Mongolian tribes settled in the 11th and 12th centuries. Unexpected information about the ancient history of Mongolia and the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus'. In the simple complex - the culture of the Mongols

live in China, Russia and Mongolia. O about 10 million people consider themselves to be Mongols. Most of them live in Mongolia and Chinese regions. In Russia, the Mongols can be found in Kalmykia, Buryatia, in the Trans-Baikal Territory. Modern territory Mongolia extends over 156 thousand square meters. km. However, the population density is low: about 2.5 million people live in the open spaces of Mongolia. National language, respectively, the Mongolian and the main population are Mongols. In addition to them, bytes live here. There are about 20 ethnic groups in Mongolia, the most numerous are Khalkha Mongols. The territory of the formation of the ethnic group Khalkha belongs to the interfluve Onona and Kerulena.

From Genghis Khan to the Republic

The Europeans regarded the Mongols as one of the harshest conquerors in the world. The history of this nation began in the 11th century, when the first principalities arose. The wise leader Temujin created a powerful union in the 13th century, uniting the Mongol tribes. For far-sighted wisdom, the grateful Mongols called their leader the Great, which sounded like Genghis Khan. The most important territorial conquests are connected with the era of Genghis Khan's reign. So China, Persia and Kievan Rus. But as soon as the Mongols were left without a leader, all the former glory and power began to wane. In 1480 Muscovy enslaved the Mongols and captured most their lands. Major dates in history Mongolian state steel 1924 (education Mongolian People's Republic) and 1991 ( Republic of Mongolia).

Life and customs of the Mongols

The Mongols were not settled tribes, so they constantly moved across the endless steppes. nomadic lifestyle left an imprint on the spiritual and cultural image of the people. In order to feed themselves in the harsh steppes, cattle were actively bred. As soon as the pastures were empty, the Mongolian families gathered their belongings and set off on a journey in search of new places to feed their livestock. Due to frequent relocations, the Mongols did not have solid dwellings. National yurt " ger» was dismantled and erected for a short time. There were two rooms inside the felt hut: the men's area and the women's room. It was possible to eat food only with the right hand, as the locals considered the left to be unclean. The Mongols also love to warm themselves over a cup of fragrant tea. The love for this drink is directly related to the territorial proximity to China. Mongolian tea is specific, milk is added to it and brewed specially for the arrival of the guest. Roots and herbs are used in tea.

In the simple complex - the culture of the Mongols

The religious culture of the Mongolian people is a complex system centuries-old beliefs and rituals. The ancestors of the Mongols deified natural objects. The sky was especially revered. In the mythical representations of the ethnic group, the sky was an intermediary between upper world and ordinary life. Stones are another holy element of this people. Firmness, power and steadfastness of faith were associated with mountains, stones, earth. The tradition of erecting stone pyramids among the Mongols is called ovo. A pile of stones and the energy received from the construction of such a structure are perceived with respect by the Mongols. There is no noise near Ovo, they practically do not talk, because this is a place for freedom of thought. To destroy the sacred pyramid is a great sin. The Mongols treat fire with no less respect. A bonfire, like a family hearth, gathers loved ones around and drives away evil spirits. The flames of a fire are not filled with water, do not touch the edge of a knife. Old and dirty clothes, unnecessary garbage are never burned, so as not to offend the Spirit of Fire.

In a Mongolian yurt

In the Mongolian yurt, although everything is simple, it is quite exotic for any tourist. Bright national clothes, amulets, hospitality of the owner of the yurt captivates any guest. The descendants of Genghis Khan are friendly with everyone who came to their house. If help is needed, the Mongolian will provide it in full and will never ask for payment for it. But, if you are going to visit the yurt, take gifts with you. When you meet, the host will show you where to sit. Do not give all souvenirs at once. It is customary for the Mongols to stretch this pleasure. Give gifts in stages, first give a gift to the owner, after a while to the keeper of the hearth, and finally to the noisy kids. An exciting sight to watch the mass dances. To the national music, the Mongols can perform a national dance, which is more like a ritual, a hunting dance or a hunter's ritual.

The country has the richest natural resources and interesting architectural monuments. Tourists are happy to go on a journey to touch the past of the Golden Horde..

"The ethnos of the ancient Mongols", the founders of the Mongol state, who were they? The name and self-name of the ethnos "ancient Mongols"

“The fact that a patriotic author is interested in the history of the Fatherland is natural, as well as the fact that his attitude to traditional historiography can be not only critical, but also skeptical. Each researcher has the right to original judgments, and the reader is only interested in how much the new concept is more convincing than the old one.

L. N. Gumilev.

Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov was the first of the historians of the Soviet era who dared to subject the legend of the "Mongol-Tatar invasion and yoke" contained in official historiography to a rather decisive criticism. It is well known what price the great scientist had to pay for the fact that he decided to defend his opinion in the era of totalitarianism. And besides, he could not express all his thoughts and conclusions in plain text, which is natural and understandable, I hope, to many. In one of the last editions of the works of L. N. Gumilyov, which were already out of print in the post-Soviet period, the scientific editor notes: “the author was forced to make such inserts so that the articles were allowed to print” ( 34 , 245). In this particular case, the science editor meant "terms Marxist theory which L.N. Gumilyov denied” (ibid.). But let us remember that the great Eurasian also denied many of the "clichés" of Soviet historical science, repeating the dogmas of Eurocentric historiography, which he was also forced to expound in his works in many cases - in order to be able to bring to us the main thing that is contained in his research. That is, invaluable materials on exposing the "black legend" about the ancestors of Russians - how extremely soft Lev Nikolayevich put it - "fiction, far from harmless both in relation to Russians and Tatars" ( 36 , 261).

