Descendants of eleudei: the problem of oirat-buryat ethnic contacts

In-depth studies into ethnic names of the Turkic and Mongol peoples expand our knowledge on the ethnic history of the Eurasian steppe belt. Using the example of the ethnonym oliot/eliot/eliut/ölöd/ööld/öölöd/ögeled/ ügeled/ögälät/öliyed, this study attempts to establish participation of one of the branches of the Oirat community (the Ölöts and, in a wider sense, Oirats) in ethnogenesis of the Yakuts and Buryats. The Ölöts played an important role in the ethnic history of the Oirats, especially in the early stages of the development of the Oirat community, since according to the generally accepted opinion of scholars, after the collapse of the Mongol Empire, they became the dominant group among the Oirats. Changes in the status of the ethnic names “Ölöt” and “Oirat” have been observed in different periods: at one time “Ölöt” was expanded to all Oirats, while at another time the Ölöts became a part of the Oirats. Such dynamics in the hierarchy of ethnic communities makes it necessary to clarify the events that led to these changes. Partial evidence is provided by written sources, although their information is inconsistent. In the studies of ethnogenesis and ethnic history, written sources are not always the key testimonies. This does not exclude their use with a certain degree of caution.

The history of the Oirats is covered in sufficient detail in the surviving chronicles. Unfortunately, the information of chronicles concerning the Ölöts is rather

scanty, since most of the authors (Batur-Ubashi Tümen, Gaban Sharab, etc.) belonged to other branches of the Oirats. In Á. Birtalan’s article (2002) on the ethnogenesis of the Ölöts, only two written sources are indicated, while evidence from oral folklore (genealogical traditions, legends) is almost completely absent from that study. Therefore, the source base needs to be expanded. This study will focus on the ethnic history of the Ölöts and geography of their settlement, in order to reconstruct the ethnic map of Inner Asia in various periods. The identity of the Ölöts is of particular interest.

Methodologically, this study is supported by historical-comparative and historical-linguistic methods used in research on ethnogenesis and in the study of ethnonyms and eponyms. The long period from the fall of the Yuan dynasty in the history of Northern Mongolia (including the Baikal region, Tuva, Khakassia, and Western Mongolia) is known as “dark”, because of the lack of written sources. The texts of the 18th–19th centuries, which have survived to this day, are compilations of non-extant works. The situation is aggravated by the loss of written traditions among the Western Buryats and Yakuts, who also incorporated the Ölöts. Despite the presence of the appropriate terminology, no books of that time have been found in their possession. To a certain extent, this gap can be filled by the rich oral folk tradition, which includes a wide range of epic works, as well as genealogical legends and narrations. The proposed hypothesis is based on the evidence recorded in the first half of the 18th century by Y.I. Lindenau (1983: 18) among the Vilyui Yakuts and in the late 19th century by M.N. Khangalov (1960: 107– 108) among the Qudai (Kuda) Buryats. The term “Ölöt” is mentioned in the Oirat chronicles.

Complex ethnic processes occurred in the history of the Oirats in the late period of the Yuan dynasty, the Ming period, and the times of the Manchu domination: voluntary and forced migrations, and mixing and division of the Oirat community. All this triggered the emergence of a multi-level system of the Oirat identity. At different stages of the development of the Oirat community, the ethnonym “Ölöt” united most of the Oirats and lost its relevance (for more details, see (Terentiev, 2017)). This justifies the interest in the ethnic history of the Ölöts. An important task is to study their role in the ethnogenesis of the Buryats, who inhabited the northern periphery of the Mongolian world.

Dispersed settlement of the Ölöts (along the Ili, Qarashar, Alashan, Kobdo, and Hailar Rivers) was due to a number of reasons: conflicts with other peoples, strife among the nobility, and forced migration in the Qing period. According to G. Lijee (2008: 12–14), they were one of the groups of the Mongolian population of Xinjiang, and amounted to twenty-one sum units. At the present, we know groups of the Ölöts such as the Kobdo (Erdenebüren sum) and Arkhangai (Khotont and Ölziit sums) in Mongolia (Disan, 2012: 107); the Mongol-khure, Emel, Khutagtyn-khure, and Khara-us (Xinjiang) (Lijee, 2008: 12–14), as well as Hulunbuir (Hulunbuir Aimag of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region) in China (Tsybenov, 2017); and the Sart-Kalmaks in Kyrgyzstan (see (Nanzatov, Sodnompilova, 2012)). In addition, small groups of Ölöts widely appear almost throughout the entire territory of Mongolia (for more details, see (Ochir, Disan, 1999: 11–13)); and they are present among the Tuvinians, including the Oyunnars and Khomushku (Dulov, 1956: 130, 134). Among the Darkhats, they were noted by G.D. Sanzheev (1930: 12). Among the Western Buryats, the Ölöts, also known as Segenuts, along with the Bulagats and Ekhirits, comprise one of the oldest tribal associations. They include such units as the Ikinat and Zungar (Khangalov, 1890a: 88; 1960: 107–108).

