|
Origins
When writing Mongolian history, there are a number of points from which one could conceivably start. One could choose to track the intricacies of Inner Asian tribal structure, and proceed to give an exposition of the demographic, economic and political conditions that constituted the outer circumstances around the emergence of the Mongols. This has been done many times over, and the scientifically treated facts about the Mongols are reasonably well-known. For this reason I have chosen another angle from which to approach Mongolian history. Let it only be stated that new research has incontrovertibly demonstrated that earlier prejudiced notions of the Mongols as inferior barbarians have been so one-sided as to be wholly distorted. Especially noteworthy are the recent archaeological discoveries that have thrown light on the many-sided and complex interaction and interconnectedness between the Inner Asian nomads and the great state(s) of China. When speaking about the Mongols proper, we refer to the people that originated in the region around Lake Bajkal, somewhat north of present-day Mongolia. Since prehistoric times, the Bajkal area has been a center of cultural exchange and development, due to its complex and fertile ecosystems, and its resultant significance as a source of fish and game, and also to its situation at the borderline between the Siberian regions in the North and the Turkic steppe cultures in South. Added to this is the importance of the ancient Chinese cultures, with which the people in this area were ever in sustained contact through trade, with all its accompanying social and cultural interactivity, as well as warfare. It will be understood that the Mongols thus are a people that came in contact with and learned from diverse cultures and civilizations. The wide experience that resulted gave the Mongols the knowledge, perception and versatility to understand the characteristics of different peoples. Shamanistic beliefs, symbols and practices are very similar among all traditional nomad societies from Siberia and the Bajkal area to the Turkic areas in the South, bespeaking an intimate interaction of long standing, which is hardly surprising in view of the many similarities in habits and lifestyle between the nomad peoples in Central Asia. Chinese influence also was significant, and the elements described above together constitute the outer components of the Mongol nation. However, the Siberian element, that is the physical and spiritual realities and principles of the dark and cold areas of the Northern regions, stands out as the predominant one in the origin and creation of the Mongol phenomenon. This fact can be traced in the mythology, and let us never forget that mythology is the most important source of the self-understanding of any given people. We also know of some details in the construction of the framework of their felt tents, (the ger) and other equipment that point in the direction that the Mongols have their principal origins in ancient forest cultures on the Siberian Taiga. Here it is noteworthy that the Mongols as a unified people did not exist as a political reality until the advent of Chingis Khan. The singularly important role of this historical personality in the development of the Mongol phenomenon in all its facets is established beyond doubt. We are then led into an old bone of contention among historians: That of the ultimate role of "great" personalities in the unfoldment of history. This is an issue never to be resolved, suffice it to say here that even though one subscribes to the view that great personalities are great because they appear in the milieux wherein there is an optimal interaction between their abilities on the one hand, and on the other the socioeconomically predetermined course of historical events, which finds the individual in question the most suitable for a leading role, powerful individuals at any rate serve as the foremost exponents and symbols of the movements, groups, or states they are the leaders of. Hence, it would seem that by studying these prominent individuals and their origin one might arrive to an understanding of the phenomena in which they play a key role. There are sound reasons why the best point to start from is the only surviving genuinely Mongolian account of the events at the 1200’s, The Secret History of The Mongols, with the appropriate subtitle The Origin of Chingis Khan. This book, completed in the years following the death of Chingis Khan, relates the Mongolian ancestral myth as well as subsequent political events up to 1240 or 1241, when it is thought to have been completed. It is worthwhile to dwell a little with this work. Even if it was originally written in Mongolian, the version that has been preserved for posterity was its Chinese transcription, found in Peking under the name Yuan Ch'ao Pi Shih. The work was investigated and translated by scholars of many nations, and its content has been extensively compared to secondary sources. This research has convincingly established the authenticity of its content, so there is a general agreement that though some of the descriptions of events may show the influence of Chinese society and culture, the events themselves and their sequence are fully authentic. In this context it must not be forgotten that the Yuan Dynasty was Mongol, a fact which in addition to the effects of the long-standing contacts between the Chinese and the Mongol nations, would facilitate the writing of a truthful translation of Mongol history. Thus; the Secret History is indeed the Mongols' own. Finally, in 1956 Francis Woodman Cleaves of Harvard University rendered the world the great service to give the Secret History its English translation. In his own words: "The Secret History of The Mongols is not only the capital monument of thirteen-century Mongolian literature, but it is one of the great literary monuments of the world." source: http://www.coldsiberia.org/webdoc3.htm
 |
