie, comment. i prilozh. N.C. Munkueva. Pamjatniki Vostoka. Vol. XXVI. Moscow, 1975, pp. 87-199. (In Russian).

33. Mjen-da Bjej-lu (Polnoe opisanie mongolo-tatar). Faksimile xilografa. Perev. s kit., vvedenie, comment. i prilozh. N.C. Munkueva. Pamjatniki Vostoka. Vol. XXVI. Moscow, 1975. (In Russian).

34. Pjen da-ja i Sjuj Tina “Kratkie svedenija o chernyh tatarah” ["Brief Information about the Black Tatars"]. Problemy vostokovedenija. 1960, no. 5, pp. 133-158. (In Russian).

35. Rashid al-Din. Sbornik letopisej. Vol. I, kn. 1-2. Moscow, NIC “Ladomir” Publ., 2002. (In Russian).

36. Rykin P.O. Sozdanie mongol "skoj identichnosti: termin "mongol" v jepohu Chingis-hana. Vestnik Evrazii. Moscow, 2002, no. 1(16), pp. 48-85. (In Russian).

37. Skrynnikova T.D. Harizma i vlast" v jepohu Chingis-hana. St. Petersburg, Evrazija Publ., 2013. (In Russian).

38. Sokrovennoe skazanie mongolov. Perevod S.A. Kozina. Ulan-Ude, Buryatkoe knizhnoe Publ., 1990. (In Russian).

39. Ötemish Hajji. Chingis-name. Faks., perev., transkrip., text. prim., i issledovanie V.P. Judina. Podgotovka k izd. Ju.G. Baranova. Comment. i ukaz. M.Kh. Abuseitovoy. Alma-Ata, Gylym Publ., 1992.

40. Hoang Mishel". Chingishan. Ser. "Sled v istorii". Rostov-on-Don, Feniks, 1997. (In Russian).

41. Yuan Shi (Official "naja hronika dinastii Juan"). Khrapachevskiy R.P. Voennaja derzhava Chingishana. Moscow, OOO "AST", OAO "VZOI" Publ., 2004, pp. 432-540. (In Russian).

42. Colden P.B. Cumanica II. The Olberli (Olperli): The Fortunes and Misfortunes of an Inner Asian Nomafdic Clan. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Vol. VI. 1986, pp. 5-30.

43. Golden P.B. Ethnicity and State Formation in pre-Cinggisid Turkic Eurasia. Indiana University, 2001.

44. Golden P.B. Studies on Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes. Ed. by Catalin Hriban. Bucure^ti-Braila, 2011.

46. Golden P.B. The Polovci Dikii. Harvard Ukrainian Studies. Vol III-IV. 19791980. Part 1, pp. 296-309.

47. Ratchnevsky P. Jenghis Han. His Life and Legacy. Translated and ed. by T. Nivison, Haining. Oxford UK, Cambridge, US Blackwell Ltd, 2000.

48. Tabakat-i Nasiri: A General History of the Muhammadian Dynasties of Asia, Including Hindustian; from a.h. 194 (810 a.d.) to a.h. 658 (1260 a.d.) and the Irruption of the Infidel Mugals into Islam by Maulana, Minhaj-ud-din, Abu-" Umar-i-" Usman. Vol. I-II. New Delhi, Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1970.

Received April 7, 2016 Accepted for publication June 7, 2016

There is evidence that before the era of Genghis Khan, most Mongolian nomads had Caucasian features. Even Genghis Khan himself was described as having blond hair, eyes and a beard. But in the process of conquest, the Mongols mixed with the peoples of the lands they conquered, which contributed to the formation of new ethnic groups. First of all, these are the Mongols themselves, then the Crimean, Siberian and Kazan Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, partly Uzbeks, Turkmen, Ossetians, Alans, Circassians. Then the Ural Khanty and Mansi, Siberian indigenous peoples - Buryats, Khakass, Yakuts. The genotype of all these peoples contains features that are commonly called Mongoloid. It is also possible that the blood of the Mongol-Tatars flows in modern Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans. However, researchers believe that Tuvinians, Altaians and Khakassians, for example, have a type of appearance closer to Caucasian than that of eastern peoples. And this can serve as an indirect confirmation of the “Caucasian” ancestors of the Mongol-Tatars. There is also a version that many European nations have Mongolian roots. These are Bulgarians, Hungarians and even Finns.

There is a people on the territory of Russia whose representatives consider themselves direct descendants of Genghis Khan - these are the Kalmyks. They claim that their ancestors were Genghisids - the elite at the court of Genghis Khan. Some Kalmyk families allegedly descend from Genghis Khan himself or his closest relatives. Although, according to another version, the Kalmyk cavalry simply served the Genghisids. But who can say for sure now?

