Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-n9d2k Total loading time: 0.666 Render date: 2021-10-23T21:19:38.597Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

“I will give the people unto thee” 1: The Činggisid Conquests and Their Aftermath in the Turkic World

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

Extract

The Mongol conquests produced the last in a series of realignments of the Turkic peoples, creating, more or less, the configurations in which we find them today. The earliest of these realignments was associated with the rise and fall of the Hsiung-nu polity (second century BC to mid-second century AD). This was the first of the attempts at a pannomadic state. Mao-tun, the “Great Shanyü whom heaven has set up”, the founder of the Hsiung-nu union, boasted in a letter to the Han Court that because of his efforts “all the people who live by drawing the bow are now united into one family.”2 Činggis Qan expressed similar thoughts regarding the “people having skirts of felt” i.e. living in feltcovered tents.3 Although it cannot be demonstrated that all the Eurasian nomads were, indeed, incorporated into the Hsiung-nu polity, substantial numbers of the Turkic nomads undoubtedly were. In its formative, “heroic” years of conquest and in the course of its collapse, a number of Turkic (and other) pastoral, nomadic peoples were brought into motion along China's northern frontiers and adjoining regions. Others were pushed westward, some making their way to what is today Kazakhstan and into the Caspian-Pontic steppelands. This marked the first large-scale movement westward of Turkic peoples from Inner Asia to Central Asia and thence to the Western Eurasian steppelands. The final stages of these migrations ultimately brought some of the nomads to Danubian Europe and the Hungarian Plain.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The Secret History of the Mongols, trans. CleavesF. W. (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), pp. 173–4. With these words Činggis Qan granted the conquered “Forest Peoples” to his eldest son Joči.

References

2 Qian, Sima, Records of the Grand Historian: Han Dynasty, trans. Watson, B. (Hong Kong New York, 2nd rev. ed., 1993), II, pp. 140–1.Google Scholar

3 Cleaves, , Secret History, pp. 141, 144.Google Scholar See also Gervers, M., Schlepp, W., “Felt and ‘Tent Carts’ in the Secret History of the MongolsJournal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 7/1 (04, 1997), pp. 94–5.Google Scholar

4 See the recent study of Spinei, V., Ultimele Valuri Migratoare de la Nordul Mǎrii Negre şi al Dunǎrii de Jos (laşi, 1996).Google Scholar There is a school of thought, however, which would place Turkic peoples in the Western Eurasian steppelands before the migrations set into motion by the activities of the Hsiung-nu, and identifies them with Scythian peoples, see the works of Miziev, I. M., Istorija Balkarii i Karačaja s drevnejšix vremën do poxodov Timura (Nal'čik, 1996)Google Scholar and his earlier Šagi k istokam étničeskoj istorii Central'nogo Kavkaza (Nal'čik, 1986)Google Scholar which I have seen only in an abridged Azeri translation: Mizi-ulu, İsmail, Merkezi Gafgaz'm Etnik Tarihinin Köklerine Doğru, çev. Eliyarli, S., Abdulla, M. (Istanbul, 1993).Google Scholar The question of the primordial habitat (Urheimat, prarodina, anayurdu) of the Turkic peoples remains problematic. The general consensus is that it is to be found in Inner Asia, in the Southern Siberian (Altay)-Lake Baykal region, perhaps extending into Western Siberia, see Golden, P. B., Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 124–6Google Scholar for a discussion of these issues.

5 Bartol'd, V. V. (Barthold, W.), Dvenadcai' lekcij po istorii tureckix narodov Srednej Azii in V. V. Bartol'd, Sočinenija (Moskva, 19631977), V, p. 86;Google Scholar Golden, , Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, pp. 184–5.Google Scholar

6 See al-Marwazî, , Ṭabâ'i al-Hayawân: Sharâf al-Zamân Tahir Marvazî on China, the Turks and India, trans, ed. Minorsky, V. F. (London, 1942), Arabic, p. 18/trans. pp. 2930.Google Scholar

7 For examples of Qarluqs and Qipčaqs in the Mongol armies of conquest, see Kadyrbaev, , Tjurki i irancy v Kitae i Central'noj Azii XIII–XIV vv. (Alma-Ata, 1990), pp. 45–6.Google Scholar On the antipathy of the nomads to statehood, see Bartol'd, , Dvenadcat' lekcij in his Sočinenija, V, pp. 22–3;Google Scholar Khazanov, A. M., Nomads and the Outside World (Cambridge, 1983, 2nd ed., Madison, 1994), pp. 151–2;Google Scholar Golden, P. B., “The Qipčaqs of Medieval Eurasia: An Example of Stateless Adaptation in the Steppes” in Seaman, G., Marks, D., Rulers From the Steppe. State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery (Los Angeles, 1991), pp. 132157.Google Scholar

8 Déer, J., Pogány magyarság keresztény magyarság (Budapest, 1938), pp. 1016.Google Scholar On the structure of Eurasian (esp. Turkic) tribal unions, see Pritsak, O., “Stammesnamen und Titulaturen der Altaischen VölkerUral-Altaische Jahrbücher, 24 (1952), pp. 52–4Google Scholar and his “The Distinctive Features of the Pax Nomadica” Popoli delle Steppe in XXXV Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 1988), II, pp. 747788;Google Scholar Eberhard, W., Conquerors and Rulers. Social Forces in Medieval China (Leiden, 1970), pp. 113117.Google Scholar

