Везде
Dzungar: religion and designation
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments Additional materials
Share
QR
Metrics
Dzungar: religion and designation
Annotation
PII
S086919080025827-6-1
DOI
10.31857/S086919080025827-6
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Baatr Kitinov 
ORCID: 0000-0003-4031-5667
Occupation: associate professor, Leading Researcher
Affiliation: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS
Address: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
A. Lyulina
ORCID: 0000-0003-0634-884
Occupation: Associate Professor of the Department of Foreign Languages, research associate
Affiliation:
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
Institute of Oriental Studies of the RAS
Address: Moscow, Russian Federation
Edition
Issue 3
Pages
173-184
Abstract

The origin of the term ‘Dzungar’ (also known as ‘Jungar’, ‘Zhungar’, ‘Zünghar’, ‘Zungar’) has already received general consideration, but it is still not clear, which events contributed to the first use of the term, and what it could actually mean. Its etymology needs further study. The traditional version does not go beyond the definition of the Dzungars as the “left wing” of the military-administrative division of the Oirats, and claims that the term first appeared in the beginning of the 17th c. However, the main factors and reasons of its usage for the nation’s self-designation and state formation require further clarification. In present research we consider the religious factor of consolidation and self-identification of the Dzungars. The aim of the article is to determine the conditions, causes and time of the occurrence and sustaining of the name Dzungar. Our tasks include: 1) studying the influence of related events and processes, such as Oirats migration (from Western Mongolia and the Northern part of future Dzungaria to Siberian rivers); separation of the Elets; appearance of the Derbets and the rise of Choros clan; adoption of Buddhism and the role of Geluk lamas and Dzungar leaders in the actualization of the people names as Choros and Dzungars; 2) identification of the religious factor in the emergence of the Dzungars and its subsequent influence for Manchus’ policy towards them; 3) definition of the mechanism of the Dzungars’ self-identification and the etymology of the term.

Keywords
Dzungars, Elets, Choros, etymology, left wing, migration, ethnonym, Geluk, Buddhism, Manchus.
Received
19.06.2023
Date of publication
02.07.2023
Number of purchasers
13
Views
148
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 200 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should pay the subscribtion

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article and additional services
Subscription benefits
200 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue and additional services
Subscription benefits
1020 RUB / 16.0 SU
All issues and additional services for 2023
Subscription benefits
4590 RUB / 92.0 SU
1

Traditional interpretation: Left Wing
2 The word Dzungar is usually translated from Mongolian as “left wing”. The steppe nomads since ancient times have been divided into left and right wings. The situation was the same under Genghis Khan. After the fall of the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Dayan Khagan (c. 1480? – 1543) have changed the system of governance and leadership among the Eastern Mongols: he re-created the left (Chakhars, Khalkhas and Uriankhai) and right (Tumets, Harachins and Ordos) wings [Sneath, 2010, p. 395–396]. The Oirats (Four Oirats) were not included in those wings, so the definition of the Mongols appeared as “six and four” (earlier – “forty and four” [Vladimirtsov, 2002, p. 429]).
3 Vladimirtsov noticed that the separation among the Oirats into right and left wings “... had developed as an imitation of the Eastern Mongols” [Vladimirtsov, 2002, p. 443]. It is believed that it appeared at the beginning of 15th c., when the Four Oirats were divided into two “hands”: Züün Gar (eastern/left hand) and Baruun Gar (western/right hand) [Natsagdorj, Ochir, 2010, p. 524]. According to Elverskog the Dzungars (as the left wing) already existed at the time of Toghon and Esen in the first half of the 15th c. [Elverskog, 2003, p. 109]. These authors did not indicate the sources they used for their conclusions.
4 Crossley attributes the appearance of the term Dzungar (in the form of jegün ghar) to the middle of the first third of the 17th c. at the times of Dayan Khagan and explains its active use by the desire of the Oirats to emphasize their Mongolian identity, when faced with pressure from the Manchus [Crossley, 2006, p. 73–74]. Atwood’s opinion is almost the same: Dzungars as a tribal name appeared early in the 17th c. The term itself, he believes, arose as a way of distinguishing themselves from their relatives, the Derbets, since “the Zünghars were the Dörböds to the east [of other Oirats]” [Atwood, 2004, p. 621]. Taupier also believes that at the beginning of 17th c. there was The Greater Dorbod ulus, consisting of two polities headed by the Choros clan [Taupier, 2014, p. 94]. Atwood’s opinion was criticized by Beckwith, but the latter did not come to a definite conclusion, paying more attention to the criticism of traditional interpretation of the word “Dzungar” [Beckwith, 2007, p. 41]. Earlier Uspensky wrote about the understanding of the Dzungars as the “left hand”: “... then (under Genghis Khan. – B.K., A.L.) and now, each clan or aimag had its own Tszung-gar or left wing; in this case, we would have to find a lot of Zhungars, at least in administrative nomenclature” [Uspensky, 1880, p. 75–76]. Thus, the etymology of the term Dzungar as the administrative concept of “left hand” has been questioned by scholars starting with the previous century.
5

