An Analysis of Joči’s Debated Paternity and His Role in the Altan Uruġ Royal Lineage of Činggis Khan

Research objectives: This article discusses Joči’s military-political role and status in the Mongol Empire (Yeke Mongol Ulus), beginning in the early thirteenth century and within the intra-dynastic relations of Činggis Khan’s chief sons. In particular, the article seeks to answer questions about Joči’s birth. Discrepancies between the Secret History of the Mongols and other written sources cast doubt on whether Joči was even a legitimate son of Činggis Khan, let alone his eldest one. In addition, this article includes an analysis of Joči’s place within the family and the traditional legal system of the medieval Mongols based on the principles of majorat succession outlined in the Mongol Empire. It establishes evidence of his legitimacy within the Činggisid dynasty’s imperial lineage (altan uruġ) – a point of view supported by his military-political career, his pivotal role in the western campaigns, his leadership at the siege of Khwārazm, and the process of division of the ulus of Činggis Khan. Research materials: This article makes use of Russian, English, and Turkic (Kazakh, Tatar, etc.) translations of key primary sources including the Secret History of the Mongols and works of authors from the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries, including Al-Nasawī, Shіhāb al-Dīn al-Nuwayrī, ‘Alā’ al-Dīn ’Aṭā-Malik Juvāynī, Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī, Zhao Hong, Peng Daya, John of Plano Carpini, William of Rubruck, Jamāl al-Qarshī, Rashīd al-Dīn, Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Uluġbeg, Ötämiš Hājī, Lubsan Danzan, Abu’l-Ghāzī, and Saγang Sečen. New secondary works regarding Joči published by modern Kazakh, Russian, Tatar, American, French, Chinese, Korean and other scholars were also consulted. Results and novelty of the research: Taking into consideration certain economic and legal traits of the medieval Mongols, their traditional practices, military-political events, and longterm developments in the Mongol Empire’s history, descriptions of Joči being no more than a “Merkit bastard” are clearly not consistent. The persisting claims can be traced to doubts about Joči’s birth included in the Secret History of the Mongols, the first extensive written record of the medieval Mongols which had a great impact on the work of later historians, including modern scholars. Some researchers suspect this allegation may have been an indirect result of Möngke Khan inserting it into the Secret History. This article argues that the main motivation was Batu’s high military-political position and prestige in the Yeke Mongol Ulus. After Ögödei Khan’s death, sons and grandsons of Ögödei and Ča’adai made various attempts to erode Batu’s significant position in the altan uruġ by raising questions regarding his genealogical origin. This explains why doubts about Joči’s status in the imperial lineage appeared so widely following his death in an intra-dynastic propaganda struggle waged between the houses of Joči and Тolui and the opposing houses of Ča’adai and Ögödei’s sons. This conflict over the narrative was engendered by the struggle for supreme power in the Mongol Empire and the distribution of conquered lands and property.

Tibetan policy of the Mongols (1205–1235)

The article discusses the relationships of the Mongols with Tibet in the short period between the first Mongol campaign against the Tangut state of Western Xia (Xi Xia) in 1205 and the Great Kurultai of 1235 to resolve the issue of the intentions of the two first Mongol khans to subjugate Tibet. Tibetan and late Mongolian historiographies are full of reports about an invasion of Tibet by Genghis Khan himself and about his successfully implemented plans to annex this country, as well as about his adoption of Buddhism; however, this information is legendary. An analysis of the whole set of sources at our disposal as well as the experts’ opinions reveals the following. Most likely, during the lifetime of Genghis Khan and Ogedei, the Mongols had no plans to seize Tibet, and all reports concerning Mongol military operations in this country refer only to the border areas in Eastern Tibet, through which nomads encompassed the hostile states of Jin and later – Southern Song from the right flank. The results fully confirm the conclusions already made by some scholars: the vast, desolate, remote from trade routes and poor lands of Tibet were not of primary interest to the Mongols. Despite the decision taken in 1235 to conquer most of the countries known to the Mongols, the first reconnaissance recorded in the literature took place only in 1240, and the real inclusion of the “Land of Snows” into the Mongol Empire dates back even later.

The goals of the Mongol invaders according to European sources of the middle of the XIII century. Part 1

The middle of the XIII century - the apogee of power of the unified Mongol Empire. In 1241-1242, the first, bloodiest and most destructive Mongol invasion into Europe took place. Certainly, it was vital for the Europeans to find an answer to the question: what did the invaders want, what goals did they pursue? In this article, the author shows that, due to the abundance of contradictory information and the acute lack of an objective understanding of the new enemy at first, European political and ecclesiastical figures attributed many goals to the Mongols (at least eighteen!), of which only three were fully confirmed - an attack on Russia, Poland, and Hungary, and the rest were either not realized for some reason, or arose in minds of the Europeans themselves. All these goals, identified in various official and unofficial European sources, mainly dating from the middle of the XIII century, are discussed here taking into account information from synchronous Eastern sources. Despite well-known ideas of a world-building monarchy, perhaps actually hatched by the Mongol khans, events in Europe suggest that their main goal there was to punish the Hungarian king Bela IV, who refused to hand over the Polovtsians hiding in Hungary to the Mongols.

The goals of the Mongol invaders according to European sources of the middle of the XIII century. Part 2

The middle of the XIII century - the apogee of power of the unified Mongol Empire. In 1241-1242, the first, bloodiest and most destructive Mongol invasion into Europe took place. Certainly, it was vital for the Europeans to find an answer to the question: what did the invaders want, what goals did they pursue? In this article, the author shows that, due to the abundance of contradictory information and the acute lack of an objective understanding of the new enemy at first, European political and ecclesiastical figures attributed many goals to the Mongols (at least eighteen!), of which only three were fully confirmed - an attack on Russia, Poland, and Hungary, and the rest were either not realized for some reason, or arose in minds of the Europeans themselves. All these goals, identified in various official and unofficial European sources, mainly dating from the middle of the XIII century, are discussed here taking into account information from synchronous Eastern sources. Despite well-known ideas of a world-building monarchy, perhaps actually hatched by the Mongol khans, events in Europe suggest that their main goal there was to punish the Hungarian king Bela IV, who refused to hand over the Polovtsians hiding in Hungary to the Mongols.

Genomic Insights Into the Genetic Structure and Natural Selection of Mongolians

Mongolians dwell at the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, where is the agriculture and pasture interlaced area, practice pastoral subsistence strategies for generations, and have their own complex genetic formation history. There is evidence that the eastward expansion of Western Steppe herders transformed the lifestyle of post-Bronze Age Mongolia Plateau populations and brought gene flow into the gene pool of Eastern Eurasians. Here, we reported genome-wide data for 42 individuals from the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of North China. We observed that our studied Mongolians were structured into three distinct genetic clusters possessing different genetic affinity with previous studied Inner Mongolians and Mongols and various Eastern and Western Eurasian ancestries: two subgroups harbored dominant Eastern Eurasian ancestry from Neolithic millet farmers of Yellow River Basin; another subgroup derived Eastern Eurasian ancestry primarily from Neolithic hunter-gatherers of North Asia. Besides, three-way/four-way qpAdm admixture models revealed that both north and southern Western Eurasian ancestry related to the Western Steppe herders and Iranian farmers contributed to the genetic materials into modern Mongolians. ALDER-based admixture coefficient and haplotype-based GLOBETROTTER demonstrated that the former western ancestry detected in modern Mongolian could be recently traced back to a historic period in accordance with the historical record about the westward expansion of the Mongol empire. Furthermore, the natural selection analysis of Mongolians showed that the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) region underwent significantly positive selective sweeps. The functional genes, alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and lactase persistence (LCT), were not identified, while the higher/lower frequencies of derived mutations were strongly correlated with the genetic affinity to East Asian/Western Eurasian populations. Our attested complex population movement and admixture in the agriculture and pasture interlaced area played an important role in the formation of modern Mongolians.

Mapping Karakorum, the capital of the Mongol Empire

ABSTRACT In the thirteenth century AD, the city of Karakorum was founded as the capital of the Mongol Empire. Relatively little archaeological attention, however, has been directed at the site and the phenomenon of steppe urbanism. The authors report new magnetic and topographic surveys of the walled city and the surrounding landscape. The resulting maps reveal the city in unprecedented detail. Combining the magnetic and topographical data with aerial photographs, pedestrian surveys and documentary sources reveals the extent, layout and organisation of this extensive settlement. Road networks and areas of variable occupation density and types of activities deepen our understanding of this important commercial hub and royal palace, which is conceptualised as a form of ‘implanted’ urbanism.