I believe that in his writings on the history of Eurasia regarding the "unresolved" issues of history, L. N. Gumilyov did the most important thing for his followers. As he wrote in one of his last works “From the History of Eurasia”, which was published according to the manuscript, after his death, L.N. solution, albeit in an implicit form" ( 34 , 127).

After the publication of the book "In Search of a Fictional Kingdom" in 1970, the 15-year disgrace of L. N. Gumilyov began. Apparently, the apologists of Eurocentrism in historical science understood, albeit belatedly, that there is a lot of contradictory " conventional wisdom” the great scientist managed to print.

And we will see in this work that it is really very, very much, but the main thing: in this work he made a “very important” - in his own words, a negative conclusion: “Obviously, the sources were not going to tell the truth, and historians, trusting them, constructed a "false history of the Mongols" ( 30 , 221).

We will still refer to the assessment of the official history of the Mongols given by the Great Eurasian and his predecessors, repeatedly, when considering information on the medieval history of the Tatars and the Mongolian State, both provided to us by L. N. Gumilyov, and comparing his information with information from the works of others authors. Including those authors to whom L.N. Gumilyov, without presenting the content of their works in his work, directs us directly in each specific case, “posing a problem that contains a solution” on certain obscure issues in the history of Eurasia.

The question in the title of this part is considered one of the most confusing and still considered unresolved in official history ( 34 , 128; 87 , 28–29).

Compiled by Chinese and Persian historiographers and supported by various historians “according to the Mongols” until now practically unchanged, the official concept of the history of the “ancient Mongols” has been subjected earlier and is subjected, especially recently, to quite reasonable doubt and criticism in various aspects and by various authors.

But intelligible and reasonable answers to the main questions: about the ethnicity of the "ancient Mongols", the tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan, about what explains their success in creating a state, and what are the reasons for its subsequent collapse and the inexplicable "traceless dissolution" of the "ethnos of the ancient Mongols" itself. among other peoples living to this day in the vast territory of Eurasia - have not yet been received.

But most of all, the question of the ethnicity of the state-forming people of the medieval Mongol Empire, the tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan, remains unresolved.

At first glance, all this seems strange, especially considering that, in principle, there was and is enough information about the ethnos of the "ancient Mongols" to make it possible to draw fairly reasonable conclusions and give answers to the questions under consideration. Information of a very different nature has been preserved, including historiographic, linguistic, anthropological, geographical and many others, despite the disappearance of the mass of the main documents of the state of the "ancient Mongols". Despite the destruction by the Chinese authorities of many, both verbatim described in the Chinese chronicles, books in the Tatar language and papers with Tatar scripts» from the moment of the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar Yuan dynasty in China, in Mongolia and East Turkestan, from the end of the XIV century. and up to the 19th century. inclusive ( 111 , 15–16).

Let us first turn to the question of the ethnicity of the founders of the Mongol state and their leader Chyngyz Khan in the works of L.N. Gumilyov, then we will supplement and clarify his information on controversial issues with information from the works of other historians - like those to which L.N. Gumilyov, as well as from others, whose works, for obvious reasons, he could not give a link to - for example, such as Akhmetzaki Val or Tugan.

The main reason for the existence of the legend of the “ancient Mongol miracle” in Eurocentric (as well as in Chinese) historical science and the support of the generally accepted concept of the history of the origin of Chyngyz Khan from the clan of “ethnic first Mongols” - the ancestors of the Khalkha Mongols and the creation of the Mongol Empire by them is the politicization of historiography. , undoubtedly, was also available at the time of the creation of this myth.

The main purpose for which the European historiography supported the myth of the ancient Mongols - semi-wild nomads, somehow miraculously(i.e. completely accidentally) who managed to create a huge and stable Eurasian Power with advanced for their time and "meeting the needs of the entire community of peoples of the state of the Mongols" legislation and system government controlled, with an advanced economy and culture for its time, it was necessary to introduce into the public consciousness an opinion about the undoubtedly advanced nature of Western civilization in comparison with the rest, that is, Eastern European and Eastern. Thus, the very possibility of the existence of a Eurasian civilization comparable to the Western European civilization in terms of cultural and economic levels of development was denied. This myth was preserved, with minor changes, in Soviet historiography, in accordance with the national policy and state-building needs of the Bolsheviks.

The most objective and impartial analysis of the history of the Mongols was undoubtedly given by L. N. Gumilyov, although he was forced to some extent to resort to allegories in his works for quite understandable reasons (see above).

When considering the “mystery of the ancient Mongols”, in this case the question of their ethnicity, I believe it is necessary to be guided by the definition of an ethnic group given by L. N. Gumilyov: “ethnoi are naturally formed non-social collectives of people - various peoples. Ethnic groups consist of people who are distinguished, along with other features (anthropological, linguistic, etc.), by a certain, inherent only to members of a given ethnic group, stereotype of behavior acquired by them in early childhood from their parents and fellow tribesmen and by which they define (recognize) each other. An integral, also acquired from early childhood, objective sign (expression) of this stereotype is the self-identification of a representative of an ethnic group, expressed in ethnic self-name.

That is, ethnic groups are objects (systems) created by nature itself and developing according to natural laws. Accordingly, an ethnos has a “original culture”, its own name, which is used to designate its members of other ethnic groups - an ethnonym, which in most cases coincides with the self-name of an ethnos.

It is impossible to artificially, “on command”, create one or another ethnic group - for example, “Soviet”, or another “people” - this will already be a political system, a social community of people, and not an ethnic group as such. And this community will not have the qualities that an ethnos has, even being endowed with “its own language, script”, etc. And most importantly, it will not have unity and stability as a system, unifying qualities of one or another level.

The natural duration of the existence of an ethnos, according to the conclusions of L. N. Gumilyov, is on average 1200–1500 years. Necessary condition the emergence of a new ethnic group is the interaction (full or partial mixing) of ethnic groups among themselves - that is, an ethnic group can have two or more immediate "ancestors" ( 34 ).