9 Thus, Porphyrogenitus, Constantine, De Administrando Imperio, ed. Moravcsik, Gy., trans. Jenkins, R. J. H., Dumbarton Oaks Texts, 1 (Washington, D.C., 1967), pp. 174, 175,Google Scholar in his chapter on the joining of the Qabars to the Hungarian tribal union, remarks that “because in wars they show themselves strongest and most valorous of the eight clans, and are leaders in war, they have been promoted to be first clans.” Németh, Gyula, A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (Budapest, 1930), pp. 234235Google Scholar suggests that they were given this (most exposed) position because they were the most recent to join the confederation. The T'ang-shu reports (Chavannes, E., Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux (St Petersburg, 1900, reprint: Paris, 1941), p. 94;Google Scholar Kjuner, N. V., Kitajskaie izvestija o narodax Južnoj Sibiri, Centra'noj Azii i Dal'nego Vostoka, Moskva, 1961, p. 33)Google Scholar that the Uyğurs, after having subjugated the Basmil and Qarluqs “always form their advance guard from these two tribes” when going out on campaign. Obviously, the intent was to have new (and perhaps unreliable) forces bear the brunt of the enemies attack.

10 Morgan, D., The Mongols (Oxford, 1987), p. 89.Google Scholar

11 Togan, İ., Flexibility and Limitation in Steppe Formations. The Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan (Leiden, 1998), pp. 8, 1112.Google Scholar

12 Cleaves, , Secret History, pp. 132133.Google Scholar

13 Kyčanov, E. I., Očerki istorii tangutskogo gosudarstva (Moskva, 1968), pp. 315330;Google Scholar Allsen, T., “Ever Closer Encounters: The Appropriation of Culture and the Apportionment of Peoples in the Mongol EmpireJournal of Early Modern History, 1 (1997), pp. 1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Sultanov, T. I., Kočevye plemena Priural'ja v XV–XVII vv. (Moskva, 1982), pp. 15, 31;Google Scholar Piščulina, K. A., Jugovostočnyj Kazaxstan v seredine XIV–načale XVI vekov (Alma-Ata, 1977), p. 233.Google Scholar

15 See Allsen, , “Ever Closer Encounters,” Journal of Early Modern History, 1 (1997), pp. 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar for an overview of this question.

16 On the nököd, see Vladimircov, B. Ja., Obščestvennyj stroj mongolov (Leningrad, 1934), pp. 8788;Google Scholar Ratchnevsky, P., Genghis Khan. His Life and Legacy, trans. ed. Haining, T. N. (Oxford, 1992), pp. 1213.Google Scholar

17 Togan, , Flexibility, p. 11,Google Scholar has suggested that Cinggis Qan, using his personal retinue, “created his own polity as a third and overwhelmingly popular alternative” to the powerful Kereyid and Naiman early monarchic, confederations. He was joined by those tribes who were otherwise “disenfranchised” and were willing to become part of a non-tribal army and by Muslim merchants.

18 Togan, , Flexibility, pp. 117, 121.Google Scholar

19 Togan, , Flexibility, pp. 137140, 146.Google Scholar

20 ad-Dîn, Rašîd, Jâmi' at-Tavârîx ed. Rowšan, M. and Mûsavî, M. (Tehran, 1373/1994), I, p. 74.Google Scholar Jâmî' at-Tavârîx ed. Karîmî, B. (Tehran, 1338/1959), I, p. 55.Google Scholar

21 Vladimircov, , Obščestvennyj stroj, pp. 63, 108–9, 125–6, 130–1;Google Scholar Togan, , Flexibility, pp. 116–17.Google Scholar

22 Vladimircov, , Obščestvennyj stroj, pp. 7274.Google Scholar

23 For these definitions see Lessing, F. et al. , Mongolian-English Dictionary (3rd ed., Bloomington, 1995), pp. 112, 646, 876;Google Scholar Doerfer, G., Türkische und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen (Wiesbaden, 19631975), I, pp. 160ff.Google Scholar Pelliot, P., Hambis, L., Histoire des campagnes de Gengis Khan (Leiden, 1951), I, pp. 85–6Google Scholar made this correction some time ago, rendering ötegü boġol as “esclaves ancestraux, c'est-à-dire dont les services remontent à plusiers générations.” These “slaves,” however, retained freedom of mobility.

24 Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rowšan, , Mûsavî, , I, pp. 66, 321, III, p. 2286;Google Scholar Vladimircov, , Obščestvennyj stroj, pp. 63–4.Google Scholar

25 Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rowšan, , Mûsavî, , I, pp. 225.Google Scholar

26 Fëdorov-Davydov, G. A., Obščestvennyj stroj Zolotoj Ordy (Moskva, 1973), pp. 36–8Google Scholar also has a discussion of this term and the literature dealing with it. He is not that certain that this term denoted a “bound vassal” but notes that Rašîd ad-Dîn discusses various types of vassalage and dependency and points to differences, in this respect, between nomadic and sedentary populations brought into the Činggisid state.

