Neo-Traditionalism in Self-Identification in Modern Mongolia1

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Prof. Tatiana D. Skrynnikova Head of the Department of Central and South Asia, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Abstract

This article deals with the national language-discourse of post-socialist Mongolia, based on the symbolism of the “roots” and “blood and soil” typical of the identity’s practices of the modern Mongolian society. The self-identification is realized in accordance with the existing common ideas of belonging to some larger whole. The formation of the Mongolian identity by the ruling elite in the late 20th century was based on the historical paradigms of self-identification worked out much earlier. The language of that discourse is not solely designed by the national elite and reflected in the media, scholarly publications, and literature; it finds its way into everyday life. The language gets saturated with archaic ideas supplemented with the “invented tradition”. For most of the Mongolian world, especially important for the reconstruction of the identification notions are presently the lexemes “Mongolian Empire” and “Chinggis-Khan” which have acquired a high semiotic status in forming the ethnic self-identification and political mythology. They have become mythologemes or ideologemes implicitly restoring the textual myth with its symbolism and ritual.

Keywords: language-discourse, self-identification, Mongolia, “roots”, “blood and soil”, Mongolian Empire, Chinggis-Khan.

1 This research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation via grant № 14-18-02785. http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1670

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

With the USSR having been disbanded and the Soviet people as a unity eliminated along with the socialist block, there started evolving processes of national and cultural renaissance requiring new discourses of identity and correspondingly a new language suitable for the tasks never faced before. At that, the language does not so much exist in everyday communication as gets structured by the intellectual elite for the media, scholarly publications, and literature. It can be noted that it is already possible to speak about the national language-discourse of post-socialist Mongolia, based on the symbolism of the “roots” and “blood and soil” typical of diverse strata of the Mongolian society. In that country, the primary symbol of its political identity is presently seen in the ethnic politonym khalkha forming the so-called khalkha identity. Ethnicity could therefore be understood as a symbol of political identity of the Mongolian Republic as a nation state with the ethnonym of Khalkha being an essential boundary marker. Like a lot of other symbols and images in today's Mongolia, the ethnonym is linked with the country's glorious past. B.Ya.Vladinirtzov wrote: «As is well known, the Mongolian tribe Xalxa «the Khalkhas» forming the majority of the population in modern Khalkha (presently, the Mongolian Republic. - T.S.) had originated as the so-called «seven Khalkha generations» Doluγan otoγ Xalxa occasionally referred to as the «Seven northern (rear) Khalkha generations» aru-yin Doluγan otoγ Xalxa. At that, we know that those generations were given to Geresenje jalayir xong tayiji, the younger son of Batu Möngke Dayan xaγan’а (the mid-16th century). Since in documented cases the words «generation» otoγ and «property, military district, division banner» xosiγun were synonymous, along with the phrase Doluγan otoγ Xalxa there emerged also Doluγan xosiγun Xalxa or «Seven khoshuns» used in regard to entire Khalkha and all Khalkhas» (Vladimircov, 2002, 285). The fall of the Mongolian Empire was followed by a struggle between two tendencies, one centripetal, the other centrifugal; of them, the latter was predominant. In the 15th century, thanks to Batu-Munke's (b. in 1460, ruled in 1479-1543), a.k.a. Dayan-khagan, victory over his contenders, the clashes stopped for some time («Then Dayan-khagan assembled and united six tumen-uluses and made the entire Mongolian ulus peaceful and happy. He had occupied the throne for seventy-four years and died as a man of eighty» (Erdeni-yin tobči, 1990, 130). One can say that Batu-Munke Dayan-khagan united the Mongols and restored the title of “khagan” as the marker of the supreme authority existing while the nation had been a great one. While Southern and Inner Mongolia was conquered by the Manchurians (the last Mongolian khagan, Ligdan-khagan, was defeated in 1636) and incorporated into the Chinese Empire, Khalkha remained independent through the late 17th century and was referred to as Northern or Outer Mongolia. The well-known «Eight laws of the steppe» were written between the late 16th century and 1639 by the leaders of four, six, or seven khoshuns of Khalkha (Nasilov, 2002). Within the framework of the Mongolian national renaissance there are formed common interests, goals and tasks; the national intellectual elite outlines the ethnical borders, i.e. defines the indicators used as symbols of group identification. The self-identification is realized in accordance with the existing common ideas of belonging to some larger whole. Most creators of ethnic ideology themselves follow the mythological stereotypes which they include into the ideological set, and thus are fairly honest: they do not design the discourse, but rather apply existing mythologems adapting them to the modernity. That results in an obvious uniformity in regard to the attitudes towards certain processes, and a uniform language with only varying emotional load and style, plus the set of topics never exceeding the established limits. The ethnic tradition contains a vast archaic cultural hoard suitable for a new mythological structure devoid of internal contradictions, in which the archetypes acquire new textual shape following the logics and historical essence of the basic myth. At that, one should also take into account the evolution of ethnic ideas about the nation, as those who shape

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1671

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

modernity are to various degrees bound with the preceding political experience. Thus, the formation of the Mongolian identity by the ruling elite in the late 20th century was based on the historical paradigms of self-identification worked out much earlier. Today's myths emerging in the time of socio-cultural crisis and transformation tend to merge the ratio with the archetypes representing the only stable system opposing the chaos invading the individual and collective conscience. Although a new myth offers archaic ways of perceiving the world, the modern mind must rationally adapt and understand the newer and wider senses of old mythologems. The discourse of ethnic political identity is always realized under specific historical conditions; it legitimizes the present and defines the collective memory. History itself becomes a cultural process producing that identity: the course of national and cultural renaissance demands newer identity discourses and a set of necessary mythologemes/ideologemes suitable for the new tasks. At that, the language of that discourse is not solely designed by the national elite and reflected in the media, scholarly publications, and literature; it finds its way into everyday life. The language gets saturated with archaic ideas supplemented with the “invented tradition”. For most of the Mongolian world, especially important for the reconstruction of the identification notions are presently the lexemes “Mongolian Empire” and “Chinggis-Khan” which have acquired a high semiotic status in forming the ethnic self-identification and political mythology. They have become mythologems or ideologems implicitly restoring the textual myth with its symbolism and ritual. The personality of Chinggis-Khan is especially important, as the great state of the past and a hero represented by a real person perform a major part in the ethnic ideology. In this context, of great interest is the way in which the image of Chinggis-Khan gets used in modern practices of identification requiring a set of symbols. United in a language, they serve as a tool of political socialization and determine its contents so that the collective thought was penetrated by the idea of constancy and truthfulness of the statement saying that the ethnos and its culture can only be preserved inside a unified state having centuries-long history and traditions. Within the conceptual framework of the “blood and soil”, a new cosmos becomes a reality, with the Mongolian Republic being its sacral center. It is well known that cosmologization of an area should start with its sacralization, the fixation of its Center. This idea was also common inside the historical and cultural discourse of the national renaissance during the late 20th century. According to the tradition, a human being (a socium) is placed in the world Center, the most sacral place; this demands some hierophany, involvement of something sacral. Traditional culture can use various objects for the purpose of sacralizing an area; primarily it is Chinggis-Khan himself (= “the sacred ancestor”). Cosmogenesis was accompanied by the necessary repetition of spatial-temporal mythologems or paradigms of the political discourse born by the neo-traditionalist ethno-centric essential ideology with its attributes. Both verbal and non-verbal cosmogonical constructions include a renewed way of perceiving the space, creation of “new” sacral symbols being in fact nothing but re-born archaic ones. This creation of a new cosmos during the period of national renaissance can be reflected in both strictly scholarly publications and scholarly propaganda which can be called tests-symbols showing what the intellectual elite thinks about different historical stages in the formation of ethnic self-identification: reprinting existing biographies of Chinggis-Khan and writing new ones, publishing Mongolian manuscripts, personal biographies of prominent people. All this does not only reacquaints the Mongolian people with the names of their elite, but also promotes historical knowledge thus including modern generations into the general historical context and forming the “symbolic area” of the modern cultural hypertext. This non-verbal reconstruction was accompanied by special ritual practices aimed at re- sacralization of the habitat, their main component being the actions connected with re-coding the