The justifications for the above statement about the ethnos are set forth by L.N. Gumilyov in his works and I believe that there is no need to reiterate them here, we will only give what is relevant to the topic of this work as a whole: ethnic groups coexist and develop in interaction with their neighbors in its “place development”, in the form of a stable system - a superethnos: “Almost all the ethnic groups known to us are grouped into peculiar structures - “cultures” or “superethnic entities”. The names of “cultures” are conditional: Byzantium, Western (Romano-Germanic) Europe, Russia, the Great Steppe, China, the Muslim world, etc. But each of them is a kind of integrity of historical existence, and not a random generalization accepted for the convenience of classification » ( 34 , 173).

“The only reliable criterion for distinguishing superethnoi, as well as ethnic groups, is not language, not religion, but a stereotype of behavior (ibid.). Superethnoi are long, but not eternally living ethnic systems. Their boundaries are mobile not only in space, which is associated with large secular climate variations, but also in time. The reason for this is both the internal patterns of ethnogenesis and the interaction of neighbors. Of fundamental importance for contact is the sign of complementarity of interacting superethnoi. The positive complementarity of the two main superethnoi of our country - the Russian and the Steppe - was the key to both the creation of the Muscovite state, and, after that, the territorial expansion Russian Empire, and the inviolability of the USSR during the Second World War. Complimentarity is the mutual sympathy of various superethnoi and even individuals, unconscious and indefinite by any visible reasons.

It was complimentarity that served as the reason for the friendship between Alexander Nevsky and Batu's son Sartak. But apparently, it also took place at the level of ethnic groups: Russians and Tatars, since the political dependence of Russia on Sarai did not prevent the opening in the capital of the Golden Horde, even in 1260, of an episcopal chair with a Russian bishop, and then after the “Great Jam” to accept Russia of Genghisides and ordinary Mongols ... Ivan IV put an end to the political independence of the Horde, but this did not stop him from speaking Tatar in the Kremlin and even placing Kasimov Khan on the throne ”(ibid., 177-178).

With regard to the topic of this chapter, in accordance with the above, it suggests that the ethnos of the "ancient Mongols" could or should, despite the collapse of their State, "exist" to the present, while possessing to a sufficient extent the signs and properties that this ethnos had in the period of formation and power of their state.

It appears that the dominant for a long time in the state and society of a vast and powerful state, an ethnos had to preserve its language (taking into account its change over time), the anthropological characteristics of the majority of its representatives (the main ones, taking into account mixed marriages in sufficient numbers with representatives of other types) and many other characteristics. And most importantly, the representatives of this ethnic group had to retain the ability to identify themselves as a single people, community, and keep your stereotype of behavior and your ethnic self-name.

The official history offers its own solution to this problem: the ethnos of the "ancient Mongols" was preserved partly in the Mongolian People's Republic and mostly - about 70% of their total number - in Inner Mongolia - autonomous region People's Republic of China in the form of the people of the Khalkha-Mongols. The Khalkha-Mongols (self-name "Khalkha"), according to official historians, have retained the language of their ancestors of the "ancient Mongols", anthropological features (Mongoloid race of the continental type), and the skills of the main way of managing (nomadic cattle breeding). And the tendency to the corresponding way of life was also preserved among the main part of this people in the form of a habit of living in mobile dwellings - yurts. In other parts of Eurasia, where the power of the Mongols was spread, according to official historians, the ethnos of the "ancient Mongols" was not preserved, since it "dissolved" (was assimilated) by the peoples conquered by it in a very short time by historical standards - different authors call different periods of time - from about 10–20 to 100 years. Accordingly, it must be assumed that this is why the "ancient Mongols" did not have time to leave written documents anywhere testifying to their state activities, in their own (old Khalkha-Mongolian) language, dated no later than the 18th century. ( 111 ).

In order to assess the reliability of the above version of the official story about the creation of the Mongolian State by the ancestors of the Khalkha-Mongols, we will try to establish on the available material what ethnic characteristics and properties this ethnic group possessed - that is, the ethnic group of the "ancient Mongols" supposed by official historical science - "Mongols before Chyngyz Khan" .

In the same way, that is, “ancient Mongols”, L.N. Gumilyov in his works calls the ethnic group of the founders of the State of the Mongols and the tribesmen of its first Supreme Ruler Chyngyz Khan. And let's see if the ethnic features and properties of the "ancient Mongols" correspond to the features and properties of the ethnos of the modern Khalkha Mongols - sufficiently so that the former can be considered the ancestors of the latter, and if it turns out that, apparently, this will not be entirely true , then we will also try to determine which of the modern ethnic groups all these signs correspond to the most.

First, as noted above, there is a lot of historical information that is quite trustworthy, which Name, And self-name of this ethnic group were designated by the same word - "Tatars": regarding the question of the origin of Chyngyz Khan, L. N. Gumilyov points to the point of view of the Russian academician, historian and orientalist V. P. Vasiliev ( 31 , 412), information from whose works is rarely given in the official history of the Mongols, and if this information is mentioned, then the essence of their content is not disclosed - it is simply indicated that the point of view of Academician V.P. Vasiliev is “unfounded”, without providing any arguments. L. N. Gumilyov defines the attitude of official Western historians to the point of view of V. P. Vasilyev specifically and fairly - she “ is not generally recognized(ibid.).

Let us consider what information from ancient Chinese historical sources is contained in the works of V.P. Vasiliev, and what conclusions, “not recognized” by Westerners, the Russian academician made on the basis of this information. And most importantly, let us also consider how the data of V.P. Vasiliev on the issue under consideration are consistent with data from other sources, including data obtained by Orientalist historians much later after the death of the academician, in the 20th century.

