Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes

Florilegium magistrorum historiae archaeologiaeque Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi

Curatores seriei VICTOR SPINEI et IONEL CÂNDEA IX

ROMANIAN ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY OF IAŞI

PETER B. GOLDEN Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes Edited by Cătălin HRIBAN

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

MUZEUL BRĂILEI EDITURA ISTROS

Bucureşti – Brăila 2011

Address: EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE Calea 13 Decembrie, nr. 13, sector 5, 050711, Bucureşti, România Tel: 4021-3188146; 4021-3188106; Fax. 4021. 3182444 Email: edacad@ear. ro Address: EDITURA ISTROS A MUZEULUI BRĂILEI Piaţa Traian, nr. 3, 810153 Brăila, România Tel. /Fax 0339401002; 0339401003 Email: sediu@muzeulbrailei. ro Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României GOLDEN, PETER B. Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes / Peter B. Golden ed. Cătălin Hriban Bucureşti – Editura Academiei Române, Brăila – Editura Istros a Muzeului Brăilei, 2011 ISBN 978-973-27-2152-0 ISBN 978-973-1871-96-7 I. Hriban, Cătălin (ed. ) 008

Editorial assistant: Anca Munteanu Cover: Ionel Cândea Cover illustration front: Stone statues (kamennye baby) attributed to the Polovtsians / Cumans kept in the Neues Museum of Berlin (Photo by Victor Spinei, 2010).

CONTENTS

A Qagan of Eurasian-Oriental Studies: Peter B. Golden Victor Spinei ............................................................................................... 9 Author’s Preface .............................................................................................. 15 1. Ethnogenesis in the tribal zone: The Shaping of the Turks (Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 16, 2008-2009, 73-112) ..................................... 17 2. War and warfare in the pre-Činggisid western steppes of Eurasia (N. Di Cosmo (ed.), Warfare in Inner Asian History (500-1800), Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 2002, 105-172) ...................................................... 65

3. Nomads of the western Eurasian steppes: Ογurs, Οnoγurs and Khazars (Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, III, ed. H. Roemer et al., Union Internationale des Études Orientales et Asiatiques, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2001, 282-302) ................................................ 135

4. Proto-Bulgarian σαρακ-τος/-τον (Studia Turco-Hungarica, V, Turkic-Bulgarian-Hungarian Relations (VIth-XIth Centuries), Budapest, 1981, 73-77)................................................. 163

5. Достижения и перспективы хазарских исследований (Хазары, in series Евреи и Славяне, 16, ред. коллег. В. Петрухин, В. Москович, А. Федорчук, А. Кулик, Д. Шапира, Москва–Иерусалим, 2005, 27-68) ............ 169

6. Khazarica: Notes on some Khazar terms (Turkic Languages, 9/2, Wiesbaden, 2005, 205-222) ........................................ 223

7. Georgio-Turcica: Some marginal notes on pre-Ottoman/ Safavid Oğuz and non-Oğuz Turkic elements in Georgian (Archivum Ottomanicum, XIII, 1993-1994, 101-116) ........................................ 247 8. The Oğuz Turkic (Ottoman/Safavid) elements in Georgian: Background and patterns (The Mutual Effects of the Islamic and Judeo-Christian Worlds: The East European Pattern, ed. A. Ascher et al., New York, 1979, 183-208) ................................... 265

9. The twelve-year animal cycle calendar in Georgian sources (Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, XXXVI / 1-3, 1982, 197-206) ...................................................................... 291

10. The shaping of the Cuman-Qïpčaqs and their world (Il Codice Cumanico e il suo mondo, ed. F. Schmieder and P. Schreiner Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2005, 247-277) ................................................ 303

11. The Codex Cumanicus (Central Asian Monuments, Hasan B. Paksoy (ed.), The Isis Press, Istanbul, 1992, 33-63) ............................................................ 333

12. The dogs of the medieval Qıpčaqs (Varia Eurasiatica. Festschrift für Professor András Róna-Tas, Szeged, 1991, 45-55) ................................................................................. 367

13. The days of the week in Turkic: Notes on the Cumano-Qıpčaq pattern (Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, XLVIII / 3, 1995, 363-375) ......................................................................... 379

14. Vyxod: Aspects of medieval eastern Slavic-Altaic culturo-linguistic relations (Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, VII, 1987-1991, 83-101)

................................. 393

15. Tuši: The Turkic name of Joči (Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 55 / 1-3, 2002, 143-151) ..... 413

A QAGAN OF EURASIAN-ORIENTAL STUDIES: PETER B. GOLDEN

In the field of global oriental studies, the name of Peter Benjamin Golden has long enjoyed wide notoriety. The key to his remarkable professional performance lies in his exceptional gift for learning a variety of languages (both living and dead) of Asian and European peoples. A deep multilateral knowledge of Eurasian history adds to this, coupled with a flexibility and an exemplary methodological rigor. With a complex formation, as he was equally a philologist and a historian, Professor Peter Golden was able to competently address very different problems of the medieval past of the civilizations in the northern half of Asia and Eastern Europe. With the grace of a true jeweler, he managed to throw light on various details in the issues concerning the genesis and linguistic treasure of the nomadic steppe tribes. Also, thanks to his erudition, he was able to create extensive synthetic works by capturing the general and particular features of the evolution of Turkic, Ugric, Mongolian and Caucasian populations. Peter B. Golden shunned the beaten paths of science and was attracted by less discussed or even controversial issues. In order to find the most reliable solutions and to clarify them, he had to resort to rigorous documentation and to highlight his own power of discernment. He was willing to push for giving up preconceived ideas, propelling instead a stream of innovative thinking. In this respect, he proved demanding not only with his peers, but also with himself first. As reality has always confirmed, the thoroughness of his early studies was of decisive importance for the definition of the scientist’s intellectual profile. From this point of view, Peter B. Golden was privileged to attend Queens College in Flushing, NY, where in 1963 he obtained a BA in History. He began his graduate studies at the age of 22 at the famous Columbia University in New York in autumn 1963. Having completed his coursework and doctoral exams in 1966, he received a fellowship at the Dil ve TarihCoğrafya Fakültesi at Ankara University. There he spent a year (January,

1967 - January, 1968), studying Turkic languages, especially Old Turkic, Qipchaq [Medieval and Modern] and Anatolian Turkish dialects. He then returned to Columbia University, where in 1968 he obtained a MA degree in History, and in 1970 earned his PhD in History, with the dissertation entitled Q’azar studies: A Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Q’azars, which – a decade later, after a rigorous reviewing – was published in two volumes in Budapest (where the ethnonym Q’azars was spelled Khazars). It was soon to become the reference work for Khazar history. It brought the author instant international attention, as it surprised the scientific world by the depth of its linguistic and historical analysis. In fact, on several occasions, the author would return to the religious and political aspects of the Khazar past, so that his studies cannot be ignored by any specialist interested in the history of this population. During his studies, Peter Golden had the chance to work under the guidance of two outstanding scholars. Before he went to Turkey, his mentor and academic supervisor had been Professor Ihor Ševčenko (1922-2009), who agreed that Peter Golden’s PhD dissertation – with a main focus on Turkic matters – should be supervised by Professor Tibor Halasi-Kun (19141991), co-founder of Columbia University’s Department of Near and Middle-East Studies. It was the latter who chaired Peter Golden’s doctoral board, in which Professor Ihor Ševčenko – who, in the meantime, had become director of the Byzantine Studies program at Dumbarton Oaks, as well as faculty member of Harvard University – participated as co-sponsor. While completing his doctoral training (1968-1969), Peter Golden was hired as assistant to the director of the Russian Institute at Columbia University, and later as instructor in history at Rutgers University at Newark (1969-1970). His worthy activity in the Rutgers University team helped him become Assistant Professor there, after obtaining his PhD. Although less known than other universities on the east coast of the United States – such as the Cambridge / Mass., New York, Washington DC, Princeton and Baltimore – Rutgers University at Newark (NJ) is prestigious for its internationally renowned professors. It was officially founded in 1946, but its actual establishment occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century. New Jersey Law School was founded in 1908 in Newark and, from its cooperation with other education institutions in the city, the University of Newark resulted in 1936. Immediately after WW II, the Rutgers University separated from the older institution. Founded in 1666 by a community of Puritans from Connecticut, the city of Newark is located less than ten miles from Manhattan, and gravitates in many ways on the orbit of New York. Peter Golden has been teaching for four decades at Rutgers University, and his activity was marked by significant scientific achievements. He was

first Assistant Professor in History (1970-1974), then Associate Professor (1974-1984), and then Professor I (1984-1988) and Professor II (19882008). In 2009 he became Professor II Emeritus - Lecturer in New Brunswick, in the History department of Rutgers University. Over the years he has held the positions of Chairman in History (1974-1980), Acting Chairman in History (1983-1985) in Newark and director of Middle Eastern Studies Program in New Brunswick (2008-2011). Due to the prestige he had gained in the scientific and academic community, he was invited as Visiting Professor at famous institutions such as Columbia University (Department of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures) (1993), Harvard University (2002) and Collège de France in Paris (2008). He was Member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in New Jersey in 2005-2006. The same reasons were behind his appointment as Honorary Member in Türk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Association), Ankara (1989) and Kőrösi Csoma Társaság / Csoma de Kőrös Society of Hungarian Orientalists, Budapest (2009), as well as in the Rutgers University Board of Trustees Award for Excellence in Research (1994), Provost's Award for Distinguished Scholarship, Rutgers University (2005) and Intercollegiate Turkish Student Society Award for Distinguished Scholarship (2005). He also became a member in many associations of oriental studies in America and in Europe: Phi Beta Kappa, American Historical Association, American Oriental Society, Asian Studies Association, Byzantine Studies Conference, Central Eurasian Studies Society, Early Slavic Studies Association, Eurasian linguistic Association, Mongolia Society, Society for Iranian Studies, Society for the Study of Caucasia, Turkish Studies Association, Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States, World History Association, World Turkology Association, etc. Also, over the years, Professor Peter Golden has become a member on the editorial boards of several publications with a good reputation among specialists: Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi (Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden), Near and Middle Eastern Monographs (Harrassowitz Verlag), Journal of Turkish Studies (Harvard University), Papers on Inner Asia (Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University), Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (Baku), etc, as well as advisory board member in the Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest), Turkish Languages (Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden) and The Ukrainian Quarterly (New York), where he has been contributing to the coordination of their high standards. Professor Golden’s scientific work impresses with the variety of themes and the solidity of analysis. He was primarily concerned with genesis, with