Thus, the descendants of the Mongol-Tatars can be scattered not only throughout Asia, but also in Europe. Nationality is generally a rather arbitrary concept.

North eastern part Mongolia and the adjacent areas of the steppe Transbaikalia were divided between the Tatars and Mongols. There are two opinions regarding the tribal name "Mongol":

1. Ancient tribe Mengu lived in the lower reaches of the Amur, but, in addition, it was the name of one of the clans of Tatars who lived in Eastern Transbaikalia. Genghis Khan came from the Transbaikal men-gu and, therefore, belonged to the Tatars; the name "Mongol", which came into use only in the 13th century, comes from the Chinese characters "men-gu", which means "to receive the ancient." This hypothesis, belonging to academician. V.P. Vasiliev, is not generally accepted.
2. The tribal name “Meng-gu” (Mongol) is of very ancient origin, but is found very rarely in sources, although it is by no means confused with “Dada” (Tatars). In the 12th century The Mongols emerged as an independent people. In 1135, when the Jurchen troops reached the Yangtze and defeated the Chinese Song Empire, the Mongols defeated the Jurchen army and, after a twenty-year war, achieved the cession of rights to the lands north of the river. Kerulen and payment of annual tribute in livestock and grain. The leader of the Mongols was Khabur Khan, Temujin's great-grandfather. This, the most convincing, opinion was expressed by G.E. Grumm-Grzhimailo. The Mongols' southern neighbors, the Tatars, were more numerous and no less warlike. Wars constantly broke out between the Mongols and Tatars, but in the middle of the 12th century. The Mongols achieved superiority in forces. The anthropological type that we call Mongoloid was characteristic of the Tatars, as was the language that we call Mongolian. The ancient Mongols were, according to chroniclers and fresco finds in Manchuria, a tall, bearded, fair-haired and blue-eyed people. Their descendants acquired their modern appearance through mixed marriages with the numerous short, black-haired and black-eyed tribes that surrounded them, whom their neighbors collectively called Tatars.

To understand the history of the Mongols, one should firmly remember that in Central Asia the ethnic name has a double meaning:

1) the direct name of the ethnic group (tribe or people)
2) collective for a group of tribes that make up a certain cultural or political complex, even if the tribes included in it are of different origins. This was noted by Rashid ad-Din: “Many clans achieved greatness and dignity in the fact that they classified themselves as Tatars and became known under their name, just like the Naimans, Jalairs, Onguts, Keraits and other tribes, which each had its own specific name, they called themselves Mongols out of a desire to transfer the glory of the latter to themselves; the descendants of these clans imagined themselves bearing this name from ancient times, which in reality was not the case."

Based on the collective meaning of the term “Tatar,” medieval historians considered the Mongols as part of the Tatars, since before the 12th century. hegemony among the tribes of Eastern Mongolia belonged to the latter. In the 13th century. the Tatars began to be considered as part of the Mongols in the same in a broad sense words, and the name “Tatars” disappeared in Asia, but this is how the Volga Turks, subjects of the Golden Horde, began to call themselves at the beginning of the 13th century. the names “Tatars” and “Mongol” were synonymous because, firstly, the name “Tatars” was familiar and well-known, and the word “Mongol” was new, and secondly, because numerous Tatars formed the vanguard of the Mongol army, so how they were not spared and placed in the most dangerous places. There their opponents encountered them and got confused in their names: for example, Armenian historians called them Mungal-Tatars, and the Novgorod chronicler in 6742 (1234) writes: “That same summer, due to our sins, the pagans came to be unknown, but no one knew them well.” the message: who they are, and from which they came forth, and what their language is, and what tribe they are, and what their faith is: and my name is Tatars...” It was the Mongol army.

Medieval historians divided the eastern nomadic peoples into “white”, “black” and “wild” Tatars. “White” Tatars were the nomads who lived south of the Gobi Desert and carried in the Kin (Jurchen) Empire border service. Most of them were Turkic-speaking Tanguts and Mongol-speaking Khitans. They dressed in silk clothes, ate from porcelain and silver dishes, and had hereditary leaders who were trained in Chinese literacy and Confucian philosophy.

"Black" Tatars, including Keraits and Naimans, lived in the Steppe, far from cultural centers. Nomadic cattle breeding provided them with prosperity, but not luxury, and subordination to the “natural khans” - independence, but not security. The constant war in the Steppe forced the “black” Tatars to live closely together, fencing themselves at night with a ring of carts (kuren), around which guards were posted. However, the “black” Tatars despised and pitied the “whites,” because they sold their freedom to foreigners for silk rags and bought the fruits of civilization with what they considered humiliating slavery.