V. P. Vasiliev writes: “ Our opinion about the origin of the name Mongol differs from the interpretations accepted by others.(that is, Western historians. - G.E.). We believe that this name was not worn by the actual subjects of Genghis Khan before he assumed the imperial title (in 1206), and that not only the ulus in which he was born, but also generations of the same tribe with him, if they had only a common name, then it was none other than the Tatars "( 17 , 159).

At the same time, V.P. Vasiliev emphasizes that the two names - "Tatar" and "Tatan", found in Chinese sources, meant exclusively the same tribe (ethnic community) - the Tatars. The second name - "Tatan", appears in connection with the distortion of the name "Tatars" by a specific Chinese language, and both words meant the same ethnic community (nationality or people) ( 17 , 135).

V. P. Vasiliev saves us from the confusion introduced by Western historians thanks to the “help” provided to Europeans by the Chinese and Persians in the form of providing them with a legend “about the ethnic first Mongols, tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan” (which will be explained below in more detail): "There is no need to think that name Tatar or Tatan was before Genghis Khan common to all tribes, which later called the Mongols"(emphasis added by me. - G.E.). “For some reason, European Orientalists, who have long been familiar with this name, for some reason wanted to separate the word Tatar from Tatan. The first, they say, was the name of only one generation (tribe, people. - G.E.), which was conquered by Genghis Khan, the second common to all the peoples of Mongolia. But Meng-hun also writes Tatar and Tatan, because the Chinese language always distorts foreign names. Chinese word Tatan has never been exclusively common name all the tribes that lived in Mongolia. It was the name of only one tribe, which was brought to the Inynan mountains from the interior of Manchuria, probably in the 6th-7th centuries. n. e. This tribe (nationality) was “later, perhaps, pushed further to the north…”, and “…during the rule of the Khitans (X-XI centuries), history finds them in the north-west of the Dansyans” (direction to Altai and Dzungaria. - G.E.). The Tatars are later mentioned in the annals also as a group of tribes (people) "surrounding Chateau" and from there, from the west , according to the Chinese Man-hun, they come again to the east of Eurasia. And it was then that “the generation of Tatars under Genghis Khan became royal” (emphasis mine. - G.E.) (17 , 136–137), but was not “destroyed” by him at all, as we see, contrary to the statements of official historians.

On the contrary, the ethnic name of the native tribe (people) of Chyngyz Khan was the name "Tatars", and it was not until the era of the Mongols, until the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th centuries, contrary to the "generally accepted opinion" of Eurocentric historians, exclusively "the collective name of different tribes" , but was primarily the name and self-name of a particular ethnic group (people).

By indicating only one universally recognized point of view about the "collective meaning of the name of the Tatars" was forced to confine himself in his works and L. N. Gumilyov (for example, 31 , 413). But at the same time, he notices that an ethnic name can be (depending on the situation) both the name of a particular ethnic group, and the collective name of “various tribes” (peoples) (ibid.) - for example, as with the name “Russians” - so collectively, for example, Western Europeans call all Russians, as they previously called all citizens of the USSR. But the use of an ethnonym in some cases in the collective sense "in no way" does not mean that this excludes the fact that this name is also the name and self-name of a particular ethnos (people).

V.V. Bartold also spoke quite specifically about the name and self-name of the “ancient Mongols”, the founders of the state of Chyngyz Khan and his fellow tribesmen: “In the stories about the Mongol conquests of the 7th-13th centuries. conquerors everywhere (both in China and in the Muslim world, in Rus' and in Western Europe) are called Tatars" ( 8 , 559). In the opinion of this Russian academician, as well as in the opinion of V.P. Vasiliev, the tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan “called themselves Tatars, the Tatar people” (ibid., 255).

Consider the questions about the relationship in the history of the names "Tatars" and "Mongols", about the origin of the "name of the Mongols", which are also considered "until now unresolved by researchers" ( 87 , 28) and moreover - "far from satisfactory resolution" ( 3 , 185). As we will see, these issues were also quite clearly and reasonably clarified in the works of Academician V.P. Vasiliev:

“Meng-hun clearly says that the Tatars did not even know where the name Mongols came from. Mukhuri, (the closest associate and tribesman of Chyngyz Khan. - G.E.) when meeting with Chinese officials, he constantly called himself a Tatar man. Consequently, the name Mongol was, at first, purely scientific and official, and thus, these two names (of which the latter overpowered due to the same officiality) confused not only European scientists, but also Rashid Eddin and, perhaps, , his contemporaries, who thought that the name Mongol should or should have existed from a long time ago" ( 17 , 137).

As you can see, “the name“ Mongol ”was purely official,” meant the dynasty and subjects of the State of Chyngyz Khan (ibid., 137), therefore, the Tatars as an ethnic group were poorly adopted (because there was already a name for the established nationality - Tatars). Also, approximately former USSR as part of Soviet people, except for Russians - the predominant nation, by whose name foreigners called all Soviet people Russians, there were many other nationalities, and among the subjects of the Mongol Empire - "Mongols", in addition to the Tatars, there were subsequently many other ethnic groups (tribes, peoples). There were, of course, including the ancestors of the modern nation of Khalkha-Mongols.

Let us dwell a little more on the information of V.P. Vasilyev about the origin of the name "Mongol".

As Meng-hung writes, “...before there was the people of Mengu, who were terrible for the Jurchens, and whose foreman proclaimed himself emperor. After they were exterminated; however, when Genghis Khan founded the empire, the Jin subjects who defected to him taught him to accept the name of this people in order to instill fear in the Jin people ”( 17 , 80), then the word “Mongol-Tatars” appeared - in Chinese it sounds “men-da” (ibid., 216).

