SCIENCE. EDITED BY L. V. KURAS. Ulan-Ude: Buryat Publishing House. gosuniversiteta Publ., 2014. 376 p. ISBN 978-5-9793-0684-1

The author of the peer-reviewed work is a well-known expert, the author of at least two excellent works on historiography: "Relations between Russia and Mongolia in the XVII-XIX centuries: Issues of Historiography" and "The Genesis of Buryat Mongol Studies in Russian Oriental Studies in the Period of the XIX - early XX centuries" (Dugarov, 2004; Dugarov, 2008). The subject matter stated in the title of the book under review imposes a great responsibility on its author, given the complexity of the research subject itself. Russian science knows examples of a qualitative study of the history of foreign, primarily Western European and American, Mongolian studies, reflected in the monographs of M. I. Golman [Golman, 1970; Golman, 1988; Golman, 2004]. There are separate works, monographs or articles dealing with various aspects of Russian Mongolian studies. In addition to the fact that the category of "Mongolian studies" in its content implies a set of different disciplines related to the study of history, languages, literatures, religion, ethnography, and culture of the Mongolian-speaking peoples that make up the subject, these numerous works differ in terms of the choice of the object of research (scientific literature combined within a specific topic or on the basis of such criteria, In this case, the subject of research is reduced to the study of the creativity of individual scientists or research organizations), respectively, by the nature of the tasks, research methods and in terms of presentation of the material (see:

TISHIN Vladimir Vladimirovich-Candidate of Historical Sciences, Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, tihij-511@mail.ru.

page 212
[Boikova, 2005, p. 15-22]). Therefore, the appearance of works related to specific problems, even within the framework of the historiography of one country, is certainly expected by the scientific community with impatience - a phenomenon in modern Russian science. Such a work should be a book with the title "Russian Historiography of the History of Mongolia".

The very breadth and capacity of the concept of "history of Mongolia" implies, first of all, the study of historical processes related to the territorial space of the Mongolian People's Republic and adjacent territories that took place within a long chronological stage. At the same time, if we talk about the historical periods preceding the formation of the modern Mongolian state, we should talk not only about the historical Mongolian-speaking peoples who took part in the formation of the Mongolian nation, but also about a number of historical peoples who belonged to other language groups, whose destinies are closely connected with the territory of Mongolia. In this sense, the "history of Mongolia" should start at least from the third century BC, which is the first fairly complete and reliable information about a major political entity on the territory of Mongolia - the Xiongnu or Xiongnu Empire; this is if the study of previous stages of the history of Mongolia is considered to be one of the most important historical events in the world. the field of competence of archeology. So, starting from the third century BC, up to the present time, since this is not specified anywhere in the subtitle of V. D. Dugarov's book, the history of studying this chronological segment should be reflected in the work claiming to study the historiography of the history of Mongolia. This is a wide range of narrow and special topics and, accordingly, a huge layer of literature. Consequently, this book was intended to show the experience of generalizing, analyzing and critically analyzing all the numerous literature, at least within the framework of at least some key topics, and to get a periodization of the study of the history of Mongolia in Russia developed on the basis of this analysis. However, as you know, high expectations lead to big disappointments.

The main part of the work, anticipated by the preface of B. V. Bazarov, consists of an introduction, three chapters and a Conclusion.

The introduction was intended to give the reader some understanding of the author's goals, objectives, and methods of work. However, the whole picture does not add up: we read about criticism of Mongolian scientists for trying to " age "the history of the" Mongolian ethnic group "(p. 5), we meet such formulations as " the Eurasian world "(p. 5, 6), "the heroic history of the Mongolian ethnic world" (p. 5), "the capitalist world-system" (p. 6), "Slavic-Turkic-Mongolian civilization" (p. 6), " Middle Ages and Modern times "(p. 7) (despite the fact that, for example, on pages 7-8 the tendencies of "mechanical transfer of processes peculiar to Western civilization and culture to the East" are criticized), "the Mongolian ethnosphere" (p. 8)," Eurasian peoples", taking into account the inclusion of" Russian and Mongolian ethnic groups "(p.30), etc., and in the work itself - on the" stages of evolution " of various spheres of life of peoples (p. 66-67). These categories reflect different theoretical and methodological approaches, and their joint use within the same work requires serious theoretical justification, despite the fact that the author himself, apparently, is aware of this problem (p.319), and this is also highlighted in the preface by B. V. Bazarov (p. 4).

Despite the stated title of the book, the author writes that he "made an attempt to analyze complex theoretical and methodological processes in modern Russian Oriental studies" (p. 8).

In the proposed periodization of "Mongol historiography" V. D. Dugarov identifies three stages:: "1) the formation of Russian science about Mongolia from the XVII to the beginning of the XX century; 2) the history of Mongolia in the XX century; 3) Mongolia from the 1990s to the present" (p. 9). The author considers it possible to divide each of the periods into stages. So, the first one is divided into the following: 1) "from the end of the XVII century, during the reign of Peter 1 and the formation of the Academy of Sciences, until the end of the XVIII century - the initial stage of the formation of classical Oriental and Mongolian studies"; 2) "the stage from the end of the XVIII century to the middle of the XIX century" ... traditionally called "Kazan"; 3) "the second half of the XIX century - the first third of the XX century "(pp. 9-10). In addition to the fact that the publication itself has a number of typos that make it difficult to perceive the text (the first stage is marked "1)", the second "b)" and the third "2)"), this does not correlate in any way with the periodization stated above, which can be seen at least from the fact that the "third stage" of the first period It is already within the chronological framework of the second, but with the structure of the work: in the title, chapter I (pp. 31-70) is designated the XVII-XVIII centuries; chapter II is called "Russian Mongolian studies at the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XX century" (p. 71-214), while paragraphs 2.1 (pp. 71-87) related to the "Kazan period" (late XVIII - first half of the XIX century) are highlighted.,

page 213
2.2 (p. 88-123), which tells about "the concentration of Mongolian studies in the scientific institutions of St. Petersburg in the second half of the XIX century", 2.3 (p. 124-156) and 2.4 (p. 156-214), which tells about the study of Mongolia in the late XIX - early XX centuries, respectively, by travelers and scientists from Eastern Siberia; chapter III (p. 215-315) is called " Domestic Mongolian literature. 1921-the beginning of the XXI century".

After considering various periodizations of the history of Mongolia in Soviet / Russian works (p. 12-17), the author suggests that the interest of Russian society in Mongolia was due to the "never-forgotten Mongol conquests of Russia in the XIII-XV centuries" and "their influence on the further history of Russian statehood" (p.18). Continuing the development of this idea, the author abruptly turns to the list of sources on the history of Mongolia, starting with the Chinese scholar of the II century BC, Sima Qian, continuing with the Old Russian chronicles, and then talking about Mongolian, Chinese, Persian, Arabic and other historical works. In addition to the fact that this fragment is given randomly (for example, the "Secret Legend of the Mongols" is mentioned on page 22, and then on page 24), its expediency is not clear.

On page 29, the author says that he "refused to write a critical essay on the source base, because he will repeatedly address these problems", although in theory his source base should have been made up of works related to the history of Mongolia, thus coinciding with the object of research. He also explains" the absence of a historiographical sketch in the study "by"the presence of a huge number of books and special studies". Here we should talk about existing historiographical studies. However, if you refer to the same bibliography compiled by E. V. Boikova (see above), you can see that there are relatively few of these works: section I. "General works", subsection I. 1. "Mongolian studies", within it-1.1.1. "Russian/Soviet Mongolian studies" in the category "Monographs" - 5 items (Boikova, 2005, p. 15) (+1) (see: [Kulganek, 2006]), "Collections" - 6 "articles" - 101 points [Boikova, 2005, p.15], while a number of articles are related to certain branches of Mongolian studies (for example, linguistics) or the study of individual Mongolian peoples. It should also be taken into account that new literature has been published over the past 14 years (bibliography of E. V. Boikova, 2000). In particular, we can mention, for example, A. A. Nevsky's PhD thesis "Domestic historiography of the formation of the Mongol Empire (late XIX-XX centuries)" defended under the supervision of V. D. Dugarov himself [Nevsky, 2006]. It is here that one could mention the contribution of V. V. Barthold to the study of the history of Oriental studies (pp. 229-230) and point out the work of V. P. Gurchenko on the information of travelers of the XVII-first half of the XIX century about the Buryat-Mongols, which was"from the standpoint of Marxist historical science in Soviet historiography of the first half of the XX century. (p.67), put here the works indicated on pages 276-277, 294-295.

The lack of integrity in the structure and logic in the presentation is one of the main weaknesses of the book. There is no reason to go through all the chapters and sections in detail, but only the most revealing places.

The work itself is structured in such a way that the presentation of the material is conducted in chronological order, but focuses on the work of individual major researchers, despite the fact that significant data from their biographies are often given. However, secondary sources are used here, and we meet mostly with a simple retelling, without any attempt to comprehend their methods and ideas. For example, when it comes to N. Ya. Bichurin (pp. 38-41), V. D. Dugarov simply gives material on two articles by A. N. Khokhlov. Hardly anyone would deny N. Ya. Bichurin's contribution to source studies, but when it comes to his historical views, for example, on the ethnic map of Central Asia, one should not give secondary citations, but at least refer to the works of N. Ya. Bichurin themselves. The fact is that researchers have long noted the lack of an excellent translator and ethnographer; in addition, he transferred data on the contemporary settlement of the peoples of Central Asia, including Mongolia, to previous historical epochs, automatically "mongolizing" all the peoples mentioned here by Chinese sources, starting with Xiong-nu [Foreigners, 1926, p. 30; Bernshtam, 1950, pp. XXXVIII-XXXIX].

After the passage about N. Ya. Bichurin, for some reason, there is an excursion into the history of Old Mongolian writing and printing (p. 42-46), which gradually turns into philosophizing about Mongolian history (p.46-50), then to the plot about source studies (p. 51-54).

page 214
Similarly, Section 1.2, entitled "The role of foreign scientists in the development of Mongolian studies in Russia", is constructed. Starting with the account of the travels of the thirteenth-century missionaries J. Plano Carpini, G. Rubruk, and the merchant Marco Polo (pp. 54-58), V. D. Dugarov proceeds to the German explorers of Siberia, Mongolia, and Central Asia who worked as part of the expeditions equipped by the government of the Russian Empire from the beginning of the eighteenth century. Again focusing on individual individuals, which is justified in this case, the author nevertheless provides unequal material in quantitative and qualitative terms, which can be explained by the different contribution of a particular researcher to science. However, it is difficult to understand what relation, unlike, for example, G. F. Miller, P. S. Pallas, D. G. Messerschmidt and I. G. Gmelin have to the actual "history of Mongolia". In any case, the author does not give any personal estimates, but simply follows the conclusions of the authors, according to whose works he provides information about the mentioned researchers (pp. 59, 65, 67). Later, V. I. Dugarov again turns to source studies (p. 67), and then completely to the evaluation of M. I. Golman's scientific work (p.68-70).

It is interesting that in section 2.2, which deals with St. Petersburg Mongol studies in the second half of the 19th century, we have the opportunity to meet N. M. Karamzin and S. M. Solovyov (pp. 93-95), although the assessment of their contribution to the "historiography of the history of Mongolia" is reduced to separate comments on the Mongol invasion of the lands of the Russian principalities and it is given on the basis of a couple of quotations, without analyzing their views in a broad historiographical context. V. P. Vasiliev, a Sinologist, is specifically mentioned on pages 118-122, but before that he was mentioned a couple of times in connection with the general history of St. Petersburg University (pp. 88, 95-96). A number of similar passages break the general presentation of the formation of Mongolian studies at St. Petersburg University (pp. 88-89, 96-97, 99). One of these subjects is a fragment about the activities of the Russian Geographical Society (p. 89-91), in particular, a detailed description of the expeditions of N. M. Przhevalsky, M. V. Pevtsov, V. I. Robrovsky, P. K. Kozlov (p. 100-116), even Ch. Ch. Valikhanov is mentioned, but, alas, only as a traveler and explorer of Kazakhstan and Central Asia (pp. 116-117), without taking into account his important works, for example, on the Golden Horde. Similarly, in the next section we find information about G. N. Potanin, D. A. Klementsev, and N. M. Yadrintsev, who discovered the largest monuments of ancient Turkic runic writing in Khusho-Tsaydam, but for some reason this writing is described in sufficient detail (pp. 136-137).

Somehow, such personalities as P. A. Badmaev (p.190-192), Russian Federation, got into the work. Ungern-Sternberg (p. 219-220), D. Suhe-Bator (p.221-222), whose life and activities are discussed as the subject of research by Mongol scholars, but in this case they should not be presented in the same row as the researchers themselves. V. V. Barthold is noted only as a historian of Oriental studies, nothing is said about his works on the history of the Mongols (pp. 229-230), B. Ya. Vladimirtsov, although called the "founder of Soviet Mongolian studies", is mentioned only in connection with the work "Genghis Khan" (Moscow, 1922), but nothing is said about his fundamental posthumous work published in his work " The Social system of the Mongols "(Leningrad, 1934) (p. 231).

Much space is devoted in chapter III to the issues of Mongolia's domestic and foreign policy (pp. 234-260), which, of course, cannot be ignored, but this information should be presented in another special work, since it is not directly related to the "Russian historiography of the history of Mongolia". All these subjects abruptly turn to an abstract presentation of information about scientific institutions of the USSR and Russia related to Mongolian studies, diluted with fragments about the scientific work of individual specialists (pp. 260-268, 295-304, 309-312). In the subsequent presentation of the material in this chapter, logic is completely lost, and the perception of the material is very difficult. The understanding of not only the subject, but also the object of research is completely lost, and the names of research organizations, surnames of researchers, lists of titles of publications, and names of various scientific events replace each other in the general presentation. Thus, considerable attention is paid to such an odious character as L. N. Gumilev, while more is said about his "passion theory" and "Eurasianism", which is presented by the author in a very benevolent tone, but not a word is said about L. N. Gumilev's works on the history of the Mongols (p. 271-273). On page 286, Damba-Darzha Zayaev, a Buryat monk-scientist, suddenly appears, who was noted for a written work published in the second half of the XVIII century, and, apparently, information about him should have been placed in the appropriate chapter. After describing Mongol studies in Kalmykia, the author proceeds to the subjects of studying the history of Tuva (p. 304-308), then Khakassia and Altai, and here he also talks about Oriental studies at the Altai State University (p.308-309).

page 215
The conclusion (pp. 317-321) of the book does not leave the impression of a separate work containing reflections of a historiosophical nature, rather it looks like that part of the work where the results of the study should be summarized. Given the very nature of the resulting work, it is rather difficult to express even any assessment of the thesis that"Russian Mongolian historiography, like the world historiographic science at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, is experiencing a methodological stage of the 'historiographic revolution' "(p.321).

The book ends with the section " Literature "(p. 322-374), divided into three sections: "Published sources "(p. 322-325), among which we will find publications of translations of the Mongolian chronicles, correspondence, and bibliographic indexes and reference books that should have been included (and where such works are present) in the next subsection - "Informational materials and bibliographic collections"; "Used literature", consisting of 655 items, but some of the works indicated here in the reference apparatus of the main part, we will not find.

We should also mention such points as the presence in the work of not quite clear formulations such as "methodological goal" (p. 8), "methodological definition" (p. 8, 318), "political history of the development of Mongolian society" (p. 8), "methodologically clear" (p. 12), "domestic methodological methodology" (p. 12). and historiographical Mongol studies" (p. 319)," methodological stage " (p.231), etc. In the work there are repetitions of some text fragments (for example, on p. 7 and p. 318, on p. 21 and p. 51). In the end, one can also point out technical issues, such as the discrepancy between the specified pages in the content of the actual pagination of the book, as well as a number of typos that occur, of which the most annoying, perhaps, is writing the year of compilation of the "Hidden Legend of the Mongols" as 12340 (p.24) instead of 1240.

In general, the work leaves a depressing impression. The content of the work does not reflect the pretentious title. The author, of course, made an important attempt to bring a lot of material, but presented it in a disordered way, without any conceptual understanding, which reduces the quality of the work to the level of a hastily compiled compilation, while in many ways including from the two previous, I repeat, excellent works. This is indeed a very "raw" work, and familiarity with it, given its authorship, unwittingly gives the impression that there were some subjective reasons why it was not completed and published in this form.

I would like to hope that such an authoritative expert as V. D. Dugarov, who has already established himself as an author of very high-quality historiographical research, will be able to expect a truly fundamental study of the "Russian historiography of the history of Mongolia"in the future. It would also be a good idea to provide such a book with appropriate indexes.

A peer-reviewed paper, even if it had a more ordered structure, cannot claim such a title, even based on its content. The author focuses on the history of research organizations or the work of individual researchers related to Mongolian studies, but this is not a "historiography of the history of Mongolia".

list of literature

Bichurin (Iakinf) and his work "Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times" / / Bichurin N. Ya. [Iakinf]. Sobranie informatsii o narodakh, obitavshikh v Srednoi Azii v drevni vremeni [Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times].

Boikova E. V. Bibliografiya otechestvennykh rabot po mongolovedeniyu 1946-2000 gg. [Bibliography of domestic works on Mongolian studies in 1946-2000].

Golman M. I. Izuchenie istorii Mongolii na Zapad (XIII - seredina XX veka) [Studying the history of Mongolia in the West (XIII-mid-XX century)].

Golman M. I. Mongol studies in the West (centers, cadres, societies). 50s - mid-90s of the XX century. Moscow: IV RAS, 2004.

Golman M. I. Problemy sovremennoi istorii MNR v bourzhuaznoy istoriografii SSHA [Problems of the modern history of the MNR in the bourgeois Historiography of the USA].

Dugarov V. D. Relations between Russia and Mongolia in the XVII-XIX centuries: the issues of historiography. Ulan-Ude: Buryat State Publishing House. university Press, 2004.

page 216
Dugarov V. D. Genezis buryatskogo mongolovedeniya v rossiiskom vostokovedenii v period XIX - nachala XX vvakh [Genesis of Buryat Mongolian studies in Russian Oriental studies in the period of the XIX-early XX centuries]. stipend. Ulan-Ude: Balig Publ., 2008.

Foreigners K. A. Xiongnu and Huns (analysis of theories about the origin of the Xiongnu people in Chinese chronicles, about the origin of the European Huns, and about the mutual relations of these two peoples). 2nd additional ed. of L., 1926.

Kulganek I. V. Review of: Boikova E. V. Bibliografiya otechestvennykh rabot po mongolovedeniyu: 1946-2000 gg. - Moscow: Vostochny. лит., 2005. - 687 с. [06.12.2006] // http://www.orientalstudies.ru/rus/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1590&Itemid=48 (24.12.2015)

Nevsky A. A. Domestic historiography of the formation of the Mongol Empire (the end XIX - XX centuries.): Avtoref. cand. diss. Ulan-Ude Publ., 2006.

page 217

Permanent link to this publication: