Research objectives: Since the publication of S.A. Kozin’s translation of the 13th-century Mongolian work “The Secret History of the Mongols” (Mongol. “Mongol-un niγuča tobčiyan”, Chinese “Yuan-chao bi-shi”) into Russian in 1941, it has become customary in Russian science to date this source to 1240. The basis for this was the fact that the colophon of the “The Secret History of the Mongols” indicated that work on the manuscript was completed in the year of the mouse (kulkuna-il). The year of the mouse of the eastern solar calendar with a twelve-year zoological cycle falls on 1228, 1240, and then every 12 years. Since the final part of the work provides information about the reign of Ogedei Khan (1228–1241), but does not mention his death, many experts consider 1240 the year of the mouse as the year the manuscript was compiled. This date is not criticized in Russian literature, just as no other approaches to solving the issue have been proposed. At the same time, in foreign literature, other years of the mouse in a wide range from 1228 to 1324 are still considered as the date of the composition of the source. However, researchers have not come to a common opinion, the discussion on this scientific problem is not complete, and the study of the issue has not lost its scientific relevance. Research materials: Since the colophon indicates that work on the composition was completed at the Great Kurultai, the article examines information from sources about the Great Kurultais of the era of the unified Mongol Empire, as well as the dates of the manuscript’s composition proposed in the literature in European languages. Results and novelty of the research: As a result of the analysis of sources, the author comes to the conclusion that the year of the mouse indicated in the colophon should be identified with 1228 when, according to the same Secret History, the all-Mongolian Great Kurultai took place, at which, after the death of Genghis Khan (August 1227), the second great khan, Ogedei, was elected to the throne of the empire. Thus, he agrees with researchers who believe that the work was created in two stages: work on the main first part, dedicated to the biography of Genghis Khan, was completed in the year of the mouse 1228, and the second part, which provides information about the reign of Ogedei, was written later, probably after the death of the second khan. At the same time, the colophon of the main (first) part was preserved for the composite work, while the second part is not dated in the work itself.
Research objectives: This study seeks to reassess the events that occurred during the return phase of the Dasht-i Kıpchak campaign, led by Jebe Noyan and Subutai Ba’atur, with a particular focus on determining the circumstances of Jebe Noyan’s death. By critically analyzing historical sources, the research aims to reconstruct the sequence of events and evaluate competing hypotheses regarding his fate. Research materials: In addition to recent scholarly works that propose various hypotheses regarding the well-known Dasht-i Kıpchak campaign and the death of Jebe Noyan, this study primarily relies on Islamic and Chinese sources that provide information about these events. Results and novelty of the research: In recent years, various researchers have put forward new and differing claims regarding the death of Jebe Noyan. Notably, Stephen Pow argued that Jebe was killed at the onset of the Battle of Kalka by the Kipchaks and the Rus and that this fact was deliberately concealed by pro-Mongol sources. Subsequently, Ma Xiaolin and Qiu Zhirong, in a jointly authored article, suggested that Jebe was not killed but rather died of natural causes at the beginning of the Battle of Kalka, though the Kipchaks falsely claimed responsibility for his death. Both hypotheses are fundamentally based on Russian sources, which report that Mongol vanguard forces were defeated at the start of the battle and that their leader, referred to as “Gemya Beg,” was killed. On the other hand, Timokhin and Tishin, in their study, strongly opposed the notion that Jebe was killed, arguing that there is insufficient and unconvincing evidence to support Pow’s hypothesis. However, Timokhin and Tishin also asserted that Jebe was not killed during the Western campaign but instead survived and returned. In this article, the author reexamines primary sources in an attempt to reconstruct the Mongol ambush by the Volga Bulgars in the autumn of 1223. The study argues that Jebe Noyan was most likely killed during this ambush or may have died later as a result of wounds sustained during the attack. In particular, the biography of “Ismail” in the Yuanshi, which provides the most extensive account of Jebe’s life, suggests that the most plausible hypothesis is that Jebe died after the Battle of Kalka. This, in turn, directs attention to the next major event after Kalka – the Volga Bulgar ambush. The scale of this ambush, as reflected in historical sources, along with the narrative in Ibn al-Athir, suggests that Jebe’s death during his return journey may have been directly linked to this event.