“The name adopted by Genghis Khan had a double meaning: the hieroglyphs had meaning, and the sound was reminiscent of the people who were once hostile to the Jin” (ibid., 161).

From the moment of the proclamation of the Empire in 1206, "Temuchen takes the title of Genghis Khan ... and gives his state the name of the Mongols" (ibid., 134). The name of the state literally sounded, as the Chinese author reports, "Meng-gu", in the meaning of "received the ancient" in accordance with the hieroglyphs that were written on Chinese, in letters to them and to the Jin people, the name of the state of the Mongols (ibid., 161). Another version of the translation of this hieroglyph by V.P. Vasiliev is “preserve the ancient” (1890).

Note that the word "Mengu" in "Old Turkic" meant "forever" ( 63 , 17), (87 , 113).

Emphasizing that the “former Mengu”, exterminated by the Jurchens long before the founding of the State of the Mongols, were a completely different people, different from the ethnic group of Chyngyz Khan and his “Mongols”, V.P. Vasiliev explains that Chyngyz Khan and his associates first chose the name of the state, and then hieroglyphs that are exactly suitable for the meaning of this name (for correspondence with the Jints).

And before, most likely, the name of the state and the dynasty was chosen - “mengu” (meaning - “forever”, and the adjective from it “mangel” - “eternal”, “eternal”). And this word, repeatedly transcribed by different authors, and turning into the words "mongal" ( 68 ), "magul" ( 13 , 234–235), "moal" ( 88 ), "Mongol" has come down to us.

Most relevant in meaning Chinese characters(for voicing Tsinydam) meant (or meant during the translation by V.P. Vasilyev), most likely - "to receive the ancient" (another version of the translation is "preserve the ancient"). Here the sound of hieroglyphs coincided with the name of the people "men-wu" (mengu, mingu), which was before that "terrible for the Jurchens", the enemies of the Tatars Chyngyz Khan. So the name, and then the hieroglyphs, were, as we see, chosen: “ in this name("mengu". - G.E.) completely different hieroglyphs, and not those used to write the name of the former ming-gu, and the name adopted by Genghis Khan had a double meaning: the hieroglyphs mattered, and the sound resembled a people who were once hostile to the Jin people "( 17 , 161).

Below we will see how the creators of the legend about "ethnic Mongols - tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan, enemies of the Tatars" used this consonance of the name ancient people, once "terrible to the Jurchens" and destroyed by them long before the events in question, with the name of the State of Chyngyz Khan, passed on to its subjects - "Mongols". This word-name “in no way” did not mean ethnicity at that time, although at first it referred mainly to the medieval Tatars, the first founders and ideologists of the State of Chyngyz Khan and his compatriots.

Here is some more information on the history of the native ethnos of Chyngyz Khan from Chinese sources translated by V.P. Vasiliev: “One separate generation (tribe, nationality), which settled near Yinshan, came out of Manchuria under the pressure of the Khitans - warlike semi-nomads, who settled near Yinshan, was nicknamed Datans (Tatars) ; this name became known in China during the Tang Dynasty” (beginning of the 7th century). During the reign of the Khitans, history finds them to the northwest from the Dansyans, Tugukhuns and Tukue" ( 17 , 136) - this is from the Yinshan mountains towards Altai and Dzungaria (Chateau).

In 870, the chroniclers noted the joint military operations of the ancient Tatars with the Shato Turks against the "Chinese rebel Pansyun". There is evidence that the Tatars provided shelter to the leaders of the Shato Turks - the latter "fled to the Datani". It is noted that the ancient Tatars were skilled in horseback riding and shooting, they had many camels and horses. “The names of their generations and foremen remained unknown to history; only the names of Zhavantsu, Zege are known" ( 17 , 165-166) - undoubtedly, the names are distorted beyond recognition by Chinese transcription.

V.P. Vasiliev also explains that the Turkic tribes that lived in the Chateau steppe are Tukues or Shatos, “so called from the Chateau steppe, located west of Barkul” (a lake in Dzungaria. - G.E.), in the VIII-IX centuries. migrated to the east, "to the northern side of the Yinshan Range" (ibid., 136).

The same tribes are described by L. N. Gumilyov, he calls the Shatos "Shato Turks, descendants of the Central Asian Huns" ( 32 , 354, 483).

“By this time, history also refers the appearance of the Manchurian Tatani in this area ... In the 9th century. history no longer mentions the Shatos in these places; on the contrary, during the Khitan dynasty, the Dadans (Tatars) appear here. Consequently... both clans mixed with each other, and were driven back by the onslaught of the Khitans and Tanguts of the Xia kingdom, further to the north" and to the west, and already under Chyngyz Khan, having completed, in the words of V.P. Vasiliev, a "circular rotation" of their migration, the Tatars of Chyngyz Khan came from the west (from the side of Chateau - Dzungaria) again to the east of Eurasia, where "the generation of Tatars under Genghis Khan became royal" ( 17 , 136–137).

As V.P. Vasiliev also notes, Chinese chronicles report some salient features of this ethnos - at the same time that they were "all courageous and skillful in battle", the ancient Tatars - tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan were also "engaged in arable farming". In addition, they also knew how to make weapons and other products from iron and copper already in the 9th-10th centuries. ( 17 , 165). “Although the Khitans traded with the Datans (Tatars), they did not let iron through to them. When the Jin took possession of the lands southeast of the Huang He, the iron and copper passed to the Datan and they made weapons for themselves” (ibid.). Because in 1115, on the site of the Khitan empire defeated by the Jurchens (with the help of the Tatars), the empire of Kin (Jin) arises.

Further, the chronicles testify: “When the Jin state was strong, the Datan (Tatars) annually brought tribute, when Wei-wang ascended the (Jin) throne, the Datan sovereign Temuchen proclaimed himself Emperor Genghis” (ibid., 165).