The Role of Trade in Building the Mongol Empire

Perennial interest of the nomads in exchange and trade is known, but the transition from exchange to trade is not so well known. Exchange is a kind of barter, while trade entails traders and profits. Though both continued in war and peace, records are scarce for peacetime. Wartime activities are well documented and make it clear that once the transition from exchange to trade was accomplished, war and conquest facilitated the expansion of networks. Expansion, opening up new routes, and maintenance of the old were accomplished by conquest along these routes. The roads needed to be connected to provide safety, eliminate anxiety, and establish an environment of trust for commercial transactions. Muslim merchants were the active participants of these new commercial ventures, which had the protection of Chinggis Khan’s army of conquest. However, in building the empire, Chinggis Khan would first resort to a conciliatory attitude before taking any military measures. Trade and trade routes were the main arteries of the Mongol Empire. These networks were the agreement points among all contenders of power, merchants, warriors, and the commanding members of the ruling dynasty. It was this agreement on the importance of trade that secured the endurance of the empire.

BURYAT-YAKUT ETHNIC TIES: SALJIUT, QAŊGIN, SARTUL, ÖLÖD

Данная статья продолжает исследования этнической истории и этнических процессов, происходивших в пространстве Внутренней Азии. Комплексный сравнительно-сопоставительный анализ этнического состава тюркских и монгольских народов Сибири, с привлечением источников российского административного управления позволили подробно проанализировать родоплеменную структуру якутской и бурятской общностей. Исследование массива якутских и бурятских этнонимов позволили выделить четыре этнонима, на примере которых хорошо прослеживаются разностадиальные этнические связи Байкальского и Ленского регионов. Этнонимы отражают участие бурятского пласта в этногенезе якутов, на что указывает бурятская форма словообразования. В то же время через призму бурятского пласта в этногенезе якутов просматриваются более ранние связи предков якутов с населением Саянско-Хубсугульского региона — в монгольское время (салжиут). Выявленные в якутской среде этнонимы обнаруживают также и связи с ойратами. Лингвистическая реконструкция якутских этнонимов позволила установить участие в этногенезе якутов средневековых ойратской общности — өлөт. Косвенно выявляются также связи с другими регионами Монгольской империи — отражением этих средневековых связей, на наш взгляд, является присутствие в среде бурят этнонимов хангин и сартул, относительно которых предполагается, что это омонголенные кыпчаки и жители Средней Азии, влившиеся в ранне-бурятскую общность. Результаты исследования отражают сложность этнических процессов протекавших в среде монгольских и тюркских кочевников Евразии. Полученные данные способствуют уточнению этнического состава населения как Монголии, так и Бурятии и Якутии. This article continues the study of ethnic history and ethnic processes that took place in the space of Inner Asia. A comprehensive comparative analysis of the ethnic composition of the Turkic and Mongoliс peoples of Siberia, using sources of Russian administrative management, made it possible to analyze in detail the tribal structure of the Yakut and Buryat communities. The study of array of Yakut and Buryat ethnonyms made it possible to distinguish four ethnonyms, on the example of which one can clearly trace the difference between ethnic groups in the Baikal and Lensky regions. Ethnonyms reflect the participation of the Buryat stratum in the ethnogenesis of the Yakuts, as indicated by the Buryat form of word formation. At the same time, through the prism of the Buryat stratum in the ethnogenesis of the Yakuts, one can see earlier ties of the ancestors of the Yakuts with the population of the Sayan-Khubsugul region — in Mongolian time (salji'ut). Ethnonyms revealed in the Yakut environment also reveal ties with Oirats. The linguistic reconstruction of the Yakut ethnonyms made it possible to establish the participation in the ethnogenesis of the Yakuts medieval Oirat community — ölöt. Relations with other regions of the Mongol Empire are also indirectly revealed — a reflection of these medieval ties, in our opinion, is the presence in the environment of the Buryats of the ethnonym Qangin and Sartul, which is assumed that they are homogenous Kipchaks and population of Central Asia, who merged into the Early Buryat community. The results of the study reflect the complexity of the ethnic processes that took place among the Mongolian and Turkic nomads of Eurasia. The data obtained help to clarify the ethnic composition of the population of both Mongolia and Buryatia and Yakutia.