migrations, with the demographic, economic, religious and cultural structure of the nomadic Turkic tribes from Eurasia (Proto-Bulgarians, Khazars, Karakhanids, Pechenegs, Oguz, Qipchaqs / Polovtsi / Cumans, Chernye Klobuki, Mongols, etc. ), with their relations with the Byzantine, Russian, Arabic, Caucasian and Iranian worlds, with Turkic philology, with the historical development of the Hungarians, the evolution of Caucasian peoples, etc. His vast knowledge of languages has weighed decisively in ensuring for him direct access to narrative, literary, diplomatic, epigraphic and other medieval sources. From this point of view, since extremely few scientists today can stand alongside him, he is likely to arouse admiration everywhere, but envy as well. Peter Golden has access not only to Turkic languages and dialects (such as Modern and Ottoman Turkish, Azeri, Uzbek, Old and Middle Turk, Qipchaq dialects) and to Slavic languages (Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serbian-Croatian, Bulgarian), but also to several oriental (Arabic, Persian) and European languages (Georgian, Hungarian, Greek, Latin, French, Spanish and German). A real phenomenon! After publishing the two above mentioned volumes of the monograph on Khazars in 1980, Peter B. Golden wrote in 1992 a comprehensive work devoted to the medieval history of Turkic populations of Eurasia (An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples) printed in Europe as well, this time in Wiesbaden, Germany (Harrassowitz Verlag). In this volume he proves, in an exhaustive and balanced manner, his ability to synthesize the defining elements for the evolution and civilization of the mosaic of the Turkic populations. The book would be rated as a "classic" in the field, and this explains its translation into modern Turkish (Türk Halklari Tarihine Giriş), published in 2002 in Ankara, followed by an expanded second edition, published in Çorum (northern Anatolia) in 2007. The Khazar monograph was also translated into Turkish and published in 2006 in Istanbul. His recent Central Asia in World History, belonging to the same category of comprehensive syntheses, was printed in 2011 by the prestigious Oxford University Press. As an editor, Professor Peter B. Golden had a crucial contribution to the publication of other books. This is the case with The King’s Dictionary. The Rasulid Hexaglot: Fourteenth-Century Vocabularies in Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Greek, Armenian and Mongolian (Brill: Leiden, 2000), for which, besides being the editor and translator, he also wrote the introduction and added comments and essays. Together with Haggai Ben-Shammai and András Rona-Tas, he co-edited The World of the Khazars. New Perspectives (Brill: Leiden / Boston, 2007) and, with Nicola Di Cosmo and Allen Frank,

The Cambridge History of Inner Asia. The Chinggisid Age (Cambridge University Press, 2009). In addition, over the years he has written several hundred articles, book chapters, reference book entries and reviews. The most important articles were gathered between the covers of two substantial volumes, published in the prestigious series Variorum Collected Studies Series (Ashgate Publishing Limited): Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe. Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs (2003) and Turks and Khazars. Origins, Institutions, and Interactions in Pre-Mongol Eurasia (2010). It would be extremely difficult to undertake a value ranking of these studies, as we could only express a subjective preference for some of them, depending on our own predominant interests. Though not too extensive, some of his studies provide frescoes for certain aspects of the life of the tribes in the Eurasian space: ”The migrations of the Oğuz”, Archivum Ottomanicum IV (1972); ”Peoples of the Russian forest-belt” and ”Peoples of the south-Russian Steppes”, in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. D. Sinor (Cambridge, 1990); Aspects of the nomadic factor in the economic development of Kievan Rus, in Ukrainian Economic History, ed. I. Koropeckij (Cambridge, 1991); ”Nomads in the sedentary world. The case of the Pre-Ğinggisid Rus’ and Georgia”, in Nomads in the Sedentary World, ed. A. M. Khazanov, A. Wink (Richmond, 2001); ”War and warfare in the Pre-Činggisid western steppes of Eurasia”, in Inner Asian Warfare, ed. N. Di Cosmo (Leiden, 2002). Exemplary for the magnitude and depth of analysis is the groups of articles dedicated to the Cumans, that appeared in the periodical Archivum Eurasiae Media Aevi (IV, 1984, VI, 1986 [1988], IX, 1995-1997, 15, 2006-2007 [2008]), supplemented with several other scholarly articles published in various thematic books and specialized journals: ”Cumanica, III: Urusoba”, in Aspects of Altaic Civilization, III, ed. D. Sinor (Bloomington, Ind., 1990); ”The Qipčaqs of medieval Eurasia. An example of stateless adaptation on the steppe”, in Rulers from the Steppe. State Formation on the Eurasian periphery, ed. G. Seaman, D. Marks (Los Angeles, 1991); ”The Codex Cumanicus” in Monuments of Central Asia, ed. H. Paksoy (Istanbul, 1992); ”The Religions of the Qipčaqs,” Central Asiatic Journal 42 (1998), 2; ”The shaping of the Cuman-Qïpchaqs and their world”, in Il Codice Cumanico e il suo mondo, ed. F. Schmieder and P. Schreiner (Rome, 2005), etc. Professor Peter B. Golden was often invited to participate in the realization of comprehensive encyclopedic works for the larger audience: Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition (Brill: I-III, London / Leiden, 19601971; IV-XI, Leiden, 1978-2002) and 3rd, started in 2009 (Brill: Leiden), Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. J. Strayer (New York, 1982-1988), Encyclopaedia of Asian History, ed. A. T. Embree (New York, 1988),

Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. E. Yarshater, started in 1985. For these books, he wrote numerous dense and concise entries about the populations, urban centers, ranks and personalities of medieval Eurasia. Due to his vast professional knowledge and oratorical talent, Professor Peter B. Golden was often invited to lecture at prestigious scientific meetings, and various academic institutions and universities in the United States, Europe and Asia where he impressed the audience with his ability to always transmit novelties in a logical and exciting form. He manifested the same qualities when he was Visiting Professor. All these outstanding professional achievements have brought Professor Peter B. Golden the acknowledgment of the whole academic world. That is also why we take deep satisfaction in reprinting some of his most representative studies which were not included in the two volumes (2003, 2010) of the Variorum Collected Studies Series. The volume in the series Florilegium magistrorum historiae archaeologiaeque Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi will also include studies of greatest relevance to his scholarly profile, as it embraces a wide range of problems, including ethnogenesis, migration development and warfare system of the Turkic nomadic tribes in Eurasia, as well as the exploration of the origin of certain terms in the old Turkic vocabulary. In another train of thought, we owe thanks to Professor Peter B. Golden for his operative obtaining of the copyright from the publishing houses where his articles first appeared and for the efficient cooperation with Dr. Cătălin Hriban (Archaeological Institute of Iaşi), who is the editor of the volume printed in Romania. Victor SPINEI (Translated by Adrian PORUCIUC)

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

The articles collected in this volume appeared over the last thirty years. A number of the bibliographical references have been updated to indicate the publication of works that were “in press” at the time a particular article was written. Some questions touched on in these articles have been dealt with elsewhere in a more extensive fashion and a brief reference is noted to them. Inevitably, views are modified or become more nuanced over time and where fitting reference has been made to that as well. No attempt has been made to standardize the various transcription systems employed in the articles reproduced. Where possible typos and misspellings have been corrected. I was fortunate to have studied with Ihor Ševčenko (1922-2009) and Tibor Halasi-Kun (1914-1991) at Columbia University in the 1960s, and with Hasan Eren (1919-2006), Saadet Çağatay (1907-1989) and Zeynep Korkmaz at the Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi of Ankara University in 1967. Their influences have remained life-long inspirations. I dedicate this volume to them.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE: THE SHAPING OF THE TURKS*

A limes or frontier zone of natural or man-made barriers extended across Eurasia separating the world of the tribes, 1 the “Barbarian Others,” from that of urban-agrarian society. In the often jaundiced perspective of observers in the “civilized” world, life in the “barbarian,” tribal zone, was violent, predatory and uncouth. Its populations were seen as quintessentially warrior societies. As Sima Qian (145 - 86 BC) noted with regard to the Xiongnu, “in periods of crisis they take up arms and go off on plundering and marauding expeditions. This seems to be their inborn nature … warfare was their business.”2 To Chinese observers, the nomadic peoples to their north dwelled in a world that was the antithesis of what they considered a properly ordered life. They were rootless, appearing to follow their

* Parts of this article were previously published as “Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples” in V. H. Mair (ed.), Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2006), pp. 136-157 and are reproduced here with the kind permission of the University of Hawai’i Press. 1 The notion of “tribe” and “clan” has been contested by D. Sneath, The Headless State. Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society and Misrepresentation of Nomadic Inner Asia (New York, 2007) and elsewhere in some of the Social Science literature. Regardless of the problems that modern Social Scientists may have with precise definitions of these terms, “tribe” and its various “sub-branches” and “clans” are noted by the indigenous peoples of Eurasia in their own documents and in the documents of their contemporaries. These terms had meaning for them, even if they may seem somewhat imprecise to modern observers. 2 Sima Qian, Records of the Grand Historian, Han Dynasty, rev. trans. B. Watson (New York-Hong-Kong, 1993), II, pp. 129, 143. On the warrior as the “driving force of tribal life,” see H. Wolfram, The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1997), p. 8.

PETER B. GOLDEN

herds in an endless pursuit of water and pasturage.3 They wore foulsmelling hides, ate vile, often uncooked food and drank blood.4 They married their step-mothers. 5 All along the “Civilized - Barbarian Divide,” the tribes were seen as hungry, bellicose, covetous creatures whose constant warfare with one another was only occasionally interrupted by their irruptions into civilized society that sought safety behind stout walls. The “Barbarians” were attracted by the glitter of the civilized world 6 and their boundless greed, ferocity and simplemindedness were axiomatic in the ethnographic works of their contemporaries. 7 Hence, any understanding of the process of ethnogenesis in the tribal zone, a process only imperfectly refracted through the lens of largely hostile observers in the settled, non-tribal world, must keep these prejudices in mind. Chinese, Roman-Byzantine and Irano-Arabo-Muslim perceptions of the tribes they encountered on their frontiers are remarkably similar. 8 They regularly excoriated “Barbarian” social customs, greed and bellicosity, which they viewed as innate. None, however, suggested that the harsh warrior ethos of “Barbarian” society was in no small measure, a response to the threats, encroachments and attempts at political manipulation coming from the settled world. Moreover, the nomads were equally distrustful of their imperial sedentary neighbors.9 3

Liu Mau-tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T’u-küe) (henceforth: Liu, CN, Wiesbaden, 1958), I, p. 8. 4 See Ying-shih Yü, Trade and Expansion in Han China (Berkeley, 1967), p. 40, taken from the Yiantielun: Discourses on Iron and Salt composed by Huan Kuan, first century BC. 5 On the levirate among the nomads, see A. M. Xazanov, Social’naja istorija skifov (Moskva, 1975), pp. 79-82. 6 W. Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration (Stuttgart-Berlin-Koln, 2002), p. 14. 7 See D. Sinor, “The Greed of the Northem Barbarian” in L. V. Clark and P. A. Draghi (eds.), Aspects of Altaic Civilization II. Proceedings of the XVIII PIAC, Bloomington, June 29-July 5 1975, Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series vol. 134 (Bloomington, Indiana,”1978), pp. 171-182 and the sources cited in P. B. Golden, “War and Warfare in the Pre-Činggisid Western Steppes” in N. Di Cosmo (ed.), Warfare in Inner Asian History (500-1800) (Leiden, 2002), pp. 123-126. 8 From the European perspective, cf. P. S. Wells, The Barbarians Speak (Princeton, 1999), p. 101: remarks that “[c]lassical authors almost invariably portrayed [barbarians] in stereotypical ways, as unusually large, exceptionally strong and fierce, wild in nature, and childlike in many respects.: 9 C. Stepanov, Bŭlgarite i stepnata imperija prez rannoto srednovekovie. Problemŭt za drugite (Sofija, 2005), pp. 48ff., 63-64. The nomads held and occasionally gave official voice to equally “unkind” views of their sedentary neighbors.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

Contemporary observers not only had their prejudices, but also had an imperfect vocabulary for describing or decoding tribal societies. The complex political ties that held “Barbarian” society together were usually explained in biological terms (e. g. gens, natio in Latin sources). Recent research on the Germanic tribal world has shown that, although distinct ethnic units may have been at the core of the gentes (“tribes, folk”) and nationes/ἔθνη (“peoples”) that the Roman and Byzantine world encountered, these were often conglomerations of diverse peoples that had joined a charismatic leading clan or tribe, the “nuclei of tradition,” and adopted its ideology and name as a political identification. Thus, belonging to a “people” could be more political than biological10 - although political loyalty in “imagined communities” of tribal society was invariably expressed as bonds of kinship, i. e. in biological terms. Genealogies could, when necessity demanded, be created or manipulated.11 There was much fluidity in tribal loyalties and hence in ethnic and political designations. Ethnicity, then, was (and still is) a highly politicized process. It could also be shaped by one’s neighbors, alterity (the “we” and “they” juxtaposition12), and even by transient circumstances producing “situational ethnicity.13 In frontier zones, where there could be blurring of individual identities, this was particularly true.14 10

H. Wolfram, History of the Goths, trans. T. Dunlap (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1988), pp. 5-6 and his The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples, trans. T. Dunlap (Berkeley, (1990), p. 8; Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung, pp. 16-17 and his “Conceptions of Ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies” Archaeologia Polona 29 (1991), pp. 39-49. See also below for this and other viewpoints on “ethnicity” in the Middle Ages. 11 A. M. Xazanov, Kočevniki i vnešnij mir (3rd, rev. ed., Almaty, 2000), pp. 242ff. = A. M. Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World (Cambridge, 1983, 2nd ed. Madison, Wisconsin, 1994), pp. 138ff; J. Janhunen, Manchuria. An Ethnic History (Helsinki, 1996), p. 228. 12 See Stepanov, Bŭlgarite i stepnata imperija. 13 P. Geary, “Ethnic identity as a situational construct in the early Middle Ages” Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 113 (1983), pp. 15-26 and discussion of recent views of ethnicity in A. Gillett (ed.), On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages in Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 4 (Turnhout, Belgium, 2002) and F. Curta, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 18ff. 14 Examples of this can be seen in the northern Chinese frontier zone in which Han and Xianbei mixed, producing bilingual and bicultural individuals among the local political-military elites. In some regions, “hybrid” elites were the natural outcome of a shared culture and intermarriage, in others there was resistance to this process. These developments were contemporary with the rise of the Türk state, see A. F.

PETER B. GOLDEN

We should also note that our sources are far from certain in their ethno-linguistic attributions. As Denis Sinor has noted, when we set aside the often long-encrusted ethnic identifications, of the fifty-nine peoples of Inner Asia noted in the Chinese sources, these accounts provide some information on the languages of only eighteen. Of these only three can be identified with surety and “educated guesses” can be offered on another three. 15 Ethnonyms, personal names, titles and toponyms provide some clues, but must be handled with care as anthroponyms and titles were often borrowed, especially from neighbors that were perceived to be more prestigious. Substratal elements in toponyms and in general vocabulary reflecting earlier languages spoken by now absorbed or displaced peoples must also be taken into consideration. Any discussion of Türk origins, the people whose ethnonym has come to designate an entire ethno-linguistic grouping, must take these factors into account. First of all, we must place the original grouping that bore the ethnonym Türk within a wider Eurasian context of state formation in the frontier or tribal zone. The ethnonym Türk first appears with certainty in the Chinese sources dealing with events of the mid-sixth century in the form 突厥 , Tujue in Modern Mandarin Chinese and reconstructed in Early Middle Chinese (EMC, ca. 601) as *duəәtkuat, and in Late Middle Chinese (LMC, seventh-eighth centuries) as *tɦutkyat.16 This may have rendered *Türküt (with -Vt, a plural form usually more closely associated with Mongolic), *Turkit (a Soġdian plural form 17 ), *Türkü, 18 or *Turkwar - *Durkwar and Wright, The Sui Dynasty (New York, 1978), pp. 94-95; D. A. Graff Medieval Chinese Warfare 300-900 (London-New York, 2002), pp. 115-116. 15 D. Sinor, “Reflections on the History and Historiography of the Nomad Empires of Central Eurasia” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58/1 (2005), p. 5, see also his “Az őstörténet és etnogenezis problémáiról” Acta Historica CXXI (Szeged, 2005), pp. 4-5. 16 On the Early Middle Chinese reconstruction, see E. G. Pulleyblank, Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin (Vancouver, 1991), pp. 168 (jué), 311 (tū). Sergej Starostin in his “Tower of Babe1” website (http://starling.rinet.ru) reconstructs these forms as Middle Postclassic, Late Postclassic and Middle Chin. thwǝt kwǝt, thot kwǝt. 17 J. Harmatta, “Irano-Turcica” Acta Orienialia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, XXXV (1972), pp. 263-273. See also discussion in E. Tryjarski, “Etnonim Türk ‘Turek; turecki’ i związane z nim kłopoty” in his In Confinibus Turcarum. Szkice turkologiczne (Warszawa, 1995), pp. 91ff. 18 Sir Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (henceforth, ED, Oxford, 1972), pp. 542-3, and his Studies in Turkic and Mongolic Linguistics (London, 1962, 2nd ed., London-New York, 2002), pp. 84-88 opts for

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

ultimately Türk-wač/Türk—βač “Ruler of the Türks,”19 as Christopher Beckwith has recently suggested. The exact form of the ethnonym masked by the Chinese character remains contested. The ethnonym is also found in Tibetan as Drugu,20 Khotanese Saka as ttūrka, ttrūka21 and Soġdian tr’wkt (see below, some Soġdian documents of the early eighth century, continued to term them Xwn “Hun”22). These Turks were not the first Turkic-speaking people attested in our sources. We may set aside theories, now fashionable in some quarters, which attempt to link or identify various Iranian peoples of Antiquity with the Turkic-speaking world. Even further afield, peoples and civilizations encompassing much of Europe and even the New World have been declared Turkic. These theories have found little in the way of substantiation.23 More interesting, but perhaps equally a Türkü as the original form, although “[b]y the eleventh century, and perhaps even earlier” Türkü “had admittedly become Türk.: A. N. Kononov, Grammatika jazyka tjurkskix runičeskix pamjatnikov VII-IX vv. (Leningrad. 1980), pp. 46-47, while noting variant interpretations such as *türük, *türkü, *türĕk, concludes that türk is the proper reading. See also M. Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic (Leiden, 2004), pp. 38-39, who also views türk as the correct form. 19 C. I. Beckwith “The Chinese Names of the Tibetans, Tabghatch, and Turks” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14 (2005), pp. 13-20 and his “The Frankish Name of the Turks,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 15 (2006/2007), pp. 6-12. 20 On the Tibetan translation of an Uyğur document, dated to the latter part of the eighth century that notes them and many other lnner Asian tribes, see the most recent edition and translation by F. Venturi, “An Old Tibetan Document on the Uighurs: A New Translation and Interpretation” Journal of Asian History 42/1 (2008), pp. 135. See also C. Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia (Princeton, 1987), pp. 63-64, n. 56, who remarks that Drugu came to be used as a “generic” for Turkic peoples and that the Eastern Turks were called ‘Bug cor (see also Venturi, p. 20). 21 H. W. Bailey, The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan (Delmar, New York, 1982), pp. 58, 81, 84 and more extensively in his Indo-Scythian Studies Being Khotanese Texts, V11 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 101-104. 22 See. B. A. Livšic, Sogdijskaja épigrafika Srednej Azii i Semireč’ja (Sankt Peterburg, 2008), p. 128, line 12. 23 Cf M. Z. Zakiev, Proisxoždenie tjurkov i tatar (Moskva, 2003), pp. 125ff. He also makes claims (pp. 80-124) for Turkic connections with Amerindian languages, Sumerian and Etruscan. See also Abdulhaluk Çay and İlhami Durmuş, “Old Nomads of the Steppe: Scythian Age in Eurasia” in. C. Güzel et al. (eds.), The Turks (Ankara, 2002), 6 vols., I, pp. 147-94. Cf E. Memis, Eskiçağda Türkler (Konya, 2002) pp. 39ff. 55ff.; The Sumerian theme was occasionally put forward by 19th and early 20th century European scholars and most recently has attracted attention among Turkish scholars, cf. O. N. Tuna, Sümer ve Türk Dillerinin Tarihî İlgisi ile Türk Dilinin Yaşı Meselesi (Ankara, 1990), who, while not insisting on a genetic relationship, is convinced of some connection between Turkic and Sumerian. He concludes (p. 49) that Turkic peoples were in the eastern regions of modern Turkey by at least 3500 BC. See the listing of suggested Sumerian-Turkic

PETER B. GOLDEN

stretch are the attempts made by Denis Sinor, among others, to link Turk with the Ἰύρκαι of Herodotos (IV. 22), 24 reproduced by

parallels in Tuna, pp. 4ff and summarized in A. Ercilasun, Başlangıçtan Yirminci yüzyıla Türk Dili Tarihi (Ankara, 2004), pp. 35-37, 43-46 (for Saka-Turkic ties); F. Bayat, Türk Dili Tarihi (Ankara, 2003), p. 84. The Sumerians do not appear to have been native to Mesopotamia. Sumerian traditions relate that they entered their Mesopotamian habitat from the south-east, i. e. the Persian Gulf region, see I. M. D’jakonov, Jazyki drevnej Perednej Azii (Moskva, 1967), pp. 35-36, who considers the theories of their eastern origins (from Iran and Central Asia) “insufficiently convincing.” Attempts have also been made to connect them with South Asia. It is generally held that Sumerian is a linguistic “isolate,” see J. Hayes, “Sumerian Phonology” in A. S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Winona Lake, Indiana, 1997), II, p. 1002. The same may be said of Etruscan and Hurrian, see M. Ruhlen, A Guide to the World ’s Languages. Vol. 1. Classification (Stanford, 1991), p. 377. For the Etruscans as Turkic-speakers, see A. Ayda, Etrüskler (Tursakalar) Türk idiler (Ankara, 1992). On these hypotheses see also R. Bariev, Volžskie Bulgary. Istorija i kul’tura (St. Peterburg, 2005), pp. 22-23, 27 (on claims that the Alans were Turkic), which discusses theories of a huge Turkic civilization extending from Central Asia to France. The Uzbek scholar M. Érmatov, Etnogenez i formirovanie uzbekskogo naroda (Taškent, 1968), pp. 14-15, suggests that some of the Central Asian Scytho-Saka tribes were Turkic in speech. Post-independence Uzbek scholarship stresses the presence of both Iranian and Turkic elements in the region in Antiquity, see discussion in A. Asqarov, Özbek xalqining etnogenezi va etnik tarixi (Taškent, 2007), pp. 5ff. The Qaračay-Balqar scholar, Ismail Miziyev (Ismail Mızı-ulu) attempted to demonstrate that the Scythians were Turks, see his Istorija karačaevo-balkarskogo naroda s drevnejšix vremën do prisoedinenija k Rossii, in As-Alan (Moskva, 1998), No. l, pp. 24ff. and his Šagi k istočnikam étničeskoj istorii central’nogo Kavkaza (Nal’cik, 1986) available to me only in an Azeri translation Merkezi Gafgaz’ın Etnik Tarihinin Köklerine Doğru, çev. S. Eliyarli and M. Abdulla (Istanbul, 1993), the opening chapters of which are devoted to this question. It is not unlikely that some of the peoples who appear in the Greek sources as “Scythians” and as “Saka” in Old Persian may have been speakers of other, non-Iranian languages who were included in the polyglot confederations typical of the Eurasian steppe world. These may have included Turkic-speakers who had come westward. This must remain speculation. The general consensus is that the Scytho-Saka languages were East Iranian, see J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-IndoEuropean World (Oxford, 2006), p. 34. Similarly, there is little doubt that the Alans who supplanted Scytho-Sarmatian peoples in the western Eurasian steppe zone were Iranian. The ethnonym Alan derives from “Aryan” (< Old Iran. *aryāna, gen. pl. *aryānām “Aryan”), see A. Alemany, Sources on the Alans. A Critical Compilation (Leiden, 2000), pp. 1-5 for a full discussion. On the complex, heavily politicized arguments today regarding the Alans and their modern descendants, see V. A. Šnirel’man, Byt’ Alanami. Intellektualy i politika na Severnom Kavkaze v XX veke (Moskva, 2006). Denis Sinor, “Early Turks in Western Central Eurasia, Accompanied by Some Thoughts on Migrations” in B. Kellner-Heinkele and Peter Zieme (eds.), Studia Ottomanica. Festgabe für György Hazai zum 65. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden, 1997), pp. 165-179. Sinor casually dismisses the form ’Iύκραι of Herodotos as a “misreading” (p. 167).