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1672

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

space with its symbolic focal point seen in creating and affirming the symbols related with Chinggis- Khan. The spatial ideologems implicitly confirm and legitimize the societal borders, at the same time serving the purpose of re-ethnization, i.e. political consolidation through the promotion of khalkha- centrism. Evidently, a high semiotic status gets given to the places where Chinggis-Khan was born and buried; at that, he is perceived as the founding father of the Empire, and the places as the centers of the Mongolian Cosmos and therefore of the entire Earth. The ancestors united the cosmos in space and time, as they dwelled in the center of that cosmological model of the world. Even though Chinggis-Khan's exact burial spot is unknown, there are two sites defined as such and therefore attracting lots of pilgrims; they are Edzhen Khoro (Inner Mongolia, China) and Deliun-Boldoq in Khentai (Mongolian Republic). The latter is also known as his birthplace. “Due to his [Chinggis-Khan’s] uniqueness, Khubilai Chackwarun Setchen-khagan rotating a thousand golden wheels had erected eight white yurtas for the universal worship of Altan-gegen (Chinggis-Khagan. – Author) and introduced the great silk teaching (Buddhism. – T. S.)” (Čaγan teüke, 2001, 72). Khubilai established the cult of Chinggis-Khan in Ordos making that memorial place one of worshipping the ancestors; till nowadays, annual sacrifices are made there. Traditionally, Chinggis-Khan has been worshipped in Edzhen Khoro for quite some time. The importance of Chinggis-Khan 's charisma for Mongolian self-identification can be traced up to the 13th century. After Khubilai, his grandson, pronounced himself the Chinese Emperor and founded the Yuan dynasty, in 1260 he officially established the cult of Chinggis-Khantogether with that of the “eight white yurts” thus establishing the Mongolian domination in the Empire. Worshipping Chinggis-Khan on his supposed burial site was caused by the sacral nature of his personality, and, according to the tradition, his body became the genie-protector (mong. ongon). Altan tobči reported: “His (Chinggis-Khan 's. - T. S.) body was brought with honors and made an ongon [i.e. buried] [near] the Chivme (?) river” (Baldanzhapov, 1970, 154, 338). At that, the place is not solely revered as one of the possible ones where Chinggis-Khan was buried, but also as one where there happened something defining the destiny. According to a legend, in the forest of “a Thosand trees” in Edzhen Khoro, Chinggis-Khan secured his victory having danced with soldiers under a huge tree and made a sacrifice to the banner (sülde). That caused a recommendation to make the pole of the banner of an ilm tree growing in that forest and to perform the ritual of honoring the banner in that forest every year of Dragon (Sayijiral, Saraldai, 1983. 333). Up till the 1950s, Edzhen Khoro had a few yurts containing Chinggis-Khan’s relics. In 1955- 1956, an entire ensemble was constructed there, and recently it underwent restoration and expansion. In the past, that memorial was actually a cluster of eight white yurts, each dedicated to one of the great ancestors: Chinggis-Khan himself, his four sons Ögödei, Juchi, Chagatai, Tolui, the grandsons Güyük and Mengü, and also to his parents Esugei and Oelun. The yurts have been overseen by a special team of darkhats preserving the relics and performing rituals. The uninterrupted tradition of the annual ritual of the “eight white yurts” can be traced in Altan tobči, a Mongolian manuscript of the 17th century stating that the ritual was performed by specially assigned people, “the yurta noyons” (ger-ün noyad), i.e. darkhat princes (Lubsan Danzan, 1973, 278). The annual ritual in Edzhen Khoro was described by Ts. Zhamtzarano (Zhamcarano, 1961). The sacral nature of the site determined its functions; it is there that every beginning was celebrated: the New Year (through the early 20th century - cf. Ts. Zhamtzarano), and crowning the ruler (till the last all-Mongolian Khagan Ligdan-Khagan ascended the throne in the 17th century). It was this memorial founded by Khubilai-Khagan as the sacral center of the Mongolian Empire that played an essential role in the legitimization of power. Upon Chinggis-Khan's death and the fall of his Empire, the Mongols' political unity was preserved by the title of “Khagan” legitimizing the