Written sources

According to a version of the ethnic history of the Oirats, the Ölöts are the ancestors of the Choros on their maternal side. Oolinda Budun-Tayishi, the daughter of the Ölöt Boo-Khan, married a Khoyd prince and originated the Choros clan (Okada Hidehiro, 1987: 210). According to the written sources, the ethnonym “Ölöt” became known only at the turn of the 15th–16th centuries. For example, one of the sources narrates of the separation of the subjects of Khamag-Taishi (grandson of Esen-Khan) from the community of the Choros ( čoros ), which was larger at the time; they had the ethnonym ügeled / ööld (Oyirad teüke-yin…, 1992: 9). The “Tale on the Dörben Oyirad” says that “three hundred eighty-two years have passed since the time when the Kalmyks wearing a red thread on their hats ( ulan zalatu xalimaq ) received the nickname ‘Oyirads-Elyots’ ( oyirad ӧyilӧd ) until this year of the ‘earthhare’” (Pozdneev, 1907: 24; Skazaniye…, 1969: 17–18; Sanchirov, 2016: 21). According to the calculations of V.P. Sanchirov, this event occurred in 1438, when the Oirat ruler Togon-Taishi from the noble family of Choros (Tsoros) utterly defeated the Eastern Mongolian Supreme Khan Adai and became the head of the first union of the Dörben-Oirats (Pismenniye pamyatniki…, 2016: 21).

The text of Batur-Ubashi Tümen (2003: 127) informs us about migration of the Ölöts to the Kizilbash; migration beyond the Mankhan River is mentioned in the “History of Khoo-Orlug” (Pismenniye pamyatniki…, 2016: 31). B.U. Kitinov (2017) researched the migration of the Ölöts to the west in the context of the religious situation among the Oirats in the 15th–early 16th centuries. In his opinion, the reason for desintegration of the Ölöt community was the marriage of Ash-Temur (Amasanj-Tayishi) and the daughter of the ruler of Moghulistan; its main condition was the adoption of Islam by their children. Subsequently, a conflict started between father and his sons Ibrahim

(№ Ь$И Yibolayin) and Ilyas ( ^^® Yilasi)* caused by their religious differences. Owing to the conflict, first Amasanj-Tayishi went to Moghulistan (but subsequently returned), and later his sons did. According to “Tarikh-i Rashidi”, all this occurred from 1469 to 1504–1505 (Serruys, 1977: 375; Khaidar, 1996: 115), and according to V.V. Bartold, in 1472 (1898: 81–82). Kitinov (2017: 378) believes that the events following the marriage of Ash-Temur (Amasanj-Taishi, Esmet-Darkhan-Noyon) led to the destruction of the majority of the Ölöts and their ruling clan Choros.

In the first half of the 18th century, most of the Ölöts settled in the Dzungar Khanate. After its fall in 1757– 1758, important changes occurred (for more details, see (Ochirov, 2010)). At the final stage of the history of the Dzungar Khanate, the notion of the “Dzungars ( jǖnγar / züüngar )” included the entire Oirat population. This is confirmed by the presence among the Kalmyk Zyungars of large independent units such as the Torguts, Khoyds, Uryankhuses, and Telengits (Mitirov, 1998: 142; Shantaev, 2009: 142; Bakaeva, 2016: 87). However, after the fall of Dzungaria, the ethnonym “Dzungar ( dsungar / jüünγar / züüngar )” was officially banned, and the ethnonym “ölöt ( eleuths / öölöd )” became the official name for most of its Oirat-Mongol population (Fang Chao Ying, 1943: 11). Thus, in the Qing period, the Züngars began to be called “Ölöts”, as before. At the same time, Torguts, Khoshuts, Derbets, Chakhars, Uriankhai, and Zakhchins were officially recorded in Xinjiang (Dzungaria and Eastern Turkestan) (Lijee, 2008: 8–18). Consequently, the population there of the Ölöt khoshun and sum units was composed of closely related Ölöts and Zungars, while other groups of Oirats lived separately. The fact that the Ölöts began to be called the Dzungars from 1437 is mentioned in the essay “The History of Kho-Urlyuk”: “… ɣool dumda ni Qošud čerig, ǰegün bey-e-dü Ögeled-ün čerig-i ǰegün ɣar-un čerig geǰü nereyidbei… Tegün-eče ekileged, Ögeled-tü J^̌egünɣar gedeg nere šinggebei, Torɣud-tu baraɣun ɣar gedeg ner-e qadaɣdabai gedeg ” (Pismenniye pamyatniki…, 2016: 27), which translates as “…the army of the Khoshuts was in the center; the army of the Ölöts, which was called züüngaryn tsereg (‘the army of the left wing’), was on the left flank ( züün biide )… They say that since that time the name ‘dzungars’ ( züün γar ) has been attached to the Ölöts, and the name of baruun γar (‘right flank’) – to the Torguts” (Ibid.: 33–34). Another example of how the ethnonyms “Oirat” and “Ölöt” were related, is the Oirat written source “Iletkhel Shastir”, where these names are interchangeable (Sanchirov, 1990: 45–46).

The history of the Ölöts, who remained in Outer Mongolia, is described in detail by O. Oyunzhargal (2009, 2015) in a monograph that was later published in Russian translation. After analyzing the events leading to the emergence of the Ölöt Chuulgan (League) on the basis of the “Iletkhel Shastir” and archival sources, Oyunzhargal (2009: 53–74; 2015: 63–83) came to the conclusion that the Ölöt Chuulgan (League) included six khoshuns (‘banners’), including those of the Ölöts, Khoyds, and Khoshuts. However, there is another opinion on the issue of the ethnic composition of the Ölöt League. Instead of the Khoshut khoshun, Ts.B. Natsagdorj (2015a: 183; 2015b) indicated the Torgut Mergen Tsorji. In any case, the Ölöts, whose name was given to the Chuulgan, were the most numerous.

The evidence from the written sources presented above, which reflects the stages in the development of the early Ölöt community, is still controversial. Notably, considering the objectives of the present study, the problem of the relationship between the Choros and Ölöts is not crucial. Studying the complex settlement of several enclaves of the divided Ölöt community is of interest in terms of participation of one of its branches in the consolidation of the Bargu-Buryats.

Evidence and discussion

Ethnonym. As Okada Hidehiro observed, the Manchus used Ȫlöd , transcribed in Manchurian as Ūlet , as a synonym for Oyirad . The term Ȫlöd was chineseized as E-lu-t’e , from which the European version of Eleuths is derived (Okada Hidehiro, 1987: 197). Notably, the Manchu called the Oirats “Urut” (Crossley, 2006: 80).

The presence of the Ölöt League in the Qing Empire before the conquest of Dzungaria makes it possible to solve the problem of correlating the terms oirat / oyirad and oliot / ȫlöd in the Qing period. In our opinion, the latter term replaced the concept of “oirat” in the eyes of the Manchu administration in connection with the formation of the first Oirat Chuulgan within the Empire. The League, named after the largest Oirat unit, became the starting point for identification of the entire Western Mongolian population.

One of the first European written sources about the Oirats was the book by I. Bichurin, published in 1834, indicating the discrepancy in the ethnonym: “Prince Eliutei was so famous in Mongolia that the name Elyut was given by his name to his entire generation. According to the Chinese pronunciation, the word Eliutei is Olotai; according to the Mongolian pronunciation, one should write Eliutei, and from this Eliut, the name of the generation” (Bichurin, 1834: N. 20). It is possible that this statement was based on a phrase from the manuscript by V.M. Bakunin (1995: 20), published much later: “But this is certain that in the 16th century, the Kalmyk people were called ‘oirot’ in their language and ‘oiliot’ in the Mongolian language”. As an official and translator from the Kalmyk language, Bakunin (1700–1766) accompanied the Chinese embassy to the Kalmyks in 1731. Precisely this event could have influenced the perception of the exoethnonym Oyirad as Ȫlöd. For a long time, there was no unambiguous position on this issue in Mongolian Studies, and some scholars believed that the Chinese 厄鲁特 (O-lu-te/Èlǔtè) is a distorted oirot/Oyirad (Uspensky, 1880: 127; Bretschneider, 1888: 168).

