2 номер англ на сайт дана by MFAKAZAKHSTAN

DIPLOMATIC HERALD 12 (50) (51) 2015

550

The th anniversary of the Kazakh Khanate: The diplomatic aspect

Independence - the most sacred value for all Kazakhs. The dream of our ancestors realized our happiness in our generation. Keep it our duty. Kerey Janibek and in 1465 created the first khanate and the Kazakh statehood dates back to those times. President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev

EDITORIAL

Dear Reader! The anniversary of the Kazakh Khanate stands out from other memorable events this year. According to historical accounts, 550 years ago the world witnessed the formation of a new state in the vast territories of the steppe - the Kazakh Yely, established by Zhanibek and Kerey khans. This was the moment the Kazakh statehood, whose origins date back to hoary antiquity, was formed. Since then we have witnessed the workings of the Kazakh diplomacy, heavily influenced by the practice of Kazakh Khanates, and officially established after Kazakhstan gained its independence at the end of the 20th century. Taking into account the continuing relevance of this event, which the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev said “was skillfully interwoven due to its unique ornament into a inflorescence of past and present civilizations of Eurasia”, the topic of the Kazakh statehood passes as a common thread through the content of this publication’s issue. This fully meets the objective of the founder of this publication – to expand visibility and popularity of Kazakhstan in the global community. The materials brought to your attention eloquently

demonstrate the richness of Kazakhstan’s diplomatic practice, the subjective nature of kurultays, khans, sultans and biis. In parallel with the methods of wartime diplomacy, various forms and means of interactions were developed, based on specific situations and missions. They included inter-dynastic marriages, exchange of diplomatic gifts, use of differences between states, the search for allies, provision of amanats and actualization of the role of khans’ councils. Ultimately our ancestors centuries ago, using diplomatic measures, managed to legitimize the power of the rulers in the territory of Desht-i-Kipchak, protect the integrity of their territories from foreign aggression and intervention and as much as possible maintain the Khanate’s sovereignty. Nowadays, the people of Kazakhstan remember the legacy of their glorious ancestors who had to pay a heavy price for independence. For this reason, the modern diplomatic service of the Republic of Kazakhstan represents this young independent state in 65 countries in five continents with honor. Now it is time to inquisitively look over the events of the past centuries.

CONTENTS

Мeruert ABUSEITOVA, International relations and diplomatic practice in the Kazakh Khanate in the 16th-18th centuries

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Nurlan ATYGAEV, The Kazakh Khanate in the system of international relations within Eurasia

Dauletbek RAEV, Tole Bi’s foreign policy and his diplomatic activity

Mambet KOYGELDIEV, Correspondence between StrongVoiced Kazybek biy and GovernorGeneral Ivan Neplyuyev

Dariko MAZHIDENOVA, Ablai Khan diplomatic skills

Alexander VASILIEV, Correspondence of Kazakh Khan Kaip Muhammad with Ottoman Sultan Ahmed III at the beginning of the XVIII century

Gaziz TELEBAEV, Shaping of Turkic World view

Gulnar MUKANOVA, Historical reasons for Kazakhstan’s diplomatic vector: Central Asia – Southeast Asia (Methodology, practice, sources)

The History of Kazakhstan and Central Asia in World Oriental Studies

From the Turkic El to the Kazakh Khanate

To sit on a horse, put on a ‘‘shapan’’

“Diplomatic Service in the context of the world politics’ evolution” by Mazhidenova D.M.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Мeruert ABUSEITOVA, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Corresponding member of the National Academy of Sciences of the RK R.B. Suleimenov Institute of Oriental Studies (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

International relations and diplomatic practice in the Kazakh Khanate in the 16th-18th centuries The history of the Great Steppe, which geographically located in the center of Eurasia and associated with active interactions with other cultures and religions, was recorded in a wide variety of sources and materials. For that reason, knowledge and materials on the history and culture of the Kazakh people were documented by its closest neighbors, as well as by those who by the nature’s design passed through the territories of the Great Steppe and also recorded their observations for descendants. With the State programs “Cultural heritage” and “People in the stream of history”, initiated by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N.A.Nazarbayev, it has become possible to enlarge and expand the Kazakh source studies and informationhistoric base by copies of unique artifacts and archive materials from foreign funds, that adds great value for objective research of the history of the Kazakh statehood and history of Kazakhstan’s international relations with neighboring states. Sources describing the history of diplomatic relations of Kazakh rulers constitute a quite substantive and diverse material. Written oriental sources are the first among them, the main content of which is the

description of military campaigns and foreign policy interests of states. These include, for example, Iskandar Munshi’s “Tarikh-i-alamarayi Abbasi”, Khafiz Tanysh’s “Sharaf-namei shahi”, Sukhail’s “Imamkuli-khanname” and others. They also contain texts of treaties between khans, rulers of states. Information in these sources is sometimes biased, their content at times is ceremonial and pompous, and they shall be treated with prejudice. Archive material is a special category of sources, which includes embassy books, archives of foreign policy, historical acts, and official correspondence. They full of statistic data, have a trend to the systematize events and phenomena, contain initial chronological points. Written monuments in the form of miniatures also provide data on the history of inter-state relations. These miniatures portray receptions of embassies, payment of tributes, provision of gifts and etc. Khan’s documents, labels, seals, coins with titulary also convey certain knowledge. Before the discovery of sea routes, all trade and economic ties of China and Europe were carried out through the Great Silk Road, and Kazakhstan, in fact was a linchpin, a bridge for the interconnection and

mutual enrichment between Eastern and Western cultures. Since the 12th century, the busiest route from China to Europe was a transit route through Semirechye and Southern Kazakhstan that was in the orbit of the Great Silk Road. At the present moment considerable attention is given to the studying of links of the Great Silk Road that crossed the territory of Kazakhstan and Central Asia. The more so, since from the second half of the 16th century, a new impetus of life was given to this road. According to written sources of the 16th and 17th centuries, at that time trade routes connecting China, India and Central Asia were also passed through Kazakhstan; pilgrims, military troops crossed its territories. The trade was carried out using seaways through the Caspian Sea between Astrakhan and Mangyshlak, as well as by land through the Caspian Sea coast, Bukhara, Khiva. Nevertheless, available evidences of Eastern authors allow to argue the regularity of trade relations. Indeed, trade between Kazakhs and neighbouring nations was continuous, even during chaos and wars, although war was a serious obstacle for its development. Seydi Ali Reis, a Turkish admiral, an author of “Mirat-ulMemalik” and a contemporary of the described events of the 16th century in Central Asia, in his work, describes the activities of merchants, who were engaged in trade with other countries. Seydi Ali Reis informs about Tashkent and Turkestan roads, which joined Astrakhan and Bukhara through cities near Syrdaria and Saraichik. In Ruzbikhan’s “Mikhman-name-yi Bukhara” there is original information regarding foreign trade connections of Kazakhs in the beginning of the 16th century, about the state of cities of Turkestan, Sygnak, Sairam and their role in the political, economic and cultural life of not only nomads, but also sedentary populations in Central Asia. According to Ruzbikhan, city of Sygnak in the beginning of the 16th century remained a “harbor of Desht-i-Kipchak”, where commodities from the Volga

region, Transoxania, Kashgar, Hotan and China arrived to. “City of Yassy (Yassy-M.A.) is supplied with goods and jewels, trade is taking place there, and it [city] is a place where merchants untie cargo and a departure point for crowds traveling to other countries” [1]. Numerous findings of coins from Otrar, Yassy (Turkestan), Tashkent, Bukhara, Samarkand are indicators of the development of political and trade relations between nations of Central Asia [2]. In the memoirs of the founder of the Great Moguls Empire, a Timurid – Babur there is a mention of caravans returning from China in the end of the 15th century. He talks about a caravan with a thousand of people. This means that it was a large trade with China in these years. A Chinese source of the 18th century “Siui zun dji” illustrates the trade between countries at that time: flourishing Kazakh stock farming allowed to purchase a plenty of Chinese silk and other products. Various documents, found in the First Historical Archives of China, contain information regarding the level and list of items of trade. The history of the Kazakh people of the 15th and 17th centuries has developed in close and multi-faceted contacts with nations of Central Asia, their development ways were intersected and intertwined, military conflicts interlaced with periods of cooperation and friendship, dynastic marriages occurred. There are interesting materials with regard to the history of trade, trade routes, expeditions to steppe lands giving evidence of Kazakhstan as a linchpin, a bridge for the interconnection and mutual enrichment between Eastern and Western cultures. Kazakhstan’s political and trade relations with Central Asian Khanates, India, Afghanistan, Russia considerably expanded in the 16th and 17th centuries, there was an exchange of trade and diplomatic missions. The exchange of embassies between Kazakhstan and these countries was, in fact, a form of commercial intercourse. Kasym khan gave a birth to the active foreign policy

of the Kazakh Khanates’ rulers. Each governor starting from Kerey and Zhanibek “conquered territories” and “turned them into borders”. It is possible that the very notion “country from and to” was inherited by Kazakhs from the Mongolian tradition. The core principle of the foreign policy of Kazakh khans, Shaybanids, Ashtarkhanids was the expansion of territories. The need of nomads in absent and scarce materials missing on their own territory, strive to control trade routes, their intersection points, trade centers and play a major part in the international exchange, strategic considerations, as well as a desire to decrease internal social tensions by means of war and its benefits – all together increased the role of war in the life of nomadic societies. If in the beginning of the 16th century, it was a competition for cities in the Syrdaria region, then in the second half of the 16th-17th centuries there was a broad-scale battle, where the strongest is the winner and that led to the creation of the first large military and political alliances, some sort of “world” powers of the time. Khafiz Tanysh, Iskandar Munshi, Mohamadiar ben Arab katagan and others wrote about it. The Treaty concluded between Kazakh khans and Ashtarkhanids in 1598-1599 is one of the most famous historical agreements about peace and cooperation aimed to repulse foreign aggression and facilitate internal political conflicts. This treaty was negotiated and approved after a war, in which each of opposing forces tried to extent its sphere of influence in cities of the Syrdaria region. Through the obstinate fight against Shaibanids, Kazakh Khans tried to strengthen the Kazakhs’ dominant position in the region. The most complete text of the peaceful treaty made in 1599 between Kazakh khans and Ashtarkhanids was included in “Tarikh-I alamaraii Abbasi”. Following protracted negotiations involving representatives of the Kazakh Khanate and Ashtarkhanids, and with the direct participation of the Sufi order Naqshbandia, a text of the peaceful agreement was aligned. Terms of agreements were required to be implemented strictly. The conclusion of agreements was accompanied

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

with ritual actions, oaths to Allah and symbolized the creation of the holy alliance. The success of the Kazakh Khanate’s foreign policy was achieved mainly thanks to the military force, Kazakh rulers aspired to strengthen it through diplomatic acts-treaties. A contract’s conclusion was preceded by negotiations, during which the document’s harmonization was being negotiated. According to agreement, documents were supposed to regulate relations between partners, including certain safeguards, they had force only with witnesses providing them the legal character. In many agreements the term “union” is coupled with the word “oath”. Evidently, the fact is that any agreement signed by two rulers was also the oath. Dynastic marriages were instruments of state policy focused to enforce friendly relations between khanates, and thus, the great attention was paid to such marriages, because they often accompanied the formation of treaties. The history of the Kazakh Khanate reports about a notable fact regarding the active participation of khanshi in both internal and external policy of the country. For example, Sultan-Nigarkhanym was such a khanshi. According to sources, she was a mediator in the improvement of the relationship between moguls and Kazakh khan Takhir, and she friendly facilitated a tense situation [3]. It will be recalled that in the 16th century the Great Moguls Empire emerged in the Northern India. In this period, the great traditions of cultural communications and contacts existed between Central Asia and the Empire of Great Moguls. Central Asia played a crucial role in the promotion of the Indian culture’s achievements, many cultural values of which were expanded to neighboring countries, including Kazakhstan. From the beginning of the 16th century, Indian merchants from the Northern India begun to expand trade to the North: to Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asia and Kazakhstan. A new aspect of relations between Kazakhstan and India in the 16th-18th centuries represents significant interest, and was not studied up to this date. The fact that Kazakh-

Indian trading was carried out with mediation from Central Asian, Indian and Afghan merchants is the main feature of their trading. Kazakhs mainly traded livestock that was roamed through Central Asia to India. Horses mentioned among goods carrying through caravan ways. A considerable amount of horses was brought to India from Bukhara, horses of Kazakh breeds were especially valued. There is a documented evidence proving that Kazakh merchants roamed up to 40, 000 horses to India [4]. It is important to note that despite distances and absence of communications usual for our time, the Kazakh Khanate and China have built not only trade and economic bonds, but very close diplomatic relations. Head offices of Kazakh khans had secretariats, producing documents of diplomatic, social and economic character. Historical sources regarding diplomatic relations between Kazakhstan and China have the form of a highly significant and manifold material. It included the written sources of Chinese travelers; archive materials of official correspondence, texts of agreements of Kazakh and Chinese rulers satiated with chronological and statistical data. There are also pictures, miniatures imaging receptions of embassies, payment of tributes, provision of gifts, exchange of products and etc. Certain information was carried by messages, letters, documents with a seal “under a signet ring”, reports and etc. Ambassadors and messengers were essential for the development of Kazakh-Chinese relations. The regular exchange of ambassadors and messages of diplomatic character as well as periodic meetings between rulers bespeak about the healthy inter-state connections between the countries. Messengers of Kazakh Khans, “ilchi”, were authorized representatives of steppe rulers. Their task was to convey messages or instructions in written or oral forms to neighboring rulers, governors, with which the Kazakh Khanate maintained friendly relations. As acknowledged by archive documents, each messenger had to be aware of a destination country, its traditions, culture, roads. They had to speak a language of

a destination country or were accompanied with interpreters. The First Historical Archives of China in Beiging is one of the most unique and rich funds in the world, which holds more than 10 million historical documents. During the work in the archives, we got acquanted with unique materials. They had direct relevance to the history of Kazakkhstan. They contain information about the history of Qing Empire’s relationship with circumjacent states in 1741-1828. We have purchased more than 17,183 documents within the “People in the stream of history” program. In accordance with the archived data, the KazakhChinese relations in the middle of the 18th century and in the beginning of the 19th century were close. There was a “silk in exchange for horse” trading between two countries. This fact should enter the history as the most bright and essential aspect in the Kazakh-Qing interactions on the Great Silk Road. The archives contain official letters of Kazakh khans and sultans Abylai-khan, Abulfiez-sultan and others addressed to rulers of neighboring countries, information related to diplomatic ties, trade and economic, cultural relations. All these new archive documents, monuments and artifacts confirm that Kazakh rulers had chancellery, diplomatic correspondence and exchange of ambassadors. In this period trade and diplomatic relations between the Kazakh Khanate and Qing Empire gained a boom. There were some reasons for it. For a nomadic society, as the Kazakh Khanate of the 18th century, cattle breeding were a backbone of the economy. That was essential for relations with other countries. For this very reason, fairs themed “silk in exchange for horse” were conducted, at first in Urumchi (from 1757 to 1765), then (since 1765) in Qulja (Yining city) and Tarbagatai. “Siui zun dji”, which was written in the second half of the 18th century, provides information regarding Kazakhs, reigned by Abylai: “Kazakhs… their Khan’s name is Abylai. People call him Abylai bi. Their land is vast; there are a lot of people and cattle. More prosperous have up to 10,000 horses and cows,

impossible to count a number of sheep. Even poor have several hundred of horses and cows, several thousand of sheep, they live in abundance (literally: do not bother head about drinks and clothes). When son reaches the age of 16, he receives “enshi” (a part of property, issued to sons in the process of separation) and allow them to live in their own way. During feasts they prepare dishes from horsemeat, beef, camel and sheep meat. They use wooden dishes, cups and spoons. More rich use tin and copper dishes. They value Chinese porcelain, tea, colored textiles, expensive and weight silk with golden traceries”. This data provided by ChunYuan Cizhi-i shows that Kazakh cattle farming were flourishing at that time. From the other side, trade relations with China gave Kazakhs the possibility to purchase Chinese silks and other products in abundance. As a result of the work of Oriental Archeographical Expeditions, in PRC there were discovered the documents regarding Kazakh-Chinese, KazakhRussian, Kazakh-Kyrgyz, Kazakh-Kokand, KazakhOirat diplomatic relations. There was also information about Kazakh khans’ ambassadors, arriving to Beijing to Bogda Ezhenkhan, awarding them with certificates; regarding Kazakh-Chinese trade, and documents related to way of life, traditions of Kazakhs. In particular, it was discovered the correspondence of Kazakh Khans: a letter of Abylai Khan to a Qing Emperor with request to send medicines stamped “under a signet ring” (1766), a letter of Abulfeiz sultan to an Ili ruler about dispatching of an ambassador with a seal “Abulfeiz sultan” in Chagatai language, a letter of Bolat Khan and Abulfeiz sultan to an Ili ruler with regard to the return of torgouts with stamps “Bolat Mohammed Bakhadur khan”, “Abulfeiz sultan” in Oirat language. Documents of 1755-1762 may give information

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

related to: the extensive trade interconnections between Kazakh Khanate and Qing Empire; a role of such Kazakh rulers as Abylay, Abulfeiz, Kabanbai and Qianlong Emperor and his noblemen in the trade in the Western border regions; management and delivery of trade products of Qing Empire; the trade pricing policy. During the work in the funds of libraries and museums of Paris, a picture “Kazakhs present tribute horses” was firstly discovered and kept in a famous Guimet museum of oriental art in Paris, where art relics of East nations are stored [5]. So far this is the only picture of 1757 presenting a diplomatic ceremonial of giving three horses as a gift. The picture images three Kazakh messengers and three horses showing how Kazakhs present tribute to the Chinese Emperor Qianlong as a sign of alliance and friendship. The author of the painting, an Italian painter Giuseppe Castiglione is a court painter of Qianlong Emperor, who depicted historical and ethnographic items. The picture gives a perspective regarding, for instance, clothes and everyday items existing at that time. Fabrics for sewing, as well as rich symbolism, have a significant importance for studying clothes. Despite the scarcity of archeological findings, however, we can imagine what types of fabrics were used in Kazakhstan in the 16th-18th centuries. The analysis of the picture showed that historical events described on the painting belong to the time of reign of Abylai khan in Kazakhstan and Qianlong Emperor in China. In the beginning of the 18th century the system of international relations in Central Asia underwent considerable changes. The Dzungar Khanate was a large and powerful state in the region until the middle of the 18th century. Qing Empire and Russia have