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1673

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

claims for the top power in accordance with the local tradition existing since the 13th century. At that, the throne was one of the most significant symbols of the power; it was directly associated with the Khagan title. No Mongolian chronicles of the 17th century mention the elections or discussions concerning a claimant; the wording is always standard: “he received the Khan title in front of the white yurts” (Erdeni-yin tobči, 1990: 219), “he ascended the great throne” (Lubsan Danzan 1973:28), “he sat on the Khan's throne” (Ibid., 290), “he occupied the Khan's throne” (Ibid., 290), “he became the Khan” (Ibid., 221). The chroniclers paid great attention to the formal marks of the power: the title of Khan/Khagan was reserved for the heads of separate parts of the Mongolian Empire, while Khagan could only be the ruler of all Mongolia. An excellent example of a claimer's suitability for the highest Mongolian authority in accordance with the will of the Heaven and his becoming legitimate by the "eight white yurts" is the story of Togon-tayshi, the Oyrats' ruler. In 1438, that tribe conquered the Mongols. Togon-Tayshi claimed the title of khagan controlling all Mongols; “having won the Mongolian state and proud of that, [he went] to worship the rulers's eight white yurts. Once there, he said, ‘The khan's throne is mine!’, bowed, and became the khagan. Intoxicated with the honor received from the ruler, he shouted, ‘Like you (Chinggis-Khan. - T. S.) are the august [ruler] having charisma (sutu, i.e. having charisma - T.S.), I also am a descendant of a khatun having charisma!’ He hit the ruler's small tent and shouted. Then he turned, about to exit, and blood started running from Togon-tayshi's nose and mouth... When people had a look, it appeared that an arrow with eagle feathers stuck into the ruler's quiver was covered with blood and .moving... he died” (Lubsan Danzan, 1973, 269). The Edzhen Khoro set of “eight white yurts” in Ordos had long remained the only symbol of the Mongolian unity and the center of legitimizing the Mongolian statehood sanctified by the name of Chinggis-Khan. In Outer Mongolia, i.e. in Khalkha, the authorities of the Mongolian People's Republic prohibited mentioning any facts contradicting the cult of historical progress, and positive attitude towards Chinggis-Khan could lead to persecution for “pan-Mongolism”. The 800th anniversary of the “sacred ancestor” celebrated in 1962 was marked by a paper “Chinggis-Khan” by Academician I.M. Maysky who prescribed the scholarly discourse of Mongolian studies: “Summing up, we should say that Chinggis-Khan certainly was a major military leader and statesman of his epoch whose activities were split into two periods. During the first one, before 1206, he had made some contribution into the process of unifying the Mongols and creating the first early feudal Mongol state. However, during the later period, after 1206, which became especially aggressive after 1211, Chinggis-Khan played a negative role having entered the path of conquest and striving to found an ephemeral world Empire at the cost of millions of human lives and countless material and cultural valuables… Therefore, as a whole we have to conclude that Chinggis-Khan's actions were disastrous for the progress of the mankind. This is the only possible conclusion concerning that person from the Marxist and Leninist viewpoint” (Maysky, 1962, 83). However, during the early days of the reforms Mongolia started recoding the symbolic space: a paper by Associated Academician M.S. Kapitsa, the director of the USSR AS Oriental Institute “approved of” employing the image of Chinggis-Khan, the founding father of the Mongolian Empire and the Mongols’ “sacred ancestor”, as the central symbol for the renewed statehood. Like I.M. Maysky, M.S. Kapitsa split Chinggis-Khan's activities into two periods, but he admitted that “scholarly analysis may allow for true understanding of the role played by Chinggis-Khan in Eurasian history” (Kapitsa, 1988, 58.). That opened new possibilities for the Mongols who were thus permitted to revitalize the sacral symbolical function of Chinggis-Khan's image. While since the Middle Ages through the 1990s Edzhen Khoro had remained the only place having Chinggis-Khan’s sacral relics (yurts, banners, khar sulde, the “black banner”, weapons, clothes, etc.) and thus symbolizing Mongolian unity, the beginning of the reforms was marked in the

