Kitinov's work on the spread of Buddhism among the Western (Oirat) Mongols is a welcome addition to the limited number of books and articles on the Oirats. Even with growing interest in Central Asian ethnic communities, scholarly treatises on Oirat history are still rare. Kitinov's valuable study is only possible because of his ability to tap primary and secondary sources that are still relatively unknown, especially those in Oirat and Tibetan scripts. In the first chapter, the discussion of sources in those languages as well as in Mongolian and Russian is quite valuable.
Following that discussion, the book identifies Buddhist influences on the Oirats in three periods, from the early thirteenth century to the fall of the Yuan dynasty (1368), during the fifteenth to the early seventeenth centuries, and through the late eighteenth century. This survey of Buddhist influences ends with the eighteenth-century Qing dynasty defeat of the Zunghar Oirats (1757) and the flight of the majority of Volga Kalmyks (1771) back to the Zunghar Valley.
Kitinov cites evidence of Oirat exposure to Buddhist ideas and teachers beginning with the Uighurs during the early Mongol Empire. That evidence however leaves it unclear whether that exposure was superficial, with limited contact between educated Uighur Buddhists and the Oirat nobility, or whether Buddhist ideas circulated more widely among Oirats of the time. Kitinov also shows that, prior to the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Tibetan Kagyu lamas, who were active among the Tanguts, gained influence among the Oirats. He maintains that Oirat ties with the Drikung Kagyu also placed them at odds with the Yuan Mongols and their Sakya allies. His evidence for relatively extensive relations with the Drikung helps to demonstrate that long-term associations with Buddhism prepared the Oirats for a formal declaration of Buddhism as their state religion in the early seventeenth century.
It would be helpful if the evidence of Buddhist influences cited by Kitinov during the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries were balanced with the concurrent Oirat association with Islam. Indeed, the Oirats are the only group known to have converted to Islam and subsequently given up the faith.Footnote 9 But Kitinov correctly points out that Esen Khan (r. 1438–54) was the first to link the Oirat state with Buddhist ideology to bolster his weak Chinggisid authority.Footnote 10
In explaining how the Oirats of the early seventeenth century came to support the Tibetan Gelukpas, Kitinov tries to shed some light on the evolution of the Oirat confederacy after the fifteenth-century Esen Oirat khanate. He admits that this issue is still controversial (p. 150). He unfortunately contributes to the confusion when he conflates differing Oirat sociopolitical structures and designations under the generic terms of clans and tribes.Footnote 11 While it is widely accepted that the Oirat ulus (community or realm) of the early seventeenth century included the Torghoud, Khoid, Khoshoud, and Dorbod, Kitinov adds the Choros and Zunghars as clans or tribes without clarifying the actual social structures behind those opaque terms. Moreover, he makes no contribution to understanding the chronology of Oirat evolution, referring to the fifteenth-century Zunghars (p. 152) when the Oirat use of the term “Zunghar” did not arise until the early seventeenth century.Footnote 12 When Kitinov endeavors to explain seventeenth-century Oirat support for the Tibetan Gelukpas, he admits the primary sources are largely silent. His speculation that Torghoud and Khoshoud pasturelands were between the Gelukpas in Tibet and the Eastern Mongols to the northeast (p. 164) fails to substantiate his assertion that the Oirats became Gelukpa supporters prior to the Eastern Mongols.
With this relatively short book Kitinov has an ambitious goal, summarizing the complicated process of Oirat assimilation of Buddhism over six centuries. Unfortunately, this book makes some sweeping generalizations and sometimes mischaracterizes primary sources.
An example of the first problem concerns the unification policies of Mongol Dayan Khan (1470–1543), which, contrary to Kitinov, were not continued by his grandson, Altan Khan (p. 157). Recent studies have shown that Altan Khan led the effort to decentralize authority among the Mongols.Footnote 13 A second example is Kitinov's assertion that the last Chinggisid khan, Ligdan, was close to the Manchus, presenting them with his statue of Mahakala (p. 195). It was only after Ligdan's defeat and death that the statue and other symbols of authority were taken to Mukden.Footnote 14 Nor is there evidence to support the idea that the Manchus ruled the Mongolian Sangha before their seizure of Beijing (p. 195).
The second issue appears to arise because of Kitinov's overreliance on secondary Russian sources rather than the primary sources he initially discusses. This is illustrated by his description of the 1640 Mongol-Oirat assembly as having taken place in “Tarbagatai on the territory of the Dzungar Khandom” (p. 175) and having been attended by two Khalkha khans and a greater number of Oirat nobles (p. 176). Yet the source cited for this information (Golstunsky, 1880) lists twenty-eight nobles in attendance, half Khalkha and half Oirat. Moreover, the biography of Zaya Pandita shows that the assembly occurred in the territory of the Jasagtu khan from which Zaya Pandita returned to the Oirats after its conclusion.
A similar problem arises with the identification of the Oirat Zaya Pandita as Okturguin Dalai,Footnote 15 a member of the Khoid clan (p. 49). Yet, Zaya Pandita's biography states, “His bones were Khoshuud, his clan was Gurochin, and his sub-clan within Gurochin was Shangxas.”Footnote 16 This apparent misidentification is repeated (p. 175) to emphasize its importance. But because this runs counter to conventional knowledge a footnote is especially important to maintain the confidence of informed readers. Kitinov often fails to include footnotes where they would be most useful.
While this review is critical of some details, the book is still an important work that breaks new ground in an overlooked subject in world history. Onto that new ground Kitinov has cast a number of historical hypotheses that are certain to sprout and generate new dialogue that will lead to better understanding of the Oirats, their embrace of Buddhist ideology, and their role in Central Asia over a period of six centuries as the modern world was taking shape.
