11. Personal identity, Part II: The body theory and the personality theory

Capturing Chinggis Qahan in the Secret History of Mongols

April 22th, 2010

Capturing Chinggis Qahan in the Secret History of Mongols

Considering writing a historiographical essay on the Mongols, it is hard not to decide writing about Chinggis Qahan, a controversial figure for both his opponents and his fans. Chinggis Qahan, the founder of the Mongol Empire, is the first name that comes to one’s mind when mentioning the Mongols. Chinggis is usually depicted as a brutal savage warrior and a firm tough leader. However, we do not really know if this image of him is the factual one or just a fictional version that historians made. This problematic issue requires looking closely at the most significant and most noteworthy sources that depicted him and evaluating those sources afterwards.

Since The Secret History of Mongols is the only surviving source from the 14th century written about the Mongols by Mongols, it is worthwhile to start with it in order to set a foundational background to this historiography. According to Urgunge Onon, a translator and editor of The Secret History of the Mongols, the purpose of the History was to record the everyday private lives of Borjigin clan members, and especially of Chinggis Qahan (Onon 25). In fact, it was a sort of diary of the Mongol court since it did cover great events of the day. Mongols collected The History in order to teach descendents of Chinggis Qahan how to secure the empire and how to maintain its strength (Onon 25).

According to Onon, the History was written in at least two stages; the first stage (1227-1228) and the second stage (Lasted until 1258 or later). During the first stage, sections 1-268 and section 282 were written. Section 1-58 covered Chinggis Qahan’s ancestors, sections 59-268 covered the life of the great Qahan, and section 282 constituted the colophon. During the second stage, the sections between 268 and 282 were completed. This stage was during the reigns of four great Qahans: Chinggis, Ogodei, Guyuk and Mongke. Onon thinks that the revision of the original text during that stage was due to “some political reason” (Onon 24).

The History was not rediscovered until the early 1800s by a Russian diplomat in china (Pocha) , since a copy of the History reached China between 1368 and 1382 (Onon 24-25). The Mongols kept all of their original documents in hidden locations, the thing they did with the graves of their great leaders too. Thus, they kept the original text of the History in Mongolia while they were in power in china. (Onon 24-25). In 1382 during the Ming Dynasty, while completing the Sino-Barbarian Glossaries in China, The Mongol scholar Go’a Uqan-qee of Gorlos and the Uighur scholar Masha-Yi-hei Mahamad used the History as a reference. (Onon 25) .In fact, between 1368 and 1382, they completed a transliteration, an interlinear translation and an edited translation of each section. (Onon 25). The reason behind those translations was to train the officials of the Ming Dynasty as translators and interpreters. Go’a Uqan-qee of Gorlos and Masha-Yi-hei Mahamad divided the History into 12 or 15 chapters and 282 sections. They called it ‘Secret History of the Yuan Dynasty’ since it was still secretive (Onon 24-25).

With a controversial figure such as Chinggis Qahan, even the date of his birth is controversial. Onon assures that Chinggis Qahan was born on the 16th day of the 4th lunar month in the year 1162 (Onon). However, Rashid al-Din, a Persian historian, argues that Chinggis was born earlier in 1155, the year of the Pig (Onon 2). Commenting on associating his birth with the year of the Pig, an animal that both Muslims and Jews disdain, Onon accuses Rashid al-Din, who is from Jewish origin, of being inaccurate. Onon attributes that to Rashid al-Din’s bias and the hate Persians embraced towards the Mongols since they undertook a dynasty in the Persian land (Onon 2).

Looking at the Mongol law, we can understand some characteristics of the Mongol society under Chinggis Qahan. A Mongol should offer his food to his fellow and was supposed to be executed if he did not do so (Onon 11). This law emphasizes the importance of the sense of fellowship among Mongols where each one of them sacrifices his own benefit for the sake of the collective benefit. If a Mongol caught stealing anything of value from another, he should pay him back nine times its worth in order to be freed (Onon 11). This law shows the Mongols’ respect for private property and their concern for maintaining justice among them. A Mongol who hurts a horse’s eyes must be executed (Onon 11), which affirms the centralization of horses in the Mongol society and in the livestock trade. Considering these laws, we can figure out the values Chinggis Qahan tried to implant in his people; generosity, selflessness, respect for privacy and kindness with animals.