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1674

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Mongolian Republic with the proclamation of other sacral attributes confirming the link between Mongolian identity with Chinggis-Khan, the founder-father. In 1991, a stele was erected in Khentei, Chinggis-Khan’s birth place (and the one where he was possibly buried); established was the ritual of its honoring including triple walking around it in the clockwise direction. That site was intended to compete with Edzhen Khoro supposedly built on the spot where the ruler had died. In the ceremony of 1991, there took part thousands of Mongolians joined by a lot of foreign dignitaries. The festival included a selection of theatrical performances and the naadam (three games of men – races, wrestling, archery), all of them being not simple entertainments, but also rituals. Even though representatives of today's Mongolian authorities are not Chinggis-Khan’s direct descendants, the idea of the throne as the essential sacral symbol of statehood was modified and revitalized in political practices. Indicative were the huge statues of Chinggis-Khan and his four sons sitting on the thrones between the columns of the House of Government in the central square of Ulan-Bator, their sizes exceeding that of the monument to Sukhebator, the formed symbol of socialist Mongolia. Thus the throne, a central symbol of the Mongolian political identity, affirms and legalizes the stability and leadership of the authorities ruling the Mongolian world from that place. Another act aimed at establishing the sacral center of the renewed (post-socialist) Mongolian unity was the reconstruction of Chinggis-Khan’s banners, one of four bunchugs (Khar sulde), the other of eight (Tzagaan sulde); presently, they are revered as the embodiments of Chinggis-Khan’s charisma and the symbols of Mongolian unity. The latter is symbolized by the hairs collected all over the country from horse manes and tails. The Black banner required 18 aimaks, and over 200 somons; the white one, over 1,000 horses. The White banner is fixed on a stone measuring 44 cm at its bottom (40 Mongolian tumens and 4 Oyrat ones), and 33 cm at its top (symbolizing the 33 Gobi tumens). At the same time, the stone itself performs as a sacral object, as it had been brought from the site of Kara-Korum, the ancient capital. Sacral are the flagpoles as well: they were made of a pine tree cut in Khentei, Chinggis-Khan’s birthplace. The White banner is kept at the House of Government, the Black one, in the Ministry of Defense; worshipping them has already become a part of official rituals. So, in the Black banner ritual there has taken part member of the Mongolian government headed by President P. Otchirbat (13.06.1995, in Khentei) and President N. Bagabandi (11.06.1998, in the place called “Five mountaintops”). Thus the construction of modern Mongols’ sacral space continues to use the traditional symbols marking the center and performing as the cosmogonic civilizing factors. The real phenomenon is the fact that despite anything, chroniclers kept returning to one topic, the supreme ruler’s heirs belonging to Chinggis-Khan’s Golden Clan. As we have read, during the rule of Khubilai-Khagan, Chinggis-Khan was referret to as Altan-gegen (“Golden light”). Nobody but Chinggis-Khan could be mentioned in the text solely with the words denoting power as such, “khagan” or “master” (ejen): e.g. his black banner near the eight white yurtas in Ordos was called “qaγan ejen-ü qara sülde” (Erdeni-yin tobči, 1990, 129), or “the black banner of khagan-master”. At that, while initially the concept “sülde” had denoted the charisma of the supreme ruler, later it was used for the banner housing that of the dead leader. The ritual texts related to Chinggis-Khan’s cult underline the link between sülde (charisma) and törü (the Sacral Law of the Universe) related to the supreme ruler securing harmony both in the society and the nature. The idea of the ruler's sacredness (sülde) and the törü are archetypal for the traditional thinking expressed in Chinese tradition through the unity of the Emperor's De and Dao “In order the results of influencing the world be favorable, ‘Dao and De should be united (one)’ - Dao De I” (Martynov, 1978, 30).

