Discussion Problems on the Origin of the Kyrgyz People
In recent years, professional historians have been attempting to present a verified history of Kyrgyzstan based on a comprehensive set of historical sources, using new methodological approaches to the study of political, socio-economic, cultural, and ethnic processes. Historical figures whose names were forgotten during the Soviet period for ideological reasons have found a worthy place in monographs and textbooks. New objective interpretations have been proposed for significant historical events and processes, such as the annexation of Kyrgyz territories to Russia, the Kyrgyz uprising of 1916, the cultural revolution, and the Stalinist repressions of 1937-1938, etc. (Asankanov, Junushaliev, Kakeev, Saparaaliev, 2000; Osmonov, Asankanov, 2001; Ploskih, Junushaliev, 2007).
However, in the process of re-reading and rethinking history, a whole group of newly emerged "historians" from among amateurs in this field has appeared. They strive to "expose" Soviet historians who allegedly deliberately concealed many historical facts, thus causing a sensation (For more details, see: Masanov, Abylkhozhin, Erofeeva, 2007. p. 44). Representatives of this historical direction have begun to publish volumes of mythologized history, where fictional legends intertwine with history, and fairy-tale heroes are presented as real historical figures. Among such authors, it is worth particularly noting K. Sydykova (Sydykova, 2007), O. Aitimbet (Aitimbet, 2007), and K. Musaev (Musaev, 1999).
According to the definition of the famous Kazakh poet and publicist O. Suleimenov, in the works of such amateurs, "all knowledge about their past is drawn from oral heroic epics, which are undated and almost not tied to geography. The natural desire to restore the lost history gives rise to the creativity of self-taught historians, to whom the epic tradition has been passed down with their mother's milk - the desire to heroize the past.
The works of such historians are more accurately referred to as art rather than science. And some - simply to the fairy-tale genre" (Suleimenov, http://www.centrasia.ru/news A.php?st=1240606800. 25.04.2009). The most important task for professional historians is to write a scientific history of the Kyrgyz and Kyrgyzstan based on a comparative analysis of available sources, including materials from oral folk art. In this context, the problems of ethnogenesis and ethnic history in antiquity and the Middle Ages become particularly relevant.
One of the most controversial issues is the question of the origin of the Kyrgyz people. The reason for this is the reports from written sources about the presence of ethnic groups named "Kyrgyz" simultaneously in various regions of Southern Siberia, Mongolia, and Central Asia throughout the Middle Ages. Already in the 19th century, two opposing viewpoints emerged among researchers. Most scholars, based on the indisputable fact of the ancient Kyrgyz living in the Minusinsk Basin, began to actively defend the concept of their migration from the Yenisei to the Tian Shan. Another group of historians, relying on certain sources, proposed the hypothesis that the Kyrgyz have long been indigenous inhabitants of the Tian Shan and Pamir-Alai, but in ancient times they were called Usun or Bolu (Burut). Thus, two hypotheses regarding the origin of the people were formed: 1) the Kyrgyz migrated to the Tian Shan from Siberia (migration theory) and 2) the Kyrgyz are the indigenous inhabitants of the Tian Shan (autochthonous theory).
In turn, supporters of the first concept are divided into the following directions regarding the chronology of the migration of the Kyrgyz from the Yenisei to the Tian Shan.
The French orientalist Y. Klaproth and the Russian researcher A. I. Levshin, like their predecessors G. Miller and I. Fisher, are the founders of the concept of the migration of the Kyrgyz from the Yenisei to the Tian Shan. Relying on reports from Russian sources about the forced removal of the remnants of the Yenisei Kyrgyz by the Dzungars in 1703 in an unknown direction, these scholars suggested that they were relocated to the Tian Shan (Miller, 1937-1941; Fisher, 1774; Klaproth, 1823; Levshin, 1832). Although their proposed hypothesis was a rather simplified approach to the problem of the origin of the Tian Shan Kyrgyz, it served as one of the first scientific versions about the origin of the people and laid the foundation for a broad discussion in the scientific circles of Russia and Western countries.
In the mid-19th century, after Ch. Ch. Valikhanov introduced new Muslim source information into scientific circulation, the above hypothesis was rejected, as the information from "Tarikh-i Rashidi" by Muhammad Haydar indicates that the Kyrgyz had been living in the Tian Shan at least since the beginning of the 16th century. Moreover, as a result of N. Ya. Bichurin's research on the history of the Oirat based on Chinese sources, it became clear that the Yenisei Kyrgyz taken by the Dzungars did not go to the Tian Shan but were settled in the Priirtyshye region, along the Emel River, where they formed a separate "Kyrgyz island" of the Dzungar Khanate with a total of 4,000 yurts (Abdykalikov, 1968. pp. 80-85; Butanaev, Khudyakov, 2000. pp. 174-180). After the defeat of the Dzungar Khanate by the Qing Empire in the mid-18th century, this group of Kyrgyz was relocated to Manchuria and is currently known as the Fuyuy Kyrgyz (Butanaev, 2006. pp. 6-15).
Nevertheless, the hypothesis of the migration of the Kyrgyz in earlier periods of history continued to develop as new materials from written sources, archaeology, and folklore about the Kyrgyz of Siberia and the Tian Shan accumulated.
Ethnic History of the Kyrgyz People