The “wild” Tatars of Southern Siberia lived by hunting and fishing: they did not even know the power of the khan and were ruled by elders - biks, whose power was based on authority. They were constantly faced with hunger and need, but they sympathized with the “black” Tatars, who were forced to care for herds, obey the khans and reckon with numerous relatives. The Mongols lived on the border between the “black” and “wild” Tatars as a transitional link between them. And now a small but necessary explanation. In the preliminary work, the goal was to criticize these sources in order to establish the sequence of events. This was a purely humanitarian study, and, therefore, it is a step towards a historical-geographical “empirical generalization” that poses the problem of describing the local fluctuation of the biosphere - the passionary push in Mongolia. Therefore, although the mentioned book and the proposed chapter are constructed on a chronological basis, they do not duplicate, but complement each other.

The first allowed us to establish the course of events, the second provides a natural scientific explanation. The first did not exhaust the topic, the second would have been impossible without the first, like a house without a foundation. Such is the hierarchy of science. Without it, science is helpless, but when used, it is powerful.

It would seem that the descendants of the ancient Mongol-Tatars should, first of all, be two modern peoples - the Mongols and the Tatars - but not everything is so simple in history.

Who are the Mongol-Tatars?

Historians believe that at first it was only about the Mongols. In the 11th-13th centuries they occupied approximately the same territory as present-day Mongolia. The Mongols led a nomadic life and were divided into several tribes. The most numerous of them were the Merkits, Taigits, Naimans and Kerits. At the head of each tribe were bogatyrs (translated into Russian as “heroes”) and noyons (gentlemen).

The Mongols did not have a state until the arrival of Genghis Khan (Temujin), who managed to unite all the numerous nomadic tribes under his rule. Actually, that’s when the word “Mongols” arose. Their state was called Mogul - “big”, “healthy”. One of the main occupations of nomads, which helps them obtain material wealth, has always been robbery. The well-organized army of Genghis Khan began to plunder and seize neighboring lands and succeeded in this. By 1227, Genghis Khan controlled a huge territory - from the Pacific Ocean to the Caspian Sea.

In the second quarter of the 13th century, the Mongol state of the Golden Horde arose on the Polovtsian, North Caucasian and Crimean lands, as well as on the territory of Volga Bulgaria, which actually existed from 1242 to 1502. It was founded by the grandson of Genghis Khan, Batu Khan. The majority of the Horde's population were representatives of Turkic peoples.

How did the Mongols turn into Tatars?

Over time, Europeans began to call the Mongols Tatars. In fact, at first this was what all the inhabitants of Asia were called - “the land of Tartarus”. Tat Ar was the name given to all the peoples who lived there. Although in our time it is mainly the descendants of the Volga Bulgars who call themselves Tatars. But their lands were also conquered by Genghis Khan.

This is how the Pope's envoy Plano Carpini described them: “The Tatars were short, broad-shouldered, shaved heads with wide, cheekbones, they ate various meats and liquid millet porridge. The favorite drink was kumiss (horse milk). The Tatar men looked after the cattle and were excellent shooters and riders. Housekeeping was the responsibility of the women. The Tatars had polygamy, each had as many wives as he could support. They lived in yurt tents, which were easily dismantled.”

In Rus', the Mongols were also called Tatars. During the era of the Golden Horde, Russian princes often married daughters and relatives of Tatar khans for political reasons. Their descendants inherited princely power, so that almost all Russian rulers and aristocrats have Tatar roots.

Where to look for the descendants of Genghis Khan?

Thus, the descendants of the Mongol-Tatars can be scattered not only throughout Asia, but also in Europe. Nationality is generally a rather arbitrary concept.

In the Russian Academy of Sciences, starting from Peter I, German Western scientists predominated. Under their leadership, books were published on the history of Russia, the history of the Tatars, Turks and Mongols, etc. In Tsarist Russia, history was written according to the directives of the reigning House of Romanov. Beginning in the 19th century, the theory of the “Mongol invasion” was developed. From this theory, the Mongol leader Temujin was able to unite all the Mongol tribes. In 1206, at a kurultai in Mongolia, Temujin was named Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan introduced strict discipline in his army and this nomadic wild army invaded China. The agricultural, cultural country was conquered, robbed and thrown back in its development. Next, Genghis Khan sent his army to the flourishing cities of Central Asia. The cruel Mongols destroyed and burned many cities. The population of Central Asia was subjected to destruction and robbery. After the death of Genghis Khan, his descendants continued his work of conquering the whole world.