Onon refers to many unique characteristics of Chinggis Qahan that might be surprising to the mainstream view of him. Even though Chinggis Qahan was known for being cruel and savage, Mongols thought of him as extremely generous and fair (Onon 10). Loyalty was one of the most values he enhanced. In fact, He despised anyone betrays his master even if that master was his own enemy. Thus, he did not He kill any of the generals with whom he built his empire even those who did betray him (Onon 11). Because he was ready to see in everyone, friend or foe, the qualities he admired, he rewarded enemies who fought bravely against him to allow their leader to escape (Onon 11). Even though he is believed to be illiterate, he knew instinctively how to deal with other tribal chiefs and became a tribal Qahan in 1189 (Onon 7). Indeed, he was a diplomat and a leader by nature (Onon 8).

In The Secret History of the Mongol Queens, Jack Weatherford talks about the missing portions of The Secret History of the Mongols. He starts with what he thinks “the most politically sensitive” section where words of Genghis Khan are recorded in the summer of 1206 when he declared his the Mongol empire (Weatherford XI). On that single sentence which the censor left: “Let us reward our female offspring”, Weatherford tries to capture possible hints to what he believes had been removed (Weatherford XI). He argues that an unknown hand , a scribe or a copyist, who wrote the sentence twice either carelessly repeated it or deliberately attempted to “ emphasize what was missing or even to taunt future generations with the mystery of what had been slashed away” (Weatherford XI). Moreover, he argues that The Secret History of Mongols serves both as “the biography” of Mongols, and of Chinggis Qahan and as “the national charter or constitution” of the Mongol nation (Weatherford xii).

Weatherford seems more interested in the biographical dimension of the History, the Mongol queens specifically. He explains why they were removed from the History, “Those Mongol queens were too unusual, too difficult to understand or explain. It seemed more convenient just to erase them” (Weatherford xiii). Chinggis Qahan’s daughters had a significant role in the Mongolian empire. In fact, Weatherford argues that Chinggis Qahan’s daughters were crucial centers of powers that maintained the Mongol empire since Chinggis Qahan could not rely on his sons (Weatherford XV) .Some of them did rule and some did contest the rule of their brothers and male cousins (Weatherford xiii). Four of them ruled their own countries and commanded a large number of soldiers (Weatherford xiv). One of them became literate and the others, even though illiterate, supported scholars, schools and the publication of religious and irreligious texts (Weatherford xiv).

The way those noble women dressed in courts was unique, “wore elaborate headdresses of felt and feathers that rose more than two feet above their ears so they would tower over everyone around them” (Weatherford xiv). Even though they raised their children, they did fight with men in wars when it was necessary. They were independent rebellious women; raced horses, wrestled men in public sporting competitions and rejected to wear the veil as women did in most Asian countries. Furthermore, they rejected binding their feet; hiding in seclusion and some of them also refused to take husbands, they were offered. In summary, they did not live according to the rules of society when if unconvincing to them, but rather they made new rules (Weatherford xiv-xv).

In the third part of his Travels in his trip to Persia and Iraq (1326 – 1327), Ibn Battuta refers to Chinggis Qahan as “Mongol Conqueror” (Battuta). In fact, he does quote his statement “"The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters" (Battuta). Even though Ibn Battuta does not state it directly, we still can sense the negative impression he had of Chinggis Qahan. Actually, the fact that he chose to quote this specific statement tells us about Ibn Battuta’s oddness with Chinggis Qahan’s expression of happiness when talking about torturing his enemies.

Ibn Battuta was clever enough to figure out that Chinggis Qahan used his “policy of toleration of all religions” in order to win his enemies and become popular among groups of all of these different religions (Battuta). According to Ibn Battuta, this very policy made “the promoters of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam competed like salesmen for the leaders' attention” (Battuta). However, even though Ibn Battuta thought of Mongols as barbaric and Chinggis Qahan as savage, he could appreciate the fact that Mongols promoted learning and refined crafts. Ibn Battuta ,trying to be fair and balanced in his view of the Mongols, says: “"Like their cousins in Cairo, the Mongol rulers did not hesitate to commit unspeakable barbarisms with one hand while with the other paying out large sums to promote refined craft and learning." (Battuta). Although Ibn Battuta thought of Mongols as barbaric conquers, he admitted and admired their promotion of learning, cultural curiosity and refined crafts.