Elet Oirats: Choros and Derbets
6 The ancestors of the Dzungars should be considered the Elets, headed by the Choros clan.
7 Ogeleds [Ögeled, Elets] were named by Sagan Setsen among the early Oirats along with Baatut [Baγatud], Khoits [Xoyid] and Kerguds [Kergüd] peoples [Saγang, 1990, p. 47]. The inclusion of the greater part of the Elets in 1437–1438 into the Oirats under Toghon (d. 1439), who headed Choros clan, contributed to the formation of the Early Oirat confederation (1430s – the end of the 15th c.) [The Story of Kho Orluk, 2016, p. 25–26].
8 The question of Choros’ origin arose in various publications [Avlyaev, 2002, p. 174; Taupier, 2014, p. 19–23, 30–33]. The term “Choros” (čoro) denoted the elite of the society. In the early Turkic state formations it was the name of the leaders, later it became an ethnonym. How did the Choros manage to take a leading position among the Oirats? Chinese sources give a definite answer. In the “Clan Tables'” of “Xin Yuanshi” and in “Qing shi gao” the Choros line goes back to Bohan (孛罕) with the generic title Wuluodai (兀罗带氏). Another transliteration of 兀罗带 is 兀鲁特 “wulute”, which is correlates with “Elute”, “Elet”. Bohan ruled the left tumen (左手万户) [New History of Yuan; Zhao, 1927]. Choros and Elets were in the roots of these Oirats.
9 The reign of the Choros in the second half of the 15th c. was finished by the socio-political crisis of the First Confederation, with the exodus of a significant part of the Elets “to the west” (to Mogulistan, then known as Kyzylbashi) and their subsequent extermination [Kitinov, 2017].
10 Experts [Okada, 1987, p. 201; Atwood, 2004, p. 150] associate the origins of the Dzungars’ leaders (as well as the Derbets’) with the Choros. Derbet rulers were descendants of Esen’s eldest son – Boro-Nakhal1, while the Dzungarian rulers were descendants of Esen’s younger son Esmet-Darkhan-noyon, or Ash-Timur [Bichurin, 1829, p. 262; Zhang, He, 1895, p. 137; Zhao, 1927; Gaban, 2003, p. 89].
1.
11 According to the description of the outer lands in “Qing shi gao”, the Derbets and the Dzungars had the same generic name Choros2, but the source does not indicate the time of their separation. Sanchirov believed: the Derbets and the Dzungars came out of the Elets in the first half of the 17th c. [Sanchirov, 2016, p. 228]. Due to the mentioned exodus to Mogulistan, Zlatkin’s opinion looks more correct: the Derbets stood out from the Choros by the beginning of the second half of the 15th c. [Zlatkin, 1983, p. 45]. In the second half of the 15th c. the Elets split into at least two parts, belonging to mentioned brothers, who did not get along with each other [Serruys, 1977, p. 378].
2. “Oirats (Elutes) in ancient times were divided into 4 tribes: Khoshuts from the Borjigin clan; Dzungars and Derbets from the Choros clan; Torguts of unknown clan” [Zhao, 1927, Liezhuan 309].
12 Ash-Timur (d. 1478) and his Oirat people lived in Altai region, Boro-Nakhal’s Oirats settled near the Zavkhan River3 [Natsagdorj, Ochir, 2010, p. 524–525], Uspensky points to the Gang-gang river4 [Uspensky, 1880, p. 99–100]. In general, they lived in the neighborhood.
3. East of the Mongolian Altai.

4. Headwaters of Yenisey River, north of Zavkhan River.
13 At the end of the 15th c. or at the beginning of the 16th c., people of Boro-Nakhal began to be called Derbets (initially known as a political community). The word Derbet in its original form could mean “four in one” and carried the meaning of uniting a certain group of Oirats into one community. Most likely, the Derbets included not only Boro-Nakhal Elets, but also some other Oirats, in particular the Khoits [Zhao, 1927, Liezhuan 309]. An important testimony was found by Potanin, who visited the Derbet nomads in Western Mongolia in 1879: the priest Chivalkov told him one legend: “... these people received name Dorbot, because their ancestor was in charge of four tribes” [Potanin, 1883, p. 20]. Avlyaev attributed the meaning of the word “Derbet”' to the numeral “dorben” (four), too [Avlyaev, 2002, p. 317]. The opinion of Natsagdorj and Ochir, who identified Elets by the end of 15th c. as “One Oirat”, in general coincides with our idea: at this time “the Ööld began to be called the One Oirat (neg Oirat)” [Natsagdorj, Ochir, 2010, p. 525]. We believe that they were supposed to be the Derbets (“four in one”, part of the Elets), headed by the Choros descendants of Boro-Nakhal.
14