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

Pomponius Mela as Turcae in his Cosmographia (De Chorographia or De situ orbis, ca. 43 AD) and Pliny (23-79 AD) as Tyrcae ( l), perhaps ca. 100-400 AD. Was it a separate, “Para-Turkic” tongue? These remain matters of contention.51 In any event, an Oğuric type of language was a key source of Turkic loanwords in early Mongolic (e. g. Mong. ikere “twins” < Oğuric *ikir [> Hung. iker]/Common Turk. ikiz) an interaction that probably took place as early as the Xiongnu era.52 Clearly, Oğuric-speaking tribes 49

P. B. Golden, “The Migrations of the Oğuz,” Archivum Ottomanicum IV (1972), pp. 45-47. 50 Liu, CN, II, p. 591, n. 831, regularly renders it as “die Neun Stämme.” See also W. E. Scharlipp, Die Frühen Türken in Zentralazien (Darmstadt, 1992), p. 82. 51 Linguists date the most ancient period of Turkic to ca. 3000-500 BC. In the succeeding Old Turkic stage, lasting until ca. 550 AD, evidence for Oğuric forms (with r for z, e. g. Oğuric tenger – Common Turkic tengiz “sea” and l for š *tâl- tâš “stone”) begins to surface. The chronological details of these features are still uncertain and there appears to have been some overlap within the two groups, i. e. some features that are characteristic of Oğuric can also be found in some Common Turkic dialects, but not always fully realized. See in brief A. Róna-Tas, “The Reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the genetic Question” in L. Johanson, É. A. Csató (eds.), The Turkic Languages (London, 1998), pp. 69, 76-77 and his earlier An Introduction to Turkology (Szeged, 1991), pp. 24ff. Oğuric continued to be spoken in Western Eurasia as we know from scattered Danubian-Balkan Bulğar (see O. Pritsak, Die bulgarische Fürstenliste und die Sprache der Protobulgaren, Wiesbaden, 1955, T. Tekin, Tuna Bulgarları ve Dilleri, Ankara, 1987, Rašo Rašev, Bûlgarskata ezičeska kultura VII-IX vek, Sofija, 2008, pp. 231-251) and Volga Bulğaric inscriptions (T. Tekin, Volga Bulgar Kitabeleri ve Volga Bulgarcası, Ankara, 1988, M. Erdal, Die Sprache der wolgabolgarischen Inschriften, Wiesbaden, 1993). The language survives today in Čuvaš. The possibility that groups in the east continued to speak Oğuric cannot be discounted, see P. B. Golden, “Cumanica V: The Basmıls and Qıpčaqs,” AEMAe 15 (2006/2007), pp. 2729, 34-42. 52 Schönig, “Türkisch-Mongolische Sprachbeziehungen” UAJ N. F. 19 (2005), pp. 132ff and his: “Turko-Mongolic Relations” in Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages, pp. 404-410; Janhunen, Manchuria, pp. 187-189; Róna-Tas, “The

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

must have been in the Mongolia·Manchurian borderlands before the fifth century,53 and the Oğuric - Common Turkic division must have taken place by then. These correspondences constitute further evidence that the early Turkic-speaking community, before its various migrations, was located in the east, near Mongolic speakers. These Oğuric groupings represent some of the earliest Turkic peoples about whom we have some knowledge. None of them bore the ethnonym Türk. The Oğuric homeland is clearly in the east. Indeed, the Byzantine source Priskos (b. 410?, 420?, d. post 472) reports that the migration of Oğuric tribes to the Pontic steppes, where they came into the purview of Constantinople, began in Inner Asia, touched off by the expansionist activities of the Avars, ca. 450.54 Immediately prior to that, Oğuric tribes appear to have lived in the Kazakh steppe and Western Reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the Genetic Question,” in. Johanson and Csató (eds.), The Turkic Languages, pp. 76-77. L. Ligeti, A Magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpádkorban (Budapest, 1986), pp. 431-434. Hungarian, because of its intimate interaction with Oğuric Turkic, remains an important source for some of these terms. 53 Janhunen, Manchuria, pp. 135-138, 146-147. N. F. Schönig, “Türkisch-Mongolische Sprachbeziehungen” UAJ N. F. 19 (2005), pp. 140-141, takes these contacts back to the second century AD and places the “‘Pre-Proto-Mongolic Peoples” south of the Turkic peoples, in the steppes north of the Chinese borders. This was territory that had been under the Xianbei who are, as we have noted, usually identified as Early Mongolic (M. V. Krjukov et al., Drevnie kitajcy v époxu centralizovannyx imperij, Moskva, 1983, p. 62) or perhaps, indeed, “Pre-Proto-Mongolic.: The Xianbei, however, had control over substantial parts of Mongolia during their brief “imperial” period (second century AD when they eclipsed the Xiongnu), but were rather more associated with Western Manchuria, see Janhunen, Manchuria, p. 184. The Turkic peoples, as loanwords indicate, served as the cultural intermediaries between the Mongolic-speaking peoples and the Chinese, Iranian and Tokharian peoples who bordered on Mongolia-Manchuria. As for the ethnicity of the Xianbei, one cannot automatically assume, as is often done, that they were “Mongolic” of some type. Indeed, a recent study (A. Vovin, “Some Thoughts on the Origin of the Old Turkic 12-year Cycle,” Central Asiatic Journal 48 (2004), p. 130) suggests that they were “anything but Mongolic-speaking.” Juha Janhunen, “Para—Mongolic” in J. Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages (London-New York, 2003). pp. 391392, cautions that Xianbei served as a “generic” name (up to ca. 300 AD) for some or most of the Donghu (“Eastern Barbarians”) of Southem Manchuria and Northem Mongolia, the area in which peoples that can be identified as “Mongolic” or “ParaMongolic” are later found. Janhunen notes (p. 392) that these “conglomerations” were not “linguistically homogeneous” They “certainly comprised the contemporary speakers of Pre-Proto-Mongolic” which subdivided into ProtoMongolic and a related branch that he terms “Para-Mongolic.: The latter included Tabġač and Qitan, among others. See also C. Schönig, “Turko-Mongolic Relations” in Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages, pp. 405-406. 54 Blockley/Priscus, II, pp. 344/345.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Siberia, having come there from points further east - perhaps in late Xiongnu times. They may have already at that time been in contact with Ugrian peoples.55 At the time of their migrations, the Oğuric groupings appear to have been part of a larger, loose and still ill-defined confederation of nomadic tribes extending in an arc across Eurasia from Southern Siberia and Northern Mongolia to the Western Eurasian steppes: the Tiele (EMC *thet-ləәk) 56 of the Chinese sources (noted above). The Chinese transcription may hide an “Altaic” term for “Cart” (*tegrek57) the portable dwellings so closely associated with the nomads.58 Tiele appears to be a later name (or variant) of the ethnonym Dingling (EMC tɛjŋ-lɛjŋ) one of the names associated with early Turkic peoples.59 The Dingling/Tiele come into view in the second century BC in the area north of the Xiongnu, in Northern Mongolia and the Irtyš region, extending to Lake Baikal and the Middle Yenisei.60 The Tiele union included Mongolic, as well as Turkic groupings. They were brought by force into the Xiongnu union and remained recalcitrant vassals. After 350, they were largely in possession of the Kazakh steppelands, 55

V. F. Gening, A. X. Xalikov, Rannie bolgary na Volge (Moskva, 1964), pp. 142-147 and discussion in Czeglédy, “From East to West” AEMAe 3 (1983), pp. 97-103. 56 Pulleyblank, Lexicon pp. 184, 308. 57 Clauson, ED, p. 485, perhaps a rendering of *tegrek (Turk. tegrek “rim, ring” and hence “wheel”) which may have been an Altaic term for “cart” (cf Mong. tergen, telegen, terge). See also S. Starostin, A. Dybo, O. Mudrak, Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Langauges (henceforth EDAL, Leiden, 2003), II, p. 1360 *tegá “round” Mong. *tög/körig, Turk. *deg-/*dög-/ *dog-, Jpn. *tánka, Kor. *thi-/*thəә-: Proto-Mong. *tögörig “round,” Old Turk. tegirmi “circle” Mod. Turk. Tat. tügäräk, Qırğ. tegerek “round” etc. There is also (II, p. 1433) *t’iárko “carriage”: Tung. *turki, Mong. *terge, Kor. tàrkó Proto-Mong. *terge “vehicle.: 58 The semantic association of “carts” with the Turkic nomads surfaces in the designation Gaoche/Gaoju “High Carts,” one of the Chinese terms used for the Tiele and later the Uyğurs who derived from them, see P. Boodberg, “Three Notes on the T’u-chüeh” in Selected Works of Peter A. Boodberg, ed. A. Cohen (Berkeley, 1979), pp. 354, 356; J. Hamilton, “Toquz Oğuz et On Uyγur” Journal Asiatique (1962), pp. 25-26; Pulleyblank, “The Chinese and Their Neighbors” in Keightley (ed.), Origins, p. 448; Czeglédy, “From East to West:” AEMAe, III 1983), p. 64. This association of the Eurasian nomads was also reflected in the Graeco-Roman sources, cf. the Hamoxobii (‘Αµαξόβιοι) “those who live in carts,” Aalto, Pekkanen, Latin Sources, I, p. 20. 59 Pulleyblank, “Why Tocharians‘?” The Journal of Indo-European Studies 23/3-4 (1995), p. 417 and his “Early Contacts Between Indo-Europeans and Chinese” International Review of Chinese Linguistics I, no. 1 (1996), p. 15, who directly connects the Dingling > Tiele and Uyğurs who “emerged” from them. 60 T. Senga, “Az onogurok a kínai forrásokban,” Uralica 5 (1980), pp. 105-106.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

supplanting Iranian nomads, and after 460, as we have seen, Oğuric groupings from them had established themselves in the Black Sea Steppes. 61 The Tiele formed a number of polities before their incorporation into the Türk Empire. When the Tiele-derived Uyğurs succeeded to the Qağanate in 744, they made sure to point out in the inscription for their ruler, Bögü Qağan (759-779), that two earlier Uyğur kingdoms had existed, claiming thus for themselves a distinguished royal lineage that antedated that of the Turks.62 I mention the Tiele and their various branches because they became an important, if often rebellious component of the early Türk state. It also gives us an idea of the distribution of some of the Turkic peoples in the era prior to the establishment of the state, which would unite most, if not all of the Turkic peoples.

