By the middle of the 17th century, as a result of the division and settlement of the Oirats, their nomads extended from the lower reaches of the Volga River in the west to the Great Wall of China and the foothills of Tibet in the southeast. The military and political activity of large Oirot ethno-political associations predetermined the appearance on the map of Eurasia of three nomadic state formations: the Dzungarian Khanate (1634-1758) in Dzungaria and Western Mongolia, the Khoshut Khanate (late 30s of XVII-1724) in Kukunor, and the Kalmyk Khanate (70-80 years of XVII-1771) in Russia. Lower Volga region. At this time, two major cultural and historical events took place in the inner life of the Oirats: the Dzungarian Congress of Mongol and Oirat ruling princes in 1640 and the creation in 1648 of the Oirat national script "todo bichig" ("clear writing") by the outstanding Oirat educator and religious figure Zayapandita (1599-1662). based on the Old Mongolian vertical script.
Key words: Mongols, Oirats, Kalmyk Khanate, laws of the "Great Code".
The congress adopted the code of Mongolian-Oirat laws "Great Code" (Oirat name "Ike tsaajin bichin"). A well-known researcher of the history of Mongolia, I. Ya. Zlatkin, wrote in his book about the Dzungarian Khanate: "It is not an exaggeration to say that these laws represent a first-class source that facilitates understanding of both the internal life of Mongolian society and its current foreign policy situation. They were based on a threefold goal: to regulate the internal relations of feudal lords and eliminate the possibility of internecine struggle; to ensure the unification of forces and mutual assistance in the fight against possible external dangers; to strengthen feudal orders and the power of khans and princes over the working people" (Zlatkin, 1964, p.173). This point of view needs some clarification at the present time. The main reason that prompted the Mongol Oirat princes to gather for a congress in 1640 was not "quite possible", but a real external danger.
In the first three decades of the 17th century, the threat of Manchurian aggression increased in eastern Mongolia. Scattered tribes of Tungus origin inhabiting the territory of Manchuria were the Jurchens (in the 17th century). they adopted the name Manchu) united at the end of the XVI century in a strong tribal alliance under the rule of the gifted commander and statesman Nurhaci (1599-1626). The small military-feudal state created by him from the very beginning of its existence began to pursue an aggressive policy against its closest neighbors: Ming China, the Kingdom of Korea and the principality of Southern Mongolia. Before conquering the vast Ming Empire, the Manchu rulers subjugated the principalities of Southern Mongolia one by one in the 1920s and 1930s, bribing some Mongol princes and suppressing the resistance of others by force of arms. The last nominal all - Mongol Khan, Ligan (1604-1634), who entered into an alliance with the Ming dynasty, was the main opponent of the Manchus among the Southern Mongolian feudal lords and continued to the end
page 101
fight for the independence of Mongolia. He died in 1634 in Kukunor, where he retreated with the remnants of his troops after being defeated in a general battle with the troops of the Manchu conquests.
After defeating Ligdan, the Manchu Khan Abahai (1626-1643) declared himself emperor in 1636 and adopted the new name of Qing for his dynasty. The dukes of Southern Mongolia who obeyed him, who came to congratulate him, presented him with the title of "all-Mongol Khan". Later, this allowed the Qing rulers to interfere in the internal affairs of the remaining independent principalities of Northern Mongolia (Khalkha): "In the hands of the last (Qins. - V. S.) was also a symbol of the power of the "all-Mongol khan", namely, the jasper seal of the emperors of the Mongol Yuan dynasty (1280 - 1368) that was passed down from generation to generation" (Ermachenko, 1974, p.68). Having established its dominance over the Southern (Inner) With Mongolia, they were preparing to take over the entire country. Next in line was northern or Outer Mongolia. Soviet researchers rightly noted that "the consolidation of Manchu domination in China was directly dependent on the complete elimination of Mongolia's political independence and its subordination to their power" [Russko-Mongolskie..., 1974, p.7].
The Oirats of Dzungaria, who had gained strength, were too far away and inaccessible for the Manchu conquerors at the time under consideration. Therefore, the Mongol princes, including the most influential and powerful feudal lords of Khalkha (Dzasagtu Khan, Tushetu Khan and Tsetsn Khan), seeing the obvious inability of the fragmented Mongol principalities to resist the onslaught of the centralized military feudal state of the Manchus alone, decided to ally with the Oirats. In response to the treacherous activities of the feudal nobility of Southern Mongolia, they decided to hold their own congress together with the Oirat rulers, forgetting for a while about the old feuds with the Oirats.
