Œzbegs.
These may be considered the established and civilized inhabitants of Central Asia, and they have retained only feeble traces of the Mongolian-Turkish race, owing to considerable intermixture with the ancient Persian elements, and also the great number of slaves, who are brought there out of the present Iran. In their broad faces, sound of voice, the sharp angle which the temples form, and especially the eyes, we recall their Tartar origin. The Œzbegs were always pointed out by the Tadjiks by the nickname of Yogunkelle (thick skull), and really this part of their body is thicker and coarser than that of the rest of their Turanian fellow races. Besides the diversity that reigns among them in the three Khanats and in Chinese Tartary, you may further observe that the dwellers in villages generally possess more signs of the national type than townsmen. For instance: Œzbegs of Khiva are to be recognised by the broad, full face, low, flat forehead, large mouth; the Œzbegs of Bokhara, by the somewhat more arched foreheads, more oval faces, and long, pointed, oblong chin, and the great majority by black hair and eyes. Also in colour there are some shades of resemblance. In the neighbourhood of Kashgar and Aksu yellowish-brown to blackish tint prevails; in Khokand, brown; in Khiva, white is the reigning colour. Indeed, the Œzbegs are bastards of the Turanian race, in the same manner as the Tadjik and Sarts (the aborigines of the ancient Transoxiana, Sogdia, and Fergana[45]). Of the origin, immigration, and settlement of the Œzbegs, we have but little information, and that highly confused. Whilst some maintain that the name of Œzbeg was the name of one of their most renowned princes, who, in the time of Djingis, ruled over the whole desert; others discover, in the etymology of the word Œzbeg (independent prince, independent head), the signification of that actual independence for which the tribe was distinguished, as it disengaged itself from any ruler, and attempted, on its own account, its march of conquest toward the west. The name becomes prominent with the family of Sheibani, viz., with Ebul Kheir Khan, as founder, in the foreground; for, although Taimur may belong to the same tribe, still the Turkish state is more prominent than the Œzbeg.
If I am not deceived, it appears to me, at least, that the Œzbegs of to-day form a tribe, which, as a colony, highly inconsiderable in numbers, only increased after it had received into its bosom contingents of the various nomadic tribes passing from the north to the south. This assertion is, perhaps, bold, still the following circumstances render it not impossible.
1st. The already indicated diversity which shows itself between the Œzbegs of Turkestan from Komul to the Sea of Aral, whereby the degree of resemblance which exists between the latter and those nomadic tribes living in the vicinity is not to be mistaken, who, induced by certain circumstances, in which riches and religion play an important part, settled in towns, and are amalgamated with Œzbegs.
2nd. Many names of branches and families of the Œzbegs are common amongst the rest of the tribes of Central Asia. Thus, for example, we find the tribes Kungrat, Kiptchak, Naiman, Taz, Kandjigale, Kanli, Djelair, by which the thirty-two chief divisions of the Œzbegs are named, figuring also among the Kirghis. The Turkomans and Karakalpaks can produce some, which, from the great importance the nomadic tribes attach to family names, certainly would not be the case if earlier mutual relations had not existed. We know little of their origin, little in regard to the time of their settlement. The opinion of Persian historians, that the Œzbeg power rose upon the ruins of the Taimur dynasty is, indeed, correct, but forms no guide to the Œzbegs themselves. The name only is apparent; but who can tell us to which tribe that Turkish population professed to belong, which at a period long anterior to Taimur, and before Djingis, in the time of the Kharezmian princes, Sahi Charezmian, and even further back in the thirteenth century, were established in the three Khanats? In Khiva I often heard of the brilliant period of ancient Ürgendj, namely, before the inroad of the Mongolians, described as Œzbeg. Was this merely national vanity, or had the Turks at that time at Khiva really called themselves Œzbegs? Turks were already settled during the Arabian occupation, as may be seen in the ancient history of Bokhara, although not directly in the centre, certainly in the neighbourhood of the old Persian towns, in the time of the Samanides; and it would be highly interesting to know to which type they really belonged. In the customs of the Œzbegs, also, much foreign admixture has been introduced chiefly through Islam, and the restless manner of existence pursued by them; but not nearly so much as with the Western Turks, who through the foreign elements that they receive are already quite denationalized. The Œzbegs are pious—one might say zealous—Musulmans. Nowhere in Islam, Kashmir excepted, does the tendency to asceticism flourish more than here: a third of the inhabitants of a town are Ishan, Khalfa, Sofi, or aspirants to those holy titles, and nevertheless the doctrine of Mohammed has little limited