The Turkic ancient homeland The modern Turkic languages appear to derive from a common tongue that retained a high degree of mutual intelligibility into medieval-early modern times (Cuvaš with its Oğuric origins and Yakut, isolated for a long period of time, have a rather more divergent history).63 Thus, al-Iṣṭaxrî (a mid-tenth century author of a geographical work) reports that “the Turks, all of them, such as the Tuġuzġuzz (Toquz Oğuz), the Xirxîz (Qırğız), the Kîmâk (Kimek), the Ġuzz (Oğuz) and the Xarlux (Qarluq), have one (common) language and understand one another” 64 Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî (ca. 1077), in his Compendium of the Turkic Languages Dialects (Dîwân Luġât at-Turk), notes only dialect and regional differences (as well as groups that were 61

See discussion in Golden, Introduction, pp. 94-95. See S. G. Kljaštornyj, “Nadpis’ uygurskogo Begju-kagana v Severo-Zapadnoj Mongolii” in B. B. Piotrovskij and G. M. Bongard-Levin (eds.), Central’naja Azija. Novye pamjatniki pis’mennosti i iskusstva (Moskva, 1987), pp. 28-30. 63 The classification of the various languages that now comprise Turkic remains a matter of scholarly debate. For the most recent surveys with indications of the literature, see T. Tekin, “Türk Dil ve Diyalektlerinin Yeni bir Tasnifi” Erdem, 5/13 (Ocak, 1989), pp. 129-139, 141-168; N. Z. Gadžieva, “Tjurkskie jazyki” in E. R. Tenišev (ed.), Tjurkskie jazyki (Bishkek, 1997), pp. 18-23 in the series Jazyki mira edited by the late V. N. Jartseva and others (Moskva-Bishkek, 1997-2000) and E. R. Tenišev (ed.), Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov. Regional’nye rekonstrukcii (Moskva, 2002), pp. 713-737. The Türk Lehçeleri Grameri, edited by Ahmet B. Ercilasun (Ankara, 2007), lists some twenty languages. 64 Al-Iṣṭaxrî, Kitab Masâlik wa Mamâlik, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1870), p. 9. 62

PETER B. GOLDEN

becoming Turkicized).65 More broadly, Turkic is considered to be part of the Altaic language grouping consisting also of Mongolic and Manchu-Tungusic with possible connections to Koreanic and Japanic. A search for the Turkic Primordial Homeland/”Urheimat” has to take this into account. The Altaic Theory is not without problems. Whether this relationship is based on genetic ties or is the consequence of longstanding ties of borrowing and interaction (convergence, areal phenomena) remains an important and still hotly debated question.66 Some linguists propose that the Altaic languages may be part of a yet larger language family (“Ural-Altaic,” “Nostratic” or “Eurasiatic”). Others view these connections as resulting from convergence, i. e. the product of prolonged periods of intense interaction and borrowing.67 Yet others deny the existence of “Altaic” as a “family,” melded or

Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects. Dîwân Luγât at-Turk, ed. trans. R. Dankoff in collaboration with J. Kelly, Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures, 7 (henceforth: Kâšġarî /Dankoff, Cambridge, Mass., 1982-1985), I, pp. 70 (boasting of the perfection of his knowledge of the Turkic dialects, the elegance of his speech and the depth of his education – as well as his skill in “throwing the lance”), 82 (“the Turks are, in origin, twenty tribes,” all descended from “Turk, son of Japheth, son of Noah,” there providing a genealogy that fit into the conceptions of his readers). 66 See an excellent summary of the principal issues in Janhunen, Manchuria, pp. 237ff. Starostin et al., EDAL, I, pp. 11-236 have presented their case for the Altaic relationship, concluding (p. 236) that Proto-Altaic divided into “Turco-Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu and Korean–Japanese around the 6th millennium B. C.” “TurkoMongolian,” in turn, divided ca. the 4th millennium B. C. J. H. Greenburg, IndoEuropean and its Closest Relatives. The Eurasiatic Language Family, I, Grammar (Stanford, 2000), esp. pp. 11ff. also presents the current argument for an Altaic genetic relationship. A highly critical review of Starostin et al. is that of B. Kempf in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 61/3 (2008), pp. 403-408. See also M. I. Robbeets, Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? (Wiesbaden, 2005), who has been sharply criticized by R. A. Miller in a review in UAJ N. F. 21 (2007), pp. 274-279. In his Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages (Chicago, 1971), however, Miller favored such a relationship. J. Patrie, The Genetic Relationship of the Ainu Language (Honolulu, 1982) would add Ainu to the Altaic “family.” Janhunen, Manchuria, p. 238; A. Róna-Tas “The Reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the Genetic Question” in L. Johanson and É. Csató (eds.), The Turkic Languages (London-New York, 1998), pp. 67-80. 67 Janhunen, Manchuria, pp. 237-242; D. Sinor, “The Problem of the Ural-Altaic Relationship” in D. Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages (Leiden, 1988), pp. 706-741; J. H. Greenberg, Indo-European and its Closest Relatives. The Eurasiatic Language Family (Stanford, 2000, 2002), esp. I, pp. 11ff. A. B. Ercilasun, Başlangıcından Yirminci Yüzyıla Türk Dili Tarihi (Ankara, 2004), pp. 17-32.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

otherwise. 68 Those who accept the notion of an “Altaic language family,” have explained the difficulties of the “Altaic hypothesis” as resulting from the early break up of Proto-Altaic (late 6th millennium BC) and the fact that the oldest written remains of Altaic (the Turkic of the Orkhon inscriptions) are relatively modern, dating only to the early 8th century.69 Whatever the nature of the relationships between these languages, it is clear that they were in contact early on and this is an important clue about the origins of the Turkic-speaking peoples. As the earliest homeland for these languages, except for Turkic, appears to be Manchuria,70 it follows that the early Turkic peoples most probably lived near that region. The early Turkic loanwords in Mongolic, noted above, give some indication where these points of contiguity were located. The lexical material of Turkic provides evidence about the topography, flora and fauna of this territory, providing clues as to the location of the Primordial Homeland of the Turkic peoples.71 It was located in a cold, northerly climate, subject to snow (qar), hail (tolı), ice (buz), fog (tuman) and rain (yağ- “to rain), one in which “whirlwinds” of snow (or sand, qasurqa, qasırqu) were not unknown. There were “snow storms” (tipü or tüpi, qâḏ > qay, borağan72) as well as other forms of extreme, inclement weather. It was a land of mountains (tağ, qır 73 ), massive rocks or rock piles (qorum), cliffs

See C. I. Beckwith, Koguryo. The Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives (Leiden. 2004), pp. 184-194; A. Vovin, “The End of the Altaic Controversy,” Central Asiatic Journal 49/1 (2005), pp. 71-132. 69 Starostin et al., EDAL, I, pp. 234-236. See also Miller, Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages, pp. 3-4 (the Japanese material may come from the latter part of the 8th century 70 Janhunen, Manchuria, p. 238. See also Beckwith, Koguryo, pp. 8ff with Koguryo extending into Korea and northeastern China. For a different perspective put forward by Kljaštornyj, see below. 71 On the reconstructed vocabulary of “Proto-Turks,” see E. R. Tenišev (ed.), Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskzlx jazykov. Leksika (henceforth SIGTJaz. Leksika, 2nd ed. Moskva, 2001,), pp. 724 ff. For many of these terms see also Clauson, ED, and E. V. Sevortjan et al., Étimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov (henceforth ESTJaz, Moskva, 1974-ongoing, currently up to the letter “S,” volumes are noted by the letters with which they deal). 72 The latter attested earliest in Middle Qıpčaq, see R. Toparlı et al., Kıpçak Türkçesi Sözlüğü (Ankara, 2003), p. 38: burğan, see discussion in Sevortjan, ESTJaz. “B,” pp. 189-192. 73 In early Turkic qır denoted “an isolated mountain or block of mountains, high ground.: In Oğuz it came to mean “plain, steppe,” see Clauson, ED, p. 641.

PETER B. GOLDEN

(qaya), forests and dense thickets (orman,74 yıš), groves of woods or thickets (bük 75 ) around flowing water valleys (öz), ravines (yar), flatlands and plains or steppes (yazı, qayır), with sand (qum) in some places, swamps or saltmarshes (qaq) in others and traversed by rivers (ögüz, yırmaq “big river,” özen “brook”) and lakes (köl). Larger bodies of water were not unknown (teŋiz/tengiz “sea,” talay “ocean, sea”76). The area had an abundance of “wild game” (keyik77), e. g. elig (“roe”), buğu (“[male] deer”78), sığın (“stag”), buŋğaq/muyğaq/muŋgaq (female of sığın79), ıvıq (“gazelle”), yegeren (“antelope”), bulan (“elk”), qulan (“wild ass/onager”), toŋguz (“wild boar”), arqar (mountain sheep/ram”), teyiŋ (“squirrel”), qoḏan, tabušqan (“hare”), kiš 80(“sable”), qama 81 (“beaver”), tilkü (“fox”), as well as predatory animals such as lions (arslan), tigers, (bars 82) and panthers (irbiš, yalbars). There is an extensive vocabulary for domesticated animals, closely tied to the pastoral nomadic economy followed by the ProtoTurks: horses (at as well as aḏğır “stallion,” bé, biye “mare,” qısraq “young mare,” baytal “barren mare,” qulun “colt up to two years of age” etc. ), cattle (uḏ), cows (iŋek, sığır “milk-cow”), oxen (öküz83), rams and sheep (qoč, qoyn, qazı “lamb”), camels (teve, buğra “male camel,” ingen “female camel”), asses (eškek), swine (čučqa), dogs (ıyt, köpek, qančıq “bitch,” eker “wolfhound”), cats (pišik, četük, mačı). There are also numerous words for different kinds of falcons (toyğan 74

This may be an ancient borrowing from Indo-European Tokharian, see Tenišev (ed.), SIGTJaz. Leksika, p. 110. 75 Clauson, ED, p. 324. 76 Probably a borrowing from Chinese, see Clauson, ED, p. 502. 77 Originally denoted “wild, four-legged game,” see Clauson, ED, p. 753 78 See Starostin et al., EDAL., II, p. 1102: Altaic *pŏgV. 79 Clauson, ED, p. 772 “the female maral deer.: 80 According to Starostin et al., EDAL, I, p. 817, it goes back to *kīĺ < *k’i̯ ūĺa “sable, squirrel.: 81 Apparently a loanword (see Sevortjan, ESTJaz “K’ “Ḳ” p. 242. 82 This is an ancient loan-word from Iranian, see Clauson, ED, p. 368; Sevortjan, ESTJaz.:B” pp. 68-70. 83 Clauson, ED, p. 120, was “almost” certain that it was a borrowing from Tokharian. From Turkic it was borrowed into Mongolic as hüker. However, another IndoEuropean source for an original has been posited: *püker/*pökür, cf. Lat pecus, gen. pectoris (M. de Vaan Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, Leiden, 2008, p. 454: pecū “flock, herd,” pecus “farm animals, livestock”) presumably > *füker > hüker etc., see also A. M. Ščerbak, Rannie tjurksko-mongol’skie jazykovye svjazi (VIII-XIV vv.) (Sankt-Peterburg, 1997), pp. 52, 131.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

[toğan], lačın, toğrıl), some of which were probably trained by humans for hunting and other birds (e. g. bürküt “golden eagle”), reptiles, fish and insects. There is also a rich vocabulary for trees (terek “poplar,” tağaraq “white poplar,” emen “oak,”84 qaḏın “birch,” qaḏı “pine,” bȫš “cedar,” kebrüč “ash tree,” *yerük85 “alder” as well as berry-bearing trees, plants etc, cf yımurt “cherry-tree”), grains (tarığ “cereals, millet,” yögür “millet,” qoñaq “coarse millet,” buğday “wheat,” arpa86 “barley” etc. ) attesting a familiarity with agriculture (tarlağ “ploughed field,” azal “wooden plough,” sarpan “plough,” orğaq “scythe” etc. ), Pastoral nomadism very likely evolved in agricultural communities in which animal husbandry became the dominant economic activity. On the basis of this and other aspects of daily life reflected in this ancient (and sometimes reconstructed) vocabulary, the argument has been made for placing the Proto-Turkic homeland in the southern, taiga-steppe zone of the Sayan-Altay region.87 In another, concluding work in this series of comparative studies of Turkic, on the basis of reconstructed tree names, the authors concluded that the early Turkic-speaking community must have dwelt at some point in the Ordos region as well.88 These are the very regions, as we shall see, in which the emergence of a people bearing the ethnonym Türk takes place. Other scholars have postulated homelands as far west as the Caspian and in the east extending to the 84

Noted in Middle Turkic, see R. Toparlı et al. (eds.), Kitâb-ı Mecmû-i Tercümân-ı Türki ve Acemî ve Mugalî (Ankara, 2000), pp. 9,105 (Arabic ms. 8b). It is found today in Qazaq, Qırğız, Nogay, Qumıq, Qaračay-Balqar, Qaraim (emen), Tatar, Baškir (imän) Uzbek, Uyğur (emän) and Čuvas yuman/yaman (see also M. Räsänen, Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen (Helsinki, 1969), p. 42). Mod. Turk. meşe is a borrowing from Pers. bîsha “forest, wood,” Tenišev (ed.), SIGTJaz. Leksika, p. 125; H. Eren, Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlüğü (Ankara, 1999), p. 293. According to Starostin et al., EDAL, I, p. 736, Altaic has different root forms: *kuĺap: PTung. *kolopo-kta “a kind of tree,” PJpn *kásípà “oak-tree,” PKor. *kàràp “oak-tree,” I, p. 857, Alt. *k’usa “a k. of tree (cedar, oak), PTung. *xusi-kta “acorn, oak, big nut, PMong. *kusi “cedar, thuja”, PJpn. *kasi “Quercus acuta Thunb.: 85 Starostin et al. EDAL, II, p. 1542: *ǯi̯ aru(kV) “a. k. of foliage tree, alder” P. Turk. *jẹrük “alder, cedar” etc. 86 A loanword from Indo-European, see X. Tremblay, “Grammaire comparée et grammaire historique: quelle réalité est reconstruite par la grammaire comparée” in G. Fussman, J. Kellens, H. -P. Francfort, X. Tremblay, Âryas, Aryens et Iraniens en Asie Centrale, Collège de France. Publications de l’Institut de civilisation indienne, 72 (Paris, 2005), p. 128: h2élbhi/ṇ “orge (blanche)> Iranian *arbẵ > Turk. arpa. 87 Tenišev (ed.), SIGTJaz. Leksika, p. 732. Memiş, Eskiçağda Türkler, p. 39. 88 É. R. Tenišev and A. V. Dybo (eds.), Sravnitel’no-istoriceskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov. Pratjurkskij jazyk-osnova. Kartina mira pratjurkskogo étnosa po dannym jazyka (Moskva, 2006), pp. 372-434.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Trans-Baikal.89 While accepting the Sayan-Altay region as the Turkic Urheimat/Anayurdu, some scholars have, nonetheless, made attempts to place Turkic groupings in Ancient Mesopotamia and to link Turkic with Sumerian, Hurrian, Etruscan and Scythian (see above). While these latter connections remain highly problematic, we can be reasonably certain that the Proto-Turks were in contact with Uralic90, Indo-European91 and some Palaeo-Siberian languages such as Yeneseic (Kettic). 92 The Indo-European Scytho-Iranians were their neighbors (and likely predecessors) in Mongolia and South Siberia93 (and perhaps extending into areas of Western Siberia). In Eastern Turkistan/Xinjiang, the early Turks interacted with both eastern Iranian and Tokharianspeaking peoples. The latter consisted of a grouping of related IndoEuropean languages, which came to the Xinjiang region of modern northwestern China from the western zone of Indo-European languages sometime in the first millennium BC. These languages continued to be spoken and written until the eighth century. Thereafter, this ancient population of what became Eastern Turkistan, now Xinjiang, was largely Turkicized.94 89

See summation of literature in Golden, Introduction, pp. 124-127. On possible Uralic borrowings in Turkic, see D. Sinor, “Samoyed and Ugric Elements in Old Turkic” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3-4 (1979-1980), pp. 768-773 and his “The Origin of Turkic Balïq ‘Town”’ Central Asiatic Journal 25 (1981), pp. 95-102. 91 T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, trans. J. Nichols, ed. W. Winter, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 80 (Berlin-New York, 1995), I, pp. 494-495, 539, 550, 565, 831-833. 92 Elements of the latter were probably being assimilated by the Qırğız in early medieval times. The assimilation of Kettic peoples has continued into modern times, see K. H. Menges, The Turkic Languages and Peoples (2nd ed., Wiesbaden, 1995), p. 36; J. Forsyth, A History of the Peoples of Siberia (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 19-23. 93 See Di Cosmo, Ancient China and its Enemies, pp. 32-37 for a good summation of the archaeological literature. E. E. Kuz’mina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, ed. J. P. Mallory (Leiden, 2007), pp. 63-66, suggests that the Turkic yurt (now a technical term in English, Russian and other languages denoting the “tent” of the Turkic nomads in Turkic actually means “dwelling-place, abode”, see Clauson, ED, p. 958) has its origins in the “proto-yurts” of the Central Asian Indo-Iranians. 94 S. Rudenko, Frozen Tombs of Siberia. The Pazyryk Burials of Iron Age Horsemen, trans. M. W. Thompson (Berkeley, 1970); E. A. Novgorodova, Drevnjaja Mongolija (Moskva, 1989), pp. 316-321; J. P. Mallory, In Search of the IndoEuropeans (London, 1989); pp. 56-63. Mallory and Mair, The Tarim Mummies deals in detail with the ancient Indo-European population of modern Xinjiang. See also E. W. Barber, The Mummies of Urumchi (New York-London, 1999). See also, X. Tremblay, Pour une histoire de la Sérinde (Wien, 2001), pp. 29-46, on the 90

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

These connections, whether genetic or areal, clearly place the early, although not necessarily the earliest stages of Turkic history in Inner Asia and most probably in the easterly sections of that region. Mongolic, Manchu-Tungusic, Koreanic and Japanic appear to have emerged from Southern Manchuria and adjoining regions while Turkic may have had its earliest homeland in Southern and Eastern Mongolia,95 and hence also had contacts with peoples of the western Manchurian borderlands.96 The Mongolian-Manchurian borderlands, as noted previously, are probable areas of early contact between Turkic and the other Altaic languages, regardless of how one views the Altaic theory. However, it is not clear if the Turks were indigenous to this region. Perhaps, they expanded to the Mongolo-Manchurian borderlands from points further north (Trans-Baikal - South Siberia) or west where they had early contacts with Indo-European and Uralic? Of course, the reverse may be equally true. These are issues that await further elucidation. What is important for us here is that ancient speakers of Turkic were in close contact with other Altaic peoples (in particular speakers of Mongolic) and this occurred in the MongolManchurian zone. There are other, for the most part slightly differing reconstructions. Sergej Kljaštornyj, for example, locates the earliest “Altaic” tribes in a “huge territory” extending across the Southern zone of Siberia “between the Yenisei and Pacific Ocean - in Mongolia, Manchuria and in the modern day provinces of Northern China”97 In this reconstruction, the Proto-Turko-Mongolic and Proto-Manchu-Tungus groupings emerged in the course of the Second and into the First Millennia BC. The ProtoTurkic and Proto-Mongolic linguistic communities then became fully differentiated during the First Millennium BC, with Turkic in Central and languages of Xinjiang. He considers (p. 45) the key cites of Hami, Bešbalıq (a Turkic toponym) and Turfan as “Turkicized and Sinicized since 450.” 95 Janhunen. Manchuria, p. 238. Róna-Tas, “Reconstruction” in Johanson and Csató (eds.), The Turkic Languages, p. 68 places the `”last habitat,” i. e. the territory occupied by Turkic-speakers before their linguistic community broke up, in “west and central Siberia and in the region south of it.: 96 Janhunen, Manchuria, pp. 242-242, sees these “intensive contacts” beginning in the pre-Xiongnu era between Pre-Proto-Mongolic and Pre-Proto-Bulgaric (i. e. Oğuric). He concludes that the “conventional Altaic corpus turns out to reflect a complex network of areal contacts between three separate genetic entities. Of these he sees (pp. 251-252) only Mongolic and Tungusic as perhaps possessing a genetic relationship. 97 See his chapter “Central’naja Azia v époxu antičnosti” in Abuseitova et al., Istorija Kazaxstana, p. 48.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Eastern Mongolia, from Lake Baikal to the Ordos and Mongolic in Northern Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia. Areas to their west were occupied by Indo-Europeans, i. e. Iranians, with whom they were in direct contact.98 The various reconstructions, based largely on linguistic evidence, are more or less in concert that the early Turkic linguistic community must have been in a zone in which they had contact with IndoEuropean, Uralic and Yeniseic in their West and Northwest and Mongolic in their East. This was, as has been suggested, most probably in the forest-steppe zone of South Siberia around the Altay extending into Mongolia, where they may also have acquired elements of equestrian culture and pastoral nomadism from the Indo-Europeans.99 Pastoral nomadism, which “was a secondary development among farmers who occupied marginal ecological areas,” 100 is closely associated with the domestication of the horse, which occurred in the Ponto-Caspian steppes sometime after 4800 BC101 This was the core of the Indo-European Urheimat which was located west of the Ural Mountains, extending westward to the Southern Russian-Ukrainian steppelands and southwards to the Caucasus.102 Subsequently, military innovations such as heavy cavalry, may have been passed on to the Xiongnu of Mongolia (and thence to the Turkic peoples) from IndoEuropeans (East Iranians or Yuezhi).103 We might note here that IndoEuropean peoples were not only present in Mongolia (very likely they are to be identified with at least some of the ancient Europoid 98