There are no detailed data on how the congress of Mongol and Oirat feudal lords was prepared and held. It is only known that the famous "Mongol-Oirat laws of 1640" "Great Code" (Kalmyk name "Yeke tsaajin bichig") were developed and approved at this congress. There is an erroneous opinion in the literature that the congress was convened on the initiative of the Dzungarian Batur-khuntaiji in his domain [Zlatkin, 1964, p. 172, 176-177; Istoriya..., 1967, p. 173; Ikh Tsaaz, 1981, p. 3]. In fact, the initiative to hold the congress came, as can be confidently assumed, from the rulers of the three largest khanates of Northern Mongolia. It is no coincidence that the names of two of them, Dzasagtu Khan Subudi and Tushetu Khan Gombodorji, are the first to appear in the list of participants of the Congress, placed in the preamble of the "Great Code" (Ikh Tsaaz, 1981, p.13). Instead of Tsetsen Khan Sholoy, two of his sons were present at the congress: Ergni-khuntaiji and Dalai-khuntaiji [Their Tsaaz, 1981, p.13]. It is obvious that the Khalkha rulers, fearing to spoil relations with the Manchu emperor, did not dare to hold the congress in their possessions, but held it on the territory of Dzungaria.
At present, it is firmly established that the venue of the congress was not located in the ulus of Batura-khuntaiji. Reliable confirmation of this is found in Russian sources, namely in the" article list " of M. Remezov's embassy to the Dzungars [Russko-Mongolskie..., 1974, pp. 203-206; Miyawaki, 1995, p. 288-260]. It so happened that the" Tobolsk boyar son "of the Lesser Remezov visited the Batur-khuntaiji domain at this time on the instructions of the government with a diplomatic mission and a" sovereign's salary". Having left Tobolsk on June 3, 1640 according to the Julian calendar (June 13, 1640 according to the Gregorian calendar), he went to the "salt Yamysh lake". He arrived here on July 27 (August 6), but did not find Batur-khuntaiji himself or other Taishis here. Then the Russian ambassador proceeded further, to the ulus to a certain "Kuletaisha", the "order man" of the Dzungarian ruler. The latter tried to detain him under a plausible pretext, but then, after holding him for several days, released him
page 102
and " I gave you guides until the end of the day." On September 24 (October 4), M. Remezov arrived in the ulus of the "big wife "(i.e., the eldest khanshi) - in the Isyut Kamen tract. Here, in the main headquarters, he was told, apparently to hide from him the true reason for the absence of Huntaiji in his possessions, that " Kontaisha is on a campaign against the Mughal." According to the ambassador, khuntaiji returned "to his uluses to the big wife from the Mughal lands in the evening in the night of Posno" only on October 10 (October 20), 1640.
This report of an eyewitness of the events undoubtedly proves that Batur-khuntaiji was at the congress outside of his possessions. Based on the testimony of this source, Japanese researcher Junko Miyawaki mistakenly believes that the congress "was convened by the Mongol ruler of Dzasagtu-Hanoi somewhere in Khalkha" (Miyawaki, 1995, p. 228).
In fact, the congress met at the beginning of September 1640 in the Ulan-Buraa tract on Tarbagatai in the domain of the influential Khoshut ruler Ochirtu-taiji, who was later granted the title Ochirtu Tsetsen Khan by the Dalai Lama (Dalai, 2006, p. 80; Their Tsaaz, 1981, p. 3). It was he who could have been visited by Mongol people. the princes are Genghisids, without detracting from their dignity, since only the Khoshut princes among the Oirats were considered by their origin to come from the" Golden Family " of the Borjigids. The congress brought together the ruling princes and large feudal lords of Khalkha, Dzungaria and Kukunor, as well as the Volga Kalmyks who settled in the steppes of the Northern Caspian region. Only representatives of the principality of Southern Mongolia, which was under the rule of the Manchu Khan, were absent from it.
According to the Oirat source "Biography of Zai-Pandita", at this chuulgan congress "Dzasagtu Khan and two Oirat taiji prevailed" [Norbo, 1999, p. 14], which means the ruler of the Dzungarian Khanate Batur-khuntaiji and Khoshut Ochirtu-taiji. The Oirat high priest Zaya-pandita, who returned to his homeland from Tibet in the autumn of 1639 and spent the winter in the Ochirtu-taiji nomad camp, did not participate in the congress. At that time, he was in the domain of the Mongol Dzasagtu Khan, fulfilling his missionary duties ("meeting the needs of those who have a [happy] fate "(i.e., representatives of the nobility) in the teachings of [Buddha]", as stated in his ("Biography") [Norbo, 1999, p. 43]. But other senior hierarchs of the Lamaist Church and personal representatives of the Dalai Lama in Mongolia and Dzungaria attended and actively participated in the congress. In the introductory part (preamble) of the "Great Code", the names of these three khutugt saints are mentioned, in whose presence it was adopted: Inzan-rimbochi, Akshobi Manjurshiri and Amuga-shidi (Manjushiri) [Their Caaz..., 1981, p. 13]. As the influence and power of the Lamaist Church grows, the high lamas begin to interfere more and more actively in the political life of Mongolian and Oirat society and in their relations with their neighbors.
Almost all Oirat ruling princes took part in the congress: the rulers of the Dzungarian Khanate Batur-khuntaiji with their son Tsetsen-taiji and younger brothers Chuukar and Mergen-Maichin; the darbetskiye rulers - the sons of the Dalai Batyr Daichin who died in 1637-Khoshuuchi and Tengeri-Toin and the brother of the late taishi Bb-Yelden; the Khoshut rulers Kundelen- Ubashi and Gushi Khan, as well as the leaders of the Khoshuts who remained in Dzungaria, the son of Baibagas-Batur Ochirtu-taiji. The Torguts were represented at the congress by the rulers of both Torgut groups: from the Volga Torguts - Taishi Ho-Urlyuk with his sons Shukur-Daichin and Yelden, and from the Torguts who remained in Dzungaria - Prince Tenes-Mergen-Temene, called Mergen-noyon in the preamble of the "Great Code". Some other lower-ranking Oirat rulers are also mentioned in the preamble [Ikh Tsaaz, 1981, p. 13].
The Dzungarian Congress was one of the most significant events in the political life of the Mongols and Oirats. It adopted the code of Mongol-Oirat laws "Great Code", which was to guide the Mongol peoples. Because the congress was held at the most critical time for the foreign policy situation.-
page 103
According to the text of the "Great Code", the question of how to restore internal unity and jointly resist the Manchu expansion was put at the forefront of the discussion.
The famous Mongolist N. N. Poppe, speaking about the significance of this historical document, called the first part of it "the first non-aggression pact in the history of not only the Mongols and Kalmyks, but in general the first in the history of the peoples of the whole world" (Poppe, 1966, p.61). If the aggressor attacked one of the Mongol or Oirat principalities, all the Mongols and Oirats had to unite and punish the violator of peace. All his property and cattle were subject to confiscation, with one half of the confiscated property to be given to the victims of the attack, and the other half to be divided equally between the Mongol and Oirat princes [[Tsaaz, 1981, p. 13-14; Golstunsky, 1880, p. 36; Zlatkin, 1964, p. 173-174]. In the event of an attack on a small border aimag or ulus, the guilty person was to be fined 100 shells( huyag), 100 camels and 1000 horses, as well as return everything he captured to the aggrieved party [Their Tsaaz, 1981, p. 13-14; Golstunsky, 1880, p. 36]. I. Ya. Zlatkin rightly explains the difference in sanctions for attacks on large and small property by saying that "in the first case, legislators saw the danger of a serious internecine war that could shake the country, and in the second - only a conflict of local significance [Zlatkin, 1964, p. 36]. 174].
Although the text of the" Code " does not directly mention the aggressor (Daisun) anywhere, there is no doubt that we are talking here about the Manchu conquerors who directly threatened the Khalkha principalities. To combat them, the entire population of Mongolia and Dzungaria had to participate equally. No one was exempt from this duty. In order to mobilize all forces, it was prescribed to apply severe punishments (death penalty, confiscation of property, fine) to all members of society, from the sovereign prince to the commoner, who evaded participation in military operations. Moreover, ordinary soldiers were threatened with severe penalties not only for not helping their princes who were in danger in battle, but also for smaller offenses, such as failure to report the appearance of the enemy, failure to appear at the headquarters of their prince on an alarm signal, or flight from the battlefield. The highest penalty for the ruling princes of the border regions, who, having received news of the attack on the Mongols and Oirats, did not oppose the enemy, was a huge fine of 100 shells, 100 camels and 1000 horses [Their Tsaaz, 1981, p.14; Golstunsky, 1881, p. 36].
The participants of the congress also tried to settle the internal relations between the Mongol and Oirat ruling princes and reach a political agreement. To do this, it was necessary to eliminate the Khalkha-Oirat contradictions and put an end to old disputes and mutual claims, which were fraught with the possibility of armed conflicts and internecine wars. Especially acute was the question of unauthorized migrations of serf Arats from their feudal lords. At the congress, an agreement was reached that the nomadic uluses of Barguts, Batuts and Khoits, which were located from 1618 to 1627, should be established. in Mongolia, to leave in the possession of the Mongols, and the ulus that were in the possession of the Oirats in the same period, to leave in the possession of the Oirats. All other Arat families, except those belonging to the listed uluses, should be returned to their former owners. For those princes who dared to shelter fugitives, a fine of 20 horses and 2 camels was imposed for each of them, and the detained defectors were supposed to be returned to the place from which they had fled. The question of the serf Arats of the Khalkha Tsogtu-taiji (died in 1637), who, fleeing from the troubles after the expulsion of their prince from Khalkha to Southern Mongolia, found refuge in the possessions of the Oirat rulers, was also resolved. The legislators agreed to leave them with their new owners [Ikh Tsaaz, 1981, p. 14; Golstunsky, 1880, p. 36].
The main part of the laws of the "Great Code" was aimed at codifying the norms of customary law in the interests of the feudal elite and legally
page 104
consolidate the feudal socio-economic relations that have developed among the Mongols and Oirats. Serfdom tendencies found their expression in them, which gives reason for researchers to "recognize the relevant sections of the Great Code of 1640 as having no less significance for the destinies of the working Mongols and Kalmyks than, for example, the Cathedral Code of 1649 for the destinies of the Russian peasantry" [Ocherki..., 1967, 98]. At the same time, it should be noted that the Oirat princes participating in the congress, anticipating further deterioration of the situation of the common people, tried to limit to some extent the complete arbitrariness of feudal lords in their ulus over ordinary members of society. Kalmyk historians Gaban Sharab and Batur-Ubashi Tyumen wrote about this [Kalmyk..., 1969, pp. 62-63, 145]. Here is what the Khoshut noyon Batur-Ubashi Tyumen reports on this occasion in its "History of the Durben-Oirats": "The princes of the Durben-Oirats, having gathered at the congress at which the "Code" was adopted, jointly discussed it and solemnly swore: "We will not sow discord by acting through the natural Mongols. People of the same race as us, even if they have become impoverished and become serfs (albat), we will not keep in service for menial work and give as a dowry for our daughters... We will not sow discord and give them [as property] to people of another kind-tribe... We will not shed their blood... Not only we, but also our descendants from year to generation, let us not do evil to each other " [Xosoud..., 1976, p. 385-386; Kalmyk..., 1969, p.32-33]. In the future, most princes forgot to think about keeping this oath, and only the Dalai Khuntaiji, the third son of the Khoshut Gushi Khan, and the ruler of the Volga Torguts Ayuka Khan, as the Khoshut noyon pointed out, were able to remain faithful to it.
The peaceful unification of the Dzungarian Congress of Mongol-Oirat Princes in 1640 fully corresponded to the national interests of both Mongol peoples. His decisions could become a solid foundation for strengthening the internal feudal order in the country and ensuring the political independence of Mongolia. However, this did not happen. From the mid-40s of the XVII century, civil strife began among the Noyons of Dzungaria. Territorial and dynastic disputes in both parts of Mongolia led to the breakdown of the agreements adopted at the congress. Behind-the-scenes activity of the Tsin also contributed to the rupture of allied relations. In the renewed conflicts between the Oirat and Mongol feudal lords, the latter increasingly turned to the Manchu Emperor for mediation, thereby increasing their dependence on him.
LITRATURE LIST
Russian-Mongolian relations, 1636-1654. Collection of documents, Moscow, 1974.
Далай Ч. Ойрад Монголии туух. Тэргуун боть. Hoerdach bot. Улаанбаатар, 2006.
Ermachenko I. S. Politika manchuskoi dinastii Qing v Yuzhnoi i Severnoi Mongol'i v XVII v. [Politics of the Manchu Qing Dynasty in Southern and Northern Mongolia in the 17th century].
History of the Dzungarian Khanate (1635-1758). Moscow, 1965.
History of the Mongolian People's Republic. 2nd ed., reprint. Moscow, 1967.
Their Tsaaz ("Great Code"). Monument of Mongolian Feudal Law of the 17th century, Moscow, 1981.
Golstunsky K. F. Mongol-Oirat laws of 1640 St. Petersburg, 1880.
Kalmyk historical and literary monuments in Russian translation. Elista, 1969.
Norbo Sh. Zaya-pandita (Materials for the biography). Elista, 1999.
Essays on the history of the Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Pre-October period, Moscow, 1967.
Poppe N. N. Rol ' Zaya-pandita v kul'turnoi istorii mongol'skikh narodov [The role of Zaya-pandita in the cultural history of the Mongolian peoples].
Miyawaki Junko. Internal Rivalries in the Four Oyirad Tribal Federation // Ethnohistorische Wege und Lehrjahre eines Philosophen: Festschrift für Lawrence Krader zum 75. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Lang, 1995.
Xošoud noyon Batur ubasi tümeni tuurbiqsan dörbön oyiradiyin tüüke (History of the Dörbön Oirats and the Khoshut noyon Batur Ubashi Tyumenya) / / Tod usgiin dursgaluud (Monuments of Oyrot writing). Улаанбаатар, 1976.
page 105
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2023-2025, LIBRARY.KG is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Kyrgyzstan |