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1675

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

“Having törü as the pole (= mediator as Axis mundi. - T. S.)…, the support for the body… the four-bunchugs great sülde (banner, cf. tug below. - T. S.); the great sülde (= charisma. - T.S.) of the august Master (boγdo ejen = Chinggis-Khan. - T. S.), has become the support of the törü embodied in the nine-bunchugs white banner” (Rintchen, 1959, 74.) (my transl. - T. S.). These passages explicitly affirm the dependence of the törü upon the ruler's charisma. Despite the Buddhist nature of the chronicles of 17th centures, the birth of the ruler is linked with the Heaven: “Born according to the will of the Higher Heaven, Master (boγdo ejen = Chinggis- Khan. - T. S.) of the world Bogda Altan-sečen-khagan” (Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur, 2001, 266). As the universal principle of the world order, the törü linked with Chinggis-Khan’s charisma embodied upon his death in the White and Black banners, preserves, from the viewpoint of modern Mongolian leaders incorporating the aforementioned symbols into newer post-socialist ritual practices, the regulations valid both for the socium and the wider areas. The image of Chinggis-Khan and his attributes perform sociogonical functions thus supporting the Khalkha ruling elites' claims to make them the focal point of at least the Mongolian oikumena. The last symbol of modern Mongolian state which I would like to mention is the portrait of Chinggis-Khan as a Buddhist Monarch. As early as in the 13th century, during Khubilai’s rule, there emerged the tradition of Buddhist heritage: from India via Tibet to Mongolia. The “White history” mentioning the rituals of Chinggis-Khan’s cult in Ordos reports that after all Indian and Tibetan Buddhist Monarchs «a boy called Temudjin was born in the land of the Kushen dzad Mongols, an reincarnation of Vačirvani” (Čaγan teüke 2001: 73.). Vadjrapani can be translated as “vadjra holder”. In this context, Chinggis-Khan is perceived as an reincarnation of this bodhisattva, a Khagan holding the scepter of power. Deified in Khubilai’s time according to the Buddhist model, Chinggis-Khan perceived as a reincarnation of Vadjrapani, chakravartin, etc. is worshipped as the founder of the Mongolian nation. Tradition says that having heard that Tushet-khan's wife Gombo-Dordji was pregnant, Secen-khan in the 17th century sent a letter and gifts to Tushet-khan. The letter read: “I cannot help thinking that you will have a beautiful son who will control us all, all descendants of Chinggis-Khan Sutu-Bogdo” (Pozdneev,1896, 487). The icon commissioned by the Mongolian President to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the state in 2006, painted by the Lama-painter G. Purevbat and kept in the House of Government contains a set of symbols: Chinggis-Khan, in accordance with the Buddhist canon, is sitting on the throne with the whine banner on his right, and the black one on his left. Chinggis-Khan himself embodies the sacral center of new Mongolia combining the Imperial tradition, its leader, and the Buddhist King. In other words, the Great Myth about Chinggis-Khan incorporated other myths, diverse and interacting, becoming thus a system of ideas and legends about the cultural hero and the glorious past. It is easy to conclude that the tradition offers a vast cultural reserve for the creation of a consistent new mythological structure in which the archetypes acquire newer textual form subordinated to the logic and historism of the initial myth. In my previous works I wrote about the existence of various terms for charisma such as: sülde, suu, suu jali, sür javqlang, čoγ jali, čoγ sülde, kei morin, sülde kei morin, gegegen sünesün, altan amin. Analyzing this terms meaning in Mongolian original sources, I investigated the function Chinggis-Khan’s charisma as mediator between the cosmos and society. In the praying to the black standard “Qara sulde-yin ocig” the synonimic line is being modelled: “the great charisma” (sülde, yeke suu jali) – “pillar of törü” (törü -yin gadagasun) - “base of törü” (törü -yin tüsiy-e) (Rintchen 1959: 73-74). We can see some of these terms in the song “Chinggis-Khan” which is obvious evidence for topicality of these ideas. In modern mongolian language the meaning of the word suu is genius. The

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1676

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

medieval Mongols were using this term to mark charisma of great person along with next one – sür. In modern mongolian language the meaning of the word sür is majesty.

Powerful hero (baatar) is a real hero (baatar) of his time. Talanted hero (baatar) is a real hero (baatar) of all times. Hu ha hu ha hu ha

Talanted hero of all times, Chinggis-Khan who acquires charisma-talant (suu bileg) Hero Chinggis-Khan who was gifted with charisma-power (sür küči) You who fought and bequeathed the oath and law To distinguish both good and bad And who have become the linkage to the Golden lineage.

Chin Chin Chinggis-Khan Possessing charisma-power (sür küči), possessing chariama-talant (suu bileg) Possessing charisma-power (sür küči), possessing chariama-talant (suu bileg) Chin Chin Chinggis-Khan The Lord-Deity (ejen tenger) possessing great charisma (yeke süldet) The Lord-Deity (ejen tenger) possessing great charisma (yeke süldet) You who was the great Khaan, the great man from time immemorial Possessing infinite mercy – oo ho ho ho Possessing honest character – aa ha ha ha.

Chinggis-Khaan raising the banner (sülde) of the Mongolian empire Chinggis-Khaan reserving tracks of the world on horses manes You who dedicated all your desires, aspirations and zeals For the good of Blue Mongols And have become the linkage to descendants with blue spots hu ha hu ha

Chinggis –Khaan great charismatic (suutan) man of millennium, Chinggis-Khaan becoming highest object of worship for mongolian people, You who dedicated your life, heart and thoughts For the good of sacred Motherland And have become the linkage to the great descendents who were Khaans.

Chin Chin Chinggis-Khan Possessing charisma-power (sür küči), possessing chariama-talant (suu bileg)

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1677

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Possessing charisma-power (sür küči), possessing chariama-talant (suu bileg) Chin Chin Chinggis-Khan The Lord-Deity (ejen tenger) possessing great charisma (yeke süldet) The Lord-Deity (ejen tenger) possessing great charisma (yeke süldet) You who was the great Khaan, the great man from time immemorial Possessing infinite mercy – oo ho ho ho Possessing honest character – aa ha ha ha.

I regard charisma to be the essence of the Chinggis-Khan cult. Charisma forms the basis of this kind of worship. Even after the death of its possessor, charisma, embodied in some object (four- tailted /bunchug/ black standard + nine-tailted /bunchug/ white banner), continues as a sacral organizing principle and to regulate not only the social environment of the object but the Universe at whole (Chinggis-Khaan raising the banner (sülde) of the Mongolian empire / Chinggis-Khaan reserving tracks of the world on horses manes). This new myth is however not archaic and does not make the society archaic either. Under the conditions of the socio-cultural crisis and the shifts accompanying it, modern myths tend to unite the rational level of the conscience with the archetypes providing stability opposing the chaos invading both individual and collective thinking. Although the new myth offers archaic ways of perceiving the world, modern people quite easily deal with the widened meanings of old mythologems on the rational level, as most authors of the ethnic ideology follow the same mythological stereotypes which they include into the ideology, and are therefore fairly sincere. They do not so much design a new discourse as apply already existing mythologems to the modernity. Introduction of new sense into old symbols by the modern ruling elite of the Mongolian Republic signifies the urge to depart from both Russia due to the felt necessity of protecting the smaller political entity against the «Big Brother» of the socialist period, and China the political domination of which is still the source of bitter memories of the population.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1678

