Asbuiga, Buryat-Mongolian Horse-Protection Spirit and Auxiliary Spirit of Shamans

Asbuiga is a comparatively little-known auxiliary spirit, yet one that is characteristic of the Buryat specialist tradition. Unlike the great horse gods of the Sakha (Yhych-Khan), he is not a supreme deity but a serving, directed spirit within the Buryat shamanic household (the böö-tngri system).

Within the Siberian-Tengrist tradition, he illustrates how the supreme divine horse function is distributed across individual auxiliary spirits in later, more specialized layers. The Buryats recognize an entire pantheon of such specialist spirits, described in scholarship as the “Buryat order of gods” (Mihaly Hoppal).

The Buryats live on the shores of Lake Baikal and in the steppes of Transbaikalia; their religion is a particularly rich mixture of ancient Mongolian-Tengrist strata, Buddhist influences (the Gelug school since the 17th century), and Siberian-shamanic components. Asbuiga belongs to the shamanic stratum, which was partly defended against Buddhism.

The name Asbuiga is established as a proper name in the Buryat tradition; a clear etymological derivation is lacking. Some scholars propose a connection with asuu / asha (“protection”) and buyaga (a horse-related word root), which would interpret the name as “horse keeper.” The hypothesis is plausible but has not been conclusively resolved.

An alternative derivation connects the name with the Buryat ashanaa, a ritual horse ride around the ceremonial ground associated with Asbuiga. In this reading, the name would be ritual-functional rather than primarily anatomical or descriptive.

Hangalov, the most important Buryat ethnographer of the early 20th century, documented the word in his Sobranie sochinenij (Ulan-Ude 1958, 60) without arriving at a definitive etymological conclusion. This openness of etymology is not unusual in religious studies for specialist spirits.

Asbuiga is depicted as a man riding a chestnut horse, with a long fringe of horse-hair tassels on the saddle.

On Buryat shamanic mirrors (toli), he appears as a small embossed rider figure in the lower row of auxiliary spirits. In some clan houses, a carved Asbuiga staff formed part of the shamanic regalia.

The toli mirrors of the Buryats are a remarkable object of religious material culture: circular bronze or iron discs with embossed depictions of auxiliary spirits, worn by the shaman on chest or back. Asbuiga is among the more frequently occurring figures in this micro-iconography.

Several Asbuiga staffs and toli mirrors with Asbuiga motifs are preserved in the collections of the Museum of the Republic of Buryatia (Ulan-Ude). Caroline Humphrey discussed this material culture in detail in Shamans and Elders (1996).

The Buryat shamanic genealogies (Hangalov, 1958) relate that Asbuiga was sent by one of the 33 western Tengri to a clan in the Cis-Baikal region in order to rebuild the herds after a horse epidemic.

Since then he appears in the initiations of shamans as a “horse master” and bestows on the new shaman the ability to hear “with horse ears,” that is, to understand the voices of the herd.

A second narrative describes how Asbuiga, together with other auxiliary spirits, “heals” a sick stallion belonging to a clan chieftain within the tradition, by placing a mirror disc on the animal and riding around the herd three times. This narrative is, in religious-anthropological terms, a model narrative for shamanic healing practice.

A third narrative depicts Asbuiga’s struggle with a lower khargi harm-spirit that seeks to make the mares infertile. Asbuiga wins through a ruse: he rides backwards through the enclosure and the harm-spirit loses its way. This trickster motif recalls many other specialist-spirit stories in Siberia.

Asbuiga has no public cult; his veneration belongs to the closed sphere of shamanic initiation and the annual horse-blessing ceremony.

In the latter, a healthy horse is designated the “Asbuiga horse”: it may no longer be tamed, ridden, or slaughtered, and lives as a free animal in the herd. In Khormusta-centred shamanic sessions, Asbuiga is invoked among the auxiliary spirits whenever horse matters are at issue.

Caroline Humphrey described such a session in detail in Shamans and Elders (1996): the shaman invokes the Tengri in sequence, then Khormusta, then the clan ancestors, and finally the specialized auxiliary spirits such as Asbuiga. This hierarchy of invocations is a central liturgical form of Buryat shamanism.

During the Soviet period, the Asbuiga cult was almost entirely suppressed; the few surviving practitioners worked in secret. Since 1991 it has undergone a cautious renaissance in the clan territories on the eastern shore of Lake Baikal.

