The article examines the medicinal registers of Tseren-Donduk and Donduk-Dashi, viceroys of the Kalmyk Khanate, dating from the first half to the mid-eighteenth century. The study is based on archival materials from the National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia and documents published by Professor N.N.Palmov. These registers are analyzed as a distinct body of historical sources that provides insight into the provision of medicines to the court of the Kalmyk rulers and the interaction between the Kalmyk ruling elite and Russian administrative and pharmaceutical institutions. The study establishes that the provision of medicines was a multi-stage process involving the preparation of requests, the transmission of names and samples of required substances, their identification, search, examination, and subsequent delivery. The registers contain information on medicinal substances of plant, animal, and mineral origin. It is concluded that the medicinal registers constitute a valuable source for studying the mechanisms of medicine supply in the Kalmyk Khanate, practices of translating medical and pharmacopeia terminology, and interaction between the Kalmyk rulers’ court and Russian governmental and pharmaceutical institutions in the eighteenth century.

The article examines the process of institutionalization of the Buddhist church in Kalmykia in the second half of the XIX–early XX century in the context of the restrictive confessional policy of the Russian state, aimed at reducing the number of clergy and strengthening administrative control over religious institutions. On the basis of a set of archival documents, a significant part of which is first introduced into scientific circulation, the mechanisms of interaction between the imperial administration and Buddhist communities are reconstructed at the ulus level a space where the instructions of the center were refracted through local practices, the interests of secular aristocracy and the needs of the community.

Particular attention is paid to the activities of the senior baksha of the Bolshederbetovsky ulus Dorje Setenov as an indicative example of the strategy of adaptation of the clergy to external restrictions. The research methodology is based on the approach of historical anthropology, which makes it possible to consider administrative and religious practices not only as institutional forms, but also as manifestations of the purposeful activities of specific actors.

In conclusion, the author concludes that the institutionalization of the Buddhist church in Kalmykia was not reduced to a passive perception of administrative restrictions. It was accompanied by an active search for forms of preservation and development of religious institutions, which makes significant adjustments to ideas about the nature of the confessional policy of late imperial Russia and the role of religious communities in the formation of their own survival strategies.

The article reconstructs the evolution of the administrative procedure for coordinating the construction of Buddhist religious objects in the Kalmyk steppe in the 19thearly 20th centuries. Based on materials from the Russian State Historical Archive and the National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia, including design and estimate documentation, the authors trace the transition from the legal uncertainty of the period before 1847 to a formalized procedure, enshrined in article 205 of the “Regulations on the management of the Kalmyk people”, and the subsequent tightening of control through by-laws. The authors substantiate the thesis that the imperial regulation of Buddhist infrastructure did not develop “from top to bottom” (from law to practice), but “from bottom to top” (from practice to norm), which contradicts the prevailing ideas in historiography about strict legislative dictates. It was established that the main instrument of restriction was not a direct prohibitive measure, but administrative red tape: multistage coordination and preparation of complex documentation significantly increased the transaction costs of construction. The work revealed a set of adaptive strategies of the Buddhist community, including loyal rhetoric, the use of self-government mechanisms, combined financing and an appeal to precedents. In conclusion, it is concluded that the Kalmyk Buddhist community has successfully mastered the bureaucratic toolkit of the empire, using it to protect its interests, which allows us to revise the traditional view of the Buddhist church as a passive object of imperial influence.

The article presents the review of population genetics data on the Kyrgyz of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan (Pamir), and China (Xinjiang). These data include frequencies of Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups, as well as autosomal markers. According to autosomal markers, the Kyrgyz are on the periphery of the influence of the «Northwestern Europe», «Caucasus» and «Hindustan» components, in the area of significant influence of «Siberia» component, and moderate influence of the «Southern China» component. The following associations of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their subclades are identified: Mongolian (C2, O, and D), European (I1), West Asian (E1, I2, G2, J1), Southern (J2, G1, R2, L, T1a, H1), Steppe (subclad R1a-Z93, subclades R1b), and Siberian (Q, subclades N). Among the Kyrgyz, two ethnic components clearly predominate among Y-chromosome haplogroups: the R1a-Z93 subclade and the Mongolian haplogroup association. These components account for 53.9% and 23.7% of carriers among the Kyrgyz of Kyrgyzstan. The first component is ancient, having been present in Kyrgyzstan since at least the Bronze Age (determined by paleoDNA). Based on the subclades of haplogroup C2, it has been established that the second component was derived from the Kalmaks (Zungars) in the 17th–18th centuries. They also contributed 7.8% of the Siberian component. Haplogroup J2, which accounts for 3.3% of the Kyrgyz, reflects their contact with the Uyghurs. The remaining haplogroups of the Southern Association (except G1) are the result of gene emission from Hindustan and Tibet. The overwhelming majority of carriers of the second component of the steppe association subclades of haplogroup R1b, were found among the Kyrgyz of southern Kyrgyzstan 12.7%. The Kyrgyz of Tajikistan have high frequencies of subclades of haplogroup N about 25.0%. According to the structure of the East Eurasian association of mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Y, Z), the Kyrgyz of Kyrgyzstan and China do not differ from the Mongols and Kazakhs. The Kyrgyz and Kazakhs have similar total frequencies 55.0 ... 58.7%. Among the Mongols 70.9 ... 74.6%. The ancestors of the Kyrgyz and southern Altaians in the past were part of a population in which the subclade R1a-Z93 (R1a-Z2124) was sharply dominant in frequencies. Its initial formation during the Bronze Age occurred in the Tien Shan-Sayan zone (the author’s hypothesis). Later, carriers of the subclade migrated to Eastern Europe and Northern Hindustan.

This article explores the nature of the traditional terms “bilik,” “kush,” and “kiye” in Turkic-Mongolian written texts, which are associated with concepts such as power, strength, and sacredness. The idea of noble origin and the unquestioned authority of a leader in the Kok-Turkic era (the era of the “Heavenly Turks”) and during the rise of Genghis Khan’s state share certain similarities. The relevance of this topic stems from the need to uncover the essential content and inner motives of traditional culture and interpret the civilizational characteristics of the steppe Turkic-Mongol peoples of Central Asia. This scholarly analysis is based on a study of information from various sources on the history of the Turkic-Mongol peoples, namely, Turkic epitaphs and the “Secret History.” The object of this study is the texts of the Kök-Türk epitaphs and the “Secret History of the Mongols,” the primary historical sources narrating the origins of the Khaganate, the ruler’s political strength and power, his rise and enthronement, and the creation of Genghis Khan’s state. The primary subject of this study is the traditional concepts of “bilik,” “kush,” and “kiye,” viewed as complex categories related to the nature of political power, reflecting key aspects of the worldview, as well as the order and principles of legitimization, enthronement, and the raising of Khagans, Khans, and steppe rulers on a white felt mat. The issue of special status clothing, belts, ceremonial adornments (in the form of ram’s horns), and associated traditions is raised in a new light.

The paper aims to introduce into scholarly circulation and analyse a little-known Latin manuscript by the Jesuit missionary Johannes (Jan) Milan. It is entitled as “Missio Asophiensis et Taganrokensis” (“The Azov and Taganrog Mission”), dated 1700 and kept at the National Library of the Czech Republic in Prague. The manuscript represents a unique source on the history, ethnography and language of the Kalmyk-Derbets of the early 18th century, as it contains records of the colloquial phrases pronounced by informants from the horde of Solom-Tseren and Menko-Temir, a group that remained outside the purview of travelers who were interested in the Kalmyks primarily as a political entity. The first part of the study provides a source-critical description of the manuscript, presents information about the author and reconstructs the circumstances surrounding the creation of the manuscript. In addition, the appendix to the paper presents the Latin text and Russian translation of the chapter “De eorum religione et ritibus” (“On their religion and rites”), which contains the missionary’s notes on clergy and life-cycle rituals. The publication of this material lays the groundwork for a further analysis of religious beliefs, calendrical concepts, and linguistic features of the Derbets, to be presented in the second part of the study.

This article is the first to examine the poem “Arvn dѳrvn baatr” (“Fourteen Bogatyrs”, 1972) by Kalmyk poet and war veteran Morkhadzhi Bambaevich Narmayev (1915–1995), dedicated to the theme of the Great Patriotic War, including its Russian translation. The study utilizes a historical-functional approach (the theme of war in the context of personal and historical memory); a descriptive method (analysis of the original literary text and its poetics); and a comparative method (analysis of the original work and its Russian translation). The author clarifies the genre definition of the work as a poem-legend, whereas in D. Dolinsky’s translation it is a narrative poem. This work reveals the plot-forming role of the cypress as a natural monument to soldiers who defended their homeland in brutal battles on the Black Sea coast. It also traces the use of Russian lexeme in place of the Kalmyk designations for cypress (aһr, цаһан зандн), and reveals the tree’s symbolism and semantics (sorrow, grief, mourning, eternal life) in the ethnic cultures of various peoples. The author’s comparisons of cypresses to a parade formation and a guard of soldiers are highlighted by the appearance of this evergreen tree. While in his poem “Rzhev — Əрәсән хотн” (“Rzhev, a Russian Town,” 1963–1965) the image of the birch appears as a symbol of Russian womanhood and the Motherland-Russia, in the poem “Fourteen Bogatyrs” under analysis, the image of the cypress is a symbol of the defender of the Fatherland. The article also examines the poetics of the work (title, structure, chronotope, character system, artistic and pictorial devices and techniques), the poem’s Russian translation, which is not equivalent to the original text, and explores the motifs of personal and historical memory of the Great Patriotic War. The multinational cast of the work’s main characters — fourteen soldiers, all named — creates a collective portrait of the Red Army during those most difficult years of trials for all the peoples of the USSR. The refrain of military brotherhood manifests the patriotic fervor of the Soviet people, who heroically rose to defend their native Fatherland. The poem’s past and present demonstrate the heroic connection between generations, including the author’s frontline soldier.

The name of the prominent Hungarian Mongolist György Kara (1935–2022) is well known to Orientalists both in this country and abroad. Professor G. Kara is a leading authority of Oriental studies. He contributed some four hundred publications including the famous book Книги монгольских кочевников «Books of the Mongolian Nomads» (Moscow, 1972; its Chinese translation was printed in Huhhot, 2004). This article focusing on the personality and scientific activity of prof. György Kara is dedicated to one of his remarkable works: the lexicographical edition of the «Erdeniin Sang» (“Precious Treasury of Elegant Sayings”). It examines one of the earliest Mongolian versions of the Tibetan text «Sa skya legs bshad», originally written in the 13th century by the renowned Tibetan scholar and high-ranking lama Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen. The translator was Sonom Gara. G. Kara’s work on “Sonom Gara’s «Erdeniin Sang» Dictionary” marked a turning point in the study of the textual tradition of Mongolian Buddhism. Kara did not merely compile a dictionary; he laid the foundation for an entire field of future Buddhist studies.

The article examines the justification of belief in other minds in the Buddhist epistemological tradition and analytic philosophy. It focuses on Dharmakīrti’s Proof of Other Mindstreams and Ratnakīrti’s Refutation of Other Mindstreams. The Buddhist formulation does not presuppose a substantial subject: what is at issue is another causally continuous stream of mental events. Dharmakīrti infers such a stream from perceived manifestations of speech and purposive action. His argument combines analogy with causal inference from an effect and is validated through the practical success of behaviour based on it. Ratnakīrti objects that the connection between action and another person’s intention cannot be independently established, while the distinction between one’s own and another stream already presupposes knowledge of both relata. Comparing this debate with J. S. Mill’s argument from analogy, L. Wittgenstein’s criterial approach, and inference to the best explanation makes it possible to distinguish ontological certainty from epistemic justification. The article argues that the existence of another mind cannot be demonstrated with apodictic certainty. Nevertheless, belief in other minds is rationally warranted at the conventional level because it provides the strongest explanation of the independent, meaningful, and responsive behaviour of other living beings.