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

References

Baldanzhapov P.B. . 1970.Altan tovchi. Mongol'skaya letopis' XVII v. (A Mongolian manuscript of the 17th century.). Ulan-Ude Čaγan teüke. 2001. “Belaya istoriya” - mongol'skii istoriko-pravovoi pamyatnik XII-XVI vv. sostavlenie kriticheskogo teksta i perevod “Beloi istorii” P.B. Baldanzhapova, issledovanie, redaktirovanie perevoda, sostavlenie kommentariev, podgotovka “Beloi istorii” k publikacii, perevod i kommentarii k “Shastre khana-chakravartina” i “Shastre Orunga” C.P. Vanchikovoi. Ulan-Ude. Izdatel'stvo Buryatskogo nauchnogo centra SO RAN. 2001. (Čaγan teüke. “White history” – the Mongolian historical and legal monument of the XII-XVI centuries. Drawing up the critical text and the translation of “White history” of P. B. Baldanzhapov, research, editing the transfer, drawing up comments, preparation of “White history” for the publication, the translation and the comment to “Shastre of the khan-chakravartin” and “Shastre Orunga” of Ts.P. Vanchikova. Ulan-Ude. Publishing house of the Buryat scientific center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science.) Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur. 2001. Die Biographie des Altan qaγan der Tümed-Mongolen / Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der religionspolitischen Beziehungen zwischen der Mongolei und Tibet im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert. The text transcribed, translated and edited by Kollmar- Paulenz, Karenina. Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden. Erdeni-yin tobči. 1990. (‘Precious Summary’). Saгang Secen. A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662. The Urga text transcribed and edited by M. Goo, I. de Rachewltz, J.R. Krueger and B. Ulaan. Faculty of Asian Studies Monographs: New Series. No.15. The Australian National University. Canberra. Kapitsa M.S. 1988.Eshe raz o roli Chingis-khana v istorii // Voprosy istorii.( Once more about Chingghis-khan’s role in history // Problems of history.). No. 7. S. 48-58. Lubsan Danzan. 1973. Altan tobchi («Zolotoe skazanie»). Perevod s mongol'skogo, vvedenie, kommentarii i prilozheniya N.P. Shastinoi. Pamyatniki pis'mennosti Vostoka. ((«Golden Tale»). Introduction, translation from Mongolian, commentary, and appendices by N.P.Shastina. Written monuments of the East. X. “Nauka” Press, Chief publishing house of Oriental literature. Moscow, 1973). Izdatel'stvo «Nauka». Glavnaya redakciya Vostochnoi literatury. M. Maysky I.M. 1962. Chingis-han // Voprosy istorii. (Chinggis-Khan// Problems of history.). No. 5. S. 74-83. Martynov A.S. 1978. Status Tibeta v XVII-XVIII vv. v tradicionnoi kitaiskoi sisteme politicheskih predstavlenii (Status of Tibet in the 17-18th centuries within the system of traditional Chinese political conceptions). M. Nasilov A.D. 2002. Vosemnadcat' stepnyh zakonov. Pamyatnik mongol'skogo prava XVI-XVII vv. Mongol'skii tekst, transliteraciya mongol'skogo teksta. Perevod s mong., komm. i issledovanie A.D. Nasilova. (The eighteen laws of the steppe. A Mongolian legal treatise of the 16-17th centuries. The Mongolian text and transliteration. Translated, commented upon and researched by A.D.Nasilov). SPb. Pozdneev A.M. 1896. Mongoliya i mongoly. Rezul'taty poezdki v Mongoliyu, ispolnennoi v 1892- 1893 gg. (Mongolia and the Mongolians. The results of a trip to Mongolia in 1892-1893.). T.1., SPb. Rintchen B.. 1959. Matériaux pour l’étude du chamanisme mongol. T. 1. Wiesbaden. Sayijiral, Saraldai. 1983. Altan ordon-u tayil-a. (Ritual of Golden Palace). Peking.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1679

Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Vladimircov B.Ya. 2002. Gde «pyat' halhaskih pokolenii» - Tabun oto Xalxa // Vladimircov B.Ya. Raboty po istorii i etnografii mongol'skih narodov. M. Izdatel'skaya firma «Vostochnaya literatura» RAN. S. 285-288. (Where are «the five khalkha generations»? - Tabun otoγ Xalxa // B.Ya.Vladimirtsov. Studies in Mongolian history and ethnography. Moscow, «Oriental literature», RAS, pp.285-288. Zhamcarano Ts. 1961. Kul't Chingisa v Ordose: Iz puteshestviya v Yuzhnuyu Mongoliyu v 1910 g. (Chinggis’s cult in Ordos. Notes about a trip to Southern Mongolia in 1910). CAJ. t. 6, No. 3.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1680