Map of Manchu ambassador Tula. XVIII century. The British library London, Great Britain

Kazakhstan of XVIII century on the European map. British Library. London, United Kingdom

started to significantly influence the international relations in Central Asia. In essence, the ties existed at the time between China and Kazakhstan were within the framework of accustomed political and diplomatic contacts. This was evidenced by a unique painting with a signature: “As a sign of alliance and friendship”. This diplomatic act is confirmed by a written Chinese artifact “Cindin chzhungee fanliue”. Documents of the First HistoricalArchives of China prove that there were Kazakh-Qing diplomatic and trade relations. Some Abylai’s official letters are of utmost interest, they have a very confidential tone. They are deserving to be considered as a documental treasure of the Kazakh people. It is important to note that despite large distances, the Kazakh Khanate and China maintained quite close relationship. Therefore, the establishment of international relations and diplomatic practice in the 16th-18th centuries was an integral stage for the development of the Kazakh Khanate. The analysis of different categories of written sources, diplomas, seals, coins with titulary allowed to reconstruct the history of diplomatic relations of the Kazakh Khanate with neighboring states, to study treaties, international agreements, negotiations, embassies, dynastic marriages, all those certain tools

and means of peaceful resolution of international disputes that were available in the foreign policy for rulers. References 1. Fazallah ibn Ruzbikhan Isfakhani. “Mikhmanname-yi Bukhara”. Moscow, 1976, p.141. 2. Davidovich E.A. A time of maximum development of commodity-money relations in the medieval Central Asia // Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1965. #6. p. 167. Burnasheva R. Findings of coins in city of Otrar-tobe. 1974//Archeological sites of Kazakhstan. – Alma-Ata, 1978 – p. 85. 3. Makhmud ben Vali. Bakhr-ul-asrar. Manuscript of library “India office” #575, 339a. 4. Russian-Indian relations in the 17th century. Moscow, 1975, p.37 5. М. Kh. Abuseitova Evidence of centuriesold friendship // Kazakhstanskaya Pravda. - 2001. September 22;. Kazakh’s Treasure //; М. Kh. Abuseitova., Dodchudoeva History of Kazakhstan in Oriental Miniatures. - Almaty: Dike Press, 2010.(М. Kh. Abuseitova, L.N. Dodhudoeva. The History of Kazakhstan in Eastern Miniatures. - Almaty: DaikPress, 2010.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Nurlan ATYGAEV, Deputy Director of the Institute of History and Ethnology named after Sh. Ualikhanov, Candidate of historical sciences

The Kazakh Khanate in the system of international relations within Eurasia The Kazakh Khanate, which existed in the territory of Kazakhstan in 15th and early 18th centuries, was a sovereign state, recognized in the international legal framework by other countries. This statement is supported by historic materials of the later-medieval written sources, which contain data on the Khanate’s international relations with several countries of the later-medieval Eurasia. Particularly, there are numerous archival data about diplomatic contacts of the Kazakh khanate with Muscovite (Russian) state in 16th-18th centuries. Unfortunately, the earliest documents on Kazakh-Russian relations did not survive, however the fact that they did take place is proved by inventory lists of Russian archives. Thus, inventory list of the Tsarist archive of 16th century contains the record: “The box 38. It contains the books and lists of Cossacks under Kasym tsar and Tyumen under Ivak tsar.” [1, p. 339; 2, p. 23; 3, p. 78]. The inventory list of the Ambassadorial Prikaz (office for foreign affairs) archive of 1614 provides that one of the batches contained “records of the Shamakhi, // Siberian and Cossack hordes in different times…” [2, p. 107] Archival documents, highlighting the diplomatic relations between Kazakh Khanate and the Muscovite State in the second half of 16th century were preserved.

For example, in 1578 Nogai mirza Urus (Orys) blamed Russian Tsar Ivan the IV Vasilyevich Groznyy: “And you, being in a friendly footing with Aknazar tsar, send your envoys in a yearly basis with the Bokharan tsar’s ambassador and Azimov tsar’s ambassador” [4, с. 170]. In response Ivan the IV written: “In previous years, when Nogai mirzas were shorn of our payment, and jointly with Crimean tsar arrived to our lands to wage a war, while Aknazar tsar sent his ambassadors to us. In response we sent our Tatar servicemen to Aknazar tsar of Cossacks.” [4, p. 171]. Confirming an existence of these contacts Kazakhs told Nogais: “… our tsar Aknazar is in peace with Tsar and the Great Knyaz…” [4, p. 156]. There are also archival documents indicative of Kazakh-Russian diplomatic relations during the reign of Tauekel khan and Feodor I in the end of 16th century, Tuke khan and Pyotr I in the end of XVII century. These materials show that development of relations was initiated by rulers of both countries. Thus, one of the Russian documents (gramota) as of 1595 speaks: “By the decree of the State’s Tsar and the Great Knyaz of All Ruthenia Fyodor Ivanovich, boyars are prepared to deliver a payment to a translator Velyamin Stepanov to from State’s Tsar and the Great Knyaz of All Ruthenia Fyodor Ivanovich to implement the State’s affairs and

Facsimile of the text of the Nogay mirza Urus’s message (Orys) to the Russian tsar Ivan IV Vasilievich Groznyi (the Terrible) with the request not to contact Khakk-Nazar khan/ History of Kazakhstan in Russian sources. Volume 1. Ambassadorial materials of the Russian state (16th18th centuries). Formation, cursive transcription, special revision of texts, opening chapter, comments, creation of vocabulary, indexes by A. Isina. – Almaty: Dike-Press, 2005. – p. 704 + p. 16. incl.

Facsimile of the text of the Abulkhair khan’s message to the Russian Empress Anna Ivanovna/ Epistolary heritage of the Kazakh ruling elite of 1675-1821. Collection of historical documents in 2 volumes/ Project, introduction, khans’ biography, academic comments, formation and executive editing by I.V. Erofeeva. – Almaty: “ABDICompany”, 2014. – p. 696+p.44 incl. Volume 1. Letters of Kazakh rulers. 1675-1780.

to serve in the Cossack horde for two years…” [4, p. 196]. Documents of late XVII and early XVIII centuries testify that as well. The reports about F. Skibin’s and M. Troshin’s stay in the Kazakh Khanate (1694-1696) include the following message: “… And we told Tevki khan through translator’s help, that by the decree of our great Tsars, their Majesties, we were sent to him, Tevki khan, as ambassadors to report.” [4, p. 412]. Another document says: “716, in October 14, by the decree of the Great Ruler and by the order governor of Siberia Knyaz Matthew Petrovich Gagarin, son of Tobol boyar Mikita Belouusov and his fellows shall betake themselves from Tobolsk to a ruler of Cossack horde Hayip khan…”[5, p. 275]. Kazakh rulers showed a keen interest in establishing friendly relations as well. In 1716, envoys of Kazakh khan Khaiyp, son of Tauke, told Tatar servicemen of the Siberian governor: “… he, Khaiyip-khan, is willing to keep everlasting peace with his majesty Tsar…” [5, p. 274]. Major objective of diplomatic contacts of rulers of the Kazakh Khanate with Russian State was establishing and development of good-neighborly relations. This is brightly manifested in the letter of Tauke-khan to Russian tsar Ivan the V Alekseyevich of 1692. He writes: “after

forefathers and fathers of ours, people of your country were arriving to our lands, and our people to yours, and wish that every good deed would be performed mutually in a future, roads established to brighten our common people and to allow them travelling between our lands in order to earn good names for us.” [6, с. 84]. However, diplomatic missions had more accurate and practical tasks, mostly directed towards development of trade or creation of military alliance. Thus, obviously, the main task of ambassadors sent by Khack-Nazar-Khan to Moscow in the second half of 16th century, as it is seen in abovementioned data, was to obtain support of Russian State or at least the commitments on neutrality during the tensions between the Kazakh Khanate and the Nogai Horde. In addition to that, the objective of Kazakh embassy in 1595 was to release Tauekel-khan’s nephew Orazmukhamed-sultan from Russian captivity, and to receive fire-arms (“ognenniy boy”) from Muscovite rulers [4, с. 192]. A voivode (commander of a military force) of Tobol Kurakin I. in 1616 reported about goals of the contacts with a ruler of the Sauran Ablai-khan as follows: “And discuss with tsar of the Kazakh Hordes Ablakhan of the Sauran about trade and Kalmyks, … immediately connect with Tsar about trade and Kalmyks from your behalf in order to make him wish you, the

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Abulkhair khan / Epistolary heritage of the Kazakh ruling elite of 1675-1821. Collection of historical documents in 2 volumes/ Project, introduction, khans’ biography, academic comments, formation and executive editing by I.V. Erofeeva. – Almaty: “ABDICompany”, 2014. – p. 696+p.44 incl. Volume 1. Letters of Kazakh rulers. 16751780.

Anna Ivanovna/ Epistolary heritage of the Kazakh ruling elite of 1675-1821. Collection of historical documents in 2 volumes/ Project, introduction, khans’ biography, academic comments, formation and executive editing by I.V. Erofeeva. – Almaty: “ABDICompany”, 2014. – p. 696+p.44 incl Volume 1. Letters of Kazakh rulers. 1675-1780.

Great ruler, well and the good, and send your people with commodities to Tobolsk and other Siberian cities. Your merchants are allowed to enter and leave his and other cities without any obstacles; they are preserved from any harm. In the lands of Kalmyks you should enforce your people, in order to preserve your caravans and migrations from assaults.”[4, p. 262-263]. The fact of existence of diplomatic relations between the Kazakh Khanate and the Muscovite (Russian) state is very important. It speaks that Russian rulers recognized Kazakh khans as equal partners [7]. It is known that the Tsarist Chamber and the Embassy strictly monitored the level of diplomatic negotiations. For example, in 1532 they denied to establish equitable diplomatic relations with ambassadors (probably self-proclaimed) of Zahir ad-Din Babur, founder of the Empire of the Great Mughals in India. The denial was motivated as follows: “Unfathomable, whether He (Zahir ad-Din Babur) is a ruler or a sergeant in India, and that is ignobility for a great ruler to be a sergeant.” Roman Pochekayev, modern-day Russian researcher, expert in the field of history of medieval law underlines that the letter missives (shertnye gramoty – shart-nama), by which Kazakh and Russian rulers of the 16th-17th centuries exchanged, had had a rank of an Act with a nature of international legal instrument, which is contracted between independent legal entities holding

Ruins of the Eastern fortress wall of the Abulkhair khan’s residence in the territory of the city of Zhankent. The photo by E. Khorosh/ Epistolary heritage of the Kazakh ruling elite of 1675-1821. Collection of historical documents in 2 volumes/ Project, introduction, khans’ biography, academic comments, formation and executive editing by I.V. Erofeeva. – Almaty: “ABDI-Company”, 2014. – p. 696+p.44 incl. Volume 1. Letters of Kazakh rulers. 1675-1780.

the freedom of the will. [9, p. 6]. The Kazakh khanate had diplomatic relations with other countries as well. Russian archive documents contain records about diplomatic relations between Kazakh rulers and the Crimean Khanate. In summer 1523, Crimean ruler Saadet-Girey written to a great Muscovite Knyaz Vasiliy Ivanovich: “Sultan Suleiman Shah – he is my brother. As well as tsar Useyin of Astrokan is. In Kazan lives my brother tsar Sayip Girey. On the other side tsar of Cossacks is my kin.” [4, с. 64]. Nogai mirza Tinehmat (Дин-Ахмед), in order to drive a wedge into Kazakh-Crimean relations, written to Crimean khan that Khack-Nazar (Aknazar, Oknazar), after he has taken the Nogai Horde, is intent upon making assault to the Crimea – “For he is willing to arrive upon Crimea.” [4, с. 166]. Moreover, historical materials were found which allows assuming that relations between the Kazakh Khanate and the Ottoman Empire took place as well. According A. Isin, the first information about khans and the Kazakh Khanate started to flow to Istanbul in 20s of 16th century due to beginning of the struggle for Kazan [10, 31 б.]. In summer of 1551, Russian ambassador to the Nogai Horde Turgenev P., informing the Moscow about arrival of the Ottoman Empire’s ambassador to Nogais, and providing in his letter the message of the Emperor, whom was Suleyman the Magnificent at that

period. Trying to create a coalition of Muslim countries against the Muscovite State and support Kazan, Turkish ruler written to Nogai mirza Ismaiyl: “And Kazan is at war now. But we are one, for we are Muslims. We shall join our efforts. The Crimea is ruled by a Tsar appointed by me; he shall do whatever I say. They sent me a message, that they need a Tsar in Astrakhan, and I send them. And Cossacks as well, I shall send them a new ruler.” [11, p. 266-267]. The last fragment of the document was summarized by Russian historian of 19th century G. Peretyatkovich in somehow different manner: “… Kyrgyz-Kaysaks ask me, the Tsar, and I consider sending them from Crimea.” [12, p. 9697]. Despite breadth of given information (it creates misconception, that the term “Kyrgyz-Kaysak” existed in the mid 16th century), it is obvious that he was right when referring to “Cossacks” he meant Kazakhs. In Russian archive documents for that period, Kazakhs are named as Cossacks. [4, p. 404, 405 etc.]. The fact that this is not about Russian Christian-Cossacks is seen in words of Turkish sultan: “We, the Busurmans (Muslims), here shall be united…” The Ottoman ruler could hardly influence the process of enthronization in the Kazakh Khanate; apparently, he just wanted to demonstrate his might before Russians. Tauke-khan, when he hosted Russian ambassadors Skibin F. and Troshin M. in Turkestan in XVII century said: “How Turkish sultans or Kyzylbash’s shah are better than Tevki khan? They are equal.” [4, с. 413]. These words indicate that he received information about the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid State, probably from his own ambassadors. Recently, the document indicating to existence of diplomatic correspondence between rulers of the Kazakh Khanate and the Ottoman Empire in XVIII century was brought to light. In the archives of the Ottoman Empire the letter of Kazakh khan (the name is unknown, according to the publisher – Kayip khan) to Turkish sultan Akhmed III is preserved, which was written approximately after 1711. In the letter, Kazakh khan proposes to create a military alliance against Moscow. [6, p. 93]. There is information about diplomatic relations between the Kazakh Khanate with the Safavid (Kyzylbash) state as well, which existed during the period from 1501 to 1722 in the territory of Iran and Southern Caucasus. According to Russian archival documents, in 1594, an ambassador of Tauekelkhan to Muscovite state Kul-Mukhammed, received information about arrival of Safivid’s ambassador Abbas I to Moscow. Kazakh ambassador undertook active efforts to establish relations with Safavid ambassadors. Kul-Mukhammed explained his goal clearly enough: “we need to establish relations with Kyzylbash and stand with Kyzylbash against Bukhara.” [13, p. 4; 4, p. 193]. He could meet with ambassadors of Abbas I shah. The meeting was beneficial for Safavid ambassadors as well. After reaching a State Peace Agreement in 1590 with the Ottoman Empire, which was very hard for

Abbas-shah I, he started to search allies for forthcoming war. As a result, Russian ambassadors and “DervishMagmet, the Shah’s man” went to the Kazakh steppes with Kul-Mukhammed. Also, Kul-Mukhammed sent his reliable person to Safavid shah. The outcomes of the negotiations were not embodied in papers of historical documents, so we do not know about agreements they have reached. It is known that Dervish-Mukhammed (Dervish-Magmet, dervishMamet) met with Taukel-khan. Safavid ambassador planned to return to his homeland through the territory of Kazakh Khanate; however he did not get permission from Kazakh khan. Eventually, he was forced to return to Moscow [13, p. 3-14; 4, p. 209]. In this regard, in our opinion, it is important to highlight considerable fact. Military campaigns of rulers of the Kazakh Khanate and Safavid State against Shaybanids happened at the same time. Right at the time when Tauekel-khan started his campaigns in an attempt to exercise his authority over Maa waraa’ an-nahr (Transoxiana), Abbas-shah I launched his campaign against Shaybanids in Khorasan. In 1598-1599, when Kazakh rulers integrated the cities of Turkestan, Tashkent and Fergana into the Kazakh khanate [14, p. 83-90; 15, p. 110], Safavids established their power over almost every city in Khorasan – Nishapur, Mashhad, Herat and Merv [16, p. 63; 17, p. 181; 18, p. 56]. Possibly, their actions were coordinated. There are data on diplomatic relations between Kazakh khanate and Safavid State in the second half of XVII century. Manuscripts containing texts of several letters of Safavid shahs to Kazakh ruler Tauke-khan (in the text he is referred to as Tavakkul), son of Zhangir khan were found in the manuscript funds of Iran libraries. The letter sent in 1072 anno Hegirae (166162) by Abbas-shah II to Tauke-khan was found by an orientalist Kari K. He translated the letter into kazakh and publishet it in the “Zhuldyz: magazine [19, 180-182 p.].There are several letters of this kind as well. They are, according to the most respected Iranian researcher Iradj Afshar, dated back in 1101 anno Hegirae (168990), 1104 anno Hegirae (1692-93), and 1105 anno Hegirae (1693-94). They, along with Tauke-khan, also contain information about Tursun-khan and Fuladsultan (Bolat-sultan) [20, . ‫ ص‬34], whom, according to Russian sources were sons of Tauke-khan [4, p. 404]. Kambarbekova G., candidate of Philological studies and specialist in Iranian studies makes stress to the data provided by Muhammad Takhir Kazvini in his work called “Abbas-nama”, where he writes about arrival of Kazakh ambassador to Isfakhan from the Turkestan for the audience of Abbas-shah II. The ambassador was warmly welcomed and was presented valuable gifts and was safely returned to his homeland. [21, 10 p.]. These documents indicate the existence of long-term contacts (60-90s of the 17th century.) of Tauke Khan with such Safavid rulers as Shah Abbas II (1641-1666), Suleiman I of Persia (1666-1694) and possibly Sultan Husayn (1694-1722.)

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

The text of the Tauke khan’s message to the Turkish sultan Ahmed III/ Epistolary heritage of the Kazakh ruling elite of 1675-1821. Collection of historical documents in 2 volumes/ Project, introduction, khans’ biography, academic comments, formation and executive editing by I.V. Erofeeva. – Almaty: “ABDI-Company”, 2014. – p. 696+p.44 incl. Volume 1. Letters of Kazakh rulers. 16751780.

Sultan Ahmed III/ Epistolary heritage of the Kazakh ruling elite of 1675-1821. Collection of historical documents in 2 volumes/ Project, introduction, khans’ biography, academic comments, formation and executive editing by I.V. Erofeeva. – Almaty: “ABDI-Company”, 2014. – p. 696+p.44 incl. Volume 1. Letters of Kazakh rulers. 16751780.

In recent years, historical materials that suggest the existence of diplomatic contacts of the Kazakh Khanate and the Empire of the Great Moghuls in India have been found. Not so long ago, G. A. Kambarbekova has discovered an interesting letter in one of the Indian libraries, which in her opinion, was sent by Kokand ruler Abdulrahim Khan to Kazakh Tauke Khan around 1717-1718 [22]. In our opinion, the attribution of the sender and the recipient of the letter is not accurate. First, Tauke and Abdulrahim ruled at different times. It is known from the message of Toigunur Kultabaev that Tauke Khan was no longer alive in September 1715 [5, p. 269] and Abdulrahim began to rule in Kokand only in 1722 [18, p. 236.] Second, the rulers of Kokand who belonged to the Uzbek Ming tribe did not bear the title of khan until the end of the 18th century that only Genghisids could bear. The first Kokand Khan was the son of Narbuta Bey (Narbuta Bek) Alim Bi (Alim Bek), who ruled in 1798-1809. To legitimize this, a special legend was invented [23, p. 11, 14]. Third, some of the

sources called Tauekel (‫ )لکوت‬Shigayuly, who ruled the Kazakh Khanate in the late 16th century, Tauke (‫)هکوات‬, and Tauke Zhangiruly, who reigned in the Khanate in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Tauekel Khan. For example, in Tarikh, the book by Shakh Mahmud Churas, Tauekel Khan Shigayuly is called Tauke [24, p. 176.] In one of the documents of the Russian archives the seal impression of Tauke Zhangiruly is preserved with his full name as Tauekel Muhammad Batyr Khan (Tavakul Maamet Baatur Khan) [4, p. 401.] Moreover, Safavid ruler Shah Abbas II in his letter, written in 1072 AD (1661-62), called Tauke Khan “Tavakkul Khan, son of Jahangir Khan” [26, ‫ ص‬240; 19, p. 180-182.] It is likely, that both had the name Tauekel (Arabic: Tavakkul), it is no coincidence that Kazakh scientist Chokan Valikhanov called Sultan Oraz Muhammad, Tauekel’s nephew, the nephew of “Kirghiz and Kalmyk Khan Tauke” [25, p. 164.] In the late 16th century in India the son of Bairam Khan Turkmen was known under the name of

The text of the message of the Safavid’s (Kyzylbash) ruler Abbas-shah II to Tauke khan// Madgemuha-yi namaha-yi ahd-I Sefevi, 240/ The Library of the Majilis of the IRI, №66631, photocopy №02-00187-00023, translation by the candidate of historical sciences Z.A. Zhandosova.

The text of the “Min Shilu” message regarding embassies of the Kazakh khan Zhanibek and Shibanid Abulkhair to the Ming China/ N. Kenzheakhmet. Data about Kazakh khans Kerey and Zhanibek and Ming Shilu (written evidences of Ming Empire)/Materials of the International Research and Practice Conference with the theme “Kazakh Khanate-Idea of Eternal Nation” dedicated to the 550th anniversary of the Kazakh Khanate, and which took place March 17-18, 2015, in the South Kazakhstan State Pedagogical Institute. Shymkent, 2015. –p.508.

Abdulrahim Khan. He held a high post under the ruler of the Great Moghuls Empire Akbar the Great, was granted the title of khan for the suppression of the rebellion in Gujarat in 1583 [27.] Therefore, we assume that this letter was sent at the end of the 16th century to Tauekel Khan by this Abdulrahim Khan. If that is the case, this explains why the letter was found in the Indian library. According to G. A. Kambarbekova, she found another letter in India addressed to Tauke Khan in 17151716. The researcher suggests that this is a response letter of Babur Jahandar to Tauke Khan [28, p. 7.] In this case, the researcher dated the letter inaccurately. We know that the son of Bahadur Shah I Muiz Sultan al-Din Muhammad Mirza, crowned as Jahandar Shah, was proclaimed the ruler of the Great Moghuls in February 1712. In February 1713 he was killed. [29] Therefore, the time of writing of the letter should be dated 1712-1713. Diplomatic contacts between the Kazakh Khanate

and the Great Moghuls Empire were likely to be established to take concerted action against the common enemy – Central Asian Uzbek rulers. In the east, the Kazakh khans established diplomatic relations with Chinese rulers. Thus, sinologist N. Kenzheakhmet from the University of Bonn indicates that Ming Shilu contains data concerning the embassies of Kerey Khan and Abu Said (Janibek Khan) in Ming China in the 15th century. According to his materials, ambassadors of the Kazakh Khanate used to come to China up to 1537 [30, p. 104-113.] Although these data require further study, the probability of the existence of the Kazakh-Chinese relations in the 15th-17th centuries, is very high. Thus, Kazakh sinologist B. Ezhenkhanuly draws attention to the Chinese source Shu Yu Zhou Zhi Lu that says that in 1532 a certain Kozha Pile came to Ming China from Ejiche country. When Kozha Pile was questioned, he said that the place, where Kasym Khan lived, located in the mountains northward of Samarkand. According to him, an ambassador called

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Kazakh-Russian relations in the 16th – 18th centuries (Collection of documents and materials). – Alma-Ata, 1961. – p. 740.

The page of the manuscript “Tarikh-i-Rashidi” Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat with the message about the Kazakh Khanate’s formation/ The Municipal Library of the city of Isfahan, №11384.

Tursyn came earlier to the ruler of China from this Ejiche country. B. Ezhenkhanuly says that the Chinese term “Ejiche” is reconstructed as “Uzbek”, which implies the existence of relationships between Ming China and the Uzbeks, to whom the Kazakhs belonged as well . Numerous documents on embassies of Kazakh rulers to Qing China in the 18th century and some artistic representations of the reception of embassies of that period are published in the collection On Chinese material evidence for Kazakh history (Қазақстан тарихы туралы қытай деректемелері)[31.] Among these documents of particular interest is the first letter of Ablai Khan to Chinese Emperor Qianlong, which contains the following message “I have not received any news from you since the time of my ancestors Esim Khan and Zhangir Khan (Менің ата-бабам Есім хан мен Жәңгір ханнан бері, сіздерден бізге хабарошақ келіп көрмеген...).” Researcher B. Ezhenkhanuly assumes that this may be an indirect evidence of the fact that the Kazakh-Chinese relations existed even before the reign of Esim Khan [32, p. 85.] The Kazakh-Chinese relations were aimed at establishing and developing good neighbourliness. Written sources contain information on the exchange of embassies between the Kazakh Khanate and Moghul State that existed in East Turkestan in the 16th-17th centuries. For example, Shakh Mahmud Churas in his work Tarikh says about the arrival of Yunus Khoja, ambassador of the ruler of the Kazakh Khanate Zhangir (Jahangir) to the Khan of the Moghuls Abdullah Khan. The son of the Kazakh Khan Sultan Tauke arrived together with Yunus Khoja. According to this source, the Moghuls, in turn, sent an embassy to the Kazakh Khanate headed by Kochkar Bey. Another Kazakh

embassy to the Moghul State was led by Sultan Apac, another son of Zhangir Khan [24, p. 226.] It seems that, these embassies were to build a Kazakh-Moghul alliance against the Uzbeks and Kalmaks. The Russian archive contains documents regarding Kazakh Embassies to the Oirat Kalmyks. For example, in 1618 ataman Saveliev wrote in his report on the visit to Kalmyk Taisha Dalai Batyr “Yes, at the same time, he had the ambassadors of the Cossack Horde...” According to him, the Kazakh ambassadors came to ransom their captive countrymen [4, p. 272.] In 1625 the newly baptized Yakunko Bugolakov, sent to Kalmyk Taisha Talay, testified “...in winter Bukhara ambassadors from Tursun tsar and the Cossack Horde ambassadors from Ishim tsar came in peace and pledged loyalty to Talay Taisha, so that the peace could be between them” [4, from. 288.] The Kazakh Khanate also had diplomatic relations with the state of Altyn Khans (Altan Khans), established in western Mongolia by the Khalkha Mongols. This is evidenced by the materials of the Russian archival documents. In 1616 Russian ambassadors ataman V.Tyumenets and foreman I.Petrov reported in their letter to Moscow that while visiting the Khalkha Mongols they met Kazakh ambassadors [4, p. 270.] It is likely, that the main purpose of these Kazakh-Khalkha contacts was to take concerted action against the Kalmaks. V.A. Moiseev suggested that their simultaneous campaigns against the Kalmaks in the early 17th century cannot be explained by mere coincidence, perhaps there was a union of Kazakh and Khotogoid (Khalkha) tribes against the Kalmaks [33, p. 27.] A.I. Isin agrees with him [4, p. 534.] In the report of Tomsk voivode I. Shakhovskoy there is a following message confirming this “Altyn tsar

The front page of “Tarikh-i-Rashidi”, published in 2004 in Tehran by the Iranian researcher Abbasquli Ghaffari Fard.

got along with the Cossack land...” [4, p. 281.] Other documents also indicate that the Kazakhs and Khalkha Mongols could launch coordinated campaigns against the Kalmaks. In September 1620 Tobolsk voivode M. Godunov wrote to Russian tsar Michael I “...Altyn tsar and the Cossack Horde are fighting a war with them, with Kalmyk taishas” [4, p. 274.] A month later, Ufa voivode O. Pronchishchev reported “... Kalmyk taishas are greatly oppressed by the Cossack Horde, Ishim tsar who defeated many of their people, and Altyn tsar’ men defeated many of their people...” [4, from. 275.] Material on the diplomatic relations of the Kazakh Khanate and Central Asian states of Shaybanids and Ashtarkhanids can be found in the works of Muslim historians of the 16th-18th centuries. For example, M. Kh. Abuseitova draws attention to information contained in Sharaf-name-yi Shahi by Hafiz Tanysh, which refers to several Kazakh Embassies to Shaybanid Abdullah Khan. She cites data from sources on diplomatic contacts of the Kazakhs with the Ashtarkhanids at the end of the 16th century [15, p. 121, 122, 132.] Abu alGhazi in his work quotes Esim Khan, saying that many Kazakhs go to the Shaybanids of Khorezm [34, p. 189.] The Kazakh Khanate had diplomatic relations with the Nogai Horde and the Siberian Khanate, but the data

about these contacts are fragmentary. For example, in 1595 Kazakh ambassador of Tauekel Khan KulMuhammed said to Sultan Oraz Muhammad, who was held captive in Moscow, the following “Now, your uncle tsarevich Tevkel became tsar of the Cossack Horde ... and is in peace with his Nogai brothers, and with the children of Tinekhmat and Urus is neither way” [4, p. 191.] In 1616 Nogai Bi Ishterek wrote to Astrakhan voivodes: “...Alatuvy Cossack tsar Ishim sent me an ambassador....” [4, p. 261.] The very presence of Kazakh Sultan Oraz Muhammad in the territory of Siberia can serve as an indicator of the existence of contacts between the Kazakh Khanate and Siberian Turkic rulers. Given the paucity of data, it is impossible to provide detailed information on the subject. The vocabulary used in historical sources confirms that their relations were of diplomatic nature. As we have seen in the above cited Russian sources, with regard to Kazakh diplomats the term “ambassador” is used. And Eastern Muslim sources use the term ilchi (‫)یچلیا‬ [6, p. 87; 35, p. 321, 489] when referring to them, which in Turkic languages also means an ambassador (kaz.-elshі), a diplomat. Some archival documents on relations between the Russian state and post-Jochi states distinguish between such positions as “bolshoi posol” (great ambassador) and “gonets” (messenger.) The

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

message of Alshagyr Mirza to the Prince of Moscow Vasili Ivanovich of 1508 states “There used to be one great ambassador and one messenger from your grandfather and from my grandfather, and one great ambassador and one messenger were sent by the same way at the same toll. Great ambassador Baubek and messenger Lagimberdey. You can still learn about the ambassador and messenger by looking in old defters (tax registers)...” [4, p. 48.] The “Bolshoi posol” is mentioned in the message of Crimean Khan Mengli Giray of 1509 to the governor of Muscovy Prince Vasili III Ivanovich [4, p. 50, footnote №39.] Given, that the Kazakh Khanate and these political entities inherited the state traditions of the Ulus of Jochi, it can be assumed that such diplomatic ranking could exist in the Kazakh state as well. One should pay attention to some of the sources on the work of the diplomatic service of the Kazakh Khanate. Unfortunately, very few such materials are known, but they can serve as a basis for further research in this area. For example, Russian sources provide interesting information about the allowance for foreign ambassadors in the Kazakh state. In 1693 Tatar serviceman Teush-mergen from Tobolsk, who visited the Kazakh Khanate as part of the embassy of Andrei Nepripasov, wrote: “Before the audience Andrei was not given a meal allowance, and after the audience Andrei was given a meal allowance for 4 people, a halfkopeck each a day, and instead of money coarse calico was given” [4, p. 404.] F. Skibin and M. Troshin, who came to Turkestan as ambassadors to visit Tauke Khan in 1694-1696, reported “And after the audience he, Tevki Khan, ordered to accommodate us with Andrei

Nepripasov in one yurt, and to feed ourselves we were given a ram and two poods of wheat on our arrival, and that was it ... And to messengers who come to him, Tevki Khan, from governors of Bokharan cities and messengers, by his, Tevki Khan’s orders, are given food in abundance, and those are favored...”[4, p. 415, 417.]. In 1696 a Russian ambassador V. Kobyakov, reporting on his staying at Tauke khan, said:”…They made obeisance to Tevki khan. And Tevki khan ordered to give them, four of them, 8 kopecks per day” [4, с. 426]. This data provides opportunity to suggest that allowance for foreign ambassadors was usually paid by a host country, in the instant case by the Kazakh Khanate. To ensure the safety of ambassadors during their movements, they were given special certificatesyarlyks. V. Kobyakov reports: “In the last year, the year 206, July 20, he let them go, Vaska with his colleagues, Tevki let them go secretly to Bukhara and gave traveler yarlyks” [4, с. 428-429]. This practice had existed since the time of Genghis khan. The status of ambassador was very high and officially enjoyed immunity, however, often there were violations. Particularly, such cases often occurred to Kazakh ambassadors during the last period of the Kazakh Khanate’s existence. “Since when it is allowed to detain messengers (ilchi) like they are bandits (karakchi). But now, it is a common practice” – expressed its indignation Tauke khan in 1693 in his message to a Russian voivode [6, p. 87]. Therefore, historical sources show that the Kazakh Khanate was a full-fledged subject of international relations and had diplomatic relationship with a number of foreign states. In general, it should be noted that the history of international relations of this medieval state of the Kazakh ethnicity still needs to be investigated. REFERENCES 1. Acts from libraries and archives of the Russian Empire, gathered by the archeological expedition of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Volume 1. 1294-1598. Chief editor A. Shirinskyi-Shikhmatov. St. Petersburg, 1836. – p.546. 2. Register of the tsar archive of the 16th century and archive of the Embassy Department of 1614. Editor – S.O.Schmidt. Moscow, 1960. – p.194. 3. Basin V.Ya. Russia and Kazakh Khanates in the 16th - 18th centuries (Kazakhstan in the system of the Russian Empire’s foreign policy). – Alma-Ata, 1971, p. 276. 4. History of Kazakhstan in Russian sources. Volume 1. Ambassadorial materials of the Russian state (16th-18th centuries). Formation, cursive transcription, special revision of texts, opening chapter, comments, creation of vocabulary, indexes by A. Isina. – Almaty: Dike-Press, 2005. – p. 704 + p. 16. incl. 5. History of Kazakhstan in Russian sources. Volume 2. Russian chronicles and official materials of the 16th century– the first third of the 18th century

about peoples of Kazakhstan. Formation, transcription, comments, opening chapter by I.V. Erofeeva. – Almaty: Dike-Press, 2005. – p. 448+p.8 incl. 6. Epistolary heritage of the Kazakh ruling elite of 1675-1821. Collection of historical documents in 2 volumes/ Project, introduction, khans’ biography, academic comments, formation and executive editing by I.V. Erofeeva. – Almaty: “ABDI-Company”, 2014. – p. 696+p.44 incl. Volume 1. Letters of Kazakh rulers. 1675-1780. 7. Atygaev N.A. The Kazakh Khanate: terminology of sources as a reflection of the state’s history / http:// edu.e-history.kz/kz/publications/view/272 8. Complete collection of Russian chronicles. Volume 13. The Patriarchal or Nikon’s Chronicle [the third edition]. – Moscow, 1965. – p. 532. 9. Pochekayev R.J. The Decree of Empress Anna and oath of Abulkhair of 1731: between ancient traditions and new imperial legislation// Nation’s history. 2014, №3 (67). 10. A.Isin. The beginning of political relations between the Kazakh Khanate and Ottoman Empire// Abay.1999. №4, p. 29-36. 11. The continuation of studying of Russian ancient texts. Part 8. St, Petesburg. – p.336. 12. Peretyatkovich G.I. The Volga region in the 15th – 16th centuries (Essays on the region’s history and its colonization). – Moscow, 1877. – p.331. 13. Kazakh-Russian relations in the 16th – 18th centuries (Collection of documents and materials). – Alma-Ata, 1961. – p. 740. 14. Abuseitova M.Kh. The Kazakh Khanate in the second half of the 16th century. Alma-Ata: Nauka (Science), 1985. – p.104. 15. Abuseitova M.Kh. Kazakhstan and Central Asia in the 15th – 17th centuries: history, politics, diplomacy. – Almaty, 1998. – p.268. 16. Rahmani A.A. “Tarikh-I alamara-yi Abbasi” as a source of the history of Azerbaijan. – Baku: Publication of Azerbaijan People’s SSR, 1960. – p.192. 17. The history of Iran. Executive editor, professor M.S. Ivanov. – Moscow, Moscow State University publishing, 1977. – p.488. 18. The history of Uzbekistan. Volume 3 (16th century – the first half of the 19th century). – Tashkent: Published by the “FAN”, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 1993. –p.476. 19. Kuanyshbek Kari. The letter of the Iran’s shah to Tauke khan//Zhuldyz. №3. 2006. – p.180-182. 20. ‫راشفا جریا‬. ‫یوفص یضایب‬: ‫یراگن همان بادا‬ ‫– هراوقق( رگید یاهنیمزرس نارس هب یوفض نایهاشدداپ‬ ‫ )هیارا – هزادنا‬/ ‫ناتسراهب همان‬. ‫مهن و متشه لاس‬، 87-1386. ‫مهدراهچ و مهدزیسرتفد‬. ‫ص‬. 21. Kambarbekova G. Exchange of diplomatic letters in the time of Safavids. The research of Yudin: Kazakhstan and Eastern states in the history and today”. March 30, 2012 – Almaty, 2012. – p.5-13.

22. http://rus.azattyq.org/content/istoricheskiyedokumenty-tauke-khan/25120968.html /29.09.2013 23. Beisembiev T.K. “Tarikh-I shahrukhi” as a historical source. – Alma-Ata: Nauka (Science), 1987. – p.200. 24. Shah-Mahmud ibn Mirza Fazil Churas. The Chronicle. Critical text, translation, comments, research and indexes by O.F.Akimushkina. – Moscow, 1976. – p. 362. 25. Valikhanov Ch.Ch. Notes on Kyrgyz/ Valikhanov Ch.Ch. Collection of works in 5 volumes. Volume 2. – Alma-Ata, 1985. – p.416, 21, 88 illustr. 26. ‫ یوفص دهع یاه همان هعومجم‬- Madgemuha-yi namaha-yi ahd-I Sefevi, 240/ The Library of the Majilis of the IRI, №66631, photocopy №02-00187-00023, translation by the candidate of historical sciences Z.A. Zhandosova. 27. Aidogdyev M. Pride of the Nation. To the 500th anniversary of Bairam khan Turkmen/ Neutral Turkmenistan newspaper. June 9, 2000. http://ashga. sitecity.ru/ltext_1609133433. phtml?p_ident=ltext_ 1609133433.p_2303003233 28. Kambarbekova G. Still a lot of new information related to history / Aikyn-apta. №32 (2664), February 19, 2015, Thursday. – p.7. 29. Dzhakhandar Shah / http://dic.academic.ru/dic. nsf/ruwiki/1784555 30. N. Kenzheakhmet. Data about Kazakh khans Kerey and Zhanibek and Ming Shilu (written evidences of Ming Empire)/Materials of the International Research and Practice Conference with the theme “Kazakh Khanate-Idea of Eternal Nation” dedicated to the 550th anniversary of the Kazakh Khanate, and which took place March 17-18, 2015, in the South Kazakhstan State Pedagogical Institute. Shymkent, 2015. –p.508. 31. Chinese sources related to the history of Kazakhstan. Volume 2. Sungytai S., Ezhehanuly B. Historical and cultural monuments. – Almaty: DikePress, 2005. – p.80+p.132. 32. B.Ezhenhanuly. The First Kazakh notion about the Kazakh state/ “Kazakhstan and Eastern Turkestan in the system of interactions between Eastern and Western civilizations on the Great Silk Road”. Materials of the K.T. Talipov’s Memorial International Research Conference (Kazakhstan, Almaty, November 26, 2010)/ Exec.edit.: A.K. Muminov, R.U. Karimova. – Almaty: Mir, 2012. – p.496. 33. Moiseev V.A. The Zhungar Khanate and Kazakhs (17th-18th centuries). – Alma-Ata, 1991. – p.238. 34. Abilgazy. The Turkish chronicle. Translation from ancient Turkish by B.Abylkasymov. – Almaty, 1991. – p. 208. 35. ‫ لیعامسا هاش یارا ملاع‬/ ‫و حیحصت و همدقم اب‬ ‫ مود پاچ – بحاص رظتنم رغصا قیلعت‬/ ‫ – نرهت‬1384 ‫ص‬.703

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Dauletbek RAEV, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor. Sarsenov M.B. – Master of International Relations, Senior Lecturer – Kazakh Abilay Khan University of International Relations and World Languages, Department of International Relations.

Tole Bi’s foreign policy and his diplomatic activity According to historical reports, Alibekuly Tole Bi (1663-1756) – was a prominent state and public figure, thinker, sage, carrying out diplomatic work, and was a member of “the Council biys” created by Az Tauke Khan. As a distinguished speaker, the leader of the nation, who made a great contribution to the creation of a code of laws “Jeti Jargi” (Seven Charters), and actively participated in government during the rule of the Kazakh khans such as Tauke, Bolat, Abilmambet, Zholbarys, Abylai. It was a time of deteriorating relations between the Kazakh and Dzungar Khanates. During the Dzungar invasion (1723), known as “Aktaban shubyryndy, alkakol sulama,” he was one of the organizers of popular resistance. In 1743, after the death of Zholbarys the Khan of the Great Zhuz, he was the ruler of Tashkent for 6 years until 1749. From the history of that time it was known that he was an ardent supporter of preserving peace between the friendly neighbors, made a huge contribution to the development of friendship between the peoples. His socio-political, diplomatic activities at the international level especially pronounced after the death Tauke Khan and the rise in its place Bolat Khan, during the exacerbation of the Kazakh-Kalmyk relations, especially after the 1723 Dzungar invasion. After the death of Tauke Khan Kazakh Khanate collapsed, and its political decline and crisis worsened. In the absence

of central authority, the Kazakh Khanate became so weak before foreign enemies. During the collapse of the Kazakh Khanate and the Dzungar invasion Tole Bi was able to show the qualities of the ruler. Continuing to pay tribute to the Dzungar ruler, he also continued to maintain relations with Abylai Khan, Sultan Barak, and Batyr Shakshak Zhanibek and Kokand rulers. During this period, Tole bi as a ruler and bi he was interested in organizing resistance to the invaders and at the same time he held diplomatic talks. Caring about the future of the state, Tole bi held with neighboring countries profitable for the people policies. It is known that the main goal he set was the release of the captured cities and ensuring future security of the Kazakh Khanate. To this end, he sent a diplomatic mission to Russia and the Dzungar Kalmyks. First he established a relationship between the Great Zhuz and the Russian Empire and ensured its further development. In 1733 (according to some sources in 1734), he together with the sultans and biys sent a letter to the Empress Anna Ioannovna. Another purpose of this event was the establishment of trade and economic relations with Russia. A Russian diplomat Matthew Arapov after talks with Tole in Tashkent said, “Tole a very influential politician, and he is like the Junior Zhuz is interested in rapprochement with us, and allegiance to Majesty.” This can be considered as the first step toward

rapprochement with Russia, and the establishment of diplomatic negotiations. And as evidence of this a result in the event in 1748 can be shown, when after the looting of the caravan trade, convicted in this Batyr Koygeldi was summoned to the Council of biys and publicly ordered to pay damages. The Council of biys passed a harsh sentence against Koygeldy Batyr who was obliged to pay two thousand horses. The purpose of this action was so important and severe punishment was taken to prevent bilateral relations from deterioration and to demonstrate commitment to the signed contracts. In 1749 Tole bi sent a delegation led by his nephew Aitbay to Orenburg governor I.I. Neplyuev in order to show his readiness for adoption of Russian citizenship. In a response letter from September 26, 1749 I.I. Neplyuev expressed its appreciation and interest in further strengthening bilateral trade relations. For Tole bi it was a necessary measure for the sake of national security and the protection of the population against the endless attacks of Dzungars. With regard to the diplomatic activity Tole bi in the framework of the Kazakh-Dzungar relationships, that revealed during an incident involving the capture of Abylai Khan in 1742. As a result of ambush, Ablai was captured by Dzungar rulers, which directly led to the weakening the moral and spirit strengths of the Kazakh Khanate. Having realized this, Tole bi demonstrated his leadership qualities and was the initiator of release of him from captivity. The dictum of the steppe improvisers preserved evidence that Abulkhair Khan, together with Tole bi were in Orenburg in order to ask the Russian administration toaid in the release of Abilai Khan. The written source of this fact was the correspondence Abulkhair Khan with the Orenburg governor Neplyuev. In 1743, the representatives of all three zhuzes collected a diplomatic mission of 90 people and arrived to negotiate for the release of Abilai. Describing the incident, the governor Neplyuev in a letter to the board of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed concerns about the peace talks, and expressed fear of possible rapprochement between the two states. Given that one has to admit that Tole bi was firm and wise enough in domestic and foreign policy. He made a huge contribution to the release of Abilai from the Duzngar captivity. By leading a diplomatic mission consisted of 90 prominent men and releasing of Abilai from captivity was a great diplomatic achievements. According to historical documents, Galdan Zeren looking for a reason to find fault with the Kazakhs of the Great Zhuz, and in this purpose he sent his ambassador to the Kazakh Khanate. The visit of the Kalmyk Ambassador to Tole by was described by the prominent poet Kazangap in verse as follows: “Greetings from Galdan to Tole of Zhanys. Let him his dwelling keep away from us, otherwise your head will be separated from the body, with a strong thrust is not?! or let him prepare for war! Time to think will not be given! ... “. Having realized this tough situation, Tole bi was perfectly aware of the fact that Kalmyks outnumbered

Kazakhs; therefore he decided to gather all leaders of three Zhuzes. But the nobles of the Middle and Junior zhuzes could not come to the rescue. Therefore, Tole bi was thinking about making peace through diplomatic means. During this period Galdan Tseren raided Kazakhs of the Middle Zhuz stealing cattle and capturing people. As a result of this invasion the son of Tole Kozhabek was captured by the Kalmyks. The residence of Tole bi - Ak Orda passed tp the hands of the enemies. In these circumstances, Tole had high hopes for an armed detachment of five thousands troops under the command of Koygeldy Batyr from Bukhara. Soon the Kontaychi of Kalmyks sent his messengers to Tole by requiring: “You Kazakhs cheaters, if you have power, you use it to harm others; If you are powerless, always ready to migrate. If you want peace with us, send us hostage decent man or his beloved son. “ Therefore, Galdan Zeren through his puppet governor Barsha Khan hoped to get a hostage an intelligent, strong and a great speaker like Jolaman a son of Tole Bi. In connection with this Tole bi was pondering the offer weighing who was more important – his son or his people. If he did not want to give up his son, the people would suffer. Therefore, he agreed with the requirement of Galdan Zeren and gave hi blessing to send his son to the Kalmyks as a captive. Kazangap in his epic tale mentioned that Jolan had twice been held hostage in the country of Galdan Zeren: the first time for seven years, for the second time - for fourteen years. This legend which was historically confirmed by Kazangap that the son Tole bi Jolan was actually a hostage, as it serves as proof of the diplomatic art and skills of Tole bi. Jolan was released from hostage because of his own wisdom and oratory. By holdin Jolan as a hostage Kalmyks sought to increase their influence on the Kazakhs. However, Tole bi did not give such an opportunity to Kalmyks, putting the interests of the state and people above his love for his son. In this was manifested the patriotic spirit of Tole. Jolan managed to win over Galdan Zeren, thanks to his wisdom. Tole’s decision to send his son as a hostage to the Kalmyks clearly demonstrated his desire to ensure peace to his people and to preserve the integrity of the state. This should be seen as a wise preventive diplomacy of Tole bi. Besides Tole bi by being interested in further deepening the power struggle among various Dzungar rulers, did much to weaken internally his old enemies. Abilai Khan and Tole bi by constantly backing various Dzungar rulers in the end they managed to reach their final goal that is the collapse of the Duzngar Khanate. This became possible thanks to a coordinated and skillful diplomatic policy of both Abilai Khan and Tole bi. And now we are going to look at the issue of the ambassadorial activities of Tole bi during the diplomatic and political relations between the Kazakh Khanate and the Chinese Empire. In 1758, a huge Chinese army led by General Fu-de invaded the Kazakh steppe. One of the main goals of this military campaign was to meet with Tole bi in order to negotiate over some issues such

as catching and captivating Qasaqshira, one of the few survived Dzungar rulers (it should be noted that during the Chinese invasion and massacre of the Dzungar Khanate in 1757-1758 more than a million people perished), as well as making Kazakhs acknowledge the Chinese rule over the Kazakh steppe. But being aware of the Chinese intention, Tole be refused to meet a Chinese ambassador sent by General Fu-de. Interestingly, a bit later in the autumn of 1762 Kazibek bi, the bi of the Middle zhuz did the same by sending back a Chinese diplomatic mission sent by the Chinese emperor himself without nothing. This clearly demonstrated the true intention and interest of the three great byies of the three Kazakh zhuzes such as Tole bi, Kazaibek bi and Aiteke bi to make the Kazakh state equal with other countries by showing their diplomatic and political skills. In his letter sent to the Chinese emperor General Fude mentioned about the following: “Almost all Kazakh rulers such as Tole bi, Koigeldi and Sasyk bi live near the city of Tashkent. Abiliz Khan and all other warriors and zhyraus have agreed that: “almost all positive processes happening in the Kazakh steppe thanks to the leadership of Tole bi, and all favorable decisions have made by him. Tomorrow Tole bi is likely to arrive here. Tomorrow after some discussions and consultations, we will be meeting so that we could reach a deal.” But as the Chinese side hoped, Tole bi did not arrive. Therefore, the Chinese diplomatic mission had to go to the residence of Tole bi in Kazakykurt. Gathering

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

in Tashkent Abiliz Khan, Tole bi, Koigeldy and Sasik bi sent a message to the Chinese diplomatic mission saying: “We are Kazakhs since ancient times have been in a good relationship with the Great emperor so that we would be able to live in peace and prosperity. However, the existence of the Dzungar threat made it impossible. And today, we are witnessing a great event for all of us. An army of the Great emperor that arrived in the Talas River sent a diplomatic mission to us so that they can be able to establish a good relationship with us. Being informed about the true intentions of the Chinese side, we all sons and daughters of the Great Zhuz became so pleased. Our true intention is to establish a productive relationship so that the future generations would be able to live in peace and harmony.” During the meeting with the Chinese diplomatic mission, Tole bi suggested that China and Kazakhs should be able to gain a peace deal, the Kazakh side is going to send a diplomatic mission to China led by his son Jolan and Bosmurun. At the end of the negotiations the Chinese diplomats gave expensive Chinese silk materials to all the Kazakh leaders including Tole bi, Koigeldy and many others as gifts from the Chinese emperor himself. The Chinese diplomats informed that the Kazakhs of the Great Zhuz and all political power in the Tashkent area was in the hands of Tole bi, and all prominent warriors and ordinary people were under control of him. Furthermore, the Chinese diplomats pointed out to the ability of Tole bi making wise decisions and settling any issues.

In the autumn of 1758 Jolan went on a diplomatic mission of the Qing Empire, and on his way he met with the Chinese General Fu-de on the banks of the river Talas. During the meeting, Jolan handed a letter addressed by Tole bi to the Qing Emperor, which was unsurprisingly understood neither by general Fude nor his numerous interpreters, which was likely written in the Chagatai in which Tole bi spoke perfectly. In addition to the old Chaghatay language, Tole by had a good command of the Arabic and Persian languages. Having failed to understand the meaning of the letter, General Fu-de asked him to convey its meaning. Then Jolan said that “the letter expresses Tole bi’s respect to the Qing Emperor, and Tole be wants to establish good relations with him, and that is why he did everything to assist the Qing troops.” Being pleased General Fu-de ordered to prepare the 30 best warriors in order to further support the Kazakh diplomatic mission to Beijing. During a ceremony on the occasion of a meeting with the Chinese emperor, Jolan handed him as a sign of respect three horses. The sources dated from September 5, 1758 stating that the decision to send a diplomatic mission to Beijing was collectively made by Abiliz, Koygeldi, Sasyk bi and Tole bi. It is also said that in addition to the three horses, one horse was given to General Fu-de as a gift. However, at the Battle of the Dzungar gate the Chinese army suffered a serious defeat by the troops Abilai, the Chinese emperor had to change his tactics.

By taking into account all these bitter defeats, the Qing emperor by sending diplomatic missions to the Kazakh steppe began to purse more flexible interests. As a mutual steppe, the Kazakh leaders such as Tole bi, Kazibek bi and Abilai Khan by sending several diplomatic missions to China managed to prevent all possible conflicts from happening and were able to maintain the territorial integrity of the Kazakh Khanate On September 18, 1755 a group of Chinese diplomats after arriving in Kazakhstan in their letter addressed to the Chinese warlord Ban-Di they mentioned about a letter from Jolan, the Kazakh ambassador on behalf of all Kazakh leaders which said: “It became obvious that you have come and are going to stay firmly in our old homeland… All areas that have been taken by your troops had been our ancestors’ land and our old homeland which was annexed by the Dzungars. The Kazakh people are expressing their desire for returning to their homeland because they believe that peace and stability have already been established there.” This letter clearly demonstrated Tole bi’s willingness on behalf of his people not to give up all ancient Kazakh lands in contemporary Eastern and Southern Kazakhstan to anyone. Thus during the development of the relationships between the two states, Tole bi managed to demonstrate his diplomatic skills and high abilities in these diplomatic letters like this one.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Mambet KOYGELDIEV, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Academician, President of Kazakhstan Association of Historians

Correspondence between Strong-Voiced Kazybek biy and Governor-General Ivan Neplyuyev In the Kazakh society of the 18th century that was full of important political events, the culture of the exchange of views through letters between each other and other peoples was developed in accordance with the time. Khans, biys and batyrs, performing the functions of organizers and leaders of the Kazakh people’s public life, have constantly exchanged letters with Russian governors, khans and beks of Central Asia, Dzungar khuntaishi regarding territorial and other political issues. They had secretaries for these purposes. Tatars of Bukhara, Khiva, as well as Kazakhs knowing Arab spelling performed the functions of the secretary. Batyrs were responsible for sending letters to the places of destination. Batyrs were not only messengers, but also explained a large amount of information which was not mentioned in the letters. In other words they were also ambassadors. For instance, such batyrs as Khangeldy, Satai, Bogembay, Zhanibek carried out these obligations in the relations between the Russian administration and Kazakh rulers. This fact may be easily verified by the examination of the archive documents of the 18th century.

Keldibek’s son Kazybek biy was not only given an honorary place in the history of the Kazakh people and became famous for his service in an embassy and as a leader, but was also known for his inimitable eloquence. In the environment, where “eloquence is a peak of art” Kazybek biy was unquestionably a great orator familiar with the art of word. However, in fact, the speech-craft of the biy was not his only prominent quality. It would be unfair to limit the life path of this public figure to the oratory; he devoted his life to the freedom and equity of people. His elocution was only an efficient instrument in his rich public and political service. Equally, can one say about the life paths of Tole biy and Aiteke biy, who were contemporaries of Kazybek biy. The issue should be considered from this point of view based on historical information about their lives. This view is supported by two letters of Kazybek biy addressed to the Orenburg General-Governor Ivan Neplyuyev. They were preserved in the governor’s office of Orenburg oblast’s Archive and have survived until our time [1].

There are special aspects related to the analysis of the evidences and documents of that time. One of them is that each document should be considered as an integrated part of the public and spiritual existence of that historical period and environment. In other words, in close connection with them. Because, as Hegel truthfully noted, each historical period has its own concepts of time and life, freedom and justice. Without this understanding, we can make wrong conclusions. Kazybek biy’s letters are documents, requiring the consideration from this point of view. As it was customary, letters written in Arabic script on a yellowish paper were translated into Russian in the Orenburg chancellery. The first letter was translated by Yemagul (probably Smagul – M.K.) Gulyaev. In the second letter the name of the translator is not mentioned, it is only written “translated by a translator”. The way the letter was written shows that both of them were translated by the same person. The quality of the translation indicates that the translator was fluent in Kazakh. The Russian translation of the first letter, attached first to a folder, with a serial number “112”, “112ob” in the upper corner, starts with the sentence “From him, Kazybek biy”. There is no information regarding the time when the letter arrived to the Orenburg chancellery. It can only be understood from the second letter that it was written a year before the second one. The second letter has a serial number “113 ob”, and there is a short explanation below: “The translation of the Tatar letter, which came from Kazybek biy and was received from Tuken Baltachev on June 13, 1745 in Orenburg. The translation is provided below” [2]. In 1745 the Kazakh society was not fully recovered from “the years of the Great Disaster” (1723). The enemy was still powerful; the country was not united, in addition, the territories from Semirechie to Tashkent were in the hands of Dzungars. Under such internal and external circumstances, political ties with Russian governmental bodies were essential. Archive materials of that time show that khans and sultans, Tole biy, Kazybek biy, Bogembay, Kabanbay, Malaysary batyrs actively communicated with the Russian administration, striving to establish stable connections. Kazybek biy’s two letters, addressed to the Orenburg administration, were written with regard to the issues directly connected with the political life. In his first letter Kazybek biy informs Orenburg about an upcoming assembly in the country. It was not a usual meeting, but a great council of seven khans, tores and other rulers to discuss the internal and external political situation. The ultimate goal of biy’s letter was not only to describe the country’s news, decisions taken at the council, but also to obtain the Russian support against the Dzungar invasion. This can be seen from the following words “Send an ambassador with Tuken batyr”. Also taking into consideration that there were people dissatisfied with their relations with Orenburg, he asked to take measures to ensure the safety of Tuken batyr, who served to the general (possibly, in the original letter it was written “Duken” instead of “Dukan”). The language in the

letter is close to the medieval written Turkic language, used in manuscripts and business papers. This reflects the continuation of the medieval written culture of the Kazakh society of the 18th century. This is confirmed by a request to send 20 sheets of paper. Given our readers’ wish to get acquainted with valuable materials of the past through the original, we considered it right to first provide the original text of the letter and then the translation into the modern Kazakh language. The letter is well preserved, notwithstanding that it was written about two and a half centuries ago. Still and all, we should admit that it was challenging to read every word. The second letter, written in 1745, indicates people’s concern with regard to the strained Kazakh-Dzungar relationship. The situation was the following. In the fall of 1744, Tashkent changed hands from Galdan Tseren to the Central Asian Abdulkarim bek [4]. Furthermore, in 1744-1745 the rebels leaded by batyrs and biys Koigeldy, Toksanbay, Malik, Keten killed the representative of Galdan Tseren, Barshahan, who established his orda in Chimkent, as well as his assistant Sangal [5]. To restore his authority in Kazakhstan, Galdan Tseren was preparing for a new military campaign. This provoked large unrests in the Kazakh society and to a certain extent encouraged ruling groups to establish friendly relations with Russia. In addition, this period, in turn, was a time of confrontation between Russia and Dzungaria due to a territorial dispute, adverse relationships between the two states caused by frequent attacks of oirats on Russian fortresses in the Western Siberia. This political situation was only briefly described in Kazybek’s letter, but its point can be easily understood. The main subject of the letter is the political situation in the South of Kazakhstan and relations between the Kazakh society and Russia. The great politician shows

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

days, thanks to Kazangap there are places near Tashkent that are called: Kylysh Ridge, Balta Lake [9]. In this work, Kazybek is known as “Yer Kazybek” (manful.) It is clear that he was called manful because of this dangerous journey. Translation from the Old Kazakh language: “From us, Kazybek biy, this speech is for the general: seven khans, many tores, peoples want to come to us. They want to consult, exchange views. Try to send an ambassador with this batyr Tuken as soon as possible. The opinion expressed, decision taken by khans, tores and the people will be delivered to you, general, by a letter from Tuken batyr”. This Tuken batyr, loyally serving to the tsar saddled two horses. Send through him 20 sheets of paper. We, karakeseks’ biy Kazybek, are bowing deeply to you. This is a message for the chief, Orenburg’s general: send to us a black fox. Send it by Tuken batyr. He has a lot of enemies. Thus, general, find a way to save Tuken batyr’s life. Because Tuken batyr is good at delivering tsar’s words to us, and ours to you. Thus, general, find a good way to save Tuken batyr’s life”. in his letter that he was not a hypocritical politician, but rather a person who understood the importance and futurity of interactions, was very experienced in international and diplomatic relations. It should be noted here that the abovementioned valuable document does not stand apart from materials, preserved among the people, but it complements them. For instance, oral and written information retained by the people states about the active participation of Kazybek biy in the Kazakh-Dzungar relations and his diplomatic mission to Dzungar Khanate. During the early historical periods we reviewed, biys mainly performed functions of ambassadorial missions in the Kazakh society. There are very important evidences in Kazangap’s work “The History of Tole biy”. Following a clash, the need arose to send ambassadors to Kalmyks to address the issue of prisoners. All the three biys of the Council of Biys under the Khan expressed their willingness to start the campaign. Then one of them disagreed by asking Kazybek biy, “Tell me, what is the strongest part of a quarter horse: head, back or tail?”, and the eldest Tole biy answered, “Dear Kazybek, in the beginning of a journey chest is the strongest part of a quarter horse, but back serves longer. We allow you” [7], and he blessed him to the journey. In this travel he was accompanied by Kozhabak’s sons Kylysh and Balta, he addressed many issues related to the dispute about prisoners. It was mentioned in the epic, “Kazybek will now return to homeland, he gathered orphans – widows and husbands. And having said, “You also have to take those you have lost”, he found lost Kalmyks” [8]. The Kalmyk khan was deeply impressed by his flights of eloquence. Enemies were eaten by envy, when they saw the two batyrs. In this campaign Kalmyks poisoned stirrups of Kylysh and Balta. Kylysh died and Balta survived. According to Abdraim’s chronicles that have reached our

Translation from the Old Kazakh language: We, karakeseks’ biy Kazybek, are bowing to the great tsar. These are our welcoming words to Orenburg’s chief, general: We serve to the tsar. We are enemies of the tsar’s enemies, friends of the tsar’s friends. Our oaths are in force, words are the same. We have received your letter and gifts, general, sent through Tuken batyr last year. We are satisfied. We heard that currently Dzungar, Kalmyk khan Galdan Tseren is doing harm to the tsar’s people. But we did not see that with our own eyes. And…distinguished Abdulkarim bek twenty …arrived to the city of Tashkent. Allegedly, Galdan khan argued with the Kalmyks. We heard no more news. If we hear any news from the people, we will inform you. We sent a letter to Tuken batyr”. The original letter of Strong-Voiced Kazybek biy to General-Governor I.I. Neplyuyev THE FIRST LETTER «Иана биз Казубек биден инаралға суз будур: иети хан, куп туре, иурут бару бизларниң уштумизга килалар. Сузлашамиз, кингаш қиламиз тиб айталар. Имри бу Дукан батурга илчи кошуб илдам кайтаруб ибаргайсыз. Ол ханларның, тураларның, иурутның... кингашин, сузларин сиз инаралға Дукан қолуна хат беруб хизматунизға биз ибарурмиз. Бу Дукан батур падишаһ хизматун қиламыз тиб ики чуға чипкан бирмак болуп, ики ат алыб минди. Ианаигрми табак, қағазбиргайсиз. ИанабизқаракисекКазубекбиден салам. Орунборбашлығы инаралға сузумизбу-

дур: бизгабирқаратулкиибаргайсиз. Дуканбату рқолунаберупибаргайсиз. ИанабуДуканбатурға душманлариаманлиқ қуңлубардур. ИнаралбуДукан батурныңсақлардайғақлтабгайсиз. Аниңучунподиш аһныңсузларинДуканбатур яғшыайтадур. КашларсузинбуДуканбатур яғшыайтадур. АниңучунбуДу канбатурныңбашындушманлардан сақулағудайбир яғшығақлтабгайсиз[3]». THE SECOND LETTER «Биз қара кесек Қазубек би улуғ падишаһға баш... ИанаОрунборбашлыгыинаралга салам сузумизбудур: Бизларпадишаһныңхизматиндамыз. Падишаһныңдушманинадушманмыз, дустинадустимиз. Бизларниңбурунгиантимизантдур, сузумизбирдур. Иана сиз инара лниңбилтурДуканбатурға берипибарған хатуңизбирласиуңызқолумизгакилуб muдu. Бизлар яғшы күшкурдук. Бизларбузамандаишутамиз, жонғар қалмақ Қалдан Чирин хан падишаһиуртунаиаманликқиладуртиб.

Узумизкузбирла курғанмизиукдур. Иана... лау Ғабдулкарим бек игрми сан к... Ташкент қала устуна килди. Қалдан хан қалмақиуртубирлауруш қилдитибиатадур. Андан башкаузгаришишутмаймиз. Һар иурутларданишутсаксизларға хабар қилармыз. ХатниДуканбатургабирдук»[6]. Note 1. The Archive of Orenburg oblast. 3-қ, 1-т. 8-іс, 112,112об,113,113об, 114, 114об. pp. 2. Ibid, 113-113 об. pp. 3. Ibid, 112-pp. 4. Ibid, 38-pp. 5. The Manuscript Division of the Library of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 763-п, “The History of Tole Biy”, 72, 80, 81-pp. 6. The Archive of Orenburg oblast. 3-қ, 1-т, 8-іс 113-6. 7. Kazangap Bauboluly. Tole Biy. Almaty. 1991, 213 pp. 8. Ibid, 217-pp. 9. Ibid

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Dariko MAZHIDENOVA, Doctor of History, Professor

Ablai Khan diplomatic skills Early 1730s were one of the most complicated periods of time in the history of Kazakhstan. At the cost of unprecedented courage and stamina, the Kazakh nation having conquered the Dzungars in the recent war, lost more than a half of its population and still recovering from bleeding wounds turned to be in the grip of severe famine, illnesses and sharp escalation of international situation along the borders with a threat of forced split of territory and complete loss of state sovereignty. This was the time when the name of Ablai sultan became famous at the political arena of the Kazakh society as a major public figure, talented commander, and skillful diplomat. Given the extreme conditions complicated after the death of Bolat Khan by increased decentralization of the Kazakh society, it was very important to make effective use of foreign policy factors, properly building policy concerning main actors of the international activities in Central Asia. The Dzungar Khanate has not completely lost its military capacity and has been still occupying some parts of the Kazakh lands thus threatening of a new invasion. That is why it was necessary to find reliable allies that are Russia and China. Russia was the most preferable potential ally, starting from the times of

Tauke Khan the Kazakhs were negotiating with them about an alliance against the Dzungars. Alliance with Russia could be useful for settling increasing conflicts with its subordinates â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volga Kalmyks, Bashkirs, Zhayk and Siberia Cossacks encroaching territorial integrity of the Kazakh lands. Getting famous among influential circles, Ablai sultan was realistic about international situation of the Kazakh state and understood the importance of military and political rapprochement with Russia, even transition of the Middle Zhuz following the Junior one to the Russian protectorate in order to avoid forced split of Kazakh lands by militant neighbors supporting measures initiated by Semeke Khan in this direction. After Abulmambet acceding to the throne of the Great Khan and then to the throne of the Middle Zhuz Khan, Ablai has strengthened his position among leadership and he wanted to take advantage from this. Back in 1738 he sought to meet with the head of the Orenburg expedition, general lieutenant, Prince V.A. Urussov to discuss bilateral cooperation, but due to several reasons the meeting took place only after two year. In spring 1740 together with Abulmambet Khan he visited Orsk where he held long-lasting negotiations with the Prince V.A. Urussov and together with the

suzerain took the oath of fealty to the Russian Empire. It should be noted that for the whole life he remained to be consistent advocate of friendly relations and close cooperation with Russia maintaining the sovereignty of the Kazakh lands. However it turned out that the protectorate did not protect the Kazakhs from the Dzungars threat much, but turned into military Cossack colonization of the region. First, the Russian annexation of the Kazakh territory was not so evident, but then it became clearer in building fortification lines and settling Cossacks there. Almost the whole 30s the Zhungars werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t disturbing the Kazakh steppe because of the war with the Qing Empire but by the end of the decade they resumed expansionist actions. Military and political alliance resulted from the allegiance of two zhuzs should have been implemented in practice, however it didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t happen. All these factors made Ablai sultan say to the Russian ambassadors through Abulmambet Khan about the inexpedience of Russian allegiance and the opportunity of recognition of dependence from Zhungars by the Kazakhs. This situation showed his excellent military and diplomatic skills. The Kazakh troops were better prepared to counter the enemy. An important factor was the fact that through diplomatic means Ablai ensured

joint attacks against the Dzungars with military forces of the Kyrgyzs, Karakalpaks and even Uzbeks that recently wanted to invade the Kazakh lands near the Syrdaria River. During the military campaign 1739-1742, the enemy was flung back from the Kazakh territory, but Ablai, who was personally directing operation on a dangerous sector of the front, was taken prisoner. This was a new page in the Kazakh-Zhungar relations. Being a prisoner of war, Ablai did not lose time and studied the language, military structure, internal political situation and history of the Dzungars, made friends with Dzungar royal princes Davaci and Amursana [1, p. 85]. His unique qualities made him come into the view of Goldan-Tsaren and he had an opportunity to talk to him on different subjects. It is considered that during this communication bases of the new concept of Kazakh-Dzungar relations were born. Soon Kazakh ambassadors came in order to put an end to military actions even by relinquishing territory and paying impost. At the same time, the ambassadors raised a question on releasing Ablai sultan. Goldan-Tsaren gave Ablai freedom. The outcomes of the negotiations with participation of Ablai exceeded all the expectations: it laid the ground to turn two states from arch enemies into reliable friends. More than 200 years of rivalry

(the Oirats appeared on the territory of Kazakhstan in 1457) was replaced by a new, opposite to the previous, type of relations. This period of foreign policy of the Kazakh Khanate is worth being included into the list of the most unique achievements of diplomatic skills of the steppe dwellers. The Russians were seriously concerned by improved Kazakh-Dzungar relations. Several times Ablai got broad hints that such rapprochement was inadvisable. Even blackmail was used: an attack of the Russian Cossacks to villages of the sultan’s relatives. But Ablai remained resolute in his perseverance. Soon the Kazakh-Dzungar alliance was to undergo a more severe challenge. Golden-Tsaren died. Foreign policy of young leaders of Dzungaria Davaci and Amursana aimed at alliance with the Kazakhs faced resistance of “war party” within the Dzungar community. These forces staged a coup making Lama Dorji the head of the state. Deposed leaders fled to the Kazakh steppe where they got shelter and support. Loma Dorji ordered to pass these famous escapees over, many influential Kazakh people (including Abulmambet Khan) got afraid and were ready to accept the conditions of the ultimatum. Following the tradition according to which agreements between nations should be met in every detail and allies should not be betrayed under any circumstances, Ablai stood his grounds. In a short time he gathered a joint Kazakh-Dzungar troop that skulked into the enemy’s rear, attacked the quarters of Loma Dorji and returned the leadership of Dzungaria to legitimate leaders. At the same time another achievement was made: the Kazakhs returned part of territories in the Ili Valley previously occupied by the Dzungars. Kazakh-Dzungar alliance, having passed severe challenges, was increasing. But both neighbors were not satisfied with this circumstance. China became more active. Being afraid of strengthening the alliance between two nomadic states, it undertook the measures that resulted in destruction of the Dzungar Khanate in 1758 and extirpation of the Dzungar ethnic group. However before the end of this campaign, in 17561757, defeating the main forces of the Dzungars, Qing troops intruded in the Kazakh steppes. Ablai sultan protected the territory. The enemy having lost a lot of people had to stop and start negotiations. During these talks, properly combining military and diplomatic skills, Ablai convinced the Chinese to sign a peace treaty, according to which the end was put on the aggressive actions, and Tarbagatai that was possessed by the Zhungars for a long time, was returned to the Kazakhs. But still there was a threat of the Chinese invading the lands of the Middle Zhuz. It was also undesirable to be neighbors with the Chinese in the South-East and South in case it acquires Central Asia, Ablai sultan knew about such plans for sure because he had been invited to be involved in their implementation but did not agree to do that [2, p. 114]. As opposed to expansion intention of China, the sultan initiated coalition of Central Asian

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

states but it was not implemented due to the heads of Afghanistan, Bukhara and Kokand [3, p. 14]. Still this was one of the reasons why China rejected its plans to invade Semirechye and Central Asia [1, p. 229]. By the end of the 1760s, relations with the Kyrgyzs, Kokands and Karakalpaks kept escalating and soon reentered a phase of armed struggle. Ablai acted mainly through the use of force but still didn’t ignore negotiating possibilities. The sultan forces destroyed the Kokands and forced them to make peace in 1768 recognizing that cities around the Syrdaria river including Tashkent to be in the possession of the Kazakhs. Having made three attacks against the Kyrgyzs in 60-70s, Ablai forced them to renounce any claims for originally Kazakh lands in the Ili Valley that had been under the Dzungars for a long time. In order to prevent new attacks from them he requested and received as amanats several dozens of Kyrgyz families that later were included into the Atygay tribe as part of two volosts of the Kokshetau region [2, p.115]. The measures taken by Ablai concerning the Kokands and Kyrgyzs sobered up the Karakalpaks that practically rolled up the claims on the adjacent Kazakh territories in the second half of the 60s learning lessons from recent defeats from the Kazakh sultan troops and having received data on preparation of a new campaign to their regions. That is why in a short time there was no need to launch a new attack. The abovementioned facts proved that properly combining military and diplomatic skills, by the end of the 70s Ablai managed to lift the threat of annexation of the Kazakh land by Central Asian neighbors. Deepening the analysis of Ablai’s diplomatic skills, we should note good knowledge of foreign policy

Letter ruler Qianlong of the Qing Empire, Ablai Khan. In the Chinese language. Approximately 1771-1774 years.

experience of the Chingisids and ruling dynasties of neighboring states as well his ability to make effective use of established traditions, forms and methods taking into account time and concrete situation. He is credited with dynastic marriages, amanats, coalitions, balanced approach to controversies between main actors of international life of the region and many other factors of the steppe diplomacy. For example, transition to a new type of Kazakh-Dzungar relations after his release was bonded by marriage of the sultan and the niece of Golden Tsaren, presents were given to important people of new allies, the son of Ablai with his family went to the quarters as an amanat, who was later succeeded by offsprings of Abulmambet Khan and other Kazakh aristocrats. Being a realist in policy, Ablai was consistent in establishing and maintaining friendly relations with both neighboring powers – Russia and China, still giving preference to the northern neighbor. He considered the Russian protectorate of the Kazakhs as an alliance in foreign policy, military and economic spheres not as an automatic and complete loss of sovereignty. At the same time, Ablai never showed any doubt in meeting the commitments incurred due to the protectorate. It was not by chance that he correctly

rejected frequent proposals of Qing diplomats about concluding joint military alliances against Russia and then about accepting allegiance of the Celestial Empire. At the same time, Ablai openly supported and developed contacts with the Qing Empire keeping the hopes of the Chinese and concerns of the Russians regarding possible accepting of allegiance in case of excessive pressure of the northern neighbor aimed at compromising on sovereignty interests of the Kazakhs. He also showed his long-sightedness when did not accept the above-mentioned proposal of the Qing Empire on joint attack against central Asian nations though it seemed evident that soon it would be quite beneficial. Another decision would open opportunities to establish indivisible military supremacy of the Empire in Central Asia and would deprive the Kazakhs from the possibility of creating anti-Qing coalition with the southern neighbors for a long time if not forever, if necessary. He had to reject proposals of the Russian side as well, if they threatened to subjugate his countrymen more or strengthened personal dependence on Tsar’s court and border administration. For a long time Ablai did not reply to persistent proposals concerning sending one of his sons to Petersburg or Ufa as an amanat and when he thought it was improper to persist more, he agreed under such conditions that the Russian side declined to meet them. In 1759 in spite of evident personal benefits he did not give consent to unilateral decision on replacing Abulmambet Khan at the throne even if he would be appointed ad the Khan. It should be noted that after having been appointed as the All-Kazakh Khan he did not answer to proposals of the Russians to come to take the oath as the Kahn of the Middle Zhuz only and to receive presents worth the Khan [4, p. 96-99]. Thus Ablai, on the one hand, voiced protest to preparing measures aimed at eliminating the position of the Great Khan in the Kazakh society, on the other hand, made the practice of tsar administration appointing a person as a Zhuz Khan illegal for years to come. Thus, Ablai diplomacy, despite escalation of geopolitical situation in the region and increasing pressure of two neighboring powers, made it possible to maintain the territorial integrity of the Kazakh lands and efficiently counteract to foreign forces in their intention to put an end to the Kazakh statehood. References 1. Abuyev K. Khan Ablai and his time. – Astana, 2006. 2. Valihanov Ch.Ch. Collected edition in five volumes. V.4. – Almaty, 1985. 3. Kussainov A.K. Ablai (1711-1781) // History of Kazakhstan in persons (Political portraits). First issue. – Akmola, 1993. 4. Kazakh-Russian relations in XVIII-XIX cc. Collected documents and materials. – Almaty, 1964.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Alexander VASILIEV , Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Correspondence of Kazakh Khan Kaip Muhammad with Ottoman Sultan Ahmed III at the beginning of the XVIII century The beginning of the XVIII century was for Kazakh Khanate a period of significant external threat. To the east, a serious danger represented by Dzungaria, and its energetic ruler Tseven Rabdan. War on Oirats forced nomadic population Dasht-i Kipchak migrate to the north, causing and worsening relations with neighbors of the Kazakhs - the Volga Kalmyks headed by Khan Ayukoy and Bashkiria [1]. It is noteworthy that in this situation the Kazakh khans very closely followed the diplomatic contacts of neighbors, trying to assert its new statehood and claim authority over the population Deshti Kipchak. This topic is dedicated to a number of documents in the Ottoman archives in the Office of the Prime Minister of Turkey on diplomatic contacts and Kazakh rulers and the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the XVIII century. These materials represent information about staying in the 1713-1714 Kazakh Embassy from Kaip

Mohammad Khan in Istanbul. The first document is an Ottoman “highest letter” informed of the arrival of the messenger Khan Kaip Turkey. The letter is dated August 21, 1713 (30 Rajab 1125’s.), and is accompanied by numerous hymns, and compliments to Kaip Mohammad Khan. In particular, it said that Khan’s messenger Seyyed Kullu Bahadir brought gifts, which were adopted by the Sultan. Instructs messenger have proper reception, and the gap-stitching him to leave for home at the end of his mission. A letter contained an allusion to the fact that the messenger could go further in the Hajj, completing his diplomatic duties. Unfortunately, the letter says nothing about the details of travel Sayyid Kullu Bahadir in Istanbul, his stay there. [2] In the second the document is a list of famous gifts presented to them by messenger of Khan: Dresses of silk - 3, amber light 3 Agabanu white * - 3, silk thin - 3, scarlet scarf 1, gray shawls - 1, red scarves

- 1 blanket-colored iron - 1 blanket scarlet - 1 [3]. The latter document has no exact date when it was prepared but, apparently, no later than January 1714 it sets out the reason for sending the embassy and requested Kaip Mohammad Khan to Sultan Ahmed III. This document is interesting, and it would be appropriate to give a partial paraphrase: “The request of the person to His Majesty the Sultan is the following: recently, Ambassador evil and conspired evil Ayuka arrived in the capital [the Ottoman Empire]. And after reporting about the loyalty of Ayuka [to Sultan], they would come back. This ambassador

delivered the noble letter [of sultan] to Ayuka, TV this time near Ayuka were standing ambassadors of Khan Kaip, namely Ishtekov and Karakalpakov. And it was not long time passed, as the atheist Ayuka, violating the treaty, attacked Russians and Nogays. And news about this attack were brought by our Hajis to Khan Kaip, who were marching from Ashtarhan. And following a religious zeal, [Khan] has twice attacked Ayuka and fought with him. And so he sent his man to prostrate before the Padishah, in order to inform him that the ‘kafir’ Ayuka does not keep his oath, breaking the contract. And to this man [after] it was stated that Khan and his brother Tatar khan hearing expressions of loyalty

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

[to the Ottoman Empire], would sincerely hold aloft the banner of Islam closely to the sultan. And besides, Padishakh, ruler of the world, also wished to receive a letter from him. Kaip Khan told the envoy to convey all above mentioned by word of mouth. Messenger said that it was entrusted to him by Khan, and when he was asked by which way he came, and how he will come back, he said that he had come through Baghdad and through it would return”[4]. I did not find any documents on the measures taken by the Ottomans. It is interesting mention about the recent visit of Ambassador of Ayuka to Istanbul. Apparently, we are talking about sending by Ayuka to Istanbul two embassies in the 1709-1710 period. First one under the leadership of the Nogai merchant Mehmet Salih has arrived in Turkey in the winter of 1709. Although the message of Ayuka could not be found, it has been preserved the grand vizier’s reply message in which he called Ayuka as “the most perfect one of the heads of the Kalmyk tribes, the most valiant of the rulers of the Kypchak steppe”. In a letter given, Mr. Porta demanded Ayuka to maintain peaceful relations with the Crimean Khanate. The second embassy under the leadership of also Muslim Pehlivan Kula bey came to Istanbul in the spring of 1710. He was the Ambassador to convey the important oral report to the Sultan from Ayuka. There ambassador described the Bashkir sortie against Terka and reported on the formation of coalitions around Ayuka consisting of nomadic people, including Chingizid tribes of Kalmyks, Bashkirs, Karakalpaks and Kazakhs. The Ambassador assured the Vizier that between Ayuka and Devlet Giray the peace reigns, and asked to send to a bid of Ayuka the Ottoman Embassy [5]. The letter of Kaip Khan confirms this information, as well as noting about significant disagreements among this very different by interests coalition. Document notes that Kaip Khan probably knew about the peculiarities of the Russian-Ottoman relations in 1711-1713 years and was aware of the realities of power in a wide geographical area from the Urals to the Northern Black Sea. His appeal to the sultan with a restrained and respectful passage included that Ayuka violated the peace treaty with the Russians and Nogays, and reflected appropriately the political fickleness and perfidy of Ayuka, who flirted with its neighbors and was an ally of Russia at the same time, to get Russian help, and at the same time suiting devastating raids on the lands of its own neighbors. However, between the lines Kaip Sultan warned him against further rapprochement with the Kalmyks, hinting at possible diplomatic complications with Russia, given its willingness to defend its interests. In the letter another interesting mention “Tatar Khan” Kaip’s sworn brother. In all probability, we are not talking about any relative Kaip. Rather, it refers to the Crimean Khan Devlet - Giray, is also a vassal and ally of the Ottomans. Moreover, in the Kaip letter stresses the bonds of religious aspect with Crimea, the

Kazakh Khanate and the Ottoman Empire. Crimean and Kazakh Khanates in the Kaip message most loyal to Islam, as opposed to the pagan Buddhism of Ayuka. The mention of the pilgrims, telling Kaip about Ayuka attacks, it indicates the source of a good awareness of the Kazakh Khan. Hajji served as diplomats, ambassadors, merchants and travelers-missionaries in contacts of the Ottoman Empire and Central Asia [6]. This passage leads to the conclusion that at the beginning of the XVIII century pilgrim path of the so-called northern route around the Caspian Sea through the southern Russian steppes to the Crimea could be safe enough. But, apparently, they were not safe for an official envoy Kaip, who arrived in the Ottoman Empire through Baghdad. Unfortunately, the envoy did not leave details of his travel to the border of the Ottoman Empire. However, most likely, he arrived via Iran, did full of dangers way from north to south. Undoubtedly, the importance of his mission made him choose the longer district route, and, probably, for privacy reasons can be attributed to the absence of a formal letter to the Sultan. The nature of a secret mission meant writing letters to Kaip to reinforce his power rights and authority as the right of Chingizid also with written support from the most powerful Muslim ruler. Probably, it was possible to count on the sultan’s letter to the Crimean Khan to

divert attention of the Kalmyks. But, unfortunately, we do not know the reaction of the Sultan to this letter, and certainly not clarified whether written reply august letter. However, the Ottoman Embassy in the desert Dasht-i Kipchak has not been sent, and the Ayuka attempt to establish an alliance with Ottoman Empire failed. References 1. History of Kazakhstan. Peoples and Cultures / N.E. Massanov [and oth]. Almaty: Dyke-Press, 2000. P. 136-138. 2. BOA, Name-HUmayun Defteri, (A.DVN. NMH) 6/185. 3. BOA, A.DVN.NMH., 6/186. 4. BOA, A.DVN.NMH., 6/184. 5. Sh. Lemercier-Kelkezhe, Volga Kalmyks between the Russian and Ottoman empires during the reign of Peter the Great (according to the documents of the Ottoman archive). // Middle Ages and early modern Eastern Europe by French historians eyes. Kazan, 2009. P.264-265. 6. A.D. Vasiliev, The banner and the sword of the Padishah. Political and cultural contacts khanates of Central Asia and the Ottoman Empire in the XVIbeginning of XX centuries. M.: « Space -2000», 2014.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Gaziz TELEBAEV, Doctor of Philosophy, professor RSI Kogamdyk Kelisim under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, Astana

Shaping of Turkic World view The Turkic world view has evolved over the centuries, starting from the ancient Turkic runic inscriptions of Kultegin and Tonykok. Of particular importance was the Great Silk Road (GSR) which passed through the cities that played a decisive role in shaping the system of basic categories of the Turkic world view. These include, first of all, Kashgar, Balasaghun, Ispidzhab, Otrar, Yassy. In the Middle Ages Kashgar was an important trading center on the Silk Road, Kashgar is important for us because it is the hometown of the prominent Turkic philosopher, linguist, historian and geographer Mahmud ibn al-Hussayn ibn Muhammad al-Kashgari (1028 or 1029, Barskhan, near Lake Issyk-Kul - 1101 or 1126, Opal, near Kashgar.) His work The Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwānu l-Luġat al-Turk) contains many world view categories common to the Turkic peoples that laid the foundations of the Turkic philosophical vocabulary. I include the following concepts to these categories: time (its omnipotent, cruel and irreversible nature, as the proverb goes “no man is born to escape time, Adam’s sons will not remain forever”); soul (in Dīwānu literally means... “trembling part of the body”); world (divided into “this world (earthly life)” and “the next world (afterlife)”); virtue (“language is the pinnacle of virtue,”

“strive for virtue, but do not be proud once you acquire it”); greatness (“greatness of Tengri”); fate (“When fate shoots the arrow, aiming at the mortal world, and mountains crumble”) and many others. [1] Balasaghun was certainly a significant “philosophical point” on the Silk Road, according to historical evidence, Yusuf Balasaghuni (1018-1070) was born here, he received education in Otrar and Bukhara and lived and wrote his great poem Kutadgu Bilig in Kashgar. There are many categories in the philosophical poem Kutadgu Bilig that reflect the specific character of the Turkic world view. And there is a lot in common with the categorical apparatus of Kashgari’s Dīwānu l-Luġat al-Turk and Khoja Ahmed Yasawi’s Diuani Hikmet. Categories in Kutadgu Bilig are multi-dimensional, multi-faceted and ambiguous. This primarily relates to the pillar concepts: Kuntogdy, Aytoldy, Ogdulmish, Odgurmish, which are, as we know, the main characters of the poem and represent the elik (ruler), vizier (his advisor), son of the vizier and hermit. On the one hand, these “humanized” metaphysical images embody human qualities, on the other hand, they are philosophical categories that reflect the Turkic philosophical tradition, one of the founders of which was Balasaghuni. The first of them is Kuntogdy, the main figure who

represents the Sun, power, justice, courage, will, valor, law. The importance of such qualities as courage, will and valor for each person stresses the prevalence of “heroic beginning” in Balasaghuni’s philosophy. This can be explained both by the impact of complex military and political processes and the Turkic intention to glorify the nomad warrior. The second principle is honesty, knowledge, speech. In the power hierarchy it corresponds to the position of vizier, advisor, which existed at the courts of both Muslim and Turkic rulers. Yusuf Balasaghuni himself had an honorific title Khass Hajib (Wise Counsellor) for his service at the court of Tabgach-Bogra Khan. Only wise governance can bring people wealth, prosperity, happiness, which also mean Aytoldy. The third principle embodies Ogdulmish representing erudition, wisdom, intellect. The most important things for Yusuf Balasaghuni are human desire for knowledge, science, and moral qualities. Balasaghuni’s didactic teachings on human are based on his glorification of science, reasoning about the use of language and moderation in speech, classification of vices one need to avoid, identification of good, truth and beauty. Finally, Odgurmysh, modesty, detachment, satisfaction are covered by the term kanagat, that incorporates these meanings. In the political hierarchy this represents hermits, religious leaders, pastors. Balasaghuni saw their importance in public life primarily in the moral education of people. Balasaghuni unfolds in a poetical and at the same time deeply meaningful way each of these concepts in an interrelated chain of categories. Happiness, for example, unfolds by the following metamorphosis:

it seems that there is no place in people’s lives for happiness, it is homeless, as it is volatile, fluid (like a river), hence it is deceptive and evil. But then it turns out that it has another image: it is a blessing and a bliss, the source of wealth and power, it can help you to achieve anything. But that’s not all: happiness means renewal, a constant desire for the new. Balasaghuni reveals the content of other basic categories of the Turkic world view in the same dialectical way. The next “philosophical point” on the Silk Road is surely Ispidzhab (Sairam.) It was first mentioned in Xuanzang’s novel in 629 as the “city on the White River.” The Turkic world’s remarkable thinker Khoja Ahmed Yasawi was born in this city (1103, Sairam — 1166, Turkestan.) The philosophical work Diuani Hikmet, which certainly belongs to the Sufi Tradition, nevertheless, enshrines Turkic elements. First of all, it concerns the concept of the moral nature of man and idea of the transience of human existence. The Turkic philosophical basis is also present in the conceptual apparatus of Diuani Hikmet. Such concepts as kanagat (satisfaction, measure); tagdyr (fate); yrzyk, kut (happiness, prosperity, wealth); hak (truth); amanat (order, heritage); rukh (spirit); aruak (ancestral spirit); akyl (reason); kok (sky), and many others are very common throughout the text of the Book of Wisdom. On the one hand, they are certainly of the Turkic origin, on the other hand, the way Yasawi used and interpreted them have subsequently influenced the formation of the Turkic philosophical vocabulary. Turkic motives are also clearly perceptible in expressions used by Yasawi, especially when it comes

to forms of address. For example: “ua, dariga!”, “ey, dostarym!”, “ua, kudyret!”, “ay, zharandar!” [2]. The following “philosophical points” are of particular importance both for the Silk Road and the Turkic world: Otrar (Farab) and Turkestan (Yassy.) Otrar oasis, which included several cities, reached its heyday in 1-13 centuries. The city was famous for its library and one of the mints of the Karakhanid dynasty; it was home to many scientists, philosophers, foretellers, jewelers and skilled craftsmen. A whole group of scientists, who became the symbols of pride of the Turkic world, were born in this city: the world-famous philosopher and mathematician al-Farabi, Abu Nasser ibn Muhammad ibn Uzlag ibn Tarkhan (870-950), as well as philosopher Abul-Qasim al-Farabi (11301210), well-known sufi Arystan-Bab (11-12 centuries), astronomer and mathematician Abbas Zhaukhari (1st half of the 9th century), linguist and geographer Ishaq al-Farabi (... - d. 951.) Socio-ethical treatises of Abu Nasser (On the Opinions of the citizens of the virtuous city, Indicating the way to happiness, On the pursuit of happiness) contain a lot of philosophical categories that influenced the formation of the Turkic philosophical language. These include: happiness, virtue, soul, truth, wisdom, reason, justice, suffering, fun and others. Farabi is known to be formed in the philosophical traditions of Arabic Peripatetic and Neoplatonic schools, receiving education in the philosophical schools of Baghdad and Damascus. However, it is equally important to note the undoubted influence (perhaps even

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

at the genetic level) of Turkic intellectual traditions and archetypes of the ancient Turkic mentality. This is already seen in Farabi’s definition of the purpose of human life which is the pursuit of happiness: happiness is the goal which every man wants as it is a kind of perfection. [3] We should note that Yusuf Balasaghuni who lived a century later and followed the Turkic intellectual tradition named his work Kutty Bilik or ”Knowledge showing a path to happiness” (“Blessed Knowledge” as translated by A.Kh.Kasymzhanov.) According to Farabi, happiness is a goal of life also because it is the highest good, in other words a person needs it for their own sake (happiness), not as a means of achieving other goods, goals and etc. “As we can see after achieving happiness we do not pursue other goals, thus happiness is necessary for us and never for the sake of [something] else,” Al-Farabi argued in “Indicating the way to happiness” [3]. Another aspect essential for Farabi’s concept of happiness is the relative understanding of happiness: “…happiness for each person is seen according to their own perception of it” [3]. Each person has its own happiness; there is no single specimen for happiness. For someone happiness is richness, for other people – health, family, career and etc. According to Farabi, ways to gain happiness are also very “earthy”, real. These include: self-improvement, performing beautiful actions and avoiding ugly ones, cultivation of positive qualities, good sense and good temper, moderation, avoiding extremes of excess and lack. In my opinion, many ethical ideas of Farabi are interfaced with an ethical setting of the tradition of existence (typical for the Turkic philosophy as well), which may be defined as ataraxy – calmness, satisfaction with a little. This intention was perfectly expressed in the following words of the Otrar thinker: “If you can not achieve desired, desire what you can achieve.” It is clear that the category of measure dominates Farabi’s ethical relativism. One should note that understanding of measure as a major moral value is generally intrinsic for the Turkic, in particular Kazakh mentality. For instance, in the Kazakh conventional wisdom a very important position is occupied by such moral sense as kanagat, this is a feeling attained by a human as a result of searching for measure, harmony, correct proportion, adequacy. At the same time kanagat serves as a moral regulator, warning people about intemperance, crossing the line, extremities. In this respect, kanagat may be understood as a “moral

satisfaction” and “reconciliation with your destiny.” Features of Farabi’s interpretations of the ethical category of measure were more vividly expressed in a detailed classification of moral qualities of human. Moreover, by implementing a common for oriental traditions intention to outline not only binary oppositions (for example, good-evil), but more flexible contrapositions, consisting of three parts, for each moral quality Farabi indicates the following: lack, “ideal”, harmonious presence and excess. This methodological position allows applying more differentiated approach, for example, with regard to people’s moral imperfections, which are considered in this case not as the absence of a moral quality, but rather as its excess or lack. Al-Farabi’s classification of human moral qualities is highly important, thus, we present it in detail. “Ideal” moral qualities, as well as their excess and lack are as follows: Desperation (excessive boldness) – courage (moderate boldness, displayed in dangerous situations and abstinence from them) – cowardice (lack of boldness) [3]. Squander (excessive waste and insufficient prudence) - generosity, chariness – avarice (excessive economy and insufficient money spending). In this context, when considering this triad we get an interesting “inversion.” Squander may be seen as an excess and avarice as a lack, only if we define generosity as an “ideal” quality. When choosing chariness as an “ideal” quality the situation changes, thus, avarice becomes the excess (of chariness)

and squander becomes the lack. Greed, gluttony (excess of pleasure) – abstinence (moderate use of pleasure: food, women) – absence of the feeling of pleasure (lack of pleasure) [3]. Buffoonery (excess of joke) - ingenuity (moderate use of joke) – absence of humour (lack of joke.) In this context, Farabi is very loyal towards such moral defect as a lack of joke: “Man should rest in his life, rest is such a thing, in which exorbitance is pleasant or [at least] painless. Joke is among things that bring pleasure when in abundance or [at least] it is painless” [3]. False self-opinion (attribution of good qualities, deeds which are not a case) – honesty towards yourself (attribution of good qualities, deeds which are a case) – dissimulation (a person attributes to themselves everything, but not only real qualities.) Subservience (excess) – friendliness (appears due to the moderation in communications between people, a person derives pleasure from conversation or acts) – haughtiness (lack), unfriendliness (aggrieving other people.) Speaking of ways for achieving “ideal” moral qualities, Farabi uses an image of swing. People usually swing from one extreme to another, alternately choosing excess of a moral quality or its lack. The situation become complicated due to the fact that both extremes are inherently easy to achieve. At the same time it is very difficult to attain the harmony, “golden mean.” Only through the long practice, day-to-day efforts, judgement and resoluteness, pursuit of rational pleasure, a man can develop “ideal” moral qualities. Therefore, the Great Silk Road allowed facilitating a highly meaningful ideological and philosophical dialogue through “philosophical points”. Representatives of different religions: Zoroastrism, Manichaeism, Nestorianism, Tengriism, Buddhism and Islam, as well representatives of various schools of thought, with an active role of Turkic thinkers, took part in this dialogue. 9- 12 centuries AD represented the period of extensive development of the Turkic philosophy in cities – “philosophical points” on the GSR’s map. This development was translated into the creation of a unique “Turkic philosophical vocabulary”, in which we may find the manifestation of archetypes of the Turkic world view. Our objective is to recreate this philosophical vocabulary in order to more accurately clarify the basic characteristics of the Turkic world view. References: 1. Mahmud al-Kashgari. Dīwānu l-Luġat al-Turk. Almaty. Dike-Press, 2005. 2. Khoja Ahmed Yasawi. Diuani Hikmet (Akyl Kitaby)/ Translation to Kazakh: M.Zharmukhameduly, S.Dauituly, M.Shafighy. Almaty. Murattas, 1993. 3. Al-Farabi, Abu-Nasser Mukhammad. Social and Ethical Treatises. Alma-Ata, Science, 1973, p. 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Gulnar MUKANOVA, Candidate of historical sciences, Associate professor Al-Farabi Kazakh National University

Historical reasons for Kazakhstan’s diplomatic vector: Central Asia – Southeast Asia (Methodology, practice, sources) Impartial assessment of a content and kind of cooperation between states in different timelines imposes certain difficulties as far as historiographers of international relations, in line with diplomats, are limited by certain circumstances, connected to public interests of their country of residence. However, the objective of scientists is to take an advantage of lessons learned for the sake of future. [1] The State Program “Cultural Heritage”, elaborated under the initiative of President Nursultan Nazarbayev, opened new horizons to supplement and expand historiographical, informational and historical base of Kazakhstan by the reproductions of the unique artifacts and archive materials from foreign funds, which are of significant value for putting historical records of Kazakh statehood and diplomacy straight. Being impartial in enunciating sinuosity of international contacts is a hard job – a scientist has to separate himself from influence and produce intrinsic information. Kazakh diplomacy has deep roots; it can be asserted with confidence that certain kin groups, which were involved in shaping of the nation, when referring to

history of their establishment, that their foreign contacts were motivated in instant dependence to their habitat. As far as we are interested in peculiarities of Kazakh-Chinese relations, in a larger scale: Central Asia – Southeast Asia (hereinafter CA and SEA), in terms of modern definitions, this article briefly speaks about new tendencies in rendering the topic. It is common knowledge that older generations of social scientists have left their personal archives of particular value as a legacy, which serves as a backbone for facilitation of further researches to answer the sacred question – did the steppe nomads implement their potential on gaining statehood? Preparations for the 550th anniversary of the Kazakh Khanate in our country started earlier than it may seem from the first sight. The publication of the Collected Edition of works of a Member of Academy of Sciences Alkey Margulan (1904-1985), dedicated to his 110th anniversary, in 14 volumes in Kazakh and Russian languages, produced within the State Program of Socially Important Publications of the Department of archives and information of the Ministry of Culture and Information of the RK– is precious gift. [2]

The fact is that undoubted scientific achievement of an academician A. Margulan includes comprehensive researches of a place and role of the CA nomadic civilization in the world history. Working under ideological pressure, the scientist has left precious heritage in the form of authentic publications and manuscripts. Publication of fundamental works of Alkey Margulan opens new horizons in the historiography of the region, representing systemic summary on adaptation process of economic and household activities of nomads to the environment. “The combination of leading forms of economy – cattle breeding and farming – was the living conditions of inhabitants throughout Kazakhstan,” concludes the scientist, examining meridonial nature of traditional migrations and efficient, seasonal use of pastures. [2;Vol.8,p.449]. “Factious” method of a factor of geographical combination in economic basis of Kazakhs’ household was perfectly applied in regional archeological works, which did not suffer that much from “ideological” persecutions. In-depth analysis of extracted artifacts and archeological evidences let the scientist make conceptual conclusions: “…Stone structures – megaliths of the Begazy 1, 2, the Buguly III, the Sangru I, the AksyAyuly II – hold special place in architecture of the ancient Kazakhstan. Ancient construction culture heritages represent extensive underground shrines of tribes’ rulers. Massive stone walls which survived a test of three thousand years are the evidences of unbelievable physical and spiritual power of ancient people. Those mighty buildings stand on their vastness

and architectural invaluableness in line with famous ancient heritages in different parts of the world.” [2; Vol. 8, pp. 447-448] The scientist referred to the famous Stonehenge –complex of Neolithic and the Bronze Age heritage in England – at those times, for obvious reasons, trying to avoid glorification of the “capitalistic” artifacts openly. 13th volume of the edition (2012, p.576.) includes previously unpublished (ethnology was taboo) essays about historical period before foundation of the Kazakh Khanate, to name few: “Ancient Kazakh tribes and formation of the Kazakh Khanate,” “Writing system of Kazakh tribes in the historic period (Тарихи дәуірдегі қазақ тайпаларының жазу мәдениеті),” “the Tanbaly Petroglyphs– great legacy (Таңбалы тас жазуы - ұлы мұра),” “Petroglyphs with totem of the wolf – the totem of the Shapyrashty tribe (Петроглифы с тотемом волка - тотем племени шапрашты),” “the Library of Orazmukhamed (Оразмұхамедтің кітапханасы)” etc. This volume, in line with other ones, is illustrated by facsimile of sources, photographs of the rock carvings and autographs of the scientist [2; Vol.13, p.82]. Examining the rock carvings, the Kazakh scientist has made a conclusion that tribes, which composed the nation of Kazakhs, did have writing system. “… Level of cultural development among Naimans, Kireys and Uighurs was high. Those tribes relates to people with culture of writing system. Barthold and Pelliot said that Mongolian writing system was borrowed from ancient Uighur writing system through Naimans and Kireys. According to scientists, rock carvings of 10th – 12th

centuries are distributed through Western Altai – Sauyr and Tarbagatai and were created by Karluks, Naimans and Kereys” [2; Vol.13, p.88]. In short, Soviet social scientists’ methodology of researches of national and cultural identity was incredibly well-balanced; modern orientalists have only have to examine foreign archives which are available now and to manage to state their weighty utterance in historiography just building up the basis with “additional storeys.” Even shallow analysis of publications in the www.amazon.com web-site can cause disappointment: overworked topics, borrowed sources, role and place of the CA nations are not addressed. Theoretically, studies and description of a history of the research subject in particular field is based, and will base on unspoken pattern: there are three levels of relations. The highest, large-scale and territory-wise global is the level of global international relations. The next level, which is of particular concern for us, is the level of regional international relations. Regional contacts could not progress independently from developments in global international relations. Finally, the level of bilateral relations which directly or indirectly reflects development tendencies of local, inland relations - currently the best investigated level. Close linkage of intra-regional economic interests of particular domains was brightly manifested in the CA in 18th century. Resources of Crimea, the Volga region, Western Siberia, Mongolia, Xinjiang, India as well as Afghanistan and Iran were pretty much attractive to Russian merchants. Turkish – Russian war for the straits and areas of influence blocked the flow of goods from the CA to Crimea and further to Europe, by virtue whereof, despite the Islamic background, the policy of Far Eastern vector among Khans started to energize. This tendency was previously described by political scientists [3] and scholars in the field of history. [4] The Turkish “Amanat” system (a kind of consulate or diplomatic mission), which was distributed within Eurasia, could be a special topic for discussions. [5] The system of international relations in different historical periods, in regional dimension is complicated conglobation of controversies with centric power vectors, complexity of which should not be underestimated. Rapprochement of parties was stimulated by meticulous surveillance reconnoitering works; it is no secret that the CA was the object of thorough researches of western scholars, who under the guise of travellers (sometimes at the bidding of the heart) implemented far-reaching plans of different powers. Mass migration of Kazakhs along the borders with Xinxiang intensified in the middle 18th century in the face of well-known circumstances, connected to extirpation of the Dzungar Khanate by the Manchus. Politesse of Kazakh – Xinxiang relations started to reveal itself fully while discovering more artifacts. The last, but not least discoveries were eminently described in recent speech by a Corresponding Fellow of the RK NAS M. Abusitova. [6] Materials, discovered during oriental archeographic

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

expeditions (2004-2009) in foreign archives, funds, libraries, museums are unique. Translations from oriental languages with comments, glossaries and indexes were made on the basis of them. During 20042009 series of books (30 volumes!) were published, including: “History of Kazakhstan in Persian, Turkic, Arabic, Chinese, Mongolian, Armenian sources,” “History of Kazakhstan in Eastern miniatures,” “Manuscripts and artifacts from the Henri Moser Fund on history and culture of Kazakhstan,” “Shakpak-ata (Шақпақ ата),” The collection of archive documents on Chinese-Kazakh relations in the Qin period (2 facsimiles, 4 volumes), “Rarities of Kazakh Applied and Decorative Arts abroad” etc. Thanks to the State Program “Madeni Mura” (Cultural heritage), employees of the R.B. Suleymenov Institute of Oriental Studies of Committee of Science of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan discovered the unique archival documents in China – more than 300 in Chagatai and Chinese languages and more than 3000 in the Manchu and Oirat languages, containing official letters of Kazakh Khans and sultans to rulers of neighboring countries. Documents on Kazakh-Chinese, Kazakh-Russian, Kazakh-Kyrgyz, Kazakh-Kokand and Kazakh-Oirat diplomatic relations were discovered as well. Within the Kazakhstan-China program “The collection of archive documents about Chinese-Kazakh relations in

the Qing period” facsimile of documents were published (1-2 volumes), including their translation into Kazakh language in four volumes. Archival documents of the First Historical Archive of China is the evidence of profound diplomatic tradition supported by unique artifacts in the form of paintings, miniatures, photos and artifacts of applied arts. The unique exposition called “Kazakhs are presenting horses as a gift” was discovered in funds of Paris libraries and museums, where it is stored in the Guimet Museum of Asian Arts in Paris along with other Eastern relics of arts. This is a single discovered painting, dated 1757, which exposes diplomatic ceremony of presenting gifts (three horses). The unique data were found constituting correspondence of Kazakh Khans and sultans, particularly Ablai khan, Sultan Bolat-khan, Uali-sultan with rulers of eastern countries. The correspondence represents records on diplomatic relations between Ablai khan and Xianlun, including exchange of ambassadors, appointment of administrative officials both in the Kazakh Khanate and the Qin Empire, other analysis of the materials prove that headquarters of Kazakh khans had their own chancelleries, which issued Khan’s decrees of diplomatic nature. Multiculturalism of the CA served foreign powers the good turn, because presence of inter-ethnic disputes enabled them to make plans on dividing population

and abdicating rulers. The period of separatism and conflicts among certain ethnic and kin groups facilitated the process of colonization of the region. International contacts in the CA in that period, despite its diversity, did not boil over into military confrontation, except for the “Ili Crisis” in relations between Russia and China, when migration of nomads became just a “changing card” in bilateral relations. The nature of “eastern” migrations should be distinguished into: voluntary in mid-to-late of 18th century, and forced in 19th and early 20th centuries. Borders, strict obligations before neighbors, biy’s court and diplomatic service: all these attributes of statehood are being registered by sources for over 550 years. Transitional geographical position of the CA contributed to logistics of commerce avenues, caravan tracks and flow of missionaries and merchants. The content of eastern written, epigraphical and other heritages and artifacts is the evidence of normative, resource-based, ideological and spiritual affinity of cultures and histories of the CA nations and related areas. Targeted researches, from new methodological positions, including foreign archives and scientific collections, will elaborate previous perceptions about peculiarities of the CA statehood. Moreover, it is supported by the UN Resolution, adopted in the 67th Session of the General Assembly “On Promotion of Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, Understanding and Cooperation for Peace,” major role of which is played by the Inauguration of the International Decade for the Rapprochement of Cultures for the years 20132022 initiated by Kazakhstan. Literature: 1. See: M. Kozybayev “Steppe civilization and its lessons” // “Abai”, 1998, No4, p.1-5. 2. A. Margulan Collection of works in 14 volumes / A. Margulan. Shygarmalary, Almaty: “Alaltau”, 2007 – 2012 3. E. Karin, Dynamics of the Kazakh-Chinese relations in 1755-1758 // Sayasat, 1999, No3 etc. 4. G. Mukanova, the Central Asia though the prism of relations: Russia-Kazakhstan-China. Petropavlovsk: ETC North Kazakhstan University, 2000, p.557; G. Mukanova, The Strategy of Ablai khan. // Mysl, 2011, No1 p. 90 – 92; Mukanova G. (2012) International relations around Central Asia, the media coverage: critical discourse analysis (Kazakhstan, the line ХХХХI centuries). KazNU Journal, historical series, 2012, No3, pp. 116 – 121 G. Mukanova. Al-Farabi and Turkic law // KazNU Journal, law series, 2012, No3 (63), pp. 12 – 15 6. M. Abuseitova. New discoveries in a history of the Kazakh Khanate researches (Новые открытия в истории изучения Казахского ханства) 07.09.2015. Digital resource. [Access mode]. http://www.history-state.kz/ru/?ELEMENT_ID=6 07&bxajaxid=ccb6ad31101c9f96b7955bebd0da3f59.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