their customs in regard to all this. In Khiva, and in some parts of Chinese Tartary, they have remained truest to nomadic customs. They build houses, which are used as stables and granaries; but for dwelling-places, they prefer always the raised tent in the court-yard;—building durable dwellings is scoffed at by the pure Œzbeg, and ridiculed as even now usual only with the Sart (Persian aborigines). A general habit is marked out in the proverb: "Sart baïsa tam salar—as soon as the Sart becomes rich, he builds a house," in contradistinction to the Œzbeg, who procures rather a horse or arms. Also in food and clothing but few refinements have crept in, the chief towns excepted. Whilst in the towns the Harem life is in full force, one finds in the country all Œzbeg women unveiled, for, to the great anger of the Mollah, they resist that restriction, to which their nature is averse. Ceremonies at burials, weddings, births, contain much of what is not only foreign to Islam, but even criminal. This false step is a striking contrast with the otherwise enthusiastic feelings of Central Asiatics. Not less does the rigid adherence to a warlike existence, in which the Œzbegs are distinguished from the rest of the established nations of Central and Western Asia, deserve our attention. Agriculture and durable dwellings render people more peaceable; but this is not the case with the Œzbegs, because they excel so many nomadic tribes in bravery.
Character.
However great the extent over which the diverse branches of Turkish tribes may be found, however variously the influence of strange elements may have acted upon their social relations, still the features of a common type of character cannot be denied;—a picture in which more traces of analogy are to be found than in the physiognomy and other physical signs respectively. The Turk is everywhere heavy and lethargic in his mental and corporeal emotions, therefore firm and stedfast in his resolves; not, perhaps, from any principle of life philosophy, but from apathy, and sincere aversion to everything which would alter his adopted position. This lends him an earnest and solemn aspect, which is so often extolled by European travellers. As upon the shores of the Bosphorus the Osmanli, in his keïf, can gaze for hours on the clear sky, while he only makes as much movement as will blow the blue wreaths of smoke from his pipe towards the yet bluer firmament; so the Œzbeg or the Kirghis can sit for hours, motionless, in the narrow tent, or in the immeasurably wide desert; for, while the former turns his gaze upon the colours of the felt coverlet or carpet, already seen thousands of times,—the latter looks on the waving, curling quicksands, which are to amuse him. As those who go about briskly and nimbly, or even gesticulate, are only compassionated by the Osmanlis as living proofs of partial insanity and misfortune; so each quick movement of the feet and hands is considered by the Œzbegs as highly unseemly. Indeed, when I called out to one of my Tartar fellow-travellers to save himself from some falling bales of goods by a side-spring, he exclaimed, indignantly: "Am I, then, a woman, that I should disgrace myself by springing and dancing!" With this profound seriousness and marble-cold expression of countenance, we find everywhere among the Turks a great inclination to pomp and magnificence; but this does not degenerate into frivolity or fanfaronades, as is the case with the Persians. In Constantinople one often hears the proverb: "Intellect is peculiar to Europe, riches to India, and splendour to the Ottoman." The solemn processions (alay) of the sultan and of the great nobles are alike celebrated in the East and the West, and the imposing exterior which is exhibited on such occasions is nowhere to be found so faithfully reflected as among their fellow tribes in Central Asia. An Œzbeg or Turkoman, when upon his horse, or seated in his tent at the head of his family, has the same proud bearing, the same self-consciousness of greatness and power. He is quite convinced that he is born to rule, and the foreign nations which surround him to obey,—just in the same way as the Osmanli thinks with regard to Bulgarians, Armenians, Kurds, and Arabians. His love for independence is boundless, and is also the chief cause why he cannot long remain under the chieftain whom he loves in many respects; and he would rather command ten or twelve miserable highwaymen or adventurers than stand at the head of a well-equipped, elegant troop, who might, in common with himself, own a greater master. Coinciding with these traits of character, is also the predilection of the Turks for repose and inactivity; for, although diligence and activity, according to our European notions, are not to be met with anywhere in Asia, still, work is not so much abhorred, either by the Iranian or Semitic nations, as by the Turks, who consider hunting and war alone worthy of man. Upon them husbandry is only forcibly imposed, and is considered ignominious. A wondrous prosperity has never befallen Turkey. The peasant was always idle and careless; the number of craftsmen limited. Officials had only wealth when the Janitchars came back from their pillaging excursions, laden with treasures.