The purpose of this study is to analyze domestic and foreign historiography on the issue of the objective transmission of information from sources about that part of the campaign of the Mongol detachment of Jebe and Subutai, which preceded the battle on the Kalka River in May of 1223 CE. An attempt is also made to reflect the fullness of research interests in this topic and fill in some gaps both in the reports of Russian and Eastern sources, as well as in the works of specialists. Materials and methods of research: The research materials are numerous studies by historians devoted to the raids of Jebe and Subutai in 1220–1224 CE. The data of these works are checked, corrected, and supplemented by the method of comparison with the available information of narratives. A comparative analysis of the sources themselves is carried out. The results and novelty of the study: The study substantiates the presence of an autonomous Mongolian detachment in a four-year campaign of a wheeled wagon train with family members, servants, and slaves, which allows for a deeper understanding of its tactics of warfare, presenting it not as a simple unit of armed horsemen, but as a complex living organism that simultaneously performed both military tasks (long-range and short-range reconnaissance, coordinated movement of individual army units, camp and security services), as well as everyday household tasks (caring for livestock, manufacturing and repairing weapons, transport, clothing, housing, etc.). The thesis of Taghachar’s tumen’s equal participation in this expedition is put into question. Calculations are made and the military statistical results of Jebe and Subutai’s campaign in Iran, Azerbaijan, and the Caucasus are formulated (capture of seven armies, receipt of seven tribute offers, looting of 12 cities, 10 field battles with only one defeat, five cases of mass losses, and two cases of their restoration). As far as possible, the chronology and geography of the campaign are clarified. The thesis about the increasing difficulties of the Mongols in the North Caucasus and Cumania is substantiated. Hypotheses are expressed about various topics: the reasons for the first appearance of the Mongols in Georgia, the famous report of Subutai to Genghis Khan on the war with the Kipchaks, deep strategic Mongolian reconnaissance to the Polovtsian Wall in Rus’, the reasons for the murder of the first Mongolian embassy, and the understanding of the term “Iron Mountains” found in Chinese sources.
Beginning in March 2005, the author has undertaken a genetic study of the paternal and maternal lineages of the Crimean Karaite population resident in the Crimea and abroad. Purposes of the study include finding out which populations are most related to Crimean Karaites and assessing their ethnic and geographic origins. The data set includes 25 Crimean Karaites who provided a total of 19 Y-chromosomal DNA (paternal) lineages and 14 mitochondrial DNA (maternal) lineages of vetted Crimean Karaite genealogical origin to test. A new high-resolution direct-to-consumer test called the Big Y-700, released by the American company FamilyTreeDNA in January 2019 as the latest iteration of the initial Big Y test that had been launched in November 2013, has revolutionized our understanding of human populations’ paternal lineages including their probable founding dates and their degrees of relatedness to one another. This is the first Karaite study to use high-resolution Y-DNA testing. The upgraded genetic results reported here show that Crimean Karaites are related within significant timeframes to other Karaite Jewish communities as well as to numerous Rabbinical Jewish communities, decisively disproving the hypothesis espoused by the Crimean Karaite gakham Seraya ben Mordekhai Shapshal that the Crimean Karaites are descended from the Turkic Khazars and not related to the Semitic Jews who originated in ancient Israel. Some Crimean Karaite lineages were found to be related to those of non-Jewish and non-Turkic populations from West Asia, the Caucasus, and Europe but none of their lineages originated in Central Asia, North Asia, or East Asia.
To reconstruct the features of the epistolary culture of the Tatar khanates – successors to the Golden Horde – based on a previously unknown document, and to introduce into scholarly circulation a unique letter from Crimean Khan Mengli Giray to Kazan Khan Muhammad Amin. Research materials: The study uses a copy of an original khan’s letter recorded in an Ottoman manuscript in Istanbul. The original document, dating from the early 16th century, is lost; the surviving copy dates from the late 16th century. The letter is written in four languages (Tatar, Ottoman, Arabic, and Persian). The research draws on the publication by Bedriye Sabit, through which Halil İnalcık and Zeki Velidi Togan gained access to the copy. Scientific novelty and results. This document has not yet been introduced into scholarly circulation. It is now presented to the academic community for the first time, accompanied by detailed explanatory notes. The study fills a gap in the source studies of Eastern European medieval history by demonstrating direct correspondence between khans, which has scarcely survived. The introduction of this new source confirms the existence of an epistolary tradition between the Crimean and Kazan khanates in the early 16th century. Despite the loss of the original, the late copy allows us to refine our understanding of diplomatic and cultural ties in the region.