27 Vladimircov, , Obščestvennyj stroj, pp. 68, 98“9;Google Scholar Togan, , Flexibility, pp. 112116;Google Scholar Krader, L., “Feudalism and the Tatar Polity of the Middle AgesComparative Studies in Society and History, I/1 (10, 1958), pp. 82–3.Google Scholar

28 Tapper, R., Frontier Nomads of Iran. A Political History of the Shahsevan (Cambridge, 1997), p. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Jagchid, S., “The Kitans and Their CitiesCentral Asiatic Journal, XXV/1–2 (1981), p. 71Google Scholar who notes that the Qitan invaded Chinese lands, “looted the cities and towns and brought back artisans and peasants as booty to strengthen their nomadic economy.” See also, pp. 83–4.

30 Wittfogel, K. A., Fêng, C-S., History of Chinese Society. Liao (907–1125) (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S., 36, 1946, Philadelphia, 1949), pp. 4650, 86ff. 193.Google Scholar

31 Wittfogel, Fêng, History, pp. 540541,Google Scholar see also Barfield, J., The Perilous Frontier. Nomadic Empires and China (Oxford, 1989), pp. 174175.Google Scholar

32 Morgan, , Mongols, p. 49Google Scholar

33 Crone, P., Slaves on Horses. The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 3738, 53, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Janhunen, J., Manchuria. An Ethnic History (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 222, Helsinki, 1996), p. 101;Google Scholar Barfield, , The Perilous Frontier, p. 253.Google Scholar On the complexities of Manchu socio-political organization, see Crossley, P. K., The Manchus (Oxford, 1997), pp. 68, 2430.Google Scholar

35 Cleaves, , Secret History, p. 173;Google Scholar Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rowšan, and Mûsavî, , I, pp. 143144, ed. Karîmî, B., I, pp. 109110;Google Scholar Grousset, R., L'empire mongol (Paris, 1942), pp. 199201;Google Scholar Trepavlov, V. V., Gosudarstvennyj stroj Mongol'skoj imperii XIIIv. (Moskva, 1993), pp. 4750.Google Scholar

36 Kyzlasov, L. R., Istorija južnoj Sibiri (Moskva, 1984), pp. 9299;Google Scholar Istorija Kirgizskoj SSR, ed. Karypkulov, A. K. et al. (Frunze, 1984– ), I, pp. 381390.Google Scholar

37 See Golden, , Introduction, pp. 404406;Google Scholar Abramzon, S. M., Kirgizy i ix étnogenetičeskie i istoriko-kul'tumye svjazi (Leningrad, 1971), pp. 1070;Google Scholar Baktygulov, Dž., “Formirovanie kyrgyzskogo naroda” in Asankanov, A. et al. (eds.), Kyrgyzy. Étnogenetičeskie i étnokul'tumye processy v drevnosti i srednevekov'e v Central'noj Azii (Biškek, 1996), pp. 164179.Google Scholar

38 Secret History/Cleaves, 1, pp. 172174;Google Scholar Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rowšan, and Mûsavî, , I, pp. 422425, ed. Karîmî, , I, pp. 309310,Google Scholar quotes Barčuq as declaring himself Činggis's “slave and son” and pp. 440–441 (Rowšan and Mûsavî) p. 320 (Karîmî) where, as in the Secret History, Činggis Qan calls him his “fifth son.” See discussion of these events in Ratchnevsky, , Genghis Khan, pp. 102103;Google Scholar Allsen, T. T., “The Yüan Dynasty and the Uighurs of Turfan in the 13th century,” in Rossabi, M. (ed.), China Among Equals (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 246247;Google Scholar Trepavlov, , Gosudarstvennyj stroj, pp. 5153.Google Scholar

39 Άṭâ Malik Juvainî, Άlă'ad-Dîn, Ta'rîx-i Jahân-Gušâ, ed. Qazwînî, M. (Leiden-London, 19121937), I, pp. 3239,, 5658/Google Scholar The History of the World Conqueror, trans. Boyle, J. A. (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), I, pp. 4453;Google Scholar Bretschneider, E., Mediaeval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources (Saint Petersburg, 1888), I, pp. 246250, 260261;Google Scholar Tixonov, D. I., Xozjajstvo i obščestvennyj stroj ujgurskogo gosudarstva X–XIV vv. (Moskva-Leningrad, 1966), pp. 5060;Google Scholar Allsen, , “The Yüan Dynasty,” pp. 247261;Google Scholar Rossabi, M., Khubilai Khan. His Life and Times (Berkeley, 1988), pp. 110112;Google Scholar Kadyrbaev, A. Š., Očerki istorii srednevekovyx ujgurov, džalairov, najmanov i kireitov (Almaty, 1993). pp. 7475.Google Scholar

40 Dalaj, C., Mongolija v XIII–XIV vekax (Moskva, 1983), pp. 150156.Google Scholar

41 Semënov, A. A., “Očerk kul′turnoj roli ujgurov v mongol′skix gosudarstvax” in Sadvakasov, G. S. et al. (eds.), Materialy po istorii i kul′ture ujgurskogo naroda (Alma-Ata, 1978), pp. 3234, 3839;Google Scholar Allsen, , “The Yüan Dynasty,” pp. 266267;Google Scholar Kadyrbaev, , Očerki, pp. 8889, 120121.Google Scholar On “Central Asians” in Yüan government service, see Farquhar, D. M., The Government of China under Mongolian Rule (Stuttgart, 1990), pp. 3435Google Scholar and sections on the Uyğurs, Qarluqs, Qipčaq-Qangli et al. Among the chiliarchies {minggġan) and guards units there were Alano-As (Asud), “Muslims,” Tanguts, Koreans, Jürčens and the Turkic Qipčaq-Qangli and Qarluqs, see Farquhar, , Op. cit., pp. 245ff.Google Scholar

42 A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia, being the Tarikh-i Rashidi of Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlat, ed. Elias, N., trans. Ross, E. D. (London, 1898, reprint: 1972), pp. 311, 360;Google Scholar Khān, Abu'l-Ġāzī Bahādūr, Šajara-yi Türk, ed. trans. Desmaisons, P. (St. Petersburg, 18711874, reprint: Amsterdam, 1970), Čağ. text, p. 275/trans. p. 297.Google Scholar

43 Yücel, Y., Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkinda Araştinnalar (Ankara, 1991), II, pp. 508;Google Scholar Sümer, F., Oğuzlar (3rd ed., Istanbul, 1980), pp. 163164.Google Scholar

44 Kadyrbaev, , Očerki, p. 74.Google Scholar

45 Juvainî, (ed. Qazwînî, ), I, pp. 5658/ trans. Boyle, J. A., I, pp. 7476;Google Scholar Rašîd ad-Dîn/Rowšan and Mûsavî, I, pp. 440–441; ed. Karînû, I, p. 320; Bretschneider, , Mediaeval Researches, II, pp. 4041.Google Scholar According to the Secret History/Cleaves, pp. 171172,Google Scholar “Arslan Qan of the Qarlu′ud” submitted to the Mongols without resistance after “Qubilai Noyan” was dispatched to bring him under their control. He was rewarded by being given a Činggisid bride. The Secret History appears to place these events before the submission of the Qirğiz. Juvainî, however, says that Arslan, caught up in the murkey politics of the fading Qara Qitai state, committed suicide in order to secure the succession of his son. The latter then revolted against the Qara Qitai, came to the court of Činggis Qan, submitted and was “received with marks of special distinction.” For a discussion of the campaign against Küčlüg, see Ratchnevsky, , Genghis Khan, pp. 118119.Google Scholar

46 Kadyrbaev, A. Š., Tjurki i irancy v Kitae i Central′noj Azii XIII-XIV vv. (Alma-Ata, 1990), p. 41.Google Scholar

47 Wink, A., Al-Hind. The Making ofthe Indo-Islamic World (Leiden, 1990, 1997), II, pp. 200201.Google Scholar

48 de Rachewiltz, Igor, “Turks in China under the Mongols: A Preliminary Investigation of Turco-Mongolian Relations in the 13th and 14th Centuries” in Rossabi, M. (ed.), China Among Equals (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 281291;Google Scholar Dardess, J., Conquerors and Confucians. Aspects of Political Change in Late Yüan China (New York, 1973), pp. 1012, 17, 26, 45;Google Scholar Farquhar, , The Government of China under Mongolian Rule, pp. 34, 253, 274;Google Scholar Yüan, Ch′ên, Western and Central Asians in China Under the Mongols, trans. Hsing-hai, Ch′ien and Goodrich, L. Carrington (Los Angeles, 1966), pp. 8586, 123126, 291, 292;Google Scholar Tjurki i irancy, Kadyrbaev, esp. pp. 89ff.Google Scholar

49 Kadyrbaev, , Tjurki i irancy, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

50 P. Buell in his biographical sketch of Sübötei, the great Mongol commander, places these events just after the submission of the Uyğurs, see de Rachewiltz, I. et al. (eds.), In the Service of the Khan. Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-Yüan Period (Wiesbaden, 1993), pp. 1516.Google Scholar

51 Allsen, T. T., “Prelude to the Western Campaigns: Mongol Military Operations in the Volga-Ural Region, 1217–1237Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 3 (1983), pp. 89;Google Scholar Kadyrbaev, , Tjurki i irancy, pp. 3638.Google Scholar On the possible Mongol ethno-linguistic antecedents of the Ölberli(g), see Golden, P. B., “Cumanica II: The Ölberli (Ölperli). The Fortunes and Misfortunes of an Inner Asian Nomadic ClanArchivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 5 (19861988). pp. 523.Google Scholar

52 See discussion in Petruševskij, I. P., “Poxod mongol′skix vojsk v Srednjuju Aziju v 1219–1224 i ego posledstvija” in Tixvinskij, S. L. (ed.), Tataro-Mongoly v Azii i Evrope (2nd rev. ed., Moskva, 1977), pp. 107109;Google Scholar Ratchnevsky, , Genghis Khan, pp. 119ff.Google Scholar

53 Bunijatov, Z. M., Gosudarstvo Xorezmšaxov-Anušteginidov 1097–1231 (Moskva, 1986), pp. 128132.Google Scholar

54 Bunijatov, , Gosudartvo, pp. 132ff.Google Scholar On the domination of the Khwârazmian government by the Bayaut subgrouping of the Yimek tribe of the Qangli-Qipčaq, see Muḥammad an-Nasawî, Šihâb ad-Dîn, Sîrat as-Sulṭân Jalâl ad-Dîn Mankbumî, ed. trans. Bunijatov, Z. M. (Moskva, 1996), Arabic, pp. 5152/trans. p. 82.Google Scholar

55 See the classic account in Barthold, W. (Bartol′d, V. V.), Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, trans. Minorsky, T., ed. Bosworth, C. E. (3rd ed., London, 1968, reprint: Taipei, n.d.) pp. 400ff.;Google Scholar Bunijatov, , Gosudarstvo, PP. 137155.Google Scholar On the fate of Terken Khatun and the Khwârazmšâh's family, see an-Nasawî/Bunijatov, Arabic, pp. 49–50/trans. p. 80; Juvainî, II, pp. 199–200/Boyle, II, pp. 465–468.

56 Pelliot, , Hambis, (trans. ed.), Histoire des campagnes de Gengis Khan, I, pp. 106107;Google Scholar Bretschneider, , Mediaeval Researches, I, pp. 302303;Google Scholar Kadyrbaev, , Tjurki i irancy, p. 42.Google Scholar

57 Cf. the comments of ad-Dîn, Kamâl Aḥmad al-‘Adîm, ‘Umar b., Zubdat al-Ḥalab min Ta′nx Ḥalab, ed. Dahhân, S. (Damascus, 1387/1968), III, pp. 248ff.;Google Scholar Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rowšan, and Mûsavî, , II, p. 816,Google Scholar ed. Karîmî, I, p. 577; Boyle, J. A. (trans.), The Successors of Genghis Khan (New York, 1971), p. 192Google Scholar mentions several episodes of Khwârazmian pressure on Aleppo.

58 Bunijatov, , Gosudarstvo, pp. 187195;Google Scholar Cahen, Cl., Pre-Ottoman Turkey, trans. Jones-Williams, J. (New York, 1968), pp. 245246;Google Scholar Sevim, A., Yücel, Y., Türkiye Tarihi. Setçuklu ve Beylikler Dönemi (Ankara, 1989), pp. 167169;Google Scholar Uzunçarşili, İ. H., Osmanli Tarihi, I (Ankara, 3rd ed., 1972), pp. 7374Google Scholar and his Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu Karakoyunlu Devletleri (Ankara, 1969), pp. 39, 84.Google Scholar

59 Korkmaz, Z., “Bartin ve Yöresi Ağizlanndaki Lehçe TabakalaşmasiTürkoloji Dergisi, II/1 (1965), pp. 227249.Google Scholar

60 Köprülü, F., “Osmanli İmparatorluğu′nun Etnik Menşei Mes′eleleriBelleten, VI (1943), pp. 229230, 256ff.;Google Scholar Sümer, , Oğuzlar, pp. 122, 162;Google Scholar Uzunçarşili, , Osmanlt Tarihi, I, pp. 97103.Google Scholar On the Ottoman tales of Sülemanšâh, see Neşrî, Mehmed, Kitâb-i Cihân-nümâ, ed. Unat, F. R., Küymen, M. A. (Ankara, 1949), I, pp. 5661;Google Scholar ‘Ašiqpašazâde, , TevârîḨ-i Âl-i Osmân, ed. Bey, ‘Alî (Istanbul, 1332/19131914, pp. 34;Google Scholar the Anonymous Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, ed. Giese, F., Turk, . ed. Azamat, N. (Istanbul, 1992), pp. 89;Google Scholar Kemal, İbn-i, Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, ed. Turan, Ş. (Ankara, 1991), I, pp. 3842.Google Scholar Münnejimbaši, a later historian (d. 1702) provides an interesting summation of these accounts, pointing to the pressure of the Mongol conquests as well as the lack of sufficient pasturages for a nomadic grouping that was undergoing a series of territorial displacements as the factors bringing the ancestors of Osman progressively westward into Anatolia, , Müneccimbaşi, , Camiü′d-Düvel, ed. trans. Ağirkaya, A. (this edition is a selection from the larger work dealing only with Ottoman affairs of the period 1299–1481), Arabic text, pp. 11ff./trans. pp. 58ff.Google Scholar

61 On this raid, see the discussion inMarquart, J., Über das Volkstum der KomanenGoogle Scholar in Bang, W., Marquart, J., Osttürkische Dialektstudien in the Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen N.F. 13/1 (1914), pp. 141ff.;Google Scholar Allsen, , “Prelude to the Western CampaignsAEMAe, 3 (1983), pp. 814.Google Scholar

62 al-Aṯîr, Ibn, Al-Kâmil fi’t-Ta’rîx, ed. Tornberg, C. J. (Beirut reprint, 19651966, which differs in pagnination from the original Leiden, 1851–1876 ed.), XII, pp. 385386;Google Scholar Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rowšan, and Musavî, , I, p. 534, ed. Karîmî, , I, pp. 381382.Google Scholar

63 See discussion in Allsen, , “Prelude to the Western CampaignsAEMAe, 3 (1983), pp. 1014Google Scholar and on Mongol manpower recruitment his Mongol Imperialism. The Policies of the Grand Qan Möngke in China, Russia, and the Islamic Lands, 1251–1259 (Berkeley, 1987), pp. 190ff.,Google Scholar Mote, F. W., “Chinese Society under Mongol Rule, 1215–1368” in Franke, H., Twitchett, D., The Cambridge History of China, 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368 (Cambridge, 1994), PP. 629630.Google Scholar

64 Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rowšan, and Mûsavî, , I, p. 492, 500503, ed. Karîmî, , I, pp. 356,362363.Google Scholar

65 See Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rowšan, and Mûsavî, , I, pp. 677ff., ed. Karîmî, , I, pp. 482ff.Google Scholar/Boyle, , Successors, pp. 69ff.;Google Scholar Allsen, , “PreludeAEMAe, 3 (1983), pp. 1422;Google Scholar Kadyrbaev, , Tjurki i irancy, pp. 4244.Google Scholar

66 On Činggisid politics surrounding the elevation of Müngke, see Allsen, , Mongol Imperialism, pp. i8ff.Google Scholar

67 See Amitai-Preiss, R., Mongols and Mamluks. The Mamluk-Īlkhānid War, 1260–1281 (Cambridge, 1995), p. 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This is the most recent and thorough treatment of the Battle of‘Ayn Jâlût and its aftermath.