Described from a religious-studies perspective: apotropaic practices in the Asbuiga complex are aimed at protecting the horse herd. Common elements include hanging white horse-hair tassels on the mare post, fumigating the stable posts with juniper, and avoiding certain taboo words near the herd (the word “wolf,” for instance, is replaced by kheer, “field”).

Offerings at an obo stone cairn associated with Asbuiga are renewed in some clan territories on the first day of spring.

A particular practice is the shig ritual: on days when a new foal is born, the family offers a piece of bread and a little mare’s milk to Asbuiga and recites a brief invocation. This ritual is still alive in several Buryat villages today.

Within the tradition, failing to observe this practice is read as a cause of horse disease; from an ethnographic outside perspective, these are everyday-structuring rules that give cultural form to the economic sensitivity of horse breeding. The two perspectives do not exclude each other but stand side by side.

Parallels include the Celtic horse spirits (Epona as a supreme goddess, alongside smaller horse daimones), the Slavic Domovoi specializations for livestock, and the Finnish haltija. In terms of the phenomenology of religion, Asbuiga demonstrates that the shamanic world of auxiliary spirits is functionally differentiated and closely tied to the economic core of the community.

Within Siberia itself, the nearest parallel is the Yakut kuralay, a mare-protection spirit subordinate to Yhych-Khan. The hierarchy of supreme deity over specialist god over auxiliary spirit thus recurs in several Siberian pantheons.

An interesting comparison is also the Mongolian khaidam complex, in which individual auxiliary spirits are assigned to individual animals. The structural similarity is considerable; the precise historical relationship remains a subject of ongoing research.

Asbuiga is scarcely prominent in popular Buryat folklore, but is well documented in the specialist academic literature: Matvei N. Hangalov: Sobranie sochinenij (Ulan-Ude 1958, 1960); Mihaly Hoppal: Shamans and Traditions (Budapest 2007); Roberte Hamayon (1990); Caroline Humphrey (Shamans and Elders, 1996).

A dedicated monograph on Buryat auxiliary spirits is available in V. P. Diakonova: Tuvinskie i burjatskie shamany (2001).

In the more recent Buryat shamanic association “Tengeri” (founded 1993 in Ulan-Ude), Asbuiga is incorporated into purification and initiation rituals. The association documents its practice online, which provides an unusually open source base for ethnological research.

The body of research on Asbuiga is overall thinner than that on the great supreme deities; paradoxically this makes him a rewarding research subject for young scholars of religion wishing to work in the less-studied strata of Siberian religion.

Two research questions are currently open. First: how does Asbuiga relate to other Buryat horse auxiliary spirits (such as Khormonostoi and Kheterik-Bookhoi)? Hangalov compiled an entire list of such specialist spirits whose precise hierarchy and division of functions remain unclear.

Second: what role does the Asbuiga complex play in the contemporary contest between Buryat Buddhism and Buryat shamanism? Both currents claim certain practices for themselves; horse breeding is a domain in which shamanic practices have proven particularly tenacious.

Finally: how is Asbuiga practice changing under the economic transformation in Buryatia (tourism, mining, migration to cities)? Here religious studies converges with social geography. Caroline Humphrey has addressed precisely this interface in her more recent work.

The Buryat shamanic association “Tengeri” was founded in 1993 in Ulan-Ude and is today one of the most important institutional bearers of Buryat shamanism. It organizes initiations, coordinates public rituals, and maintains an extensive archive. Asbuiga belongs to the fixed repertoire of its invocation hierarchies.

From a sociology-of-religion perspective, “Tengeri” is interesting because it transfers shamanic practice into a modern associational structure, complete with membership cards, statutes, and a board of directors. This institutionalization is a novelty in religious history and poses new methodological challenges for research.

Caroline Humphrey and her students have accompanied “Tengeri” ethnographically and published several important essays. The association itself documents its practice online, making a rare form of direct source work possible.

Those wishing to study the Asbuiga complex in its full breadth will find the most important cross-references to related figures on the overview page Siberian-Tengrist Tradition, including Khormusta (Mongolian supreme deity) and Yhych-Khan (Yakut horse supreme god).

Matvei N. Hangalov’s Sobranie sochinenij (Ulan-Ude 1958, 60) is the most important primary source. Caroline Humphrey’s Shamans and Elders (1996) and Inside and Outside the Mongol Tent (2002) are the most important contemporary ethnographic works.

Mihaly Hoppal’s Shamans and Traditions (Budapest 2007) offers a broad comparative perspective and situates Asbuiga within the larger field of Eurasian auxiliary-spirit traditions. V. P. Diakonova’s Tuvinskie i burjatskie shamany (2001) supplements with depth from Russian scholarship.

Asbuiga is embedded in a hierarchically ordered Buryat pantheon, described in detail in Hangalov’s Sobranie sochinenij (1958, 60).

At the apex stand the 99 Tengri (with Khormusta as leader of the 33 western white ones), below them the Khaty clan gods, then the place-bound Ezhin spirits, and finally the specialized auxiliary spirits such as Asbuiga.

This four-level hierarchy is particularly well developed in terms of religious systematics; it makes Buryat shamanism one of the most densely documented examples of a “complexly structured” animistic system.

Asbuiga’s role in this hierarchy is that of a “functional specialist”: he is not the highest, but for his area of specialization he is the designated addressee. This specialization follows the economic logic of Buryat horse breeding.

The study of Asbuiga raises several methodological problems. First: the primary sources are sparse; Hangalov is the most important, supplemented by some Soviet-era records. A systematic expansion of the source base has yet to be undertaken.

Second: contemporary shamanic practice in Buryatia (the “Tengeri” association) constitutes its own source level, which must be handled with care in religious ethnology; it is not simply a continuation of historical practice but a modern re-formulation.

Third: the tension between the Buddhist and shamanic strata in Buryatia also affects Asbuiga; in which stratum he is historically rooted has not been fully resolved. Caroline Humphrey has described these tensions in detail.

The relationship between Asbuiga and Buryat Buddhism (Gelug school, the official religion of the Buryats since the 17th century) deserves closer examination. In the rural clan territories of the Cis-Baikal region, Asbuiga has partly survived as a “Buddhist auxiliary spirit,” while in shamanic circles of the Trans-Baikal he is regarded as a “non-Buddhist specialist spirit.”

This dual anchoring is of interest in the history of religion: it shows that “Buddhism” and “shamanism” in Buryatia are not strictly separate worlds but maintain fluid interrelations. Caroline Humphrey analyzed this fluidity in detail in Shamans and Elders (1996).

The contemporary shamanic association “Tengeri” positions itself against absorption by Buddhism and claims Asbuiga as a “purely shamanic” figure. From a sociology-of-religion perspective, this positioning is an identity marker that goes beyond what the historical evidence establishes.

The restructuring of the Buryat shamanic order after 1990 deserves attention as a contemporary-historical subject. Soviet repression had severely damaged the shamanic tradition; the few surviving practitioners worked in secret. With political liberalization and the revival of Buddhism, an openly practiced shamanism also emerged, organizing itself into several competing associations.

The most important associations are “Tengeri” (founded 1993 in Ulan-Ude) and “Boo Murgel” (founded somewhat later). Both claim Asbuiga as part of their repertoire, though with differing ritual expressions. Caroline Humphrey has described this institutional diversity in detail.

From a sociology-of-religion perspective, this pluralization is a noteworthy case: the constitution of a “shamanic order” as a modern associational structure is a novelty that alters the traditional character of the practice. For young researchers, a rewarding field opens here at the intersection of religious ethnology and organizational sociology.

Over the past two decades, Asbuiga has been incorporated into international shamanism research. Mihaly Hoppal’s Shamans and Traditions (Budapest 2007) situates him within the broader field of Eurasian auxiliary-spirit traditions. Andrei Znamenski’s Shamanism and Western Imagination (2007) discusses him as an example of the specialization of shamanic invocations.

A particular role is played by Hungarian shamanism research, which since Vilmos Dioszegi (1923, 1972) has developed its own school of Eurasian comparative research. Dioszegi’s successors Hoppal and Pal Engel have incorporated Asbuiga into this comparative tradition.

For contemporary religious studies, Asbuiga is thus no longer a peripheral Buryat specialist figure but part of an established research field. This reception is remarkable in the history of religion and makes him an interesting object of study for young researchers.