In Central Asia, agriculture is exclusively in the hands of the Persian slaves; commerce and business with the Tadjiks, Hindoos, and Jews; for even the Œzbegs, settled there for centuries, meditate robbery and war, and if they can procure no foreign enemy they attack each other mutually in bloody brother strife.
As concerns intellectual capacity, I have found that the Turk is everywhere far inferior to other Asiatic nations, namely, the Iranian and Semitic; and that, through narrowness of mind, he loses those prerogatives which his superiority in other respects would acquire for him. This weakness is denoted by the word Türklük (Turkdom), of which Kabalik (coarseness), and Yogunluk (thickness), are synonyms. By Türklük, one understands also rudeness and roughness in manners; and if here and there this defect is palliated by the appellation, Sadelik (simplicity), still, for the most part, they are subjoined to the Turkish name as insulting epithets. As the Osmanli is over-reached by the Armenian, Greek, and Arab; so is the Œzbeg baffled by the subtle and yielding Tadjik, and the no less crafty and avaricious Hindoo. Whether this is to be ascribed to a national defect or to an extreme nonchalance, it were hard to determine; still, it is highly remarkable that the Turk in the far east, as well as in the immediate vicinity of the civilised western country, shuns meditation, and that nowhere are his attempts at wit particularly brilliant. This disadvantage is partially the reason that among the Turks more honesty, frankness and confidence, is to be met with than among the remaining nations of Asia.
Türklük, by which strangers understand the above-named fault, is often used by the Turks themselves as a mark of plainness, simplicity, and uprightness. The lights and shades of Türklük have been at all times observable and discoursed on, whenever parallels are drawn between the character of the Turks and of other nations, especially the Persians. People praise the acuteness, the refined manners of the latter; but still, he who wants to find a faithful servant, an attached soldier, or an upright man, will always give the preference to the Turks. Therefore, we find in earliest times that foreign princes liked to use Turkish troops; they call them into their country, and invest their officers with the highest dignities; and as bravery, perseverance, and love of governing, is more innate in them than in any other Asiatic people, it is very easy to explain how they rise from simple mercenaries to governors; and how they subjugated Iranian and Semitic peoples, from their home up to the Adriatic, many of whom are still ruled by them. In my opinion, it is not only superiority of physical powers which has sustained the Turkish dynasties upon foreign thrones, and still does so: this is also greatly ascribable to their superiority of character. They are unpolished, and by nature wild, uncultivated, but seldom cruel out of malice. They enrich themselves at the cost of their subjects, but again divide generously the collected treasures. They are severe towards their subordinates, but seldom forget the duties that they have to fulfil towards the latter, as patriarchal heads. In a word, in all deeds and works of the Turks a sort of kindness is perceptible, which is, perhaps, more to be ascribed to indolence and laisser-aller, than to a fixed purpose to do good; but still it works as a virtue, whatever may be its origin.