68 Sâma, Abû, Tarâjim rijâl al-qamayn al-sâdis wa’l-sabi‘ al-ma‘rûf bi’l-ḏayl ‘alâ al-rawdatayn, ed. al-Kawṯarî, M. (Cairo, 1947), p. 208,Google Scholar cited in and translated by Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks, p. 1.Google Scholar

69 See Allsen, T. T., “Changing Forms of Legitimation in Mongol Iran” in Seaman, G., Marks, D. (eds.), Rulers from the Steppe. State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery (Los Angeles, 1991), pp. 223241Google Scholar which charts the changes in Mongol conceptions with respect to the Ilkhânids in Iran.

70 See Juvainî, ed. Qazwînî, , I, p. 31,Google Scholar Juvainî/Boyle, , I, pp. 4243.Google Scholar See also Barthold, , Turkestan, pp. 392393;Google Scholar Barfield, , The Perilous Frontier, p. 212.Google Scholar

71 The standard work on the Ilkhânids is that of Spuler, B., Die Mongolen in Iran (4th rev. ed. Leiden, 1985).Google Scholar The legitimacy of the “il-khanate” is by no means clear. Jackson, P., “The Dissolution of the Mongol EmpireCentral Asiatic Journal, 22 (1978), pp. 220222,Google Scholar suggests that the il-khanate began as “an act of usurpation” that over time (by the reign of Ġazan, 1295–1304) was transformed into an independent khanate. This interpretation is in part countered by Allsen's more comprehensive and nuanced approach, see n. 69.

72 Morgan, D., Medieval Persia 1040–1797 (London-New York, 1988), p. 81;Google Scholar Martinez, A. P., “The Īl-Xânid ArmyArchivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 6 (1986), pp. 214216Google Scholar and his Changes in Chancellery Languages and Language Changes in General in the Middle East, with Particular Reference to Iran in the Arab and Mongol PeriodsArchivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 7 (19871991), pp. 107110;Google Scholar Tapper, , Frontier Nomads of Iran, pp. 7576.Google Scholar

73 Daškevič, Ja. R., “Codex Cumanicus - dejstvitel′no li Cumanicus?Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2 (1988), pp. 6364.Google Scholar

74 We shall not trace their history here. For a brief overview, see Murgulija, M. P., Šušarin, V. P., Polovcy, Gruzija, Rus′ i Vengrija v XII–XIII vekax (Moskva, 1998)Google Scholar and Golden, , Introduction, pp. 295296Google Scholar and the literature cited there.

75 On the tribes, see Golden, P. B., “Cumanica IV: The Tribes of the Cuman-QipčaqsArchivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 9 (19951997). PP. 99122.Google Scholar

76 Rásonyi, L., Hidaka Dunán (Budapest, 1981), pp. 141ff.Google Scholar

77 See Erdal, M., Die Sprache der wolgabolgarischen Inschriften (Wiesbaden, 1993), pp. 1022.Google Scholar An overview of ethnic processes in the Middle Volga region is given in Kuzeev, R. G., Narody Srednego Povolž′ja ijužnogo Urala (Moskva, 1992), see esp. pp. 6780.Google Scholar

78 See Kuzeev's, R. G. detailed study Proisxoždenie baškirskogo naroda (Moskva, 1974)Google Scholar as well as his Narody Srednego Povolž′ ja noted above.

79 Tenišev, É. R. et al. (eds.), Jazyki mira. Tjurkskie jazyki (Biškek, 1997), p. 299;Google Scholar Kakuk, Zs., Mai Török nyelvek, I (Budapest, 1976), pp. 5859.Google Scholar

80 Caferoğlu, A., Türk Dili Tarihi (Istanbul, 1964), II, pp. 107ff.Google Scholar Teniošev, ( et al. ), Jazyki mira. Tjurkskie jazyki, pp. 139141.Google Scholar

81 Trepavlov, , Gosudarstvennyj stroj, pp. 5758.Google Scholar

82 See Piščulina, , Jugo-vostočnjy Kazaxstan, p. 36,Google Scholar who argues that these dislocations delayed the formation of the Qazaq people.

83 Cf. Vostrov, V. V., Mukanov, M. S., Rodoplemennoj sostav i rasselenie kazaxov (Alma-Ata, 1968), pp. 3236, 4145;Google Scholar Kuzeev, , Proisxoždenie, pp. 356359, 466469;Google Scholar Sümer, , Oğuzlar, pp, 142, 149, 634, 540;Google Scholar Togan, , Flexibility, pp. 124125.Google Scholar

84 Basilov, V. N. (ed.), Nomads of Eurasia, trans. Zirin, M. (Seattle, 1989), p. 86.Google Scholar

85 Al-‘Umarî: Lech, K., Das Mongolische Weltreich. Al-‘Umarî's Darstellung der mongolischen Reiche in seinem Werk Masâlik al-Abşâr fî Mamâlik al-Amşâr (Wiesbaden, 1968), Arab. text, p. 73.Google Scholar

86 Grigor′ev, A. P., “Oficial′nyj jazyk Zolotoj Ordy XIII–XIV vv.” Tjurkologičeskij Sbomik 1977 (Moskva, 1981), pp. 8189.Google Scholar

87 Manz, B., The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane (Cambridge, 1989), p. 6.Google Scholar

88 See Golden, P. B., “The Religions of the QipčaqsCentral Asiatic Journal, 42/2 (1998), pp. 180237Google Scholar and the axhaustive analysis of the conversion tales by De Weese, Devin, Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde (University Park, Pa., 1994).Google Scholar

89 For a brief survey of the later Jočid realms see Allsen, , “The Princes of the Left HandAEMAe, 5 (1985), pp. 540Google Scholar Golden, , Introduction, pp. 297302;Google Scholar Istorija Kazaxskoj SSR, ed. Nusupbekov, A. N. et al. (Alma-Ata, 1977), II, p. 151;Google Scholar Vásáry, I., Az Arany Orda (Budapest, 1986), p. 130.Google Scholar

90 Bartol′d, V. V., “Otec Edigeja” in his Sočinenija, 11/1, pp. 797804;Google Scholar Grekov, B. D., Jakubovskij, A. Ju., Zolotaja Orda i eë padenie (Moskva-Leningrad, 1950), pp. 298, 374405;Google Scholar Vernadsky, G., The Mongols and Russia (New Haven, 1953), pp. 282288;Google Scholar Spuler, B., Die Goldene Horde. Die Mongolen in Russland (Wiesbaden, 2nd rev. ed., 1965), pp. 142154;Google Scholar Axmedov, B. A., Gosudarstvo kočevyx uzbekov (Moskva 1965), pp. 4546;Google Scholar Judin, V. P., “Ordy: Belaja, sinjaja, seraja, zolotaja” in Tulekbaev, B. A. (ed.), Kazaxstan, Srednjaja Azija i Central′naja Azija v XVI–XVII vv. (Alma-Ata, 1983), p. 162.Google Scholar

91 Samolin, W., East Turkistan to the Twelfth Century (The Hague, 1964), pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

92 See Cafgeroğlu, , Türk Dili Tarihi, II, pp. 102149, 195229.Google Scholar

93 Kempiners, R. G. Jr, “Vaşşâf's Tajziyat al-amşâr wa tazjiyat al-a‘şâr as a Source for the History of the Chaghadayid Khanate The Journal of Asian History, 22 (1988), pp. 169170;Google Scholar Bartol′d, , Dvendadcat′ lekcij, Sočinenija, V, pp. 146–8.Google Scholar

94 Bartol′d, , Dvendadcat′ lekcij, Sočinenija, V, pp. 148151, 160165, 171, 172;Google Scholar Piščulina, , Jugo-vostočnyj, p. 1213, 39;Google Scholar Kempiners, , “Vaşşâf's TajziyatJAH, 22 (1988), pp. 171, 171–8;Google Scholar Manz, B. F., “The Ulus Chaghatay before and after Temür's RiseCentral Asiatic Journal, 27 (1983), pp. 81–2Google Scholar and her The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane (Cambridge, 1989), p. 43.Google Scholar

95 Secret History/Cleaves, pp. 10, 51, 52.Google Scholar For the history of the Barulas, see Grupper, S. M., “A Barulas Family Narrative in the Yuan shih: Some Neglected Prosopographical and Institutional Sources on Timurid OriginsArchivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, VIII (19921994), pp. 1197.Google Scholar

96 Manz, , Tamerlane, pp. 2223, 2736, 154165.Google Scholar

97 See the Tarikh-i Rashidi/Elias, Ross, P. 148.Google Scholar In his commentary p. 75, Ross remarks that in Mongol jete means “worthless person, ne'er-do-well, rascal,” but notes that he cannot find it in that meaning in the dictionaries. Barthold, (Islorija Kult′umoj žizni Turkestana, Sočinenija, II 1, p. 265)Google Scholar has it as a “Mongol term that corresponds to the Turkish qazaq and signifies a band of marauding outlaws who have broken with state, clan and tribe.” The လağatay-Persian dictionary, Sanglax (f. 205r) renders this term as “ğârat wa tâxt” (“plunder and spoils,” cited in Ando, Sh., Timuridische Emire nach dem Mu‘izz al-Ansâb, Berlin, 1992, pp. 5253Google Scholar). I have not been able otherwise to find this word in Mongol or in Turkic. It is not related to the Osm. çete “a small, armed unit not part of the army,” which Eren, H. et al. (eds.), Türkçe Sözlük (Ankara, 1988), I, P. 296,Google Scholar derive from Bulgarian (cf. Bulg. četa, an Old Slavic term found also in Russ., cf. Fasmer, M. (Vasmer), Etimologičeskij slovar′ russkogo jazyka, trans. Trubačëv, O. N. (2nd ed. Moskva, 19861987), IV, p. 351):Google Scholar “otrjad, phalanx” SirRedhouse, James (A Turkish and English Laxicon, Constantinople, 1870, reprint Beirut, 1974, p. 714)Google Scholar thought it might be an Albanian term and knows it only in the expression çapul çeteye çikmak “to go on a marauding expedition,” çeteci, “a raider.”

98 Tarikh-i Rashidi/Elias, Ross, pp. 75, text pp. 305–310;Google Scholar Bartol′d, , Dvenadcat′ lekcij, Sočinenija, V, pp. 169170;Google Scholar Mano, E., “Moghulistan” Acta Asiatica of the Insitute of Eastern Culture, III–IV (Tokyo, 1978), pp. 4753;Google Scholar Piščulina, , Jugo-vostočnyj, pp, 15, 189.Google Scholar

99 Morgan, , The Mongols, p. 90.Google Scholar

100 Manz, , Tamerlane, p. 31.Google Scholar

101 They functioned similarly in the Mongol world. The Yüan-shih, in its biography of Jürčetai, notes that personal names served as clan names, see Ratchnevsky, P., “Zum Ausdruck ‘T’ouhsia‘ in der Mongolenzeit” in Heissig, W. (ed.), Collectanea Mongolica. Festschrift für Professor Dr. Rintchen zum 60. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden, 1966), pp. 173174.Google Scholar

102 SirClauson, Gerard, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford, 1972), p. 824;Google Scholar Redhouse Yeni Türkçe-İngilizce Sözlük (Istanbul, 1979), p. 978.Google Scholar

103 Clauson, , ED, p. 632;Google Scholar Redhouse, p. 652.

104 Clauson, , ED, pp. 641, 896.Google Scholar

105 Golden, P. B., Khazar Studies (Budapest, 1980), I, pp. 126133.Google Scholar

106 Clauson, , ED, p. 385;Google Scholar Golden, P. B., “Cumanica IV: The Tribes of the Cuman-QipčaqsArchivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 9 (19951997), p. 110.Google Scholar

107 Clauson, , ED, p. 500.Google Scholar

108 Németh, , A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása, pp. 3250, 5967, 7172.Google Scholar

109 Cf. Hathaway, J., The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt (Cambridge, 1997).Google Scholar

110 Németh, Gy., “Wanderungen des mongolischen Wortes Nökür ‘Genosse’Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3 (1952), pp. 123.Google Scholar Krader, , ℌFeudalism and the Tatar PolicyComparative Studies in History and Society, I/1 (10, 1958), p. 87,Google Scholar sees this institution as a “parallel development among people facing similar problems of military and political organization in a period of state formation” rather than the result of diffusion by borrowing.

111 Lessing, et al. , Mongolian-English Dictionary, p. 593.Google Scholar

112 Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire 284–602 (Oxford, 1964, reprint: Baltimore, 1986), I, pp. 4950;Google Scholar Hornblower, S., Spawforth, A. (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed., Oxford, 1996), pp. 371372;Google Scholar Wolfram, H., History of the Goths, trans. Dunlap, T. J. (Berkeley, 1988), p. 101;Google Scholar Bloch, M., Feudal Society, trans. Manyon, L. A. (Chicago, 1961), I, pp. 154, 182;Google Scholar Trubačëv, O. N. (ed.), Étimologičeskij slovar′ slavjanskix jazykov, vyp.5 (Moskva, 1978), pp. 134135.Google Scholar

113 See Vladimircov, , Obščestvennyj stroj, pp. 8788;Google Scholar Ratchnevsky, , Činggis-khan, p. 12;Google Scholar Jagchid, S., Hyer, P., Mongolia's Culture and Society (Boulder, Colo., 1979), pp. 285286.Google Scholar

114 Streusand, D., The Fonnation of the Mughal Empire (Delhi, 1989), pp. 3233.Google Scholar

115 Don Juan of Persia. A Shiah Catholic, 1560–1604, trans. LeStrange, G. (London, 1926), p. 45.Google Scholar

116 Tapper, , Frontier Nomads, pp. 4647.Google Scholar

117 Ch′i-Ch′ing, Hsiao, The Military Establishment of the Yüan Dynasty (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), pp. 3435;Google Scholar Allsen, , Mongol Imperialism, pp. 99100;Google Scholar Farquhar, , Government of China, pp. 2, 245.Google Scholar The turġa′ud (“day guards,” a term borrowed from Turkic turğaq “watchman, sentry,” see Clauson, , ED, p. 539Google Scholar) who formed one component of the Imperial Guard, at the Kereyid court (in all likelihood a model for Činggis) were often drawn from hostages (see Togan, , Flexibility, p. 75Google Scholar), a source above the fray of inter- and intra-clanal strife.

118 Clauson, , ED, p. 387.Google Scholar Whether it is the precise equivalent of the comitatus among the A-shih-na Türks which, according to the Chinese sources was called Böri (“wolf”) is unclear. But, apparently, it denoted some grouping of officers/retainers close to the ruler, who had executive functions. On the “wolf guard” of the Türks, see Mau-Tsai, Liu, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T'u-küe) (Wiesbaden, 1958), I, pp. 89;Google Scholar see also Golden, P. B., “Wolves, Dogs and Qipčaq Religion” in Festschrift for Edmund Schütz, Acta Orientalia Hungarica, L/1 (1997), pp. 8797.Google Scholar

119 Ligeti, L., A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban (Budapest, 1986), pp. 110, 236, 411412.Google Scholar

120 Györffy, Gy., István Király és műve (Budapest, 1983), p. 470.Google Scholar

3
Cited by