Talking about the exhibition in the Los Angeles County museum of Art “The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia” (1256-1353), Caroline Kim traces the cultural and the artistic change that was the outcome of the Mongol rule. She wonders how artisans who produced textiles and other works of art impressed Mongols who were nomadic people. Apparently, Mongols were willing to embrace and support whatever they could not do; “they spared artists and they moved them closer to their own centre of power” (Kim).

In fact, Mongols brought textile workers from Islamic lands to china because ,according to Professor Sheila Blair, Professor of Islamic and Asian Art at Boston University, “the Mongols loved textiles” (Kim). Accordingly, we can conclude that Mongols were open to mingling with other cultures and benefit the best they can from them. Linda Komaroff, curator of Islamic Art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, asserts “The Mongols were not solely about murder and destruction" (Kim). She explains by referring specifically to the effect of Chinggis Qahan’s on trade and art, “Under Genghis Khan's rule, trade flourished and art underwent a profound change, especially in the area of western Asia.” (Kim). Thus, he contributed to bringing about “creativity” after he secured his empire (Kim).

Larry Moses in his article Legends by the Numbers: The Symbolism of Numbers in the “Secret History of the Mongols” argues that we cannot rely on the History for historical data. Moses clarifies that most of the numbers used in the text are of “a legendary nature” (Moses 73). He specifies that historical facts in the History were confused with number of individuals and events that are “clearly imaginary” (Moses 74). Moses attributes this confabulation to the inclusion of “mnemonic devices, alliterative rhyme schemes, epic exaggeration, and culturally significant distortions of fact” in the History (Moses 74). An example of epic exaggeration is the description of Duwa Soqor, the legendary ancestor of the Mongols, as a man with an eye in the middle of his forehead with which he could see "three stages ahead" (Moses 74). Other examples are the contents of epic boasts describing individuals who have superhuman abilities (Moses). Jamuqa who was trying to discourage the Naiman soldiers, describes the Mongol commanders as

Their foreheads are of cast copper,
They have chisels for snouts,
They have awls for tongues,
Their hearts are of iron,
They have swords for whips” (Moses 74).

In a close study of the numerical data within the History, Moses attempts to prove that numbers in the History were used in a symbolic way since the usage of each number had a different purpose and sometimes indicated a specific concept. For example, the number 1 is the most used number in the History but in various ways and contexts. According to Moses, it had been employed “for humans 25 times (17%), for animals 15 times (10%), and for various items of daily use (blanket, jug, etc.), 48 times (33%)” (Moses 75). Moreover, number 1 sometimes was used also to express “spatial and temporal concepts” and "states of mind,” (Moses 75). Moses’ analysis and interpretation of numbers in the History is employed to prove that the Mongol conquests “in need of reassessment” (Moses 75).

Viewing Chinggis Qahan from the perspective of his proponents, he is the greatest strategist on the face of earth. Professor Owen Lattimore assures that Chinggis Qahan’s military position surpasses the greatest historical leaders; “a military genius, able to take over new techniques and improve on them, Chinggis stands above Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar, Attila and Napoleon” (Onon 5). The issue of December 31 of the Washington Post in 1995 gave Chinggis Qahan the title of Man of the Millennium. He is described as the human representative and the personification of human contradictions “an apostle of extremes who embodies the half-civilized, half-savage duality of the human race” (Onon 5).

Jehangir S. Pocha in his article Mongolia sees Genghis Khan's good side quotes the Mongolian prime minister, Elbegdorj Tsahkia, “Genghis Khan wasn't really a bad guy” who continues, "He just had bad press" (Pocha). Apparently, the contemporary Mongolian reaction to the traditional worldwide view of Chinggis Qahan is defensive of the unfairness his view suffered. Bat-Erdene Batbayar (or Baabar), a historian and adviser to Elbegdorj, surpasses Elbegdorj’s view and asserts, “He is like a god to us" (Pocha).Chinggis Qahan’s significance exceeds his tangible achievements and marks to the conceptual view of him in the Mongolians’ memory, he is , in Baabar’s words,” the founder of our state, the root of our history” (Pocha). This statement sheds light on the symbolical dimension of Chinggis’ significance to his people.

Ts. Tsetsenbileg, a scholar at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences in an interview with the Harvard Asia Pacific Review emphasizes both the moral and the spiritual role of Chinggis Qahan to Mongolians, "Within this rapidly changing world, Genghis Khan, if we acknowledge him without bias, can serve as a moral anchor. He can be Mongolia's root, its source of certainty at a time when many things are uncertain" (Pocha). Culturally, the narratives concerning Chinggis Qahan are interestingly different from the traditional mainstream view of him. Naramtsetseg Dolgormaa, 27, who teaches the Japanese language, recalls "When we were young people, our parents used to tell us stories of Genghis, of how he was good and strong and kind” (Pocha). To sum up the contemporary Mongolian views of Chinggis Qahan’s depiction throughout the centuries I should refer to the belief of Mongolians that "his history was written by his enemies" and the people he conquers (Pocha).

The presentation of Chinggis Qahan varied in different historical times. Former historians presented him as a brilliant but wild and cruel man. They referred to Chinggis’ slay of his half-brother in an argument to illustrate his hot-temper (Pocha). In 1982, Francis Woodman Cleaves published his version of The Secret History of the Mongols, which was considered the first authoritative modern version of it (Pocha). The publication of Cleaves’ version gradually called for the reconsideration and the reassessment of Chinggis’ figure. Since that time, new details concerning Chinggis Qahan’s life came to the surface; details that displayed the human side of his personality such as his fear of dogs (Pocha). On the other hand, new books focus on the religious freedom he gave to people and the religious toleration that he promoted. Some books affirm that he banned the slave trade, expanded a global economy and introduced diplomatic immunity (Pocha). Furthermore, there is an emphasis on the significance of Chinggis’ Empire in the commercial and the cultural exchange between East and West.

The reassessment of Chinggis’ depiction did not exclude the estimate number of the people he killed across Asia and Europe, 40 million people. In fact, some researchers refer to the possibility that Chinggis Qahan himself might have exaggerated his massacres (Pocha).Researchers at the Genghis Khan University in Ulan Bator argue that Chinggis was trying to make his empire a “ civil state” founded on a code of laws called the Great Yassa (Pocha). Those laws granted “equal and defined legal rights” for all citizens, including women (Pocha). In addition, the study "The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols," estimated that Chinggis Qahan has more than 17 million direct descendants living today, which means that One in every 200 people is related to him (Pocha). This is considered Chinggis Qahan’s astonishing effect on the world’s demography.

Reconciling all of these different views and interpretations, I conclude that Chinggis Qahan that we know today is a combination of both what historians wanted us to believe about him, and for what we took their words. Former historians might have deleted some facts for political reasons, and contemporary historians might fabricate some facts for the sake of more appealing arguments. After all, this combination of variation of personal perception and political interests, fiction and censored facts is what seems to make history. In conclusion, I will quote Weatherford when talking about the alteration of memory that distorted historical data causes; “such vandalism tampers with the evidence without altering the facts” (Weatherford XVI).


Bibliography

Atwood, Christopher P. "The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the." Journal of Islamic Studies 22 March 2006: 234-236.

—. "The Secret History of the Mongols: the Life and Times of Chinggis Khan." Journal of Islamic Studies 2001: 236-238.

Battuta, Ibn. The Travels of Ibn Battuta - A Virtual Tour with the 14th Century Traveler ,Prepared by : Nick Bartel. San Francisco: The Hakluyt Society, 1999.

D.O.Morgan. "Ibn Battuta and the Mongols ." JRAS,Series 3,II,I (2001): 1-11.

G.Kara. "The Secret History of the Mongols.The Origin of Chingis Khan." The Journal of Asian Studies,Vol.59,No. 3 (August 2000): 729-730.

Kim, Caroline. "The TREASURES of Genghis Khan." Humanities Vol 23 Nob.5 September/October 2002.

Moses, Larry. "Legends by the Numbers: The Symbolism of Numbers in the "Secret History of the Mongols"." Asian Folklore Studies Iss. 1 Vol 55 1996: 73-97.

Onon, Eid. Urgunge. The Secret History of The Mongols . Richmond,Surrey: Curzon Press, 2001.

Pocha, Jehangir S. "Mongolia sees Genghis Khan's good side." New York Times (2005): May 10th.

Weatherford, Jack. The Secret History of the Mongol Queens.How The Daughters of Genghis Khan Rescued His Empire. New York: Crown Publishers, 2010.