Migrations specify origin of Dzungars
15 Since the Taishi title remained with Ash-Timur, he and his descendants headed all the Oirats, up to his great-grandson Ongotsi [The Story of Kho Orluk, 2016, p. 26; Bichurin, 1829, p. 260–261]. In 1541 the leadership among the Oirats passed to the Khoshuts [Sukhbaatar, Bayarsaikhan, 2016, p. 114]. Due to the pressure of neighbors, the Oirats (Derbets, Elets and others) moved to the Irtysh River in 1560s – 1580s. The study of migration consequences of Ash-Timur Elets helps to clarify the conditions of appearance of the Dzungars.
16 The “Miller Portfolios” contains a record, that Khara Khula5, the first ruler of the Dzungars, before the beginning of the 17th c. “... roamed with his ulus people in the same countries what his descendants now own... but he was driven out of his homeland by the Mungalas and had his refuge in Siberia” [MIRMO, 1956, p. 301]. These “countries” meant the Altai region [Zhang, He, 1895, p. 131] – in this case, Barthold’s opinion looks correct: “The nomads of the Hong-taiji… were originally located near the Upper Irtysh, slightly above Zaysan Lake” [Barthold, 1898, p. 92].
5. The 6th generation of Ash-Timur [Bichurin, 1829, p. 260–262].
17 Khara Khula’s Elets roamed about the Black Irtysh and the Mongolian Altai, where Ash-Timur settled at one time [Zlatkin, 1983, p. 68]6. Tümed Altan Khan descended on these Elets around 1568. Years earlier, he ousted the Oirats (Khoits and Torguts) from the west of Mongolia, and they went down of the Irtysh. Altan moved to north – according to the source, he crossed the Kökei Mountains7 and attacked the Elets and Baatut [Elverskog, 2003, p. 110, 114]. As a result, the Elets went northwards to the headwaters of the Yenisey River. Due to their contacts with the Mats (Motors), Tuvans and other peoples of the Yenisey headwaters, we manage to localize the Elets and therefore correlate them with the Dzungars.
6. “Qing Shi” says that the Elets roamed about the Ili River at the end of the 16th c. [Zheng, 2003, p. 339].

7. The western part of the modern Uvs province in Mongolia.
18 At the end of the 16th c., to the south of this place, in the west of Mongolia, there was formed a domain headed by Sholoi-Ubashi Khungtaiji (“Altyn Khan”). His main rivals were so-called “Black Kalmyks”8, the study of the documents shows that they usually were the Elets9.
8. Among the reasons why they were called “Black”: 1) they lived further (to the east) of all Kalmyks and therefore were less known; 2) they lived south and south-east of the Teleuts (“White Kalmyks”). For further versions refer to [Batiyanova, 2007].

9. For example, the Dzungarian ruler Galdan after receiving the Khan’s title was also called by the Russians as “Black Kalmyks kegen Galdan kontaisha” [RGADA 2, l, 7].
19 Tomsk town voyevoda V. Volynsky reported in 1609: “the Black Kolmaks are fighting with Altyn-Tsar” [MIRMO, 1959, p. 32], and later: the Kalmyks previously roamed closely to the White Kalmyks, i.e. near Altai, and now “the Black Kolmaks have migrated far from them and are fighting with the Altyn-Tsar and the Cossack Horde” [MIRMO, 1959, p. 33].
20 Presumably, the reason was the problem of yasak from the Motor people, which claimed both Oirats and Altyn Khan. Last one in 1610 subdued the Motors [MIRMO, 1959, p. 30], who inhabited the banks of Tuba and Abakan Rivers (tributaries of the Yenisey). This advance of Altyn Khan forced the Elets to leave in a north-west direction, towards the White Kalmyks. In voyevodas’ report, the Black Kalmyks should mean both Elets (these Oirats were geographically close to the White Kalmyks) and the people of Altyn Khan [Miller, 1937, vol. 1, p. 425; MIRMO, 1959, p. 32–33].
21

Buddhism and the development of the Dzungars
22 In 1616 Lama Tsagan Nomin Khan (alias Manjushri-khutukhtu (1588–1639)) visited the Oirats. He was invited by Torgut Taishi Mergen Temene [Gaban, 2003, p. 90; Tyumen, 2003, p. 139], who was roaming with the Elets near the lands of Altyn Khan, from where this lama came [Zlatkin, 1983, p. 101]. Kalmyks “said that Altyn… and the Chinese state had the same faith and writing and language. And now they are leading the Kolmak people to their faith” [MIRMO, 1959, p. 53–54].
23 Lama knew the Oirats for a very long time [Terbish, 2008, p. 65]. The Oirat leaders revered lamas already at the beginning of the 17th c., which allowed the Khoshut leader Turu-Baihu in 1606 conclude a peace treaty between the Oirats and the eastern Mongols “through the mediation of lamas and especially of the Mongolian Khutuktu” [Pallas, 1776, p. 39]. Then Turu-Baihu received the title Gushi Khan [Sumba, 1972, p. 62].
24 Unique information on the connection between lama’s visit and the appearance of the Dzungars is found in “History of the Dörben-Oirats”, the source of the second half of the 18th c.: “two Choros khungtaiji, the great and the small10 – 10 khoshuns, [make up] one [division] of the Oirats. At the time when these 10 khoshuns formed the left wing (zuun gar), many Oirat grand and minor princes each agreed to give one of their sons to the big novices (bandi). They received ordination [to monastic orders] from Manjushri-khutugtu” [History of the Dörben-Oirats, 2016, p. 59–60]. So, the source points 1616 as year, when part of the Oirats formed the left wing, calling themselves Dzungars. Probably, this circumstance influenced updating of their old ethnonym Choros11. Chinese historiography also refers to this source and emphasizes the role of the Choros Elets and Derbets in the spread of Geluk Buddhism among the Oirats [Brief History of the Oirat Mongols, 1992, p. 59–60].
10. Khara Khula and his son Khotogochin, the future Batur-khungtaiji.

11. In Russian documents, the word Choros as “Churas” appears only in the early 1630s [Miller, 1937, vol. 2, p. 102], which can be explained by the increasing struggle between the Derbet Dalai-Taishi and the Dzungar leaders Khara Khula and Khotogochin [Zlatkin, 1983, p. 112].
25 Thus, Khara Khula and Khotogochin took upon the task of protecting the Geluk teaching from enemies. In other words, the Oirats adopted not a “standard” religious tradition, but a special militant form of Tibetan ritual Buddhism [Atwood, 2004, p. 294]. The adoption of the Geluk doctrine at the same time implied responsibility for its safety, and the Elets as defenders were the most striking force of the Oirats. This decision corresponded to the situation in Tibet, where the Geluk was losing its positions: in 1612 and 1613, known as the “war of mouse and bull years” (byi glang sde gzar), the Tsang ruler Karma Phuntsok Namgyal (r. 1611–1621) subdued Ü, the main region of Geluk. Tsagan Nomin Khan came to the Oirats on the order of the Dalai Lama IV Yönten Gyatso (1589–1617, Mongol by origin) [Brief history of the Oirat Mongols, 1992, p. 60; Jin, 2009, p. 383], who, like his predecessor, did much to strengthen the Geluk teaching among the Mongols, including the Oirats [Sangs-rgyas, 1999, p. 225].
26 The name Dzungars didn't immediately become known. The Elets as “Kolmak people” were recorded in Russian documents by 1618–1619 due to their appearance in the Baraba Steppe, in the interflow of Om and Ob Rivers: their leaders were Sengil-Taisha and Khara Khula’s brother Devnikey-Taisha [MIRMO, 1959, p. 78]. Miller noted: “Taisha Khara-Khula was at that time the most notable among the Kalmyk princes… The far location of Khara-Khula’s headquarters… can be concluded from the fact that the trip of Jan Kucha… (the envoy from Tobolsk authorities to Taisha. – B.K., A.L.) required six months” [Miller, 1937, vol. 2, p. 92].
27 So, the headquarters of Khara Khula was located east or south-east of Tobolsk, probably further than the headquarters of other Kalmyk Taishis. During the period when the Geluk strengthened its positions among the Oirats, Khara Khula was revered as the strongest leader. The growth of Khara Khula's authority allowed his embassy to arrive in Moscow on January 10, 1620 [MIRMO, 1959, p. 92].
28 Over time, in Russian documents the Elets were increasingly referred to as the Dzungars: since the spring of 1623 Kalmyks were named as Jeungars, from “Yaungar/Eungar ulus”, of Chungar Taishi, they were identified as formerly subordinate to the Derbet rulers [MIRMO, 1959, p. 120, 124–125, 129]12. Khotogochin and his people in 1616 separated from Khara Khula and began roaming about the Irtysh, where he gradually subjugated the Kalmyk “small princes” [Pallas, 1776, p. 39].
12. During the war between Altyn Khan and Khara Khula (1630), the envoys of Altyn arrived precisely to Dalai Taishi to require, “... would not help the Yaungar Kalmak, would not give his people to help them” [Bogoyavlensky, 1939, p. 66–67].
29

Religion and fate of the Oirats
30 In late 1634 or early 1635, Sonam Chopel13 (Sumba-Khambo mentioned lama Garu Lotsawa) arrived to the Oirats with lamas, asking for help against Karma Kagyu school [Sumba, 1972, p. 60–61; Dhondup, 1984, p. 18]. According to Tibetan sources, they arrived to “the Dsungar and Urluk Mongol tribes” [Dhondup, 1984, p. 18], “to the Dzungars”14 [Sum-pa, 1969, p. 15]. We believe that they arrived to Khotogochin, who was presented with the title of Khungtaiji and the name Batur-Erdeni on behalf of the Dalai Lama V [Pallas, 1776, p. 39]. The idea of the Dzungars protecting religion turned out to be so strong, that even the Khoshut Gushi Khan, who later lead the Oirat army to Kukunor, was called Dzungarian15 in the source [Sum-pa, 1969, p. 12]. The visit of Tibetans demonstrated the unifying power of religion: in the conditions of consolidation processes, religion could be a sign of independence, contributing to the emergence of the state [Khazanov, 1994, p. 16]. It isn’t surprising that later these events were perceived as proof of appearance of the special Dzungar appanage.
13. A confidant of the Dalai Lama IV, who found his tulku Dalai Lama V in 1619.