The History of Kazakhstan and Central Asia in World Oriental Studies Among last works, dedicated to the history of Kazakhstan and Central Asia we should name the fundamental research of our colleague - Minister Counsellor Murat Turarovich Laumulin, Doctor of Political Science – The History of Kazakhstan and Central Asia in World Oriental Studies devoted to the 550th anniversary of the Kazakh Khanate. The book consisting of three volumes has a long history. It was conceived back in late 1980-s, but the completion of the book was protracted for 25 years. The structure of this work consisting of four parts (divided into three volumes) looks as follows. The first part is dedicated, as its name says, to the establishment and development of oriental studies schools in the context of Central Asia and Internal Eurasia studies. The evolution of these schools and accumulation of knowledge about our region in major western European countries (as well as in the US) has been studied well enough by our colleagues, the development of Central Asia studies in eastern, southern and northern European countries, however, is less familiar to the general public and academics. As for Central Asia studies in eastern countries, except source study aspect, these schools are littleknown yet. In this regard, we hope that this part will be of certain interest to our audience. The second part “Ancient and medieval history of Central Eurasia in works of foreign oriental studies” is the most extensive in our publication. It includes a chapter, which considers ancient and medieval sources

on the Central Asian history, including information of the ancient authors on peoples of Central Asia, medieval sources, autochthonous sources, Muslim historiography, as well as Chinese sources. Then it presents an observation of major research directions in the medieval history of the region. They include such directions as the concept of nomadism and the culturology of nomadism, turkology, Altaic studies and linguistics regarding early and medieval history of the region, Turfan studies and Uyghur studies, Kipchak studies (Kumanology). Unfortunately, Chagatai studies in this work are represented not to full extent. A separate chapter in the second part describes the problematics of the big nomadic empires of Eurasia in the ancient times and medieval era – Huns, Ancient Turks, Mongols and Epigonis of the Mongol Empire, Timur’s Empire. Finally, the second part ends with a chapter about the influence of world religions on the region, especially on the culture of Central Asia. It includes an analysis of major theories and concepts on the role of such religions as Buddhism and Christianity, shows the development of Islamic studies and Muslim civilization studies in Central Asia, the role of Sufism in expansion and strengthening of Islam in the region. It separately considers Islam in Middle Asia and the Islamic cultural heritage in Central Asia. The third part of the book is dedicated to the observation of history and ethnography of Kazakhs

(mostly in western oriental studies). Here we see the broadest problematics: early sources and data on Kazakhs of the Modern history, notes and observations of European travelers and researchers about Kazakhs and Kazakhstan. In the historic context, the words of foreign researchers (mostly modern) describe the history of the Kazakh Khanate (which 550th anniversary provided an opportunity to accelerate the publication of this monograph), which includes such scenes as Central Asia after Timurids, formation and rise of the Kazakh Khanate, fall of the Khanate, accession of the Junior Zhuz to Russia, conquest of the Middle Zhuz, resistance in the steppe, subjugation of the Senior Zhuz and conquest of Central Asia. A separate chapter reviews the phenomenon of Kazakh nomadism in the context of such scientific problems as geographic factor and natural environment, social structure, political system and nomadic culture of Kazakhs. Such still acute and topical issue as modernization of the traditional nomadic Kazakh society also has not been ignored. In this context, the book presents western opinions regarding the following issues: Russian influence, cultural changes (Europeanization and Russification), as well as socio-economic modernization. This part ends with an insight into the studies by western

researchers on Kazakhs abroad, mostly in China, Turkey and Mongolia. The fourth part of the book shows succession and coherence of oriental studies and political science within Central Asia studies. This part opens prerevolutionary history of the region in the works of foreign researchers. Here, the two following biggest problems prevail: accession of Central Asia to Russia and associated so called â&#x20AC;&#x153;the Great Gameâ&#x20AC;?. However, the main emphasis is placed on Central Asia studies and its history in modern political science. It is related to the fact that numerous publications about the region and certain countries of CA include, as a rule, historical insight. From the scientific point of view, these paragraphs have no (with few exceptions) scientific significance. Nevertheless, for the integrity of the picture, most conceptual publications are included into the material. This publication makes no claims as to cover the entire source study and historiography corpus on the history of Central Asia and Eurasia, which is impossible. Every year opens new sources, constantly presents new concepts, interpretations and theories. It cannot but make happy admirers of academic science, as the author concludes. And we cannot but agree with this conclusion.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

From the Turkic El to the Kazakh Khanate

In November Moscow hosted an international scientific-practical conference entitled “From the Turkic El to the Kazakh Khanate”. The event was organized by the Lomonosov MSU Institute of Asian and African Studies (IAAS), the Centre of Oriental Literature of the Russian State Library, and supported by the Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the Russian Federation. The forum brought together tens of historians, philologists and orientalists of Azerbaijan, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Turkey and Uzbekistan. The conference received scientific abstracts from more than 140 scientists of history, linguistics, political science and economics. The scientists reviewed various issues concerning both the distant past and modern times, and ranging from the runic scripts studies to the Eurasian identity in the 21stcentury, from the early Arab geographical perception of Central Asia to the foundation of the new Silk Road. In his opening remarks, President of the Lomonosov MSU IAAS Mikhail Meyer stated that today, drawing on historical source sand written documents; we could say with certainty that the history of the Kazakh Khanate was not limited to five and a half centuries and ran deep. “This is the reason why the conference was entitled “From the Turkic El to the Kazakh Khanate,” M.Meyer highlighted. He noted the Kazakh Khanate’s long-term political and military sustain ability and such a peculiarity

as relatively peaceful interaction with neighboring sedentary regions, which was rare for medieval states. The IAAS President expressed his satisfaction regarding the fact that the conference brought together a big number of scientists from different countries, which shows stronger scientific ties in the Eurasian and Turkic speaking region. In his statement Minister Counselor of Kazakhstan’s Embassy to the Russian Federation Marat Syzdykov quoted Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev: “The Kazakh Khanate as a state formation had played a particular role in the consolidation of the Kazakh ethnicity. Today, at anew-historic al stage, Kazakhstan is striving not only to revive ancient nationhood traditions, but also to create a new type of statehood in terms of the forthcoming 21st century. In this aspect, it is necessary to apply reach historical experience. Dreaming about decent future we should remember the decent past”. According to the diplomat, within more than two millennia the territory of Kazakhstan was a home for approximately 20 states, and the Kazakh Khanate, established 550 years ago in the center of the Eurasian continent, had become one of the greatest creations of the nomadic civilization and had been the cradle of the centuries-old statehood of the Kazakh nation that found its fullest expression in the modern state – the Republic of Kazakhstan. Professor Meruert Abusseitova, Director of the

Republican Information Centre on the Studies of Historical Materials (Kazakhstan), noted that in the past there were big gaps or some kind of “blind spots of history” requiring particular attention and special research. She informed in detail on the latest discoveries related to the history of Kazakhstan and also noted the crucial role of the government programs which “made it possible to improve and widen the source study as well as the informational and analytical base with copies of the unique artifacts and archival materials which are of a tremendous importance for the objective research of the Kazakh statehood history”. The topic of the speech by Professor Dmitry Nassilov, Head of the IAAS Department of Turkic Philology, was the Language palette of the medieval steppe. He noted that “the oldest known Turkic written language artifacts are linguistically diverse and reflect peculiarities of the dialects that existed in the period when these artifacts had been created”. In his opinion, these linguistic differences had been shaped by the 11th century which was reflected in “Compendium of the languages of the Turks” of Mahmud al-Kashgari, and this was “a complex picture of dialect diversity of Turkic languages… mainly close to its modern state, modern classification”. In his speech, professor Igor Kyzlassov, Leading Researcher of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Archeology, focused on research of runic scripts in the territory of Kazakhstan. Thanks to cutting-edgere search, “nowadays the usage of three runic scripts systems during early Middle Ages is wellconfirmed by documents,” the scholar believes. The systems include Yenisei scripts largely discovered in the territory between Semirechye and the Mangyshlak

Peninsula, Talas scripts used in the whole eastern Kazakhstan, and Achiktash scripts belonged to the urban culture of the Lower and Middle Syrdaria. “Such diversity and rich ness of the developed written culture make the country different from many other lands of that time,” I. Kyzlassov said. Dmitry Timokhin, Senior Researcher of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies, pointed out the issue of interaction between the nomadic Turkic tribes of Desht-i Kipchak and Khorezmin the second half of the 12th century based on the data of Arab-Persian sources. According to him, by this period Turkic nomads became an important part of the Khorezm military power and took high positions in its administrative system. Professor Semed Semedov, Head of the Department of International Relations of the RANEPA under the President of Russia, believes that the statehood of Kazakhs had been formed earlier than 550 years ago. “I think that no historian will challenge the fact that Kazakhs as a member of the Golden Horde also had their own statehood. And here one can talk about the early formation of the Kazakh ethnicity within the framework of a nation state,” the scholar stressed. In his speech, professor of the Kokshetau University Kadyrzhan Abuyev said that the Khanate in statute played the most important role in the Kazakh society, which basically was the key condition to consolidate tribe sand families to one ethnicity. “The Kazakh Khanate subsequently was the main factor and the symbol of statehood of Kazakhs until its destruction by the Tsarist government in1820s,” the historian added. In his report on “the Place and Role of the Bukey Khanatein the History of Kazakhstan”, Doctor of

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Historical Sciences Murat Sadykov, Director of the West Kazakhstan Center for History and Archaeology (Uralsk), called its creation as the reflection of complex and objective processes, namely lack of economic conditions for further existence of nomadic animal breeding and changes in the social structure. “The Bukey Khanate showed the ability of the Kazakh society to develop its susceptibility to new adverse historical conditions,” the Kazakh scientist stressed. Chinese scientist Zhao Xiaojia, Head of the Department of Eastern Languages and Literature, Institute of Foreign Languages, Ningxia University, told about relations between the Qing Empire and the Kazakh Khanate in the second half of the 18th – early 19th centuries. According to her, from the moment of its creation and until its accession to the Russian Empire the Kazakh Khanate had played an important role in the Central Asian arena. After the defeat of Dzungaria the Qing Empire had direct communications with the Kazakh Khanate. “The Qing-Kazakh trade was the continuation of trade along the Great Silk Road,” Zhao Xiaojia emphasized. “That was the last large-scale trade in Inner Asia”. In his report “From the Eurasian integration to the Eurasian identity” Vyacheslav Mikhailov, professor of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, drawing on problems of the modern Eurasianism, as it is reflected in various statements made by President of the Republic of

Kazakhstan Nazarbayev, stressed that the new Eurasian identity was developing on the basis of shared values of cultural and language diversity, interethnic and interreligious dialogue through the synthesis of ethnic and cultural models of Eurasian states. According to him, creation of an educational and informational field reflecting “the universal, regional and national features and peculiarities” was important to establish the Eurasian identity. Participants of the conference focused on such topical issues as historical experience of the last nomadic empire, the Kazakh Khanate in the international relations system in the 18th century, its relations with Ottoman sultans, multiethnic aspect as the key factor for the formation of the Kazakh statehood, Eurasian unity and the problem of ethno-national identity in a globalized world, Kazakh-Russian relations within the framework of the modern geopolitical processes and more. In the course of the discussions speakers noted that the Kazakh Khanate had deep historical roots, was formed by the whole process of development of nomadic and sedentary societies which existed during different periods of time in the territory of Kazakhstan and which facilitated gradual formation of the ethnic territory, national consciousness and statehood of Kazakhstan. Scientists supported joint efforts in the study of rich and colorful history of Kazakhstan and made many suggestions for further scientific research.

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

To sit on a horse, put on a ‘‘shapan’’

Hospitality in the vast steppe has always been considered a sacred duty. The Kazakh society, there is an unofficial law, voiced in ancient times, which states that «it is necessary to meet the guest as God’s messenger». One of the forms of hospitality over time transformed into a feature of the national character, is the presentation of the guest of the national dress. It was a sign of hospitality of nomadic peoples, tribute and appeal to the alliance. This tradition has been successfully migrated to the contemporary diplomatic practice, and has been used successfully in the national diplomatic service.

Surakiyart Sathirathai - Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand

Kofi Annan - Secretary General of the United Nations

Jan Scheffer - NATO Secretary General

Ban Ki-moon General UN Secretary

Miguel Angel Moratinos Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Spain

Edward Nalbandian - Armenian Foreign Minister

Dimitris Droutsas - Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece

Catherine Ashton - the first High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Guido Westerwelle - Germanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foreign minister

Fyodor Yurchikhin - Hero of the Russian Federation, Pilot-Cosmonaut of the Russian Federation

Sheikh Muzaffar Shukor the first and only astronaut Malaysia

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

“Diplomatic Service in the context of the world politics’ evolution” by Mazhidenova D.M.

The author has undertaken the task to investigate the multisyllabic process of the formation and development of the diplomatic service from ancient times to the Vienna Convention. Due to the complexity of the global development, globalization and internationalization of world problems, increasing weight of multilateral diplomacy, the value of the diplomatic service grows up; it largely determines the successful implementation of foreign policy priorities facing the modern states. However, the sustainable development of states, the resolution of acute ethnic and confessional conflicts and contradictions require the organization of the global dialogue in the future. An effective tool in establishing and maintaining of this dialogue is the diplomacy and diplomatic service. Growing threats and challenges necessitate an effective international mechanism contributing to the coordination of inter-state relations in the globalizing world. That raises the problem of fundamental rethinking of the role and place of diplomatic

services in the formation of a new world order. Issues of learning from the historical world experience related to the diplomatic service of states are of great importance in these circumstances. The generalization of the historical best practices of the diplomatic service from ancient times to the Congress of Vienna allowed the author to identify a variety of interesting stages in the formation and development of foreign policy institutes, the successive ties of traditions and to fulfill the perception of this complex and contradictory process. The work covers and analyses the historical and diplomatic documents on the base of which the formation and development of forms and methods of diplomatic practice were followed up: written records of agreements, formation of the ambassadorial custom, determination of the functions of ambassadors, development of court ceremonies, organization of diplomatic protocol, withdrawing ambassadorial immunities and privileges. The development of the «Italian model» of diplomatic service in the Renaissance period and establishment of permanent missions abroad were comprehensively analyzed. The particular attention is paid to the stratagem diplomacy of China that affected special aspects of its diplomatic service. It was vividly demonstrated that in spite of the modernization of diplomacy in the modern China, however, it is genetically linked to foreign policy methods and forms developed in the ancient period. The study and analysis of ancient diplomatic stratagem treatises of China, which were aimed at addressing the major strategic objectives in the field of foreign policy, show that in the modern history of China, the stratagem diplomacy, its means and methods are in demand. For the first time the detailed analysis of the relations between the Vatican and Asian countries in the Middle Ages was given. The work presents a detailed analysis of the development of the French diplomatic service, which laid the foundations for the modern diplomatic service. For the first time in this kind of work, there were introduced little-known treatises of European and Eastern politicians, diplomats on the functioning of diplomatic service institutions, principles of the negotiation process, scope of immunities and privileges. A lot of source materials were systematized, that allowed to consider the real processes of the diplomatic service formation for a long historical period, to show the diversity of its forms, methods and means. The transformation of international relations, geopolitical position of countries, national interests of

states are definitely affected the development of foreign service institutions. It should be noted that many of diplomatic service institutions, tested by centuries, are used in the modern period. The uniqueness of the work of Mazhidenova D.M. is that she was the first who successfully identified the formation and development of forms, methods and

techniques of the diplomatic service, brought to light certain trends in practical diplomacy of various countries, provided the holistic consideration in the context of the development of international relations. The work represents a new direction in the study of methods, techniques, by means of which states implement foreign policy goals.

DIPLOMATIC 2 (51) HERALD 2015

DIPLOMATIC HERALD

Issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan In circulation since 2004 • Founder The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan • Chief Editor Ilyas Omarov • Responsible for issue, translation and proof-reading: Asel Alimzhanova, Aliya Tussurgaliyeva, Mirat Nurgazin, Dauren Murzabekov, Aima Seitova, Meyram Islam, Saltanat Konuspayeva • Design and page-make up, on-line version: Anara Amanzholova •

Photos: Stanislav Filippov, Viktor Glebov, Ilyas Arhipov, Botbayev Akazhan, RIA Novosti, Xinhua. •

Materials published in “DZh” periodical does not necessarily reflect the outlook of the editorship.

• Information-Editorial Council (IEC), MFA of Kazakhstan 31 Konaev Street, Astana, 010000 Tel./fax +7 (717) 272 05 50; 272 05 07 Online version of the magazine at: mfa.gov.kz The magazine is re-registered by the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan on April 4, 2007. Registration certificate No. 8230-Zh. Published on 10.11.2015 Format 60х84 1/8 Printed sheet 4,3. Editorial sheet 2,8. Print run: 1000 copies

EDITORIAL BOARD Erlan Idrissov – Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Chair of the Editorial Board of “Diplomatic Herald” magazine Dauren Abayev – Adviser to the President - Press Secretary to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kairat Abdrakhmanov – Permanent Representative of Kazakhstan to the United Nations Serzhan Abdykarimov – Director of the Department for Foreign Policy Analysis and Forecasting of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan Ikram Adyrbekov – Chair of the Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defense and Security of the Senate of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Doctor of Economic Sciences Maulen Ashimbayev – Chair of the Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defense and Security of the Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Candidate of Political Sciences Roman Vassilenko – Chairman Committee for international Information Nurlan Ermekbayev – Assistant to the President - Secretary of the Security Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan Rapil Zhoshybayev – The First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Commissioner of the International Specialized Exhibition “EXPO 2017”, Doctor of Economic Sciences Kairat Sarybay – Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the Republic of Austria, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the international organizations in Vienna Zhanseit Tuimebayev – Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the Turkish Republic and Albania with concurrent accreditation, Doctor of Philology Кairat Umarov – Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the United States of America, Candidate of Нistorical Sciences Ilyas Omarov – Chief Editor of “Diplomatic Herald” magazine

Photo of the day Theatrical performance "Mangilik El", dedicated to the 550 th anniversary of the Kazakh Khanate