CONCERNING THE GOD OF THE TARTARS.
This is the fashion of their religion. [They say there is a Most High
God of Heaven, whom they worship daily with thurible and incense, but
they pray to Him only for health of mind and body. But] they have
[also] a certain [other] god of theirs called NATIGAY, and they say he
is the god of the Earth, who watches over their children, cattle, and
crops. They show him great worship and honour, and every man hath a
figure of him in his house, made of felt and cloth; and they also make
in the same manner images of his wife and children. The wife they put
on the left hand, and the children in front. And when they eat, they
take the fat of the meat and grease the god’s mouth withal, as well as
the mouths of his wife and children. Then they take of the broth and
sprinkle it before the door of the house; and that done, they deem that
their god and his family have had their share of the dinner.{1}
Their drink is mare’s milk, prepared in such a way that you would
take it for white wine; and a right good drink it is, called by them
_Kemiz_.{2}
The clothes of the wealthy Tartars are for the most part of gold and
silk stuffs, lined with costly furs, such as sable and ermine, vair and
fox-skin, in the richest fashion.
NOTE 1.—There is no reference here to Buddhism, which was then of
recent introduction among the Mongols; indeed, at the end of the
chapter, Polo speaks of their new adoption of the Chinese idolatry,
_i.e._ Buddhism. We may add here that the Buddhism of the Mongols
decayed and became practically extinct after their expulsion from
China (1368–1369). The old Shamanism then apparently revived; nor
was it till 1577 that the great reconversion of Mongolia to Lamaism
began. This reconversion is the most prominent event in the Mongol
history of Sanang Setzen, whose great-grandfather Khutuktai Setzen,
Prince of the Ordos, was a chief agent in the movement.
The Supreme Good Spirit appears to have been called by the Mongols
_Tengri_ (Heaven), and _Khormuzda_, and is identified by Schmidt
with the Persian Hormuzd. In Buddhist times he became identified
with Indra.
Plano Carpini’s account of this matter is very like Marco’s: “They
believe in one God, the Maker of all things, visible and invisible,
and the Distributor of good and evil in this world; but they
worship Him not with prayers or praises or any kind of service.
Natheless, they have certain idols of felt, imitating the human
face, and having underneath the face something resembling teats;
these they place on either side of the door. These they believe to
be the guardians of the flocks, from whom they have the boons of
milk and increase. Others they fabricate of bits of silk, and these
are highly honoured; ... and whenever they begin to eat or drink,
they first offer these idols a portion of their food or drink.”
The account agrees generally with what we are told of the original
Shamanism of the Tunguses, which recognizes a Supreme Power over
all, and a small number of potent spirits called _Ongot_. These
spirits among the Buraets are called, according to one author,
_Nougait_ or _Nogat_, and according to Erman _Ongotui_. In some
form of this same word, _Nogait_, _Ongot_, _Onggod_, _Ongotui_,
we are, I imagine, to trace the _Natigay_ of Polo. The modern
representative of this Shamanist _Lar_ is still found among
the Buraets, and is thus described by Pallas under the name of
_Immegiljin_: “He is honoured as the tutelary god of the sheep and
other cattle. Properly, the divinity consists of _two_ figures,
hanging side by side, one of whom represents the god’s wife. These
two figures are merely a pair of lanky flat bolsters with the upper
part shaped into a round disk, and the body hung with a long woolly
fleece; eyes, nose, breasts, and navel, being indicated by leather
knobs stitched on. The male figure commonly has at his girdle
the foot-rope with which horses at pasture are fettered, whilst
the female, which is sometimes accompanied by smaller figures
representing her children, has all sorts of little nicknacks and
sewing implements.” Galsang Czomboyef, a recent Russo-Mongol writer
already quoted, says also: “Among the Buryats, in the middle of
the hut and place of honour, is the _Dsaiagaçhi_ or ‘Chief Creator
of Fortune.’ At the door is the _Emelgelji_, the Tutelary of the
Herds and Young Cattle, made of sheepskins. Outside the hut is the
_Chandaghatu_, a name implying that the idol was formed of a white
hare-skin, the Tutelary of the Chase and perhaps of War. All these
have been expelled by Buddhism except Dsaiagachi, who is called
_Tengri_, and introduced among the Buddhist divinities.”
[Illustration: Tartar Idols and Kumis Churn.]
[Dorji Banzaroff, in his dissertation _On the Black Religion_,
_i.e._ Shamanism, 1846, “is disposed to see in Natigay of M. Polo,
the Ytoga of other travellers, _i.e._ the Mongol _Etugen_—‘earth,’
as the object of veneration of the Mongol Shamans. They look upon
it as a divinity, for its power as _Delegei in echen_, _i.e._ ‘the
Lord of Earth,’ and on account of its productiveness, _Altan
delegei_, _i.e._ ‘Golden Earth.’” Palladius (_l.c._ pp. 14–16) adds
one new variant to what the learned Colonel Yule has collected and
set forth with such precision, on the Shaman household gods. “The
Dahurs and Barhus have in their dwellings, according to the number
of the male members of the family, puppets made of straw, on which
eyes, eyebrows, and mouth are drawn; these puppets are dressed up
to the waist. When some one of the family dies, his puppet is taken
out of the house, and a new puppet is made for every newly-born
member of the family. On New Year’s Day offerings are made to the
puppets, and care is taken not to disturb them (by moving them,
etc.), in order to avoid bringing sickness upon the family.” (_He
lung kiang wai ki_.)
(Cf. _Rubruck_, 58–59, and Mr. Rockhill’s note, 59–60.)—H. C.]
NOTE 2.—KIMIZ or KUMIZ, the habitual drink of the Mongols, as it
still is of most of the nomads of Asia. It is thus made. Fresh
mare’s milk is put in a well-seasoned bottle-necked vessel of
horse-skin; a little _kurút_ (see note 5, ch. liv.) or some sour
cow’s milk is added; and when acetous fermentation is commencing
it is violently churned with a peculiar staff which constantly
stands in the vessel. This interrupts fermentation and introduces a
quantity of air into the liquid. It is customary for visitors who
may drop in to give a turn or two at the churn-stick. After three
or four days the drink is ready.
Kumiz keeps long; it is wonderfully tonic and nutritious, and it is
said that it has cured many persons threatened with consumption.
The tribes using it are said to be remarkably free from pulmonary
disease; and indeed I understand there is a regular _Galactopathic_
establishment somewhere in the province of Orenburg for treating
pulmonary patients with Kumiz diet.
It has a peculiar fore- and after-taste which, it is said,
everybody does not like. Yet I have found no confession of a
dislike to Kumiz. Rubruquis tells us it is pungent on the tongue,
like _vinum raspei_ (_vin rapé_ of the French), whilst you are
drinking it, but leaves behind a pleasant flavour like milk of
almonds. It makes a man’s inside feel very cosy, he adds, even
turning a weak head, and is strongly diuretic. To this last
statement, however, modern report is in direct contradiction. The
Greeks and other Oriental Christians considered it a sort of denial
of the faith to drink Kumiz. On the other hand, the Mahomedan
converts from the nomad tribes seem to have adhered to the use of
Kumiz even when strict in abstinence from wine; and it was indulged
in by the early Mamelukes as a public solemnity. Excess on such an
occasion killed Bibars Bundukdari, who was passionately fond of
this liquor.
The intoxicating power of Kumiz varies according to the _brew_.
The more advanced is the vinous fermentation the less acid is the
taste and the more it sparkles. The effect, however, is always
slight and transitory, and leaves no unpleasant sensation, whilst
it produces a strong tendency to refreshing sleep. If its good
qualities amount to half what are ascribed to it by Dr. W. F. Dahl,
from whom we derive some of these particulars, it must be the pearl
of all beverages. “With the nomads it is the drink of all from the
suckling upwards, it is the solace of age and illness, and the
greatest of treats to all!”
There was a special kind called _Ḳará Ḳumiz_, which is mentioned
both by Rubruquis and in the history of Wassáf. It seems to have
been strained and clarified. The modern Tartars distil a spirit
from Kumiz of which Pallas gives a detailed account. (_Dahl, Ueber
den Kumyss_ in _Baer’s Beiträge_, VII.; _Lettres sur le Caucase et
la Crimée_, Paris, 1859, p. 81; _Makrizi_, II. 147; _J. As._ XI.
160; _Levchine_, 322–323; _Rubr._ 227–228, 335; _Gold. Horde_, p.
46; _Erman_, I. 296; _Pallas, Samml._ I. 132 _seqq._)
[In the _Si yu ki_, Travels to the West of Ch’ang ch’un, we find
a drink called _tung lo_. “The Chinese characters, _tung lo_,”
says Bretschneider (_Med. Res._ I. 94), “denote according to the
dictionaries preparations from mare’s or cow’s milk, as Kumis,
sour milk, etc. In the _Yüan shi_ (ch. cxxviii.) biography of the
Kipchak prince _Tú-tú-ha_, it is stated that ‘black mare’s milk’
(evidently the cara cosmos of Rubruck), very pleasant to the taste,
used to be sent from Kipchak to the Mongol court in China.” (On
the drinks of the Mongols, see Mr. Rockhill’s note, _Rubruck_,
p. 62.)—The Mongols indulge in sour milk (_tarak_) and distilled
mare’s milk (_arreki_), but Mr. Rockhill (_Land of the Lamas_,
130) says he never saw them drink _kumiz_.—H. C.]
The mare’s-milk drink of Scythian nomads is alluded to by many
ancient authors. But the manufacture of Kumiz is particularly
spoken of by Herodotus. “The (mare’s) milk is poured into deep
wooden casks, about which the blind slaves are placed, and then
the milk is stirred round. That which rises to the top is drawn
off, and considered the best part; the under portion is of less
account.” Strabo also speaks of the nomads beyond the Cimmerian
Chersonesus, who feed on horse-flesh and other flesh, mare’s-milk
cheese, mare’s milk, and sour milk (ὀξυγάλακτα) “_which they have a
particular way of preparing_.” Perhaps Herodotus was mistaken about
the wooden tubs. At least all modern attempts to use anything but
the orthodox skins have failed. Priscus, in his narrative of the
mission of himself and Maximin to Attila, says the Huns brought
them a drink made from _barley_ which they called Κάμος. The barley
was, no doubt, a misapprehension of his. (_Herod._ Bk. iv. p. 2, in
_Rawl._; _Strabo_, VII. 4, 6; _Excerpta de Legationibus_, in _Corp.
Hist. Byzant._ I. 55.)