Batu Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan, managed to enslave the Kipchaks of the Lower and Middle Volga and Don regions, the Bulgars of the Kama region, the Cheremis, the Moksha of the Volga region, and the peoples of the North Caucasus. Further, after the conquest of the Russian principalities, Batu Khan invaded Europe and caused great devastation there. Due to the fact that enslaved Rus' remained in the rear, the barbarians did not dare to conquer Europe and returned to their steppes. The Mongols returned to Mongolia, and the Chingizids, together with the Kipchaks and Bulgars, built the state of the Golden Horde, which kept the Russian principalities in a harsh yoke for 300 years.

Of course, this whole story looks like a fairy tale. An easy substitution of concepts leads to a false understanding of reality and the creation of a distorted picture of the world. This tale was picked up by the rulers of Soviet power. IN former USSR history was written according to the directives of the Communist Party, moreover, by order and by force. The slightest retreat led to reprisals. Concepts, theories, programs written in history books, starting from the 19th century, continue today their destructive work to split the ancient Turkic and Mongolian world. Therefore, today we need not an exalting or belittling, but a relatively truthful history of the Turks and Mongols, from which we can draw appropriate conclusions.

Behind the Great Wall of China stretched the Great Tartary or, in modern terms, the Great Steppe. In this territory since 209 BC. according to 155 AD era the Hunnic Empire was located. After the collapse of the Hunnic Empire, the Rouran Empire was formed. The Ashina clan, uniting around itself the nomadic tribes offended by the Rourans, was able to crush the Rouran empire and create the Turkic Khaganate. In 742, the Uyghurs seized power in the Turkic Khaganate. The Uyghur dynasty became the head of the Kaganate, and the Kaganate began to be called the Uyghur Kaganate. In 842, the South Siberian Kyrgyz tribes captured the capital of the Uyghur Khaganate, Karakorum, but did not retain power. After an internecine war for power, the Uyghur Khaganate collapsed. From the second century BC to the fifth century AD, all the nomads of the Great Steppe were called Huns (Huns). In the 6th-8th centuries, the common ethnonym of the nomads of the Great Steppe was “Turk”. After the collapse of the Uyghur Khaganate, there was no centralized state in the territory of modern Mongolia, Transbaikalia, Khakassia, and Altai for the next 300 years. Steppe and forest tribes lived in this territory.

The nomadic lifestyle of the nomads of Great Tatary was similar. TO XII century the languages of the peoples of the Great Steppe (Tataria) of the so-called Altai language family were not yet very different from each other. Today, linguists clearly divide the Altai family into three groups: Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus-Manchu. Indeed, a modern Mongol will not understand a Tatar. At the same time, the Turks and Mongols understood each other perfectly, which greatly facilitated mutual influence, and often complete mixing. At least, in all the numerous cases of contacts between the Tatars and Mongols described in the sources, the presence of any language barrier is not noted anywhere. And if their languages are not similar to each other in some way, then they have the same syntactic system, which implies the same reasoning system. Despite the slight linguistic division, basically the nomads of the Great Steppe led the same way of life, lived in the same climatic zone and had ethnic kinship that surprised all travelers. All tribes and clans of the Great Steppe revered the cult of the Sky Tengri and worshiped the spirits of their ancestors; in modern times this is called Tengriism. Kams (shamans) had a great influence on society. Religion determines a person’s behavior, shapes his worldview, his view of the environment. Thus, this entire mass of people had a common worldview, worldview and one mentality. All these tribes always acted together. They all called themselves Tatars (Tadars). The Chinese knew the names of the largest tribal associations, but in small tribal associations or clans, which were intertwined by family ties, and it was difficult to figure out who was who, and what was whose name, they got confused and, in order not to go into the subtleties of tribal names, they called all nomads Tatars.

The name "Tatars", as some researchers believe, was the name of a specific tribe, one of the Khitan ethnic group, which together made up the Shiwei tribes. Turkic and Muslim written traditions extended the name “Tatars” to all the nomadic tribes of the Great Steppe, thus turning this ethnonym into a general polytonym. The term “Tatars” entered the Chinese language through the ancient Uyghurs and has been regularly recorded in Chinese texts since 842. In the 11th-15th centuries, the common ethnonym of the nomads of the Great Steppe was “Tatar”. This strange fact that the name "Tatars" soon came to designate all the Turks, all the steppes of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Siberia, is not accidental, since it must have testified to the important place this people occupied in the Turko-Mongol conglomerate.

Based on the collective meaning of the term Tatars, medieval Chinese historians divided the eastern nomadic peoples into three sections: white, black and wild Tatars. The nomads who lived along the Chinese Wall, living south of the Gobi Desert, were allied with Northern China, the Chinese called them White Tatars. “White Tatars” “Ak Tatar” (in Chinese “bai-da-da”). The Chinese also called them “shu da-da”, i.e. “ripe, ripe Tatars” because they came close to the cultural level of the Chinese. The “White Tatars” included the Ongut Turks (descendants of the chateau)

Those who lived away from China and did not want to accept Chinese culture and were hostile to the Chinese were called black Tatars (“kara Tatars” - “dark”, “unenlightened”). Kara Tatar (in Chinese “hey yes-da”, in Mongolian - “hara-Tatar”). The "Black" Tatars occupied the open steppe north of the Gobi Desert and obeyed their khans, paying no one and serving no one. “Kara Tatars” (“Black Tatars”) sincerely pitied the “White Tatars” and even despised them because they sold their freedom to foreigners for silk fabrics, porcelain dishes and bought the fruits of civilization with humiliating, in their opinion, slavery.

“Wild Tatars” lived in the taiga regions of the Eastern Sayan and Southern Altai and in the places where the modern city of Datong is located in the Shanxi province of China. The “wild Tatars” also included the South Siberian tribes of hunters and fishermen (forest peoples). “Wild Tatars” in the Tatar language “Kyrgy Tatars”. Apparently, from the Tatar word kyrgyi (wild) the ethnonym Kyrgyz was formed (in Chinese “sheng da-da”, literally meaning “immature Tatars”). The wild (Kyrgyi) Tatars of Southern Siberia lived by hunting and fishing (forest peoples), they did not know the khan’s power and were ruled by the elders, submitting to them voluntarily, and if submission became a burden, the younger ones could always separate. More than anything else, they valued their will. They were constantly faced with hunger and need, but they sympathized with the Black Tatars, who were forced to care for herds, obey the khans and reckon with numerous relatives.

There were also Amur and Primorye Tatars. They belonged to the Tungus-Manchu tribes. Some of them wandered along the right bank of the Argun, others led a sedentary lifestyle and lived in settlements located on the left bank of the Amur, and still others lived on the shores of the Amur Bay. Here, on the shore of the Golden Horn Bay, was the large Tatar city of Alakchin. There were many large villages around this city. Primorye Tatars were engaged in hunting, fishing, livestock raising and farming. Their herds of cattle and herds of horses were numerous. The surroundings of the city of Alakchin were rich in silver ore. The ancient Tatars made jewelry, dishes, and cauldrons from silver.

In 1206, Temujin decided to implement his plan to move his headquarters to the ancient Turkic capital Karakorum. Up to nine nomadic tribes took part in the kurultai that proclaimed Temujin Genghis Khan. They no longer represented a federation of tribes, but a homogeneous nation. Genghis Khan on the Delyun-Buldak hill, surrounded by sacred banners, standing next to the chief soothsayer with Saint Kukche (“heavenly” in Tatar), proclaimed that his companions should be called Kuk Mongol (“heavenly Mongols”) and that they would rise above all " Thus the process of formation of the Mongolian state was completed. So the tradition continued - the Kükturk empire was replaced by the Kükmongol empire, the heavenly Mongols replaced the heavenly Turks. The Tatar-Mongol Empire was formed.

Genghis Khan, creating a state, promised the nomads to create the state of Mengu Il (El) - the Eternal State, where there will be peace, justice and prosperity. This idea appealed not only to ordinary warriors, but also to the tribal leaders of nomadic tribes. Therefore, the name “menge” - “mene” - “eternal” was adopted by the elite, who participated in the election of Genghis Khan as kagan and agreed to call their state Menge El - the Eternal Homeland. “Mengu El – Eternal Motherland” is a popular quote from the Orkhon monuments of the Kukturk era of the 6th-8th centuries. was not forgotten back in the 12th-13th centuries. The Eternal Homeland arises as a result of an agreement between those who agree to live in peace and harmony. The plural of this word menge is mangeler. From there the names Mongals, Mungals, and Mongols appeared among foreign-language researchers. Such a political name, Mungals, Mongols, did not infringe on the dignity of people from either weak or strong tribes. And so the tribal leaders agreed to call themselves mengu (Mongol), and at the kurultai they raised Temujin on the skin of a white horse to the blue Sky and gave him a new name, Genghis Khan. The newly formed people-army was officially assigned the single name “Mongol,” since the Mongols were the supporters and associates of Genghis Khan, who formed the military-political core of the young state. Of course, everyone remembered their genealogy, but that was their own business. Mongol is the name that Genghis Khan himself gave to the union of tribes and peoples that made up a new community of people. There were no separate tribes with the name “Mongol” at that time. In the state of Genghis Khan, no documents written in the language that we now call “Mongolian” have been found. At the beginning of the 13th century, the names Mongol and Tatars were synonymous, because the name Tatars was familiar and well known, and the word Mongol was new. Yasa was written in Turkic Uyghur script. And the original text of “The Hidden Legend of the Mongols” has survived to this day only written in Chinese characters. The ambiguity of the ethnonym Mongol for foreign scientists served as the basis for the creation of the theory of the “Mongol invasion”. This false theory was propagated by scientists Russian Empire and was continued in the Soviet Union and continues in modern Russia. The harmfulness of this theory lies in the fact that it divided one people, who once called themselves Tatars, into two peoples - the Turks and the Mongols.

Genghis Khan divided the territories conquered under him into inheritances among his sons. The eldest son of Jochi inherited the not yet conquered lands of the Kipchaks and Khorezm. The second son Chagatai received Central Asia, Semirechye and the southern part of East Turkestan. The northern part of Eastern Turkestan became the inheritance of the third son of Okotoy (Ogedei). According to the custom of the Tatar-Mongols, the youngest son Tuluy received his father's native yurt - Central Mongolia, as well as Northern China.

War does not happen without losses. Many soldiers of Genghis Khan died in the war in Northern China and Central Asia. Many soldiers died in the campaign in Europe and in the campaign in the Middle East. To maintain order, Genghis Khan left garrisons with Tatar-Mongol warriors in China, modern Kazakhstan, East Turkestan, and Central Asia. Families remained with the soldiers and accompanied them in the convoy during the campaigns. Many Tatar-Mongolian nomadic tribes remained to live on the territory of modern Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, etc. After the completion of the Western Campaign, Batu Khan settled his warriors with their families in the Volga region, Crimea, the Don region, etc. The army of Hulagu Khan, together with their families, remained entirely in Iran and in the territory of modern Azerbaijan. To conquer Southern China, a large contingent of Tatar-Mongol troops and their families were transferred to the rule of Khubulai. Only a small part of the Tatar-Mongols returned to Mongolia. Genghis Khan and his descendants depopulated the territory of modern Mongolia. Official historiography has long believed that those tribes and clans that rose on the white felt and proclaimed Temujin Genghis Khan, and those tribes that subsequently joined him and made history together with Genghis Khan and his grandchildren were Mongols, and subsequently they disappeared, disappeared, assimilated.

Chagatai was the second son of Genghis Khan. He inherited the Issyk-Kul region, the Ili River basin southeast of Lake Balkhash and the Chu steppe, and the eastern part of Talas. The Chagatai ulus included the territory that belonged to the power of the Kara-Khitai, as well as Maverannahr with the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand. The Chagatai ulus did not constitute a single whole and could not be strong on the territory in which various ethnic tribes and nationalities lived. Maverannahr was an area of developed urban and sedentary agricultural culture. Semirechye was a region of nomads and semi-nomads.

In 1334, troubles began in the Chagatay ulus, which divided the Khanate into two states: that is, in the east - “Mogolistan” with a center in Almalyk, with the territory of Talas, upper Chu, Issyk-Kul, Ili, Ebi-Nor and Manas, the territory of Semirechye and Eastern Turkestan. And the second khanate on the western part with the territory of Maverannahr with the center of Samarkand. The Mughals were in the minority there. Those tribes that obeyed the Genghisids were called Mongols or Mughals. On the territory of Semirechye, the Mughals roamed - Turkic-Mongolian tribes - nomadic pastoralists: Dulats (Doglaty), Kanly (Beshik), Kereits (Kerei), Argyns, Baryns, Arlats, Barlas, Choros and other tribes. Maverannahr with the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand ceased to recognize the power of the Genghisids. This territory was subjugated by Emir Timur from the Barlas clan, in the Persian name Tamerlane. Emir Timur could not subdue the Mughals, but he bled them dry and ruined them. As a result of these upheavals, Mogolistan plunged into the abyss of civil strife and was divided into small uluses, which were conquered by the Dzungars in the middle of the 17th century. Timur's grandson Babur conquered Afghanistan and Northern India. His army and himself were called Mughals. This is how the Mughal state was formed in India.

Tulu, according to the custom of the Tatar-Mongols, inherited his father’s native yurt - Central Mongolia, as well as Northern China. At the kurultai of 1251 in Karakorum, Mengu-kaan (1251–1259), the son of Tuluy, was elected to the throne of the Great Kaan. In 1259 the Great Kaan Mengu died. Mengu's son Tului had three brothers: Khubulai, Hulagu and Aryk-Buga. Hulagu became Khan of Persia and had no claim to inheritance. Khubulai and Aryk-Buga remained. “Before his death, Kaan Mengu gave his younger brother Aryk-Bug the right to own the ancient Mongol nomadic camps located around Karakorum. Aryk-Buga was the real ot-jegin (youngest son) and, therefore, the legal heir. As soon as the news reached Khubulai that Aryk-Buga had sat on the Kaan throne, he quickly gathered his army and moved to Kaifeng. In Kaifeng, on June 4, 1260, he convened another Great Kurultai of his supporters, that is, the army, and proclaimed himself the great kaan. A war began between the brothers, which ended in the defeat of Aryk-Buga. In 1271, Khubulai completed the construction of a new capital, built near Kaifeng. In this city, called Dadu (Chinese for “Great Capital”) and called Khanbalik by Central Asian Turkic traders (for many centuries it was known as Beijing), Khubulai built himself a luxurious palace. He introduced Chinese etiquette into his palace, adopted Buddhist worship for his celebrations, for himself the Chinese name Shih-tsu, and for his dynasty the Chinese name Yuan (hieroglyphic meaning: “the original creation of the world”). The capital of the Tatar-Mongol Empire Karakorum was abandoned and moved to Dadu-Khanbalik (Beijing).

In the historical works of the Yuan era "Yuan shi" (History of the Yuan dynasty), "Yuan-chao bi-shi" ( Secret history Yuan Dynasty), Song Shi (History of the Song Dynasty), etc. Basically, the ethnonym “da-da” (Tatar) is often found. For example, in Chinese books the expressions “Tatar threat”, “Tatar oppression”, “let’s kill all the Tatars!”, “drive out the Tatars!” are often used. and others. The ethnonym “Tatar” was widespread among the Chinese people in the Yuan era. In the book “Yuan Shi” and other Chinese medieval historical works, information is written about the “Tatar state” (in Chinese: “Tatar yoke”). The Chinese name is "Yigo" (hieroglyphic meaning: "single state"). In Chinese, “Tatar yoke” is translated into Russian as “Tatar unified state.”

Having usurped power, Khubulai began to change the political system of Mongolia and Northern China. The law of Genghis Khan was no longer observed, and Tengriism was no longer necessary. Khubulai began to look for a replacement for Tengrianism. Khubulai sent his people to Tibet and invited Pagba Lama, the abbot of the Sas-Kiya monastery in Tsang province. So he began to introduce Buddhism to the nomads. Khubulai decided to create a new people, so he started by changing the language and creating a new alphabet. Although the Turkic language is conservative, if the state undertakes to update the language, then the process of changing the language quickly accelerates, since grandfathers die knowing their native language, and their grandchildren are introduced to a new language, and father and mother will be forced to speak imperial jargon in order to understand each other. And dress in imperial clothes, which were invented by Khubulai's second wife Chabi. In particular, during the reign of the Yuan dynasty, at that time stagnation occurred in the purely Tatar-Mongolian folklore tradition. And the works of oral folk art of the Tatar-Mongols in form, to some extent, began to mix with the literary monuments of other peoples. And so soon a new people appeared who would not know their family, their real ancestors, their history, and would consider the imperial uniform as national clothing. An ethnic group that has lost its language is doomed to defeat. Khubulai instilled a new language in the new people. This is indicated by the distribution area of this language within the territory of the Chinese state of the Yuan dynasty. Khubulai reprogrammed Turkic and Mongolian people from Northern China to Transbaikalia, its cultural and civilizational heritage is Tengrianism. With a whole set of measures, he erased everything ethnic-national, first of all, pride, history, and tied all this to the new Buddhist civilization. Khubulai destroyed indigenous traditional and historical symbols. There are many symbols in Turkic-Mongolian history and tradition.

In 1368, the Yuan Empire, founded by Hubulai, was overthrown by the Chinese. The Chinese, having expelled the Tatar-Mongol troops from China, subsequently began to invade Great Tartary (Great Steppe). Thus ended the rule of the Khubulaids and the Northern Yuan state itself. Among those who returned to the Mongolian steppe there were 10 tumens - 4 were Oirat (1/3 of all Mongolian troops). These tumens were professional warriors. His stay in Northern and Southern China did not pass without a trace. The Yuan Dynasty, starting with Khubulai, introduced a new language. While serving in China, Chinese words entered the language of those who returned. Chinese words were also included in the titles of the Mongols.

The Khubulaids completely discredited themselves with their rule. Those who continued to submit to the Khubulaids were called Mongols. Those who did not submit to the Genghisids began to be called by their tribal name. So kind of derbet, torghut, choros, bayat, olet. The Tumet united under the name Dzungars or Oirats and began to wage war for possession of the territory of the Tuluya ulus. Some of the Torgut, Derbet, Khoshout, Choros clans united under the name Oirats, or as the Kalmyks called them. Other clans united under the name Buryats. Some of the Uriankhai clans served the Chingizids; they were called Mongols. Other clans of the Uriankhians fought against the Chingizids; they were called Tatars. This was the case with the Altai clans.

The origin of the Khalkha ethnonym can be dated back to Dayan Khan (1470-1543). According to one version, the Khalkha ethnonym was fixed during the period when the Mongols, having strength, attacked China, and, losing it, subsequently rolled back to the north. The territories that served as the basis for preparing new campaigns and recreation were figuratively called by one of the poets “Khalkha min” - “my shield” (in modern Mongolian languages, the word “Khalkha”, among other meanings, has the following meanings: cover, shield, barrier, fence, barrier (Kalmyk-Mongolian-Russian Dictionary, 1986). According to another version, the united tribes that concentrated around the Khalkha River, Bor-Nor and lower Kerulen, received the name Khalkha, expelling the Oirats, dispersed westward to Ubsa-Nor. Subsequently, this term was firmly established in most of the modern territory of Mongolia - Khalkha, as well as in the Eastern Mongols, whose descendants bear the ethnonym Khalkha-Mongol.

The Khalkha Mongols are not a tribal group, but a composite formation from various steppe and forest tribes. This is how the core of future Khalkha Mongols was formed. The Khalkha Mongols consisted of tribes: Borjigins, Khotogoys, Darigans, Khorchins, Chakhars, Uzumchins and other tribes

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of new Turkic states, it turned out that the tribes that proclaimed Temujin Genghis Khan did not disappear, but survived safely to this day. Examples: Naimans, Kipchaks, Oirats, Merkits in Siberia and Altai; Naimans, Keraits, Konyrat, Dulats, Merkits, Argyns, etc. in Kazakhstan; Merkits, Naimans, Argyns. Barlas, Onguts, Kereits in Uzbekistan; Merkits, Naimans in Kyrgyzstan; Oirats, Jalairs in Iran; among Crimean Tatars Mangyts, Merkits, Kiyats, Konyrat, Kipchaks, Argyns, etc. predominate; Onguts, Konyrat, Kiyat, Argyn, Baryn, Shirin in the Volga region and Bashkiria. Only they belong to different national entities, for example, the Naimans who live in Kazakhstan are called Kazakhs; Naiman living in Kyrgyzstan are called Kyrgyz; Naiman living in Uzbekistan are called Uzbeks; in Altai they are called Altaians, etc. The same can be said about the Kiyat, Konyrat, Ongut, Kipchak, Mangyt, etc. tribes.

The Tatars were under severe pressure from the Russian authorities for several centuries. In addition, the Muslim clergy supported Russian official propaganda about the evil of Genghis Khan for the Tatar people. All this together did its job, and the Tatars turned away from the name of Genghis Khan and his entire legacy, despite the fact that for centuries they did not give up their name - Tatars, despite strong pressure.

The rest of the former nomadic peoples: Kazakhs, Altaians, Khakass, Tuvans, Buryats, Kalmyks, etc. abandoned the name Tatar-Mongol, dissociated themselves from Genghis Khan and his entire legacy, and voluntarily lost the history of their ancestors of the Middle Ages. The Russian government and historians gave them all different names and attributed them to the small Turkic people.

Ruling a united Turkic world is not easy. Therefore, during the Soviet period, they tried to fragment all Turkic peoples. Most The best way- is to change the language that was changed. For example, modern Tatar intellectuals, for whom speaking the Tatar language is a profession, i.e. writers, teachers of the Tatar language, journalists of Tatar newspapers and magazines, artists, are not able to fully understand the language of writers and poets of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This is due to the fact that the writers of the 19th century used Arabic and Persian words in large numbers, and the Soviet period included many Russian and Western words. This is the situation among the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Azerbaijanis, etc.

As we see from the above, once one ethnic group was divided into different languages, religions and two new peoples were created - the Tatars and the Mongols. Official historiography studies Turkic and Mongolian studies. Apparently the time has come when these two sciences need to be united, since the history of these peoples, from the ancient to the Middle Ages, is the same.

Bezertinov Rafael. Kazan.

(Report read at the international conference “Kazakhstan and Mongolia – common historical, cultural and ethnic roots” on May 16, 2014, Almaty.)

Literature:

1. Yuan shi (“Biography of Uriankhatai”, tsz. pp. 5a-7b)
2. Yuan shi (“History of the Yuan Dynasty”) Ed. Bo-na. Shanghai-Beijing, 1958, no. 3, p. 11a.
3. Chuluuns of Dalai Mongolia in the XIII-XIV centuries. Authorized translation from Mongolian by P. Nikhlay. M, 1983.
4. Academy of Sciences of the USSR Institute of Oriental Studies Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe. Digest of articles. M., 1970. N.P. Svistunov “The Death of the State of the Southern Suns”