Thus, approximately from the 7th-8th centuries. in the spaces of Central Eurasia from Yinshan to Dzungaria, and as we will see below, further to the Altai, the Urals and the Volga and beyond, there was a "mixing" and resettlement of at least two or three tribes and many separate "Turkic clans". main role, which will be confirmed below, in the formation of a new ethnos, the ancient Tatars, who came out earlier from Manchuria, the Shato Turks and partly the Uighurs played ( 17 , 136–137). Included in its composition the ethnos of the Tatars during the settlement to the West and "other Turkic clans" that lived in the Great Steppe ( 87 , 102). And, as L. N. Gumilyov put it, “in the 11th century. a new explosion of ethnogenesis created an ethnos - the Mongol "( 34 , 59). But the tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan, as we already know from the works of V.P. Vasiliev, and, by the way, as L.N. Gumilyov explains in his works, “the Mongols before Chyngyz Khan”, for example, still . were called Tatars" ( 34 , 41; 30 , 270).

It is also necessary to provide explanations here, based on the data of V.P. Vasiliev, regarding the widespread opinion “about the division of the diverse nomads of Central Asia from Chinese wall to the Siberian taiga" into "white, black and wild Tatars".

The origins of the misconception about such a false confusion and at the same time division of the medieval Tatars as "all nomads with the common name Tatars" are as follows: a similar division existed, but only within one people, Datan (Tatars), and the manifestation of this division dates back to about the 8th–10th centuries.

And this is what it is about: “The Danish people are all courageous and skillful in battle, those who lived close to China were called “educated” (zhe, that is, “ripe.” - V. P. Vasiliev) datans, they were engaged in arable farming ... Those distant from China were called “wild” (shen “raw”. - V. P. Vasiliev)…» ( 17 , 165).

As you can see, the same hieroglyphs for the word "wild" are used as for the word "raw", and this expression was used to designate the ancient Tatars, "remote from China" - that is, those Tatars whose lifestyle the Chinese did not have enough presentation. As you can see, by the time under consideration, only the eastern edge of the medieval Tatar world was well known to the Chinese. And it is necessary here to explain one feature of the languages ​​\u200b\u200bof eastern origin - the word "raw" may not mean at all the word " wild» in terms of the level of culture. "Raw" means exactly distance- both literally and figuratively - from a specific people, ethnic group, its culture, language, etc.

For example, in the Tatar language there is also an expression “raw” in a similar meaning, they say about a person “chi Tatar”, “chi Rus”, etc. What will sound in a literal translation - “raw Tatar”, “raw Russian”, etc. p. It only means that a person is defined as endowed with “flesh and spirit”, all the properties of his people, not influenced by any other peoples (people) in the broadest sense of the word, taking into account the origin, language, culture, etc. etc., but by no means determining the level of the actual “civilization” of a given individual.

Accordingly, as Academician V.P. Vasiliev writes, Tatar people("generation") and under Chyngyz Khan "was divided into three clans: black, white and defiant(Sabudai belongs to the white). The Yuan history mentions two kinds of Tatars: chahan (white) and Angi-Tatars, the latter is probably the same as the recalcitrant; But there is no mention of thorny Tatars anywhere, and this will seem very natural, when we learn that Genghis Khan himself belonged to this generation (highlighted by me. - G.E.), and because the official language everywhere replaced the former name of the generation (Tatars) with the word Mongol" ( 17 , 135).

Meng-hun writes about the tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan: “(This) generation comes from the Shato's and makes up a special family. They are divided into three types: black, white and rebellious (wild) ”(ibid., 216). “Prince Subutai comes from White Tatars” (ibid., 217). “The current Emperor Genghis, his commanders, ministers and top officials, all belong to the Black Tatars (Kharachin?)” (ibid.). "Commander-in-Chief of all troops, chancellor of all provinces, Grand Duke Mukhuri is a black Tatar, the Chinese call him Me-hou-lo; in the papers they write Mou-he-li, - all this is from the warping of the southern and northern dialects ”(ibid., 221),“ I myself, when meeting with him (Mukhuri), heard how he called himself every time a Tatar man ”(ibid. , 220).

And we will also give examples of the fact that the name "Tatars" referred to a specific ethnic group, and was not a "collective name of nomadic tribes":

Academician V.V. Bartold about the Tatars “before Chyngyz Khan”: “In the anonymous Mujmal at-tavarikh (c. 520/1126), the Tatar sovereign Simun buyuy (or bivi?) Jayar is named in the list of sovereigns” ( 8 , 559).

A well-known modern scientist, an outstanding Orientalist historian S. G. Klyashtorny: “... In any case, in the X-XII centuries, ethnonym"Tatars" was well known not only in the Middle Empire (in South China. - G.E.), but also in Central Asia and Iran. So, along with the Karakhanid Turks, the Tatars are quite often mentioned in the verses of the most famous Persian poets. The Ghazni poet Abu-n-Najmi Manuchikhri (XI century) writes about a handsome young man with “ Turkic-Tatar appearance"(emphasis added by me. - G.E.) ... Imam Sadr ad-din Kharramabadi (XI-XII) in the Qasida dedicated to Sultan Iskander mentions a certain "Tatar"" ( 53 , 133).

More information from Uighur and Chinese sources, discovered much later by V.P. Vasiliev: “In any case, in the colophon of the Pahlavi Manichaean work “Mahr-namag”, copied in Turfan between 825–832, among the local nobles, the head Tatars (tatar ara tekin)" (ibid., 132).

“Between 958 and 1084. three embassies to various Chinese courts are mentioned, jointly sent by the sovereigns of the Ganzhou Uyghurs and the Gansu Tatars to conclude a military alliance against the Tanguts ”(ibid.) - here the Tatars are definitely mentioned as an ethnic group - as well as the Uighurs.