14. “’ga’ ru lo tsa ba jo ‘un gwar phyogs su mngag”.

15. “Ju ‘un gwar gyi gu shrir rgyal po”.
31 The “Urluk Mongols”16 meant the Torguts of Mergen Temene. In other words, the Tibetan ambassadors arrived to visit the same Oirats, whom Tsagan Nomun Khan visited two decades earlier. In the autumn 1636, the Oirat army led by Gushi Khan and Batur Khungtaiji moved to Kukunor. The Elets, as “Defenders of the Doctrine” (meant Dzungars), rightfully occupied the left flank of the army in the battle with the Mongols of Tsogt Taiji [The Story of Kho Orluk, 2016, p. 27, 33–34].
16. The main Torgut leader was Kho-Urluk.
32 After this campaign, the word Dzungar was finally fixed for the Elets and became known as associated with the Geluk doctrine. According to the “Crystal Mirror”, a Mongolian source of the first third of the 19th c., “the Dzungarian chiefs were indeed worshippers of the Yellow faith and claimed that they were alms-givers of the teachings of the saint Bogdo-Tsonkhava [founder of the Yellow Hats]” [Jambadorji, 2005, p. 130]. Atwood mentions the Dzungar slogan: “We are the main almsgivers [i.e., lay patrons] of the Holy Tsong-kha-pa” [Atwood, 2004, p. 622]. The significance of the religious factor in the Dzungar name was confirmed by the special event: the first Oirat tulku appeared among this people – the reincarnation of famous Ensa-tulku of the Geluk school – Galdan, the son of Batur Khungtaiji. Galdan received the title “Boshogtu Khan” from the Dalai Lama for special services to Geluk [Wrapped in Excellent Silk, 2012, vol. 3, p. 136]. Meanwhile, significance of the name was crucial for these zealous Oirats17. Thus, the mentioned processes and events indicate the pro-religious basis of the term Dzungar. Choros Dzungars considered themselves “the left wing Defenders of the Doctrine” and appreciated this designation.
17. Galdan’s name repeated the name of the preferred Buddhist school – dga' ldan (Ganden, i.e Galdan), which during the Dalai Lama V became known as dge lugs.
33 During the events of 1636–1637 the Oirats had a right wing (Barungar), consisted of Mergen Temene Torguts, who stood on the right flank. Their Barungar name was actualized only for the period of that war and not preserved – unlike the Dzungars, whose name marked their important role in the fate of religion, became a feature of identity and therefore turned out to be a long-term name. The most of Torguts to that time had gone to the southern Russian regions, from where they had the special relations with Tibet.
34 Along with the term Dzungar (pro-religious polytonym) these Oirats retained the name of Elets (endoethnonym), which was more casual for contemporaries. Thus, the Dalai Lama V in his Autobiography didn't call Batur Khungtaiji as Dzungarian, but Oirat/Elet18 [Wrapped in Excellent Silk, 2012, vol. 1, p. 154, 350]. The Elets called their state as Four Oirats [Materials from “Qing True Records”, 1987, p. 153]. On the map of 1739 “Imperii Russii et Tatariae universae”19 the Dzungars are designated as Kalmaki Elevthi Singori Dsongari (Kalmyks Elets-Dzungars), the state itself called as Regn Cantaische Elevthor, i.e. as the power of the Elet Dzungar Khongtaiji. Other Oirats are shown as “Kalmaki Torgavti” (Kalmyks Torguts) and “Kalmaki Kokonor” (Kalmyks of Kukunor), i.e. they weren’t called “Elets”.
18. “o rod pa thur hung tha’i ji”. S. Ch. Das wrote that Eloth (Elet) is the same name as Orod (Oirat) [Das, 1984, p. 154].