Abuseitova et al. Istorija Kazaxstana, pp. 48-49. See summation of these views in Golden, Introduction, pp. 124-125; Janhunen, Manchuria, . 228. 100 On pastoral nomadism, see Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World pp. 85ff; L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, “The Spread of Agriculture and Nomadic Pastoralism: Insights from Genetics, Linguistics and Archaeology” in D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia (Washington, D. C. 1996), p. 54. See also E. E. Kuzmina, The Prehistory of the Silk Road, ed. V. H. Mair (Philadelphia, 2008). p. 6, which notes several theories: a) overpopulation in farming areas pushed groups into the steppelands which were only marginally suited to agriculture and the population developed pastoral animal husbandry as a survival response b) there was a natural “transition to a nomadic existence” that was the consequence of the “growth of livestock population and the accumulation of experience in conducting the pastoralist economy.: 101 See D. Anthony, The Horse, the Wheel and Language. How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (Princeton, 2007), pp. 200-201 102 Anthony, The Horse, pp. 98-99. 103 See G. Fajzraxmanov, Drevnie Tjurki v Sibiri i Central’noj Azii (Kazan’, 2000), pp. 30-32. 99

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

populations of Western and Northwestern Mongolia104) - and in the central Altay105 - but were the dominant elements in much of Western Turkistan (Iranian)106 and Eastern Turkistan (Iranian and Tokharian) up to the emergence of the Xiongnu and were, thus, a presence in the Chinese borderlands.107 It is not unlikely that the early Turkic peoples are to be identified with the Mongoloid population, which began to mix with the Scytho-Iranian peoples of Western and Northwestern Mongolia. The mixture of ethno-somatic types has been typical of the region for millennia.108 Overall, however, the archaeological picture in some regions that have been recently studied, such as the Eastern Altay, is far from clear. There is a considerable break between Scythian and Xiongnu finds (2nd century BC - 2nd century AD). Large-scale migrations from unspecified points in Inner Asia into the region apparently took place after the Xiongnu collapse. There seems to have been some considerable diversity in population, producing “microisolate” groupings. The most recent studies, moreover, have shown that it is difficult to date some of the complexes and to reconcile the archaeological records with the written sources.109 Among the tentative conclusions of these studies is the notion that over time small groupings of Inner Asian immigrants made their way to inaccessible places in the Altay highlands (Gornyj Altaj) as the larger struggles that saw power shift from the Xiongnu to Xianbei to Rouran to Türk Ašina took place.110 The ethnic picture, in brief is far from clear. The Turko-Iranian symbiosis, a feature of many later Turkic polities, may have had its beginnings here, at the very dawn of Turkic history. When the Xiongnu ruler, Modun (209-174 BC) launched his attack into the northern regions, probably Southern Siberia, conquering a number of tribes, most of which are considered Turkic (in particular the 104

E. A. Novgorodova, Drevnjaja Mongolija (Moskva, 1989), pp. 316-321 (summary of her conclusions). These Eastern Scythians were mixing with Mongoloids coming from the East, R. Rolle, The World of the Scythians, trans. F. G. Walls (Berkeley, 1989), pp. 56-57. 105 See S. I. Rudenko, Frozen Tombs of Siberia, trans. M. W. Thompson (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1970), pp. 45-53. 106 See B. I. Vajnberg, Étnogeografija Turana v drevnosti (Moskva, 1999). 107 See Mallory and Mair, The Tarim Mummies, pp. 252-296. 108 See discussion in Horváth, “Uygur Scholar’s Discovery” Eurasian Studies Yearbook, 79 (2007), pp. 60-63. 109 V. V. Bobrov, A. S. Vasjutin, S. A. Vasjutin, Vostočnyj Altaj v époxu velikogo pereselenija narodov (III-VII veka) (Novosibirsk, 2003), pp. 84-85. 110 Bobrov, Vasjutin, Vasjutin, Vostočnyj Altaj, pp. 85-86.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Dingling, Gekun and Xinli111), the name Türk is nowhere noted. Who, then, were the Türks and why do we not find them among these peoples? The Türk tradition, preserved in the Orxon inscriptions describes the circumstances surrounding the founding of the Türk empire but says nothing of their origins: “when the blue heavens above and the brown earth below were created, humankind was created between the two. My ancestors [this is Kül Tegin speaking, in the early eighth century], Bumın Qağan and İštemi Qağan sat (as Qağans) over humankind. Having taken the (qağanal) seat, they took hold of the polity and law of the Türk nation and organized it.”112 The Chinese dynastic annals, the Zhoushu (ca. 629), the Suishu (ca. 629-636) and Beishi (ca. 659), all contemporary documents of the First Türk Empire (552-630 in the East, lasting until 659 in the West) report a number of ethnogonic tales, presumably gotten from the Türks themselves or peoples close to them.113 In them the Türk - and it must be emphasized here that they are only referring to the Türk people themselves, not other Turkic groupings - were an “independent branch” of the Xiongnu, with the family name Ashina (Ašina), which had earlier lived on the right bank of the “Western Sea” (xihai). The latter could refer to anything from the Mediterranean, Caspian or Aral Seas to much smaller bodies of water in East Turkistan, Mongolia or Gansu.114 This ancestral grouping was completely destroyed by a neighboring state. One boy, badly mutilated, was thrown into a swamp and survived thanks to the tender ministrations of a she-wolf (a common progenetrix figure in Eurasian ethnogonic tales extending as far west as Rome). Later, the lad impregnated the she-wolf. When his enemies discovered that he was still alive, they sought to kill him and the she-wolf fled to a mountain lying to the north or northwest of Gaochang (Qočo in Eastern Turkistan). There, in a cave, she gave birth to ten sons, one of whom took the surname “Ashina” (EMC *ʔaʂɨ’na’115). He became their leader and placed a wolf’s head on his standard to show his origins. Their 111

Sima Qian/Watson, 11, p. 138. See above n. 36. See text in T. Tekin, Orhon Yazıtları (Ankara, 1988), pp. 8/9. 113 Liu, CN, 1, pp. 5-6,40-41; D. Sinor, “The Legendary Origins of the Türks” Folklorica: Festschrift for Felix J. Oinas, ed. E. V. Zygas, P. Voorheis (Bloomington, Indiana, 1982), pp. 223-231; Taşağıl, Gök-Türkler. I, pp. 10-14, 9596, 110-111. There are slight variations in the accounts. 114 See discussion in Liu, CN, II, p. 495, n. 4l; S. G. Kljaštornyj, “Problemy rannej istorii plemeni Türk (Ašina)” Novoe v sovetskoj arxeologii (Moskva, 1965), p. 278. 115 Pulleyblank, Lexicon, pp. 23, 283, 221. 112

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

numbers grew, through marriage with local women, and several generations later they left the cave and acknowledged the overlordship of the Rouran, whom they served as iron or metal workers. By this time they were living on the slopes of the Jinshan, “Golden Mountain,” i. e. the Altay. Another account in the Zhoushu places their homeland in the Suo (EMC, LMC *sak) country, north of the Xiongnu.116 Here, their large family of 17 (or 70) brothers was led by Abangbu (EMC a paŋʰ bɔʰ, LMC a pɦaŋ pɦuəә 117 ). All of them were “dull-witted except for Yizhinishidu (EMC ʔji triʰ ŋɛjʰ ʂi tɔ, LMC ʔji tri’ŋiaj’ ʂŗ tuəә̆118) who was born of a wolf, possessed supernatural powers over rain and wind and had the mental acuity to save his lands. He married the daughters of the spirit of Summer and Winter, one of whom bore him four sons, one of which was Qigu (= Qırğız) 119 another of which, the eldest, 116

Pulleyblank, Lexicon, p. 298; Liu, CN, I, p. 5, II, p. 489, n. 8. The region was earlier associated with the Xianbei, but Liu cautions that this does not necessarily point to their “rassische Abstammung” from the latter. On the uncertainties surrounding the peoples denoted by this ethnonym, generally reckoned to be Mongolic of some sort, see above. Beckwith, “The Frankish Name of the King of the Turks,” AEMAe 15 (2006/2007), p. 10, n. 30 identifies Suo (*Sak) with the Saka and recalls Menander’s comment (Menander/Blockley, pp. 116/117) that the Türks “had fomierly been called the Sacae.: Whether Suo is a specific reference to the Saka, East Iranians in general, or a learned topos for “nomads” is unclear. lt is not used in this sense in the Chinese sources. Similarly, it could not point to the Saka peoples of Xinjiang (e. g. the Khotanese Saka), which was south of this region. The name Suo (*Sak) may have nothing to do with the Iranian Saka. Perhaps it is a Xianbei term. Nonetheless, Menander’s use of the ethnonym Saka is striking. While “Scythian” is commonly used to denote Turkic nomads in Byzantine historical literature (see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 2, II, pp. 279-283), Saka is not. Indeed, Menander (Menander/Blockley, pp. 80/81, 114/115, 118/119, 148/149, 150/151, 170/171 [“one hundred and six Scythians of the people called the Turks”]) regularly uses “Scythian” to denote the language(s), people(s) and cultural objects of the Eurasian nomadic world. 117 Pulleyblank, Lexicon, pp. 29, 43. 118 Pulleyblank, Lexicon, pp. 81, 224, 281, 365) 119 Sinor, “The Legendary Origin,” pp. 228-229, makes the important point that although the origins of the Türks and Qırğız are linked, the later mid-ninth century, Youyang Zazu notes that the Qırğız “do not belong to the race of the wolf.” Rather, their roots stem from the mating of a spirit and a cow. The tenth century miscellany, Taiping guangji (see Z. K. Gabuev, Étnogoničeskie predstavlenija drevnix kočevnikov Velikoj Stepi. Irancy i tjurki (Mosvka, 2002), p. 27) links their ancestry with an eagle. Tales collected by nineteenth century ethnographers involve “Forty Maidens” (qırq qız - a folk etymology) and a red dog who appears to be the regenerator of an otherwise destroyed people, see J.-P. Roux, La religion des Turcs et des Mongols (Paris, 1984), pp. 193-194. The latter tale with its dog (wolf`?) motif is vaguely reminiscent of the Ašina Türk legend.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Nodulushi/Nadulishi/ Naduliushi/Nodulishe (šad)] who subsequently invented or made fire, saved a tribal grouping descended from their common ancestor (Abangbu) and was given the name Türk. He had ten wives. Their sons took their mother’s name. His youngest son was born of a concubine and had his mother’s name, Ašina. He was elected leader after Nodulushi’s death when he won a jumping contest and was given the title Axian Šad. His grandson was Bumın, the first Türk Qağan, who is an historical figure. These are very different accounts. In the wolf tale, the Ašina are paramount. In the second, they appear (born of a concubine!) only late in the day and gain leadership by virtue of their special skills. In addition to these and another (less relevant) tale, the Suishu prefaces its version of the wolf tale with a more traditional historical account. In it the Türks are portrayed as stemming from “mixed Hu barbarians” from Pingliang (in Gansu), a turbulent area with a succession of dynasties of Xiongnu, Xianbei and Chinese origin that created short-lived statelets. The Türks had the family name Ašina. When the Tabġač/Tuoba/Northern Wei Emperor, Tai-wudi (424-452) ended the Northern Liang (Xiongnu) statelet (397-439) in Gansu in 439,120 the Ašina with some 500 families fled to the Rouran. Here, they lived on the Altay (Jinshan) “for generations engaged in the preparation of iron implements”121 When or how the Ašina-Türks came to Gansu is uncertain. Kljaštornyj suggests that they arrived after 265 AD, a period of mass migrations, beginning after the fall of the Xiongnu polity in 220, of Xiongnu and other tribes from Southern Siberia and adjoining regions. These peoples came into Northern China and subsequently established ruling dynasties there that frequently warred with one another. This period of instability ended with the rise of the Tabġač/Tuoba or Wei (386-532) who brought the region under their control by 439.122 In the course of their migrations and residence in territories with Indo120

The statelet of Juqu (EMC dziɨəә̌’ gɨəә̌), see Pulleyblank, Lexicon, pp. 164, 260. They are usually noted as Xiongnu, L. A. Borovkova, Problema mestopoloženija csarstva Gaočan (Moskva, 1992), pp. 44f-49, suggests that its founder Ju Qu (a Xiongnu title that became a clan name), Mengsun, was of Qian origin. 121 Liu, CN, I, p. 40; Taşağıl, Gök-Türkler, I, pp. 12-13, 95, 110-111; see also N. Yamada, “The Original Turkish Homeland” Journal of Turkish Studies, 9 (1985), 243-246. 122 S. G. Kljaštornyj.:Xunny i tjurki” in Litvinskij (ed.), Vostočnyj Turkestan, pp. 121125 (where he derives the Türk from “late-Hunnic tribes that settled in Eastern Turkestan”).

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

European (Iranian and Tokharian) populations, the Ašina were undoubtedly joined by Iranian and/or Tokharian elements,123 becoming thus the “mixed Hu” of which the Suishu speaks. The Ašina-Türk then went to Gaochang (Xinjiang) together with the surviving Northern Liang rulers and here they came under Rouran rule, ca. 460. They were then brought to the Southern Altay region by the Rouran.124 While one of the mythic tales derives Ašina from Türk, the more straightforward historical account of the Suishu, based presumably on Chinese intelligence, seems to present the Ašina as the “family name” i.e. the name of the ruling clan of the Türks who stem from a grouping of “mixed Hu barbarians.” Kljaštornyj suggests that the Ašina took the name Türk only after they settled in the Altay.125 The term Hu in China (EMC *γɔ/*gá)126 was one of those multi-purpose names denoting, at first, in the era before the Han dynasty (pre-206 BC), “nomads” and then in Han times (206 BC - 221 AD) usually associated with the Xiongnu.127 By the late sixth century, i.e. the Türk era, it was also used to denote Central Asian Iranians, especially the Soġdians.128 The connection with the areas of Eastern Turkistan and Gansu, regions with East Iranian and Tokharian populations is important. The skills of the Türk-Ašina in metallurgy are also worthy of note. Although metal-working is known in the steppe, it is possible that the Türk-Ašina may have acquired some special skills (perhaps in weaponmaking) in a sedentary environment. We might note here that the Qırğız, who had a mixed agricultural and pastoral economy, were noted 123

G. -J. Pinault, “Tocharian Languages and Pre-Buddhist Culture” in V. H. Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Ages Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia (Philadelphia, 1998) I, p. 368, concludes that the Tokharians were “close to other peoples of the steppes.: They were “members of a cultural continuum that included the Altaic peoples” and there were mutual influences between the two. 124 Liu, CN, I, p. 40, II, p. 519, n. 209. See also Kljaštornyj, Drevnetjurkskie runičeskie pamjatniki kak istočnik po istorii Srednej Azii (Moskva, 1964), pp. 1 10-111, his “Xunny i tjurki” in Litvinskij (ed.), Vostočnyj Turkestan v drevnosti i rannem srednevekov’e. Étnos, jazyki, religii, pp. 123-125, and in the recent collection of his earlier works S. G. Kljaštornyj, Istorija Central’noj Azii i pamjatniki runičeskogo pis’ma (SPb. 2003), pp. 420ff. 125 Kljaštornyj, Ist. Central’noj Azii, p. 425. 126 Pulleyblank, “The Chinese and their Neighbors,” Keightley (ed.), Origins, p. 449. 127 Pulleyblank, “The Chinese and their Neighbors,” Keightley (ed.), Origins, pp. 449450; Di Cosmo, Ancient China and its Enemies, pp. 127-130. 128 Liu, CN, II, pp. 490-491 n. 22, 584 n. 786; see also E. de la Vaissière, Histoire des marchands sogdiens (2nd ed., Paris, 2004), pp. 56, 58, 61, 65, 120-121 et passim; M. Abramson, Ethnic Identity in Tang China (Philadelphia, 2008), pp. viii, 19-20, 87.

PETER B. GOLDEN

in the Tongdian for their knives and swords, which they fashioned from materials they gathered “whenever the sky rains iron” (meteorites).129 Studies of the weaponry of the Türks, which proved crucial in their military success over the Rouran, Tiele and others, point to an “advanced close combat weapon and protective gear” that they brought with them from Eastern Turkistan130 The Ašina connection with the cultures of Eastern Turkistan was clearly of considerable importance. The name Ašina also appears in the Bugut Inscription (582), the earliest known inscription of the Türk Empire, written, it must be added, in Soġdian. It mentions the tr’wkt ’šyn’s: *Turkit/ *Turukit/*Trukit Ašinas - although this reading is not without problems.131 If *Turkit et al. is the correct reading, then both would appear to be plural forms. Soġdian plurals can end in -t, but a plural ending in -s is not known there or in Khotanese Saka.132 It is found in Tokharian, 133 although this would seem to be an unlikely, but not impossible, hybrid here. The plurals in -s and -t could also be Altaic. They are common in Mongol, but rare in Old Turkic where they appear exclusively in titles of foreign origin, (e. g. ıšbara/ıšvara, pl. ıšbaras from Sanskrit îśvara “lord, prince” tegin, tegit, tarqan, tarqat134) and perhaps in some ethnonyms such as Türges/Türgeš, Tölis.135 Here, they 129

E. Pulleyblank, “The Name of the Kirghiz” Central Asiatic Journal 34/2 (1990), p. 105. 130 Ju. S. Khudiakov, “Armaments of Nomads of the Altai Mountains (First Half of the First Millennium AD)” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58/2 (2005), p. 127. 131 R. Moriyasu, A. Ochir, Provisional Report of Researches on Historical Sites and Inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998 (Osaka, 1999), p. 123; S. G. Kljaštornyj, “Drevnetjurkskaja pis’mennost’ i kul’tura narodov Central’noj Azii” Tjurkologičeskij Sbornik 1972 (Moskva, 1973), p. 257; S. G. Kljaštornyj, V. A. Livšic, “The Sogdian Inscription of Bugut Revised” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 26/1 (1972) p. 85. See the critical comments of C. I. Beckwith, “The Chinese Names of the Tibetans, Tabghatch, and Türks” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14 (2005), pp. 13-18. 132 V. S. Rastorgueva (ed.), Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija. Sredneiranskie jazyki (Moskva, 1981), pp. 250-264, 422-426. 133 W. Schulze, E. Sieg, W. Siegling, Tocharische Grammatik (Göttingen, 1931), pp. 122ff. 134 Clauson, ED, pp. 257, 479, 539-40. 135 T. Tekin, A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic (Bloomington, 1968), p. 122; A. N. Kononov, Grammatika jazyka tjurkskix runičeskix pamjatnikov VII-IX vv. (Leningrad, 1980), pp. 145-146. M. Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic (Leiden, 2004), p. 158, notes that these plurals are almost exclusively found in the Orxon Türk and Uyğur inscriptions.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

could be holdovers from the titles and ethnonymic usages of the Rouran, if it can be demonstrated that the latter were indeed speakers of some Proto-Mongolian language. The reading of Bugut tr’wkt as *Turkit /*Turukit /*Trukit, however, is far from clear.136 Elsewhere in Soġdian texts, twrk is found. It seems likely from the context and the depiction of a wolf sheltering a boy on the stone that *Türk and Ašina are, in some form, represented here. Their pairing may imply two distinct, but now joined entities. Sergej Kljaštornyj, building on a notion first put forward by Haussig and Bailey, 137 suggests that Chinese Ashina is the transcription of Khotanese-Saka âṣṣeina/âššena “blue” (cf Puštun, Yazgulam šin “blue,” Old Iranian *axšaina, Old Pers. axšainnaka, Avestan axšaêna, Middle Pers. axšên denoting “blue, dark-blue”, Soġdian ’γs’n’k, ’γs’ynh, ’γs’yn’y, axsênê, axsên, ǝxsen “green, greenish”138) or perhaps Tokharian âśna “blue”139 This nicely dovetails with the usage Kök Türk “Blue Türk” found in the Kül Tegin (E, 3)/Bilge Qağan (E, 4) inscriptions.140 Both etymologies lead us back to the Eastern IranianTokharian world of Eastern Turkistan. Moreover, this expression, Kök Türk is noted only once (the two inscriptions repeat themselves) and in the context of the origin tale of how the Türk state was founded. Prior to this, the Kök Türk s are described as idi oqsız “without a master and organization.”141 The name Ašina is nowhere mentioned in the Turkic inscriptions. Hence, it seems likely that Kök is the Turkic translation of Ašina in the inscriptions just noted. Moreover, instead of rendering it as 136

Beckwith, “The Chinese Names,” AEMAe I4 (2005), pp. 15-17, finds the reading and interpretation “extremely problematic at best.: He concluded that tr’wkt is not *turkît ~*turkit and that such a form does not exist in Soġdian hence the meaning of tr’wkt in the Bugut inscription is “unknown.: 137 H. W. Haussig, “Byzantinische Quellen über Mittelasiens in ihrer historischen Aussage” in J. Harmatta (ed.), Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of PreIslamic Central Asia (Budapest, 1979), pp. 554-557, Bailey, Khotanese Texts, Vll, p. 104. 138 V. S. Rastorgueva, D. I. Edel’man, Étimologičeskij slovar’ iranskix jazykov (henceforth ESIJaz, Moskva, 2000- ongoing), I, pp. 284-286; B. Gharib, Sogdian Dictionary. Sogdian-Persian-English (Tehran, 2004), p. 27. 139 S. G. Kljaštornyj, “The Royal Clan of the Turks and the Problem of Early TurkicIranian Contacts” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, XLVII (1994), pp. 445-447. 140 Tekin, Orhon Yazıtları, pp. 8/9, 36/37. 141 Clauson, ED, p. 95, has a very different understanding of the text, rendering this part as “the Türkü whose lineage (?) is completely without division into subtribes ?)”. This is not the general consensus, see Tekin, Orhon Yazıtları, pp. 8/9, 36/37 70-71.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Kök Türks perhaps the two are still indeed separate, the Köks and the Türks, coming together with the founding of the state. The ethