The term «Kipchak», known in medieval Arab-Persian historiography, changed its content in the course of history: in the VIII-XI centuries it was an ethnonym of a tribal community, then, starting from 1030 to the XIII century, Kipchaks are called all ethnically different nomads of Desht-i Kipchak; in the Golden Horde (XIII-V centuries) and subsequent periods of history this term again became an ethnonym of a tribal community, which in modern times turned into ethnic groups of several modern peoples: Altai, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Kirghiz, Nogai, Tatars and Uzbeks.
Each ethnos has a name (ethnonym). Most ethnic groups are known to researchers by their self-name, while others are known by the name given by their neighbors (for example, the people called Finns call themselves «Suomalaiset»). Sometimes one name (ethnikon) refers to a whole group of ethnic groups with different self-names. This happens either out of ignorance or when ethnicity does not matter. For example, in some countries (USA, France, etc.) the entire population of Russia is referred to as Russians. Something similar happened in different historical periods with the name «Kypchak (Kipchak)», when in medieval Arab-Persian historiography Kipchaks were called not only Kipchaks proper, but also all nomadic tribes of the Kipchak steppe (Desht and Kipchak) and it is very difficult to understand «who is who» in the conglomerate of steppe tribes. The matter is complicated by the fact that the Kipchaks are well known in the East, primarily in Central Asia, Iran, Transcaucasia and neighboring Arab countries. There is no information about the Kipchaks in medieval European and Byzantine written sources, as well as in Russia. Sometimes specific ethnic groups, such as the people of Atrak Khan (XII century), who left the Don steppes for Georgia, are called Polovtsians in Russia and Kipchaks in Georgia, and Kipchaks are not known in Russia and Polovtsians in Georgia. The fact that in Georgia the Old Russian name «Polovtsi» (Old Russian calaca of the Turkic ethnonym «Sary») is unknown is clear, another thing is unclear: why the Kipchaks are unknown in Russia, Byzantium and European countries. This fact raises doubts about the legitimacy of applying the term «Kypchak» to certain ethnic (tribal) groups, for example, the Kipchaks. Since the term «Kypchak/Kip-chak» was used in Eastern, primarily Muslim, sources to denote a wide range of steppe tribes, it becomes necessary to determine when the term «Kypchak» denoted the ethnos of the Kypchaks proper, and when it meant ethnically different tribes. For this purpose it is necessary to
consider the origin and history of the Kipchaks themselves.
SIR/SEYANTO
During the reigns of the Chinese dynasties of Sui (581-618) and Tang (618-906), numerous tribes of Tele or Tegrag, i.e., «cartmen,» roamed the steppes from the Altai to the Great Wall of China. Of the 11 tribes known to the Chinese, the most numerous and strongest were the Seyanto («Sirs» of the Old Turkic monuments) and the Hoyhu («Uyghurs»). These two ethnoses constantly competed for hegemony in the steppe: after the fall of the first Turkic Kaganate (630 AD). In the struggle for power in the steppe between the Khoikhu and the Seyanto, the latter were victorious. They created their own kaganate with the center on the Tola River, but the Uigurs led by Tokuz-Oguzes with the help of Chinese troops defeated the Sirian Kaganate (646). In 679 the tribes of the Syrs (Seyanto) supported the anti-Chinese rebellion of the Ashin Turks (the dominant ethnos in the Turkic Kaganate) and became the second (after the Turks) in the tribal hierarchy in the second Turkic Kaganate (681-745). And then the main rivals of the Sires — Tokuz-Oguzes led by Uigurs, who defeated the second Türkic Kaganate with the help of the same China (744) — rose up. This time the Sires (Seyanto) were subjected to extermination, the survivors fled to the Northern Altai, having received from the winners (Tokuz-Oguzes) the name «unsuccessful», «evil» — kybchak [7, p. 160], which became the ethnonym of the defeated.
If in the ancient Turkic runic inscriptions of Tonyukuk (726) and in the monument to Bilge-Kagan (735) as dominant tribes in the Turkic Kaganate are named Turks and Syrs, then in the inscription Eletmish Bilge-Kagan (760) in the message about the domination in the recent past over the Uigurs of Turks and Syrs, instead of Syrs are written «Kybchaks» [7, p. 156] [7, с. 156]. So, 735 is the last mention of the Syrs (seyanto), 760 is the first mention of the Kypchaks in the Old Turkic inscriptions, and since 885 they are known in the Arab-Persian historiography under the name Khifshakh/Hifchak/Kypchak.
KYPCHAKS. 760-1030
The Sires (Seyanto), who fled to the Northern Altai and subjugated local (in the Altai, obviously Ugrian) tribes, created a new tribal union called the Kypchaks. A nickname with a pejorative meaning becomes the self-name of a new ethnos that emerged on the basis of the old ethnos, and both the old ethnonym and the semantics of the new ethnonym are forgotten. Having mixed with local tribes and numerically strengthened, the Kipchaks moved beyond the Irtysh, settled on the territory of modern Kazakhstan and fell under the rule of the Kimaks, or rather their kaganate. Soon the state of Kimaks and its population became the object of attention of researchers from Iran and other countries of Islam. Ibn Khordadbeh (820-912), a Persian geographer from Khorasan, was the first to write about the Kipchaks in his «Book of Ways and Countries» (885). In describing the routes to the east, the author touched the territory of Turkic tribes. He writes: «The country of the Tuguzguzes (to-kuz-oguz) is the most extensive of the Turkic countries. They are bordered by as-Sin (China), at-Tubbat (Tibet) and the Karluk. Then come al-Kimak (Kimaks), al-Guzz (Oguzes), al-Jigir (Chigil), at-Turkash (Turgesh), Azkish (Azkish, Azy), Hifshah (Kipchaks), Khirkhiz (Kirghiz), al-Harluh (Karluk) al-Halaj (Khalaji), living on the other side of the river» [6, p. 66]. [6, с. 66]. The tribes indicated by Ibn Khordadbeh inhabited the following lands: Tuguzguzes (Uyghurs) on the territory with the center in the Turfan and Gucheng regions; Kimaks — in the middle reaches of the Irtysh, west of them roamed Kipchaks, Oguzes occupied a large territory east of the Volga to Semirechye with the center in the lower reaches of the Syr Darya; The Chigils lived on the northern side of the Issyk-Kul, the Turgesh — in Semirechye; the Azkish tribe — in Uzgend and Fergana, the Kirghiz — in the upper reaches of the Yenisei; the Karluks in the middle of the 8th century settled in the valley of the Chu River (Semirechye). Chu (Semirechye). The Iranian historian Gardizi wrote in more detail about the Kimaks (their Turkic name is «Yemeks») and Kipchaks on the basis of earlier sources in his work «Ornamentation of Chronicles» (1049-1053), and in the process outlined a legend about the formation of the Kimak state and the formation of the ethnic composition of its population. Kipchaks in the Kimak state occupied a vast area called Andar al-Kipchak. They had a certain autonomy and had their own ruler — a protégé of the Kimak Kagan [2, p. 206]. The Kimak epoch in the history of the Kipchaks is completed by the «Diwan» — the work of the Iranian poet and traveler, an official of the Seljuk sultan Nasir-i Khosrov, in which the steppes north of the Syr Darya River were called by him in 1030 Desht-i Kipchak — «Kipchak Steppe» or «Kipchak Steppe». This meant that from that time the Kipchaks became the main ones in the steppe, and in «History of Masud» by Abu-Fazl Beyhaki (1035) they were called the immediate neighbors of Khorezm [2, p. 174].
KYPCHAKS in 1030-1240
The leadership of the Kipchaks in Desht-i Kipchak did not mean that they created their own state, just as their Seyanto ancestors or predecessors — the Kimaks did. There is an opinion, not supported by reliable facts, that there was a «confederation» of Kipchak tribes in Desht-i Kipchak up to the 1130s, which was broken by the campaign of Khorezmshah Atsyz [2, p. 202]. Most likely, with the rise of the Kipchaks, the steppe was immediately divided into separate possessions, and some of them were headed by «khan» tribes of Kipchaks under their khans. It is not known how many Kipchak tribes there were (in the monument to Bil-ge-Kagan, 735, «six sirs» are named, but these were not Kipchaks, but their ancestors). In the middle of the 12th century only two large possessions in Desht-i Kipchak were known — the Sgnak possession on the Syr Darya with the center in Sygnak and the Ilbari (Elburli) tribe in the Northern Priaralie [2, p. 206], and the Sygnak possession was headed by khans from the Kimak, not Kipchak tribe Uran/Kai [2, pp. 114-115]. All researchers define the Ilbari (Olburlik) tribe as Kipchaks, although according to the dynasty chronicle «Yuan-shi» in the XII century from the banks of the Selenga River came to the country of Yuboli (Ilbari) tribe Bayaut (judging by the Mongolian ethnonym), the alien khan, having eliminated the local khan, took his place and accepted the local ethnonym [2, p. 201]. Perhaps that is why both Jujani and Juveini, Persian contemporaries of the 99 Mongol invasion of Khorezm, in the list of peoples subdued by the Mongols, call Ilbari (Olburlik) and Kipchaks separately, as independent ethnoses [1, p. 189]. Thus, during the hegemony of Kipchaks in Desht-i Kipchak (1030-1229), Mahmud al-Kashgari was the last known Muslim researcher who named Kipchaks as a special ethnos in his work «Collection of Turkic dialects» («Divan Lugat at Turk», 1074-1078) [9, pp. 13-15]. In all other Muslim sources the term «Kipchak» became a collective name of all nomadic tribes, among which the Kipchaks themselves were completely «lost».
KYPCHAK LANGUAGE
М. Kashgari subdivides the «Turkic» (Old Turkic) language into two dialects — western and eastern, which were subdivided into tribal «languages» (dialects). The western dialect was spoken by the tribes of Bulgars, Suvar, Pechenegs, Oguzes, Kipchaks and Yemeks; the eastern dialect was spoken by the tribes of Chigil, Tuhsi, Yagma, Ygrak, Jaruk, Kyrgyz and Uigur. The Basmyl, Kai, Tatar and Yabaku tribes spoke «their» (non-Turkic) languages. In addition, the author gives a comparative analysis of some dialects, which include the «languages» of the Kipchaks, Oghuz and Yemeks. According to his data the «languages» of Kipchaks and Oguzes are the closest to each other: of 52 words of the Kipchak dialect studied by M. Kashgari, 16 words are peculiar only to Kipchaks, the rest are common with other dialects, including 32 words common with Oguz, 6 words each with Yemek and Suvar, etc. [11, с. 52]. Thus, the long neighborhood caused the comparative linguistic closeness of the Kipchaks and Oguzes.
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE KIPCHAKS
The opinion about the Caucasoidity of the Kipchaks, based on doubtful written sources, is incorrect. The data of paleoanthropology based on mass material are more trustworthy. The main condition of reliability here is the correct ethnic identification of paleoanthropological material, which is carried out by archaeologists on the basis of burial rites. In this case, due to the commonality of burial rites of many Turkic tribes (in particular, burials with a horse), their specific (tribal) identification is difficult. Therefore, the description of the physical appearance of the Kipchaks is somewhat conditional and has a general character. Since in the IX-XI centuries the country of Kipchaks (Andar az-Kipchak) was located in the territory of Ulutau along the rivers Turgai, Sarysu to Talas [2, p. 163], it is reasonable to consider the data of paleoanthropology in the corresponding territory of the corresponding time. According to materials of paleoanthropology of Central Kazakhstan of pre-Mongolian time, Kipchaks (men) are characterized by large head, wide (zygomatic) face (zygomatic dia. — 142,3-143,2 mm), slightly protruding nose (angle of protrusion — 22,0-22,9), average growth; somewhat more Mongoloid were Kipchaks of the Urals [3, p. 250-251, table 36]. These data indicate that the medieval Kipchaks were representatives of a softened variant of the South Siberian race. If we compare their physical appearance with that of, for example, Kimaks and Polovtsians, then Kipchaks are more mongoloid than Kimaks (zygomatic dia. — 139,2 mm, nasal angle — 22,8) and even Polovtsians (zygomatic d. — 141,6 mm, nasal angle — 29,0), only Bayauts from the Selenga River are more mongoloid than Kipchaks (zygomatic d. — 143,8 mm, nasal angle — 29,0). — 143.8 mm, nose angle — 20.7), and if we compare the medieval Kypchaks with modern peoples, the Kazakh, Nogai and Bashkir Kypchak ethnic groups have preserved genetic continuity with their medieval ancestors to a greater extent (than, for example, the Kyrgyz or Uzbek Kypchaks). Thus, the physical appearance of the Kimaks, Kipchaks and Kipchaks differed from each other by a different ratio of Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. In determining the physical appearance of the Kipchaks, the question of stone sculptures as part of the funeral rites arose. There is an opinion (by S.A. Pletneva, for example) about at least the closeness of the early Cumans statues of the XI century with the monuments of some areas of Kazakhstan of the same time, called «Kypchak» [12, p. 36]. Such an opinion is not indisputable. The fact is that the ancestors of the Kipchaks Sira (Seyanto) did not put such monuments, in any case, there are no such monuments in the Northern Altai, as for the Kipchak belonging of the monuments of Kazakhstan, there is no firm confidence in it, as there is no evidence of it. Where monuments similar to Cumans (Semirechye, Priirtyshye) were found, there were no Kipchaks at that time, the monuments of Central Kazakhstan are called Kipchak, mainly by the time and place of their installation, then and where the Kipchaks lived, and put the statues Kipchaks or other tribes — is not known [5, p. 68]. Finally, if these stone sculptures were Kipchak, why did the Kipchaks stop putting them in the XII century, when the domination of the Kipchaks in the steppe, especially in the territory of modern Kazakhstan, was real?
In the steppe regions close to Khorezm, nomadic tribes, including the Kipchaks and the Kangli tribal union (inhabitants of the banks of the Kang River, i.e. the Syr Darya), which formed in the 12th century, experienced a strong and comprehensive influence of Muslim Khorezm and began to convert to Islam en masse. However, no statues of that time were found in other areas of Kipchak habitation, and the Kipchaks had no such custom.
ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE KIPCHAK STEPPE IN THE XII-FIRST THIRD OF THE XIII CENTURY
Kazakhstan researcher of Arab sources on the history of Kazakhstan B.E. Kumekov gives information of several authors on the ethnic composition of nomadic tribes of Desht-i Kipchak. True, these authors lived at the time when the tribes of the Kipchak steppe had already been conquered by the Mongols and became part of the population of the Golden Horde, but their works used earlier sources. B. Kumekov combined the information of these authors in two groups: an-Nuwayri (1279-1332) and Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) in one group, Ahmed at-Tini (1235-1318) and ad-Dimashki (1301-1349) — in the second [10, p. 118]. All of them lived in the state of Mamluks (in Egypt and Syria), among whom there were many natives of the Kipchak steppe. According to their data, the ethnic composition of the tribes of Desht-i Kipchak was as follows: 7 tribes (Borili or Ilbari, Durut/Dortoba, Toksoba, Yetoba, Burjoglu, Karabirikli, Djersan) are mentioned by all the mentioned authors, except for them Kangarogli are mentioned in the works of An-Nuwayri and Ibn Khaldun, kulabaogly, anjogly and ku- nun/kotan, and at-Tini and al-Dimashqi — yemeki, mankurogly, al-ars, buzanku (according to Kumekov, the same as bajna), kumanku (kumanly), uz, bajna and bashkurt. The common thing in the information given by these authors is that they do not contain the ethnonym «Kipchak». Among these tribes there are many ethnically clearly not Kipchak: Yemeks (Kimaks), Uzes (Ogu-zys), Bashkird, Al Ars (Ases, Alans), Bajna (Bechene, Pechenegs), Toksoba.
As a special ethnos, the Kangli (Kangarogli of the authors mentioned above) are known since the 12th century. It is indicative that in the list of peoples subdued by Mongols, Jujani names Kipchaks, Yemeks, Kangli and even Ilbari (Borili or Elbori — «khan’s» tribe in Desht-i Kipchak) as separate ethnoses [1, p. 237]. About Ilbari there is information that the tribe of Bayauts moved to their territory from Selenga, whose khan displaced the Ilbari khan, but his tribe adopted the former ethnonym [2, p. 201]. And from what tribe was Bachman, who fought with the Mongols until his death in 1237? Ilbari (Elbori) or Bayaut (from the latter was the khan Tutukhta, who went to the service of the Mongols). The ethnicity of the tribe Burjogly was determined, it turned out that they (Burjans of other Arab authors, Burchevich of Russian sources) were not «from Kipchaks», but «from North Caucasian Alans» [13, p. 26-27]. The ethnicity of the other tribes (Karabirikli, Anjogli, Kulaabagli /kut-lugogli/, Djersan, Kunun/kotan, Kumanlu) is not clear. The ethnonym Karabirikli («black-hat») corresponds to the chronicle black klobukes, however, it is not possible to determine unambiguously their ethnicity — these are black klobukes captured by the Mongols and resettled by them beyond the Volga or another tribe similar only by name. According to the above data one thing is clear: under Kipchaks in the Eastern, especially Arab-Persian, sources meant all nomadic tribes of Desht-i Kipchak without distinction of their ethnicity. Ibn Khaldun, citing the list of tribes of Desht-i Kipchak, noted that not all Kipchaks were «of the same race» [4, p. 18]. [4, с. 18]. Narrating the rivalry between the tribes Durut and Toksoba, an-Nuwairi called the first tribe «from Kipchaks», the second — «from Tatars», i.e. Mongols. He was mistaken, since both tribes were Turkic-speaking, but the first was probably from the Western Turks, and the Toksoba, i.e. Tokuz-oba — from the Eastern ones (about whom the Arabs knew that they were neighbors of the «Tatars»). Both tribes are known in Russian sources under the Russian names «turtrobichi» and «toxobichi». The Mongolian both — «kin» (toxoba), is not characteristic of many other tribes like Kanaagly (Kangarogly) or Anjogly, i.e. with ogly («son»), for which the Turkic ending is usually Turkic. This is probably not accidental. Mongolian «both» was borrowed from the Mongolian language by eastern Turks who lived in the neighborhood with Mongol tribes, for example, with the Kidans or with the Kai tribe. The mentioned turtrobichi and toxobichi are not Kipchaks, as the ethnonym «Kipchak» was not known in Russia at that time.
Since the end of the XII century, on the basis of kinship ties, the political rapprochement of the Syr Darya possession of the Kipchaks with Khorezm began. The khans of this domain (according to Ra- 101 shid-ad-Din of the Uran tribe), having voluntarily recognized Khorezm Shah as their suzerain, made him an obedient instrument of their will. However, the sources’ data on the ethnic identity of the tribe that played an important role in Khorezm on the eve of its conquest by the Mongols are ambiguous. It is only known that it was the tribe of Muhammad’s mother, the last real ruler of Khorezm Shah, who had a strong influence on her son. But sources name several tribes: Rashid-ud-Din — Uran, Juwayni — Kangli, an-Nesevi — Bayaut [2, p. 230]. Rashid al-Din lived later than other authors, but had extensive information. Juwayni and al-Nesevi, more precisely al-Nasawi, were contemporaries of the events described by them. Modern historians of the period of Mongol conquests recognize that an-Nasawi’s information is the most reliable among them [14, p. 4], including information about the ethnicity of Terken-khatun. Shihab al-Din Muhammad al-Nasawi (born in Khurandiz, a fortress in the Khorasan district of Nasa), being from 1224 the secretary of Jalal al-Din Manqgburna, former Khorezmshah in exile (1220-1231), obviously knew better than others the genealogy of his master’s grandmother.
Here is what he writes in the 19th chapter of «Life of Sultan Jalal ad-Din Mankburna» about the mother of Khorezmshah Muhammad Terken-Khatun: «She was from the tribe of Bayat, and this is one of the branches of the tribe of Yemek. She was the daughter of Khan Jankishi, one of the Turkic sovereigns. Takish, the son of Il-Arslan, married her as sovereigns marry the daughters of sovereigns. When the power ) passed to Sultan Muhammad by inheritance from his father Takish, the tribes of Emeks and neighboring tribes joined him» [14, p. 87] [14, с. 87]. Thus, the «ethnic» relatives of Terken-Khatun were Bayats, not Bayut [14, p. 326, note 1]. Together with the Bayats in Khorezm there were other related tribes of Emeks and Kangli (hence the disagreement of sources in determining the ethnicity of the mother of Khorezm Shah).
CONCLUSIONS
Thus, as a result of careful study of the sources, the following has been established:
1) most of the nomadic tribes of Desht and Kipchak were not Kipchaks;
2) in the Arab-Persian historiography of XII-XIV centuries the ethnonym «Kipchak» in the list of tribes of Desht-i Kipchak is absent, probably, the tribal association of Kipchaks in the conditions of their leadership in the steppe broke up into the so-called «khan» tribes;
3) the «khan’s» tribe in the Aral Sea region Ilbari (variants: Elbori, Olberlik) was subordinated by the khan to the Bayaut tribe, which adopted the ethnonym of the defeated, i.e. the «new» Ilbari are actually Bayauts;
4) the «khan’s» tribe of Sygnak possession Bayat was a branch of the Emeks (Kimaks), not the Kipchaks.
According to the sources considered here, ethnic Kipchaks in the beginning of the XIII century were not known to Arab authors at all. All tribes of Desht-i Kipchak were called Kipchaks. For example, the Arab geographer Abul Abbas Ahmad ibn Fadlallah al-Umari (1298-1349), describing the Turkization of the Mongol tribes of the Golden Horde, calls all local tribes of Desht-i Kipchak Kipchaks, and all conquerors — Tatars [8, p. 223]. Thus, in this period, the ethnic terms «Kipchak» and «Tatar» became collective names of local and foreign tribes without determining their real ethnicity.
In 1219-1237, the Kipchaks (both those who had power and those who did not), having lost their independence and being in different ulus of the Mongol conquerors, again «found» ethnicity (in the form of tribal groups) and managed to preserve their ethnonym, even being in different ulus of the Mongol power. However, during the collapse of the Golden Horde and the development of its political (and ethnic) successors — states (Crimean, Kazan, Uzbek, Kazakh khanates and Nogai Horde) and their corresponding peoples, the Kipchaks became part of them. From the time of formation of new ethnoses and up to the present moment they exist only as parts of these peoples — ethnic groups under the ancient name «Kypchak» (with variants of pronunciation in accordance with the languages of the peoples they are part of). It should be noted that in the XX century in the course of the so-called national division in Central Asia, the Fergana Kipchaks could form a special ethnos — as such they were recorded in the USSR census in 1926 (33.4 thousand people in the Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan). Fergana Kipchaks were formed on the basis of «fragments» of different Kazakh tribes that fled from the Dzungar invasion in 1722 and were called «Kipchaks» by the locals (according to the traditional name of Kazakhstan — Desht-i Kipchak). The aliens in language, appearance and economy (nomads, sheep breeders) were quite different from the local population (farmers), as a result of which the fugitives formed a special group «Kipchak» [4, p. 78-80]. By the end of the 20th century, in the course of consolidation of the Uzbek ethnos, the Fergana Kipchaks became part of it. The modern development of consolidation processes has natural, although negative consequences for ethnic groups — they disappear, dissolving into «their» ethnos, losing their peculiarities. With them, the ethnonym «Kypchak» will pass into history.