Тезисы моего доклада:

Introduction

The Secret History of the Mongols is one of the most important texts containing information about Mongol history in the 12th and 13th centuries. The time and circumstances of its creation are still debated. The author of the text is also unknown.

Relationship Between the Texts

For a long time, a popular view, based on the colophon of the Secret History of the Mongols (SHM), was that the text was written down from the words of a narrator at a general Mongol kurultai. Therefore, scholars debated in which Year of the Rat this happened: 1228, 1240, 1252, and so on.

Today, it is clear that the idea that the whole text was created at one time is incorrect. Despite significant differences, the SHM contains some passages that are textually very close to similar accounts in Rashid al-Din’s Jami al-Tawarikh, the Shengwu Qinzheng Lu, and the Yuan Shi.

Christopher Atwood reconstructs the relationship between these texts as follows:

Unknown Mongolian Source

↓　　　　　　　　　　　　　　↓

The Secret History of the Mongols (SHM)
(1250s)

　　　　　　　　　Veritable Record of Chinggis Khan
　　　　　　　　　(1270s)

　　　　　　　　　　　　　↓

Jami al-Tawarikh　　Shengwu Qinzheng Lu　　Yuan Shi

Problems of Chronology and Historicity

Almost all scholars who have studied the content of the SHM agree that, alongside unique accounts of real events, the text also contains stories that clearly contradict other sources and describe events that simply could not have happened.

These contradictions are usually explained either by the work of the author of the SHM or by changes made by later copyists.

Christopher Atwood has shown that, in addition to chronological and factual errors, the SHM contains several connected storylines. On the one hand, these storylines contradict all other known sources. On the other hand, they have a clear political motivation connected with the situation in the 13th century.

The aim of this presentation is to show that one of these storylines concerns the life of Jochi and the history of his descendants.

The Battle of Dalan Baljut

To understand this problem, it is important to compare the description of the Battle of Dalan Baljut in the SHM with the accounts based on the Veritable Record of Chinggis Khan. This comparison helps us understand the methods used by the author of the SHM in creating his text.

According to the SHM, Jamukha’s army consisted of thirteen “camps” and numbered three tumens, or 30,000 men. Chinggis Khan also brought thirteen “camps,” which also formed three tumens.

The sources based on the Veritable Record of Chinggis Khan — Rashid al-Din, the Shengwu Qinzheng Lu, and the Yuan Shi — give a different version of these events. According to them, Temüjin won the battle.

These sources also help explain a strange coincidence in the SHM: both Temüjin and Jamukha are said to have had thirteen groups and three tumens. Other sources give a different picture. They state that Jamukha brought 30,000 men, while Temüjin had thirteen tribal units, or “camps.”

Rashid al-Din gives a detailed list of the leaders of these thirteen groups. This information was important for the imperial source, that is, the Veritable Record of Chinggis Khan, because it described the coalition that supported Temüjin before the battle. The composition of the Tayichi’ut who joined Jamukha was less important, so the source gives only the total number of Jamukha’s troops.

However, the author of the SHM combined the size of Jamukha’s army with the structure of Temüjin’s coalition. As a result, the original meaning was lost.

Apparently, the author wanted to present Jamukha as a much more important and powerful figure. For the subject of this presentation, the main point is that the author reworked the historical text available to him and created his own version of the event.

The Birth of Jochi