History of the Origin of the Kyrgyz People
The problem of the origin of the Kyrgyz people is one of the most complex and controversial aspects of the ethnic history of Central Asia. Since the second half of the 18th century, this issue has attracted the close attention of Russian, Western European, and Eastern historians, geographers, and chroniclers. Hypotheses are born one after another, guesses and assumptions are expressed, and various aspects of the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz are studied. This unchanging, enduring interest to this day is explained by many reasons, especially by the fact that historical sources testify to the existence of two ethnic communities with the same name "Kyrgyz": in an earlier period — in Southern Siberia, on the Yenisei; in a later period — in the eastern part of Central Asia, in the Tian Shan and Pamir-Alai mountains. The persistent interest in the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz is also caused by the peculiar role that the ancestors of the modern Kyrgyz played in the historical fates of a number of peoples and tribes of antiquity and the Middle Ages. Finally, this problem has attracted the attention of researchers not least because until recently, there were no reliable sources that would allow for the resolution of many questions on a solid factual basis.
The founders of the study of the ethnic history of modern Kyrgyz can rightly be considered Russian scholars who made the most significant contributions to the development of this problem. Among them are 18th-century scholars — P. I. Rychkov and Academician V. N. Tatishchev, as well as Captain I. G. Andreev. It should also be added that F. Efremov, who personally traveled through the pastures of the Kyrgyz in the late 1770s, reported: “From Ush (modern city of Osh in southern Kyrgyzstan — S. A.) to the city of Kashkara (i.e. Kashgar — S. A.) it takes 13 days of travel. Between Ush and Kashkara, the Kyrgyz of a special kind roam in the mountains.” Significant contributions to the development of this problem were made by 19th-century researchers N. Ya. Bichurin (Iakinf), A. I. Levshin, Ch. Ch. Valikhanov, Academician V. V. Radlov, and N. A. Aristov, as well as during the Soviet period by G. E. Grumm-Grzhimailo, Academician V. V. Bartold, A. N. Bernshtam, and other scholars.
The works of several Eastern authors, which provide valuable historical and ethnographic information about the Kyrgyz, have also become part of scientific heritage, allowing us to confidently assert that at least in the second half of the 15th century, the Kyrgyz already inhabited the territory of Tian Shan or in its vicinity.
A new stage in the study of the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz began with research that unfolded in the 1950s.
It was initiated by the Pamir-Fergana archaeological-ethnographic expedition of 1950-1951 (led by A. N. Bernshtam). These studies were continued on a broader basis by the Kyrgyz archaeological-ethnographic expedition of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz SSR in 1953-1955 (leaders: in 1953 — A. P. Okhladnikov, in 1954-1955 — G. F. Debets). The search for materials in historical and geographical works of Eastern authors and the translations of excerpts from these works into Russian, undertaken at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences (group leader V. A. Romodin), were of significant importance for studying the questions of the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz. In those years and later, various studies were conducted by Kyrgyz linguists. Their works also contributed to revealing the ethnogenetic ties of the Kyrgyz and certain aspects of their ethnic history. The results of the research by archaeologists, ethnographers, historians, and linguists in the field of studying the problem of the origin of the Kyrgyz people were summarized at a joint scientific session of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz SSR held in November 1956 in Frunze, dedicated to the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz people. The participants of this session concluded that the main core of the Kyrgyz people, or at least one of the main components that made up its composition, has Central Asian origins. At the same time, it was acknowledged that the question of the more precise localization of the Central Asian ethnic core of the Kyrgyz remains insufficiently studied.
Valuable data on the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz were discovered in a manuscript of the work "Majmu at-Tavarikh," written in Fergana in the 16th century by Mullah Saif ad-Din Akhsikand. The publication of a draft unfinished manuscript found in the archive of Chokan Valikhanov, dedicated to the Kyrgyz and not included in his previously published "Works," is also of great importance.
The listed materials and sources serve as a solid foundation for identifying the main stages of the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz. They have already been partially used to substantiate some new hypotheses about the origin of the Kyrgyz people.
Currently, three directions have emerged in the study of the ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Kyrgyz people. One of them is related to the development or interpretation of A. N. Bernshtam's hypothesis about the "multi-stage" resettlement of the Kyrgyz to Tian Shan over 1300-1400 years (see the previously mentioned and below cited works). This hypothesis still has supporters to varying degrees, who tend to consider the Kyrgyz as the aborigines of Tian Shan, at least in the period preceding the Mongol conquest.
Another direction closely aligns with A. N. Bernshtam's hypothesis, which acknowledges that the Kyrgyz have continuously inhabited the Tian Shan and Pamir-Alai mountains since ancient times. This viewpoint was held by 19th-century researchers such as N. Ya. Bichurin, Ch. Ch. Valikhanov, and N. A. Aristov. Recently, A. Kh. Margulan has widely developed and substantiated Ch. Ch. Valikhanov's views on this issue. From several considerations expressed by Ch. Ch. Valikhanov, A. Kh. Margulan concluded that the center of the Kyrgyz political union in the 9th-10th centuries was located in the area of Urumqi and north of Turfan. From there, the Kyrgyz made migrations in various directions. Some strong groups among those migrating toward Tian Shan remained in this territory and gave the name of Kyrgyz to the emerging local population. The assertion that the main core of the Kyrgyz has been on the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan since ancient times was supported by A. Khasanov and some other participants of the aforementioned scientific session on the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz people.
Although the arguments of supporters of the theory of the autochthonous origin of the Kyrgyz or their main core have either not been confirmed or are not sufficiently convincing, and the original connection of the Kyrgyz with the territory of their modern habitat remains unproven, a theory of the formation of the Kyrgyz people based on ancient local populations continues to be maintained and supported without any new scientific data. This theory has a certain influence on the views of some historians in Kyrgyzstan.
The third direction, represented by the works of K. I. Petrov, also stems from two or three stages of the resettlement of the Kyrgyz ethnic group from the "Yenisei-Irtysh interfluve," but dates them to a later period covering 300-400 years.
In general terms, K. I. Petrov's hypothesis posits that the main mass (or mass-stream, or core) of the tribes that later formed the Kyrgyz people and developed in the 1st millennium AD were the Kimak (Kipchak)-Kyrgyz tribes of the "Yenisei-Irtysh interfluve," as well as closely related Eastern Kipchak tribes. Initially occupying the Ili-Irtysh interfluve (in the mid and late 13th century), they then began to move toward Central Tian Shan. The author explains these movements by military-political events, especially invasions by enemy troops. Initially, the advance toward Tian Shan occurred in small groups, which mixed with the other Mongolian-Turkic population. In the post-Timurids period (15th century), the resettlement to Tian Shan took on a mass character.
The spread of these tribes across Tian Shan (13th-15th centuries) coincided, in the author's opinion, with the beginning of the process of forming the Kyrgyz people.
This hypothesis regarding the origin of modern Kyrgyz has not been the subject of serious consideration in scientific literature until recently. An exception is the article by Kyrgyz scholar O. Karaev. A brief assessment of some of K. I. Petrov's views is contained in the author's summarizing work — "The Kyrgyz." Some of K. I. Petrov's ethnogenetic constructions have been completely refuted.
The main provisions of K. I. Petrov's hypothesis rest on more or less substantiated assumptions, on very controversial, largely arbitrary interpretations of historical sources. Nevertheless, K. I. Petrov often operates his hypothetical constructions as if they were well-founded scientific evidence and established historical facts. The aforementioned article by O. Karaev was the first attempt to examine one of K. I. Petrov's works from the perspective of the correctness of the use and interpretation of some sources that he employs to substantiate his hypotheses. Overall, O. Karaev's attempt deserves attention, although some of his objections are insufficiently substantiated, and it is difficult to agree with certain positions of O. Karaev.
As for the historical basis of this hypothesis, we find it possible to fully agree with the remark of V. P. Yudin, which should be attributed specifically to K. I. Petrov's hypothesis: "The attempt to explain the appearance of the Kyrgyz in Tian Shan primarily through their penetration from Altai and Yenisei into the Tian Shan regions after the Mongol conquest, the accumulation there of a significant number of specifically Kyrgyz tribes, and the subsequent displacement of the Moguls from Tian Shan and partial assimilation of the latter remains a little convincing hypothesis, as it is not supported by sufficient evidence from sources proving that the process had precisely such a character and sequence."
S. M. Abramzon does not seek to revise or completely reject K. I. Petrov's entire hypothesis, which has received recognition from some historians in Kyrgyzstan, although he does not hide his critical attitude towards several main provisions of this hypothesis.
It should be emphasized that in several works by K. I. Petrov published in 1960-1963, some important ideas and constructions proposed by participants of the aforementioned scientific session dedicated to the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz people, including the author of this work, who developed various issues of the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz people from 1947 to 1959 (the main results of these studies were presented in separate articles and reports published in 1954-1960, partially in works published in 1961-1963), were fully or partially accepted, in some cases repeated, and in others developed.
Therefore, K. I. Petrov's works include positions on the formation of the Kyrgyz people and its ethnic history that are generally similar to a number of statements and conclusions of his predecessors, and to a significant extent directly rely on the works of some participants of the Kyrgyz archaeological-ethnographic expedition and the mentioned session, especially regarding ethnographic studies.
It must be acknowledged that the solutions to the questions of the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz proposed by the authors of the aforementioned hypotheses and theories have a linear character. According to A. P. Bernshtam's hypothesis, the movement to Tian Shan was primarily participated in by the Yenisei Kyrgyz. The picture of these Kyrgyz's movement to Tian Shan was quite clear, although the author's argumentation was by no means convincing in all respects. At the same time, K. I. Petrov's hypothesis about the movement of some conditional group of Kimak-Kyrgyz tribes, which included both "inflows" and "outflows," presents us with an extremely complex picture of the ethnic process. In doing so, the author strives to "fit" ethnic processes into the framework of political events, viewing them primarily through the lens of political history, and willingly or unwillingly "adjusts" the facts of ethnic history to political history. However, ethnic history is a combination of social, economic, and other phenomena, as well as processes affecting cultural, everyday, and ethnic traditions. It cannot be reduced mainly to migrations caused by political events and military clashes. Such an approach can hardly be considered correct.
Moreover, K. I. Petrov does not give due importance to such a factor as ethnic territory. Meanwhile, the vast expanses occupied by the mountain ranges of Tian Shan and Pamir-Alai, partly also Sayan-Altai and Kunlun, along with the adjacent mountainous areas, were at different times developed by various tribes. The pastures, migratory routes, hunting grounds, and arable lands located in these areas, along with the scattered camps and settlements, must be fully recognized as the ethnic territory associated with the formation of the tribes that later became part of the Kyrgyz people and the formation of the people itself. It is hardly possible to consider the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz, their ethnic history, outside the stable ethnic territory at certain periods, although the mobility of the nomadic tribes from which the Kyrgyz people were formed and the vicissitudes of their military-political fates could sometimes narrow or expand, or seemingly "blur" the boundaries of their ethnic territory.
In reality, the Kyrgyz people formed as a result of close ethnic interconnections between the local and incoming populations, and its ethnic history could hardly have the excessively complicated character that K. I. Petrov attributes to it in his works. Its main feature was, so to speak, its "multidimensionality." The ethnic history of the Kyrgyz was shaped in diverse connections with the ethnic processes occurring in Central Asia, Southern Siberia, and the steppes of modern Kazakhstan; it cannot be considered without taking these connections into account.
That is why the resolution of many questions arising in the analysis of the driving forces and stages of the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz people is unlikely to be found if it is sought along the path of the movement over several centuries of some single "mass-stream" of Turkic-speaking tribes from the "Yenisei-Irtysh interfluve," which represented almost a fully formed Kyrgyz ethnic community.
It should be added that while it has long become evident that the identification of the Yenisei and Tian Shan Kyrgyz is impossible, it is equally evident that the complete denial of some ethnogenetic ties between them is unfounded, which can be discovered upon closer examination of data from archaeology, history, language, and ethnography.
The process of forming the tribes that made up the Kyrgyz people took place over a long period across a vast territory. Most modern researchers have concluded that the ancestors of the Kyrgyz tribes were connected by their origins to the ancient tribal unions of the Saka and Usun, the Dinlins, and the Huns.
When considering the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz people and the problem of its ethnogenesis, questions arise that ethnographic science is called upon to answer. These include, in particular, questions such as: what are the ethnic components that made up the Kyrgyz people; in what territory did the formation of these ethnic components and the Kyrgyz people itself take place; what is the sequence of their inclusion in the composition of the Kyrgyz people, their "weight," etc.
Unfortunately, some historians have not taken into account the testimonies of ethnographic sources, while some authors have simply bypassed these sources. This leads to a certain impoverishment of the factual side of the research, to some one-sidedness, and to the emergence of poorly substantiated, hasty, and controversial hypotheses, constructions, and concepts. Indeed, the possibilities of ethnography are somewhat limited, primarily by chronological boundaries. However, with proper and careful use of even relatively late ethnographic materials, and with a strictly scientific approach to them, they can shed light on earlier periods of ethnic history.
It would seem that when researching the question of the formation of the Kyrgyz people, it is necessary first of all to identify the specific ethnic components from which it was formed. However, in many works until recently, there was talk of the Kyrgyz in general, of the resettlement or movement of all Kyrgyz. It is now recognized that the study of the ethnic history of the Kyrgyz, like that of any other ethnicity, can only be successful if the origins of the main components that made up their composition are established. In relation to the Kyrgyz, this is especially important, as the chronological and geographical coordinates associated with their name are exceptionally broad.
History of the Study of the Origin of the Kyrgyz People