The seeming phonetic affinity of the ethnonyms Z## (Weilate) - ‘oirat’, and Ж## (Elute) - ‘olot’ in the Chinese language of the Qing period seems to be a difficult problem. The presence of hieroglyphic terms denoting the Oirats ( 斡 亦 剌 惕 (Wòyìlátì) in the Yuan period (Yuan-chao^, 1936:58) and ^^ (Wala) (M^ngsЫ (s.a.); Pokotilov, 1893: 32; Hambis, 1969: 93; Pelliot, 1960: 6) / ^## ( S Ш ) (Weilate) in the Ming period (Mrngshi (si ku quanshu ben), (s.a.); Pelliot, 1960: 8)) on the one hand, and absence of such hieroglyphic terms for the concept of “olot” on the other hand, makes it possible to assume that Chinese historiographers transmitted the latter concept at that time by the term oirot / oyirad , the spelling of which was changed in the course of phonetical development of the Chinese language. We agree with the opinion of P.K. Crossley (2006: 80–81) that it is impossible to consider olot / ölöt as a reverse construction of the Chinese elete / weilete .

The question on the etymology of the ethnonym Öölöd remains important for our discussion. There is a hypothesis of the Chinese scholar Altanorgil (1987: 145) about its origin from ööliy (‘large, powerful’). A. Ochir believed that this ethnonym went back to the root öge, citing the examples of names from “The Secret History of the Mongols”: Oge-lun (eke), Oge-lei (cerbi), Oge-dei (qayan) (Kuribayashi, Choijinjab, 2001: § 13, 55, 93,191, 214, 226, 255, 270). Further, he proposed to connect the development of ögeled in elēd with the meaning “ikh, uugan, naszhuu” (‘big, senior, tall, elderly’), allowing for a possibility of öleged >  eleged (Ochir, 2008: 150–151; 2016: 148). However, this contradicts the hypothesis on the root öge, since the transition VgVlV > VlVgV has not been observed. G.O. Avlyaev connected the ethnonym “Ölöt” with the verb ogulekü ( ööleχü ) – ‘to be offended, to be dissatisfied with something’. Accordingly, he believed that the ethnonym had the meaning of ‘offended’, ‘aggrieved’, or ‘dissatisfied’ (Avlyaev, 2002: 55, 192, 194).

In our opinion, the most reliable hypothesis was proposed by Japanese scholars, who suggested that the ethnonym Öölöd originated from ögelen with the meaning ‘maternal brother, but from another father’ (Haneda Akira, 1971: 561–565; Okada Hidehiro, 1987: 210). In the Mongol-French Dictionary by A. de Smedt and A. Mostaert, Haneda Akira discovered the combinations ögelen köbegün – “fils d’un autre lit” (‘stepson’), ōlön aχa dū / ula aĢa diū – “frères nés de la même mère, mais de pères différents” (‘brothers born of one mother, but from different fathers, half-brothers’), ula k’adzi diü – “soeurs nées de la même mère, mais de différents pères” (‘sisters born of the same mother, but from different fathers, halfsisters’) (Smedt, Mostaert, 1933: 469; Haneda Akira, 1971: 562). Okada Hidehiro expanded the argumentation and used another work by A. Mostaert, where several phrases with Ogelen/Olo were mentioned: did к’гй - “fils d’un autre lit” (= dɑɡ͔ ɑwu͔ rk’ɯ̅ ) / ögelen köü – ‘stepson’, ȫlȫ k‘ɯ̅ ‘kχet – “enfants d’un autre lit” (=dɑɡ͔ ɑwu͔ rk‘ɯ̅ ‘kχet) / ögelen keüked – ‘stepchildren’, ȫlön e‘tš‘ige – “le second mari de la mere” (‘the second husband of the mother’) / ögelen ečige or qoyitu ögele – ‘stepfather’ (Mostaert, 1942: 531; Okada Hidehiro, 1987: 210). In addition, he suggested understanding the term ögele(n)+d as kinship of the Khoyds and Baatuts with the Choroses. One of the confirmations of the hypothesis proposed by Japanese scholars is the text “Oyirad teüke-yin durasqal-ud”, which directly says that the three princes, great-grandsons of the Oirat Esen-Taishi, the sons of his grandson Khamag-Taishi, were called the Ölöts: “…the second son of Esen is Ongotsa; his son is Khamag-Taishi. Out of the three sons of Khamag-Taishi, the eldest is Ragnanchinsang; the second is Nuskhanai, and the third is Onggoi (Ongui). These three princes are called Elots. Taking charge of the Oirats, they migrated away at the instigation of Shara Shulma…” (1992: 9; Pismenniye pamyatniki…, 2016: 195–196). The problem of the relationship of the root stem ögele(n) in Mongolian languages with ög, oq, or another stem in Turkic or other languages has not yet been resolved and is the subject of a separate study.

Eponym . The solution to the problem of the origin of the Ölöts in Mongolian historiography is usually limited to a search among forest tribes and indicating their being mentioned among the Dörben-Oirats, for example, in Batur-Ubashi Tümen and Gaban Sharab (Skazaniye…, 1969: 19; Batur-Ubashi Tümen, 2003: 127; Gaban Sharab, 2003: 84). Unfortunately, neither “The Secret History of the Mongols” (Mongyol-un niyuca tobciyan), nor the Collection of Chronicles by Rashid ad-Din (Jami al-TawarTkh), mention the ethnonym OlodIOyilodIOgeled . The absence of the term in such important written sources makes it possible to admit that the Ölöts might have settled together with the Dörben-Oirats within the Sekiz-Mören and Barqujin-töküm, known from the same sources (Kozin, 1941; Pelliot, 1949; Rashid ad-Din, 1952; The Secret History…, 2004).

Unfortunately, scholars have overlooked one of the most important sources of ethnogenesis—oral ethnogonic legends and traditions. The legendary ethnic genealogy of the Buryats is associated with the history of Barqujin-töküm. In the 19th century, Khangalov (1890b) recorded and published the legend about Bargu Bator. The fragment about his eldest son is quite remarkable: “According to the Qudai legend, the ancestor of the Buryats was Barga-batur, who lived near Tobolsk and had three sons; the eldest had the name Iliuder-Turgen; the middle son was

In our opinion, there is a parallel with the Buryat eponym Oboyon in the case of the eponym Omogon in Lindenau and Omoyoi in oral traditions (a Buryat who came to the Tuimaada Valley in the Middle Lena region) (Ibid.; Ksenofontov, 1977: 29). According to the legend, the Bulagat group of tribes known as the Obogoni Olon, which descended from an ancestor with the same name, indeed settled in the valley of the Angara and its tributaries, the Osa, Obusa, and Unga Rivers. This means that in the case of Omogon, a real tribal group can be identified (Nanzatov, 2017a, b). By the same token, it is very likely that the tribe Olod, represented by the eponym Eldei/Eldeei, the phonetic form of which corresponds to one of the stages of development Öölödei > Elüdei > Ilüder(-Türgen), participated in the ethnogenesis of the Yakuts. The form Ellei, used by the majority of the Yakuts, reflects the widespread process ll < ld (for more details, see (Grammatika…, 1982: 67)).

The origin of the ethnonym segenut (Buryat Segeenüüd / segeened ) from segeen ‘light blue, light’ has been suggested (Nanzatov, 2005: 55) (cf.: Oirat cegen , Khalkh. cegeen , Buryat segeen , Ordos čigên , Kalmyk cegε:n ‘light, bright, transparent, white’. Mongolian > Yakutian (Kaluzynski, 1995: 258-259)). D.V. Tsybikdorzhiev connects it with the ethnonyms “cingnut (cingnut)” and “chike”, mentioned in the Khori chronicle of the 19th century by S.-N. Khobituev and “Altan Tobchi” by Mergen Gegen (Buryaadai…, 1992: 95; Baldanzhapov, 1970: 141; Tsybikdorzhiev, 2012: 140–143), respectively.

Conclusions

The discovered parallels between the Buryat Ölöt-Segenuts and the Oirats, Mongolian Ölöts, and Buryats testify to deep Oirat-Buryat ties. The main conclusion of our research is that the Oirats took an active part in the ethnogenesis of the Buryats. The Oirat stratum, reflected in Buryat ethnogonic legends, represents the older branch of the early Bargu-Buryat community. A group which had a significant impact on ethnogenesis of the Yakuts separated from it. The Oirats who left for the north, have lost their ethnic name, but retained the eponym thus leaving a trace of their presence. Thus, the traditional theory on the southern origin (Cis-Baikal region) of the ancestors of the Sakha (Yakuts), discussed in detail by G.V. Ksenofontov (1937; 1977), who took the first steps in discovering Buryat-Yakut parallels, and supported by A.P. Okladnikov (1955), has received new confirmation.

Participation of the Oirats in the ethnogenesis of the Buryats and Yakuts expands our view on the problem of interaction between the Turkic and Mongolian peoples. The revealed evidence can be used for compiling maps of the ethnic composition of Mongolia, Buryatia, and Yakutia. The ethnic history of the Ölöts, who were divided, became a part of other peoples, yet retained their identity and took key positions in the ethnogonic legends of not only the Dörben-Oirats, but also the Buryats and Yakuts, reflects complex ethnic processes among the Mongolian and Turkic nomads of Eurasia.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Government of the Russian Federation (Agreement on providing grants in the form of subsidies from the federal budget No. 075-15-2019-1879). “From Paleogenetics to Cultural Anthropology: Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Studies of Traditions of Peoples from CrossBorder Regions: Migrations, Cross-Cultural Interactions, and Worldviews”.