“An important addition to this news is contained in two Chinese manuscripts of 965 and 981. from a cave library in Dunhuang (a city in the northwestern part of China, the border of Gansu province with the Uyghur autonomous region. - G.E.). It directly says that the center of the Tatar state was Suzhou, that is, on the border of Gansu and East Turkestan. The Khotan-Saka documents of the 9th-10th centuries tell about the same Tatars. (ibid.).

It should be noted that all the information about the Tatars cited from the works of S. G. Klyashtorny is consistent with the statement of V. P. Vasiliev that the Tatars of Chyngyz Khan came, according to Meng-hung, precisely from the west, from Chateau. That is, it is on the western side of medieval China that the earlier Chinese sources translated by V.P. Vasiliev indicate the habitats of “Tatars before Chyngyz Khan”.

Above, enough information was given that the Chinese, and not only they, called native people Chyngyz Khan, both before him, and the time of his reign is the same - by the Tatars. I will give a few quotes from the notes of Chinese chroniclers of the Yuan Dynasty era, who write about the tribesmen and relatives of Chingiz Khan several decades after the death of the founder of the Mongol State (“ Short description black Tatars"): "The Uighur literacy is taught in Yangjing city schools. In addition, they are trained to translate from Tatar. As soon as they learn to translate from this language, they are appointed as translators" - we are talking about the training of government officials, scribes, and translators from among the Tatar youth ( 111 , 155). As you can see, the Mongol-Tatars were not at all inclined to “sink”, that is, to assimilate among the Chinese, contrary to the opinion of some historians.

Another Chinese Xu Ting at about the same time writes: “Tatars use mainly sheep to provide themselves with food” (ibid., 88). Also, the Chinese, describing the postal stations of the Yuan period - and these stations were called, as in Russia - “pits”, they distinguish them as “Tatar” and “Chinese” (ibid., 114).

The author of the work from which these excerpts are given ( 111 ), the Khalkha-Mongolian historian Chuluuny Dalai comments on the quotes of medieval chroniclers he cites: after the words “Tatars”, “Tatar”, he writes “Mongol” or “Mongolian” in brackets. Either he specifically indicates: “Where it is said “Tatar”, “Mongolian” is meant, that is, Khalkha-Mongolian and no others (ibid., 114).

Let us note that the authors of the sources cited by Chuluuny Dalai themselves do not make such reservations, and the ancestors of the Khalkha Mongols also did not explain anything about this in any documents of that time. And the medieval Tatars themselves did not leave any explanations about the fact that their ethnic name is not at all " Tatars", A " Mongols».

And in general, Chuluuna Dalai does not give any arguments on this score - why in medieval texts it is necessary, when reading them, to replace the word "Tatars" with the word "Mongol", and at the same time it is still necessary to "imply" that we are talking about the ethnic group "Khalkha-Mongols ". After all, it is not confirmed by anything that where “Tatars” is written, “the Mongol is meant” (that is, “Khalkha-Mongol”, which means Chuluun Dalai), and given all of the above, we can safely say that what is written in the considered medieval sources, then it is implied, without any other interpretations - if it says "Tatars", "Tatar language", for example, then we are talking about a representative of the medieval Tatar people or his Tatar language. And if it is written, for example: “Mongolian officials” - and as we will see below, it is about officials of the State of Chyngyz Khan, who could be of any nationality and religion - and examples will also be given to confirm this.

It would be appropriate to cite here the remark of S. G. Klyashtorny: “... in the report of the Sunn embassy of 1211–1212, recently published by G. Franke, the Mongols are consistently called Tatars” ( 53 , 134). That is, it is precisely as the state-forming ethnic group of the State of the Mongols, as the native people of Chyngyz Khan, that the Tatars are mentioned - and the “Mongols”, precisely as an ethnic group, are not mentioned in the reports of the Chinese ambassadors. Which is an additional confirmation of the information and, most importantly, the point of view of Academician V.P. Vasiliev, given a little higher. As Meng-hun noted in the above excerpt from his Notes on the Mongol-Tatars: “the Tatars did not even know where the name Mongol came from ...” ( 17 , 137). That is, the name "Mongol" for the medieval Tatars was precisely "scientific" and "official", as V.P. Vasiliev quite correctly defines, and not the name of their native ethnic group (people).

As can be seen from the foregoing, the tribesmen of Chyngyz Khan, the “ancient Mongols”, as official historians used to call them, were “consistently called Tatars” both before the Mongols era, and in the Mongols era, and later - in the ethnic sense - all contemporaries who knew them good enough; both friends and enemies.

Here, for example, is ethnic the definition of the Mongol-Tatars of Chyngyz Khan and himself in the work of the Arab historian Ibn al-Asir, a contemporary of Chyngyz Khan, the enemy of the Mongol-Tatars: “ In that(617 = A.D. 1218-1219) year came to the countries of Islam Tatars, a large Turkic tribe, whose habitats are the Tamgadzhsky mountains, near China; between them and Muslim countries for more than 6 months (paths). The reason for their appearance was as follows: their king, nicknamed Genghis Khan, known under the name of Temujin(highlighted by me. - G.E.), leaving his lands, moved to the countries of Turkestan and sent a party of merchants and Turks with a large supply of silver, beavers and other things to the cities of Maverannehr: Samarkand and Bukhara ... "( 101 , 4–5).

Thirty years later, Rukneddin Baibars, Emir of the Sultan of Egypt, an Arab historian (died in 1325), writes: “What happened in 650 (= March 14, 1252 - March 2, 1253) includes the death of Batu, son of Juchi Khan, son of Genghis Khan, king of the Tatars ... After him, Berke, son of Batu Khan, son of Juchi Khan, came to the throne. This is the one who became a Muslim and forced the Tatars who were in his state to accept Islam. In 653 (= February 10, 1255 - January 29, 1256), a battle took place between the Tatar kings Berke and Hulaku, son of Tuli (son of Chyngyz Khan. - G.E.); Hulaku was defeated. From that time on, a war began between them…” (ibid., 121).

As you can see, even at that time the Arabs called the Tatars, as before - precisely the Tatars, despite the "official name" of the loyal subjects of the State - all by that time, and not only the Tatars already - the Mongols. So it is clearly seen that, as they have been accustomed to for a long time, the Arabs called the people known to them for a long time - namely the Tatars.

In addition, as can be seen from the following quote, Rukneddin Baibars and his Mamluk compatriots know firsthand about the Tatars:

« Arrival of asylum-seeking Tatars from Hulaku's army. On the 6th Dzulhije 661 (= October 11, 1263), a large detachment of Tatars arrived in Egypt, seeking asylum and wishing to convert to Islam. It was a crowd of more than 1000 souls, including their foremen: Keremun, Amtagiya, Nukiya, Jabrak, Kayan, Nasa-gyya, Tabshur, Nabatu, Sanji, Dzhudzhulan, Udzhurka, Urkuk, Kirai, Sulagyya, Menkadym and Suragan. These were supporters of Berke, who sent them to help Hulak; they were with him for some time; when a clash occurred between them ... then Berke wrote to them so that they would leave Hulaka and come to him (Berke), and if they could not go to him, then they would join the troops of the Egyptian possessions ”( 101 , 100).

These Tatars (one case of a similar “arrival” of many is given) were cordially received by the Mamluk Turks, who then ruled Egypt, the foremen mentioned received command positions in the Mamluk troops. And what is remarkable is that there is not a single mention in the descriptions of such cases that the languages ​​of the “arrived Tatars” and their new Turkish comrades-in-arms, the Mamluks, had significant differences - as follows from the information given, the Tatars and the Mamluk Turks understood each other without translation services ( 101 , 100).

And later, in the first half of the 14th century, the Arabs, being already allies of the Mongol-Tatars and having become closely acquainted with them and even intermarried, continued to call their ethnic group Tatars:

« Peace with the Tatar kings and the twinning of Ennasyr with their Northern kings... ". “Two vast powers of the Tatars” are described: “one of them is the power of the sons of Hulaku, who took Baghdad and seized the capital of Islam in Iraq, which he (Hulaku) made his royal city; in addition, they owned Iraqelaj, Fars, Khorasan and Maverannehr. (Another) was the power of the sons of Jochi Khan, the son of Genghis Khan, in the North, adjoining in the East to Khorezm, in the South to the Crimea?) and the borders of Constantinople, in the West to the land of the Bulgars ... The Turkic power in Egypt and Syria bordered on the power of the Khulaguids, who they wanted to take possession of Syria and over and over again repeated predatory raids on it. They tried to win over to their side their rulers from the Arabs and Turkmens, and with them they defeated them (the Egyptians), as I saw in their stories ... ”(ibid., 385).

In the above excerpt, the Tatars are mentioned, as in the above example with the Uighurs, precisely in the sense of the people (ethnos), as well as the Arabs, Turkmens, as well as the Türks (Mamluks), whose ethnic group then dominated Egypt and Syria ( 35 , 249–254).

Let us draw an intermediate conclusion: when comparing the information cited by L. N. Gumilyov and V. P. Vasiliev, and information from other sources, the authors of which are representatives of different times and peoples, it becomes clear that it is precisely the mixture of ethnic groups of the ancient Manzhuro-Inshan Tatars, Turks -Shato and part of the Uighurs served as an impetus for the beginning of ethnogenesis and the birth of a new ethnic group "Tatars". Or, as L. N. Gumilyov called this people in his works, “a new ethnic group - the Mongol, which arose in the 9th century, whose name before Chyngyz Khan was Tatars” - examples of which are given above, or ( 30 , 270; 34 , 41, 59).

This was the emergence of the ethnic group "Mongol-Tatars" - the medieval Tatar people of Chyngyz Khan, "one of the numerous Turkic steppe tribes" ( 87 , 103), "a large Turkic tribe whose king" was Chyngyz Khan ( 101 , 4). And Chingiz Khan himself came from the same "Turkic tribe" ( 15 ), ethnic name and self-name which was "no other than the Tatars" ( 17 , 159).

V.P. Vasiliev, expressing his disagreement with the opinion that the ancient Tatars were the ancestors of modern Khalkha Mongols, notes: “and there is no need to look for their (current Mongols) name in the Tatans, immigrants from Manchuria and settled near the Yin Shan » ( 17 , 38).

From all of the above, it is also clear that there are serious grounds for doubting the validity of the division of “Tatars before Chyngyz Khan” and “Tatars of Chyngyz Khan” (“ancient Mongols”) and consider them different peoples (ethnic groups), and we will see below, that these doubts are confirmed.

Moreover, further information will be given in this work that the Tatars before the era of Chyngyz Khan, and the Tatars of Chyngyz Khan, who received the “official name Mongol” after the beginning of the reign of Chyngyz Khan, while also retaining their ethnic name and self-name “Tatars "- this is the same ethnic group (people). And this people retained its ethnic name and self-name even after the collapse of the Mongols, and most of the descendants of this ethnic group have retained their name and self-name, and "no other than the Tatars" until the modern period.

Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich From the book Russian History. Part 1 author Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich

The peoples of ancient names in this part were Kimry, Sarmatians, along the Volga, where the name of the great village Kimra still keeps. To that Uglech, Kashin, Bel gorodok (now deserted) belonged, Ch. 24. Krivichi, Sarmatians, then Slavs, now the Principality of Smolensk. Merya, Sarmatians, Rostov, Galich, Kostroma