‘Did a Dzungar Khanate Really Exist?’: Criticism of the Article by Junko Miyawaki

The paper analyzes the concept about the status and type of the Dzungar Khanate developed by the famous Orientalist, Junko Miyawaki-Okada. According to the scholar, the Dzungar Khanate never existed though she does acknowledge its status of a nomadic empire. The main supporting proof is the fact that its rulers (except for Galdan Boshugtu Khan) never received the title of ‘Khan’ from the Dalai Lama and instead used the title ‘Khong Tayiji’. On that ground, J. Miyawaki proposes to use her authorial term ‘Khong Tayiji Viceroyalty’ to denote the Dzungar Khanate. The Japanese researcher harshly criticizes ‘I. Zlatkin’s Russian school’ for the erroneous — in her opinion — use of the term ‘Dzungar Khanate’.
The research concludes that J. Miyawaki’s concept is incorrect due to a number of factors, including as follows:
First of all, the term ‘khanate’ is supposed to denote a specific type of nomadic state widespread in the Turco-Mongolian world, though in some cases the term may be borrowed by neighboring nomadic states or retained by ex-nomadic states that tend to or have adopted sedentary life. As for Oirat ethno-political nomadic alliances, only three of them existed long enough and, in our opinion, may be referred to as khanates: the Kalmyk (or Volga), Kokonor (or Khoshut) and Dzungar Khanates. Those possessed almost all properties of a state: an own territory and population, public nature of power and administrative apparatus, army, court, judicial legislation, tax system, one national language and script, full or partial sovereignty. Lack of such attributes as citizenship, coat of arms, anthem, etc. is insignificant — in view of the specific nature inherent to the steppe model of Oriental despotism.
Secondly, by the 18th century the titles ‘Khan’ and ‘Khong Tayiji’ had experienced some certain evolution. Those were bestowed not only by the Dalai Lama but also by emperors of Russia and China. In case of Chinese emperors, bestowment of the title ‘Khan’ (like other titles designating princes of blood — qinwang, junwang, beile, beise, gung) was not accompanied by appropriation of any real power. That was only a title of honor. None of the Oirat communities headed by Noyons who had received from the Chinese the title ‘Khan’ — were ever classified as a ‘khanate’ since those had no even partial sovereignty. So, when it comes to the classification of a certain nomadic state one should pay attention not to the titles of its rulers but rather to the properties confirming its real position as a state, even if it is vassal by nature.
Thirdly, the circumstances under which the title ‘Khong Tayiji’ was bestowed to Dzungar rulers should also be taken into consideration. In the 1630-1660s, the Dzungar ethno-political union followed the political trends directed by the Khoshuts, so the title ‘Khong Tayiji’ adopted by Batur and his son Senge simply identified their position as second-rank leaders of the Oirat world — after Gushi Nomyn Khan and Ochirtu Tsetsen Khan. After Galdan Khong Tayiji defeated Ochirtu Khan and became the leader of Northern Central Asia, he received the title of Boshogtu Khan. His successors could not hope to obtain the title ‘Khan’ due to the disfavor of the then ruler of Tibet and later that of Chinese emperors who took control over Dalai Lamas. This is actually the reason why rulers of Dzungaria started adopting the title ‘Khong Tayiji’ on their own which, over a century, merely became a tradition.
Thus, the Dzungar Khanate was actually a khanate.

1. Bakunin V. M. Opisanie kalmytskikh narodov, a osoblivo iz nikh torgoutskogo, i postupkov ikh khanov i vladel’tsev: Sochinenie 1761 goda / vstup. st. M. M. Batmaeva [Description of the Kalmyk peoples, in particular, Torgout people, and deeds of their khans and landlords. 1761. Foreword by M. Batmaev]. Elista, Kalmizdat Publ., 1995, 158 p. (In Russ.).

2. Bichurin N. Ya. (Iakinf). Istoricheskoe obozrenie oyratov ili kalmykov s XV stoletiya do nastoyashchego vremeni. 2-e izd. [Historic review of the Oirats, or Kalmyks, from the 15th c. to the present time. 2nd ed.]. Elista, Kalm. Book Publ., 1991, 128 p. (In Russ.).

3. Buddiyskaya traditsiya v Kalmykii i Zapadnoy Mongolii: sakral’nye ob”ekty / E. P. Bakaeva, K. V. Orlova, N. Khishigt, Ts. Enkhchimeg [Buddhist tradition in Kalmykia and Western Mongolia: sacral objects. E. Bakaeva et al.]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2015, 238 p.

4. Istoriya Kalmykii s drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney: v 3 t. T. 1 [History of Kalmykia from ancient times to the present days: in 3 vol. Vol. 1]. Elista, Gerel Publ., 2009, 710 p. (In Russ.).

5. Kalmyki (seriya «Narody i kul’tury») [The Kalmyks (series ‘Nations and Cultures’)]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2010, 568 p. (In Russ.).

6. Kukeev D. G. Administrativnoe delenie i rasselenie etnicheskikh grupp v Dzhungarskom khanstve XVIII v. po dannym sovremennoy kitayskoy istoriografii [Administrative division and allocation of ethnic groups within the Dzungar Khanate in the 18th c. according to contemporary Chinese historiography]. Problemy etnicheskoy istorii i kul’tury tyurko-mongol’skikh narodov. Vyp. 2 [Turco-Mongolian peoples: problems of ethnic history and culture]. Elista, Kalmyk Inst. for Humanities (RAS) Press, 2010, pp. 75–83 (In Russ.).

7. Kychanov E. I., Savitskiy L. S. Lyudi i bogi Strany snegov. Ocherk istorii Tibeta i ego kul’tury [People and Gods in the Land of Snows. Sketches on the history and culture of Tibet]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1975, 319 p. (In Russ.).

8. Lunnyy svet: Kalmytskie istoriko-literaturnye pamyatniki / sost., red., predisl., komment. A. V. Badmaeva [The Moonlight: Kalmyk historical and literary monuments. Comp., edit. and comment. by A. Badmaev]. Elista, Kalm. Book Publ., 2003, 477 p. (In Russ.).

9. Men-gu-yu-mu-tszi. Zapiski o mongol’skikh kochev’yakh / per. s kit. P. S. Popova [Notes on nomadic territories of the Mongols]. St. Petersburg, P. O. Yablonsky Publ., 1895 (In Russ.).

10. Miyawaki-Okada J. Dzhungarskoe khanstvo, kotoroe ne bylo khanstvom [Dzungar Khanate which was not a khanate]. ALTAICA-III [bulletin]. Moscow, Institute of Oriental Studies (RAS) Press, 1999, pp. 58–72 (In Russ.).

11. Nepomnin O. E., Ivanov N. A. Tipologiya aziatskikh obshchestv [Typology of Asian communities]. Moscow, Vost. Lit. Publ., 2010, 440 p. (In Russ.).

12. Ochirov U. B. Popytki ob”edineniya kalmytskikh i nogayskikh plemen v pervoy polovine XVIII veka [Attempts of unification of Kalmyk and Nogai tribes in the first half of the 18th c.]. Vestnik Kalmytskogo instituta gumanitarnykh issledovaniy RAN [Bulletin of the Kalmyk Institute for Humanities of the RAS], No. 17, Elista, 2002, pp. 77–85 (In Russ.).

13. Ochirov U. B. Rospis’ knyazya I. F. Baryatinskogo 1733 g. kak istochnik po etnicheskoy i demograficheskoy istorii kalmykov [Prince Baryatinsky’s report of 1733 as a source on the ethic and demographic history of Kalmyks]. Problemy etnicheskoy istorii i kul’tury tyurko-mongol’skikh narodov [Turco-Mongolian peoples: problems of ethnic history and culture], 2009, No. 1, pp. 87–100 (In Russ.).

14. Pis’mennye pamyatniki po istorii oyratov XVII — XVIII vekov / sost., perevod, predisl., komment. V. P. Sanchirova [Written monuments in the history of Oirats: 17th–18th cc. Comp., transl., comment. by V. Sanchirov]. Elista, Kalmyk Inst. for Humanities (RAS) Press, 2016, 270 p. (In Russ.).

15. Sanchirov V. P. Istoricheskoe znachenie Dzhungarskogo s”ezda mongol’skikh i oyratskikh knyazey 1640 goda [Historical significance of the 1640 Dzungar Congress of Mongolian and Oirat princes]. Vestnik Kalmytskogo instituta gumanitarnykh issledovaniy RAN [Bulletin of the Kalmyk Institute for Humanities of the RAS], 2009, No. 2, pp. 15–19 (In Russ.).

16. Sanchirov V. P. Ob odnoy oshibke v istorii oyratov XVII v. Posleslovie k stat’e Dzhunko Miyavaki «Kalmytskie tayshi v nachale XVII veka» [About one mistake in the history of Oirats in the 17th c. Concluding remarks to Junko Miyawaki’s article ‘Kalmyk Pronces in the Early 17th Century’]. ALTAICA-IV [bulletin]. Moscow, Institute of Oriental Studies (RAS) Press, 2000, pp. 108–120 (In Russ.).

17. Shakapba V. D. Tibet: politicheskaya istoriya [Tibet: political history]. St. Petersburg, Nartang Publ., 2003, 432 p. (In Russ.).

18. Ishihama Yu. A study of seals and Titles Conferred by the Dalai Lamas. Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Vol. 2: Language, History and Culture. Narita, Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992, pp. 501–514 (In Eng.).

19. Okada H. Origins of the Dorben Oyirad. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. Neue Folge. Band 7. 1987, pp. 181–211 (In Eng.).