19. David Rumsey Map Collection, Stanford Libraries.
35

Dzungars and Manchus
36 According to one of the versions, the ethnonym “Manchus” came into existence in connection with the cult of the Bodhisattva Manjushri (文殊 wénshū)20. The Manchus used Tibetan Buddhism as a means of self-identification and self-affirmation. The image of their ruler – Chakravartin, the incarnation of Manjushri, was reinforced by the union of “choi-yon”, according to which they became patrons, defenders of the Doctrine [Grupper, 1984, p. 72–73].
20. Other versions, including toponymic ones, are presented in the work of Wang Junzhong [Wang, 1997, p. 95–96].
37 The negative attitude of the Manchu court to the term Dzungar confirms our hypothesis about the religious connotations of this word: following the classical Chinese tradition, the Manchus rejected self-proclaimed names, especially if they were motivated by religion. So, a famous Manchurian official Somgotu21 thanked the Russian authorities around 1692, saying that when “the Kalmyk-Oluts [Eletes] ... came to ask for militaries, you, remembering the friendship started between us ... did not give them people” [RGADA 1, l, 30]. After the defeat of Galdan, the Emperor wrote to Dipa Sangye Gyatso: “You told my ambassadors about the Four Olets, portraying them as defenders of your faith and as your patrons. How do you expect me to stay calm while you are calling the Four Olets and asking them to help you?” [Jambadorji, 2005, p. 123].
21. Somotu (Somgotu, 1636–1703), Manchu, who signed the Nerchinsk Agreement of 1689 with Russia on behalf of the Kangxi Emperor.
38 The religious discourse of the “Dzungarian” name for Elets was used by the Manchus for their own purposes. In the diplomatic correspondence between Beijing and St. Petersburg Galdan Tseren Khungtaiji (1693?  – 1745), as well as his father Tsewang Rabtan Khungtaiji (1663–1727), were named in one document as Thomkars: “Thomkar Galdan Cheren, father and son, from generation to generation act badly, and interfere with all surrounding states”. All Dzungars are designated by the same word: “... an army has been sent to fight Thomkars... ”[AVPRI, p. 140]. Thomkar is derived from the Tibetan words ‘thom pa (among a number of meanings one can find – “drugged”), and dkar wa (white) – “thom dkar”: “drugged by white”, “fallen into white”. It was usually understood to mean either heretics or Muslims (who became Muslims)22. The accusation of the Dzungar leaders, that started with Galdan, of “leaving” for Islam23 was a deliberately constructed mechanism of opposition to the pro-Buddhist “Dzungarian” idea in 1616.
22. In Kalachakra Tantra texts, Tibetans call Muslims “la-lo” (“kla klo” – those who are “overshadowed”, from the Sanskrit “mleccha” (Tib. “mustegs pa”)), but the usual definition of Muslims is “white caps” (“mgo dkar”).

23. Denby wrote that Qianlong, having received information about the betrayal of Amursana, “ordered three Tatar generals, each of whom was subordinate to several myriads of troops, to move on the Muslims by separate roads” [Denby, 1891, p. 177]. Here under Muslims (Mohammedans) Qianlong meant the Dzungars.
39 After the defeat of Dzungaria, the Manchus banned the term Dzungar, and “approved” the previously used one – the Elets. This was done not only with the aim of destroying any memory of the defeated enemy, but also to assert Manchus patronage over the Geluk school. This idea was clearly traced back to the correspondence of Kangxi Emperor with Galdan: “In your letter [you] write that in [your] actions [you] are guided by the teachings of Tsongkhava... the Dalai Lama knows perfectly well that I defend the teaching of Tsongkhava... the Khalkha and the Oirats... say empty words about their adherence to the teaching of Tsongkhava and the principles of Dalai Lama, but secretly violate it...” [Martynov, 1987, p. 151–152].
40 The Manchu rulers of China did not have to solve the dilemma of whether – to consider themselves Chakravartins “Turning the Wheel of Teaching”, or the “Right Wing” of defenders, patrons of Buddhism – instead, they preferred another idea, which consisted in “the projection of themselves as the ultimate apotheosis of righteous rulers in the recurring cycles of history and myth” [Elverskog, 2008, p. 8]. Such a technique was not only traditional in Chinese political thought, but also was in line with Buddhist ideas. In this case the issue of political subordination was not emphasized, nor raised at all, but at the same time, it shows how the rulers of China imagined world order.
41

Conclusion

42 The term Dzungar according to the traditional version means “left hand/ left wing” in the sense of military-administrative division of the Elet Oirats. It is believed that this term could have originated in the period 15th – early 17th cs. Having studied the reasons why part of the Elets called themselves Dzungars, we came to the following conclusions. The appearance of the Dzungars is connected with Elets’ migrations that began in the end of the 15th c. and with the rise of the Choros clan. The Elets of Ash-Timur lineage (future Dzungars) were located separately from the Derbet group (first separated from Elets), near the Altai, gradually moving to the east, to western Mongolia. But the pressure of Altyn Khan forced the Oirats to migrate to the northwest from the upper banks of the Yenisey River.
43 Early Dzungarian trace remained in Russian sources. The documents of 1607–1609 mention the Tomsk embassies of “Black Kalmyks”, which correlated with these Elets. In 1616 during the visit of Lama Tsagan Nomun Khan to Oirats the Choros leaders Khara Khula and Khotogochin adopted the name Dzungars, defining themselves and their people as the left, the fighting wing of Buddhism defenders. Since 1623 they have been mentioned in Russian sources under the names Yeungars, Chungars, Zyungars etc. Later their role and connection with the Geluk became more known and determined their position during the Kokonor hostilities of 1636–1637. Choros leaders, like their ancestor Esen Taishi, perceived Buddhism not just as a religion of their people, but as a consolidating ideology of their future state. In this case, the mechanism of self-identification of the Dzungars and Manchus was very similar, which clarifies the nature of the confrontation between them. The consolidation of the Dzungars, backed by their pro-religious name (polytonim), created a precedent for the existence of two states in Central Asia – the Dzungar and the Manchu – who claimed to be patrons of Buddhist Geluk teaching and reunification of peoples. Thus, the word Dzungar appeared in 1616 and became consolidated in the first third of the 17th c. as a pro-religious ethnonym for remaining Elets in connection with the role of these Oirats as defenders of Geluk teaching.
44

Abbreviations
45 AVPRI – Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire.
46 MIRMO – Materials on the history of Russian-Mongolian relations.
47 RGADA – Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts.

