Джунгарское Ханство, которое было ханством: критика одной статьи Дзюнко Мияваки

Abstract

The paper analyzes the concept about the status and type of the Dzungar Khanate developed by the famous Orientalist, Junko Miyawaki-Okada. According to the scholar, the Dzungar Khanate never existed though she does acknowledge its status of a nomadic empire. The main supporting proof is the fact that its rulers (except for Galdan Boshugtu Khan) never received the title of ‘Khan’ from the Dalai Lama and instead used the title ‘Khong Tayiji’. On that ground, J. Miyawaki proposes to use her authorial term ‘Khong Tayiji Viceroyalty’ to denote the Dzungar Khanate. The Japanese researcher harshly criticizes ‘I. Zlatkin’s Russian school’ for the erroneous — in her opinion — use of the term ‘Dzungar Khanate’. The research concludes that J. Miyawaki’s concept is incorrect due to a number of factors, including as follows: First of all, the term ‘khanate’ is supposed to denote a specific type of nomadic state widespread in the Turco-Mongolian world, though in some cases the term may be borrowed by neighboring nomadic states or retained by ex-nomadic states that tend to or have adopted sedentary life. As for Oirat ethno-political nomadic alliances, only three of them existed long enough and, in our opinion, may be referred to as khanates: the Kalmyk (or Volga), Kokonor (or Khoshut) and Dzungar Khanates. Those possessed almost all properties of a state: an own territory and population, public nature of power and administrative apparatus, army, court, judicial legislation, tax system, one national language and script, full or partial sovereignty. Lack of such attributes as citizenship, coat of arms, anthem, etc. is insignificant — in view of the specific nature inherent to the steppe model of Oriental despotism. Secondly, by the 18th century the titles ‘Khan’ and ‘Khong Tayiji’ had experienced some certain evolution. Those were bestowed not only by the Dalai Lama but also by emperors of Russia and China. In case of Chinese emperors, bestowment of the title ‘Khan’ (like other titles designating princes of blood — qinwang, junwang, beile, beise, gung) was not accompanied by appropriation of any real power. That was only a title of honor. None of the Oirat communities headed by Noyons who had received from the Chinese the title ‘Khan’ — were ever classified as a ‘khanate’ since those had no even partial sovereignty. So, when it comes to the classification of a certain nomadic state one should pay attention not to the titles of its rulers but rather to the properties confirming its real position as a state, even if it is vassal by nature. Thirdly, the circumstances under which the title ‘Khong Tayiji’ was bestowed to Dzungar rulers should also be taken into consideration. In the 1630-1660s, the Dzungar ethno-political union followed the political trends directed by the Khoshuts, so the title ‘Khong Tayiji’ adopted by Batur and his son Senge simply identified their position as second-rank leaders of the Oirat world — after Gushi Nomyn Khan and Ochirtu Tsetsen Khan. After Galdan Khong Tayiji defeated Ochirtu Khan and became the leader of Northern Central Asia, he received the title of Boshogtu Khan. His successors could not hope to obtain the title ‘Khan’ due to the disfavor of the then ruler of Tibet and later that of Chinese emperors who took control over Dalai Lamas. This is actually the reason why rulers of Dzungaria started adopting the title ‘Khong Tayiji’ on their own which, over a century, merely became a tradition. Thus, the Dzungar Khanate was actually a khanate.