References

1. Atwood Ch. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on File, 2004.

2. Avlyaev G.O. The origins of the Kalmyk people (the middle of 9th–first quarter of the 18th centuries). Elista: Kalmyk Book Publishing House, 2002. (In Russian)

3. AVPRI. Fund 62. Inv. 62/1. Case. 11. 1732. (In Russian)

4. Barthold V.V. An essay on the history of Semirechye. Verny, 1898. (In Russian)

5. Batyanova E.P. Clan and community of the Teleuts in the XIX – early XXI centuries. Moscow: Nauka, 2007. (In Russian)

6. Beckwith Ch.I. A Note on the Name and Identity of the Junghars. Mongolian Studies, 2007. Vol. 29. Pp. 41–45.

7. Bichurin N.Ya. Description of Dzhungaria and Eastern Turkestan in the Ancient and Present. St. Petersburg: Tipografija Karla Krajja, 1829. (In Russian)

8. Bogoyavlensky S.K. Materials on the history of the Kalmyks in the first half of the 19th century. Istoricheskie Zapiski. Moscow, 1939. No. 5. Pp. 48–102. (In Russian)

9. Brief history of the Oirat Mongols. Vol. 1. Ed. Hao Badai. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe, 1992. (In Chinese)

10. Crossley P.K. Making Mongols. Empire at the Margins: Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China. Ed. by Crossley P.K., Siu H. F., Sutton D.S. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Рp. 58–82.

11. Das S.Ch. Rise and Progress of Buddhism in Mongolia (Hor). Tibetan Studies. Calcutta, New-Delhi, 1984. Pp. 149–161.

12. Denby Ch.Jr. The Chinese Conquest of Songaria. Peking Oriental Society, 1891. Рp. 159–181.

13. Dhondup K. The Water-Horse and Other Years. A History of 17th and 18th Century Tibet. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1984.

14. Elverskog J. The Jewel Translucent Sutra. Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003.

15. Grupрer S.M. Manchu Patronage and Tibetan Buddhism during the First Half of the Ch‘ing Dynasty. Journal of Tibetan Studies, 1984. № 4. Pp. 47–74.

16. Gaban Sharab. The legend of the Oirats. Moonlight. Kalmyk historical and literary monuments. Elista: Kalmyk Book Publishing House, 2003. Pp. 84–107 (In Russian)

17. Jambadorji. Crystal mirror. History in the works of the Learned lamas. Moscow: KMK Scientific Publications, 2005. Pp. 62–154 (In Russian)

18. Jin Hai. Mongolian Chronicles of the Qing Dynasty. Hohhot: Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe, 2009. (In Chinese)

19. History of the Dörben-Oirats. Written monuments on the history of the Oirats 17th-18th centuries. Comp., transl. from old Mong., translit. and comment. V.P. Sanchirov. Elista: Publ. Dept. of KIGI RAS, 2016. Pp. 59–60 (In Russian)

20. Khazanov A. M. The Spread of World Religions in Medieval Nomadic Societies of the Eurasian Steppes. Nomadic Diplomacy, Destruction and Religion from the Pacific to the Adriatic. Ed. by M. Gervers and W. Schlepp. Toronto, 1994. Рp. 11–34.

21. Kitinov B.U. "Oirats-Ogeleds ... crossed the Mankan River": the ethno-religious situation at the Oirats in the middle of XV – the beginning of XVI centuries. RUDN Journal of World History. 2017. Vol. 9. No. 4. Pp. 370–382. (In Russian)

22. Martynov A.S. State and religions in the Far East. Buddizm i gosudarstvo na Dal'nem Vostoke. Ed. L.P. Deljusin. Moscow, 1987. (In Russian)

23. Materials from “Qing True Records” on the history of Dzungaria. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe, 1987. (In Chinese)

24. Miller G.F. History of Siberia. Vol. 1,2. M., 1937. (In Russian) [Миллер Г.Ф. История Сибири. Т. 1,2. М., 1937]

25. MIRMO. 1607-1636: Collection of documents. Comp. by L.M Gataullina, M.I. Golman, G.I. Slesarchukm. Ed. I.Ya. Zlatkin, N.V. Ustyugov. Moscow: GRVL, 1959. (In Russian)

26. Natsagdorj Sh., Ochir А. ‘Six Tümen’. The History of Mongolia. Vol. II. Part 3: Yuan and Late Medieval Period. Ed. D. Sneath, Ch. Kaplonski. Global Oriental, 2010. Pp. 521–526.

27. New History of Yuan. Clan Tables. Vol. 28, table 2 (In Chinese) https://cnkgraph.com/Book/KR7b0026_0028?key=%E5%85%80%E7%BD%97%E5%B8%A6#matchedKey0 (accessed 20.10.2022)

28. Okada H. Origins of the Dörben Oyirad. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. Neue Folge. Band 7. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987. Pp. 181–211.

29. Pallas P.S. Collection of historical materials on the Mongolian peoples. St. Petersburg, 1776. Vol. 1. (In German)

30. Potanin G.N. Essays of north-western Mongolia. Issue 4. Ethnographic materials. St. Petersburg: Tipografija V. Kirshbauma, 1883. (In Russian)

31. RGADA1. Fund 62. Inv. 1. Case 2. 1692. (In Russian)

32. RGADA2. Fund 113. Inv. 1. Case 1. 1595-1736. (In Russian)

33. Sanchirov V.P. Written monuments on the history of the Oirats 17th-18th centuries. Elista: Publ. Dept. of KIGI RAS, 2016.

34. Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho. Life of the Fifth Dalai lama. Vol. IV. Transl. by Zahiruddin Ahmad. New Delhi : International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, 1999.

35. Saγang Sečen. Erdeni-yin Tobči (Precious Summary) [A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662]. Canberra: Australian National University, 1990.

36. Serruys H. The Office of Tayisi in Mongolia in the fifteenth Century. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 1977. Vol. 37. № 2. December. Рp. 353–380.

37. Sneath D. The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and the Misrepresentation of Nomadic Inner Asia. Columbia University Press, 2007.

38. Sukhbaatar Na., Bayarsaikhan D. History of the Hoyts. Ulaanbaatar: Soyombo printing, 2016. (In Mongolian)

39. Sumba Khambo. The story of Kukunor called "Beautiful Notes from the Song of Brahma". Trans. from Tibet., introduction. and note by B.D. Dandaron. Moscow: Nauka, 1972. (In Russian)

40. Sum-pa mkhan-po Ye-shes dpal-’byor. The annals of Kokonor. Tranl. by Ho-Chin Yang. Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series. Vol. 106. Bloomington: Indiana University; The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1969.

41. Taupier R. The Oirad of the Early 17th Century: Statehood and Political Ideology. PhD diss. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 2014.

42. Terbish L. The History of Buddhism among the Oirats. Ulaanbaatar: Soyombo printing, 2008. (In Mongolian)

43. The Historical Atlas of China. Vol.7 (Yuan/Ming period). Ed. Tan Qixiang. Beijing: China Cartographic Publishing House, 1996 (In Chinese)

44. The story of Kho Orluk. Written monuments on the history of the Oirats 17th-18th centuries. Comp. Sanchirov V.P. Elista: Publ. Dept. of KIGI RAS, 2016. Pp. 24–35. (In Russian)

45. Tyumen Batur U. The legend of the Derben Oirats. Moonlight. Kalmyk historical and literary monuments. Elista: Kalmyk Book Publishing House, 2003. Pp. 37–47. (In Russian)

46. Uspensky V.L. Country of Kuke-Nor, or Qinghai, with the addition of a brief history of the Oirats and Mongols, after the expulsion of the latter from China, in connection with the history of Kuke-Nor. Zapiski Imperatorskogo Russkogo Geograficheskogo Obshhestva. 1880. Vol. 6. Pp. 59–196. (In Russian)

47. Vladimirtsov B.Ya. Works on the history and ethnography of the Mongolian peoples. Moscow: Vostochnaja literatura, 2002. (In Russian)

48. Wang Junzhong. The Origin of “Manzhou” and “Manjushri”, Leaders and Bodhisattvas in Tibetan religio-political concept. Collected papers of the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinic. Taipei, 1997. Is. 28. Pp. 93–132 (In Chinese)

49. Wrapped in excellent silk, the Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso. Vol. 1,3. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2012. (In Tibetan)

50. Zhang Mu, He Qiutao. Record on Mongolian nomad. Transl. from Chin. P.S. Popova. St.Petersburg: Parovaja skoropechatnja P.O. Jablonskago, 1895. (In Russian)

51. Zhao Erxun. Draft History of Qing. Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1927 (In Chinese) httpcn.com/html/book/CQPWAZXV/KOMEPWTBKO.shtml (accessed 20.10.2022)

52. Zheng Tianting. History of the Qing. Taipei: Zhishufang chuban jituan, 2003. (In Chinese)

53. Zlatkin I.Ya. The history of the Dzungar khanate: 1635–1758. 2-nd edition. Moscow: Nauka, 1983. (In Russian)

Comments

No posts found

Write a review

(additional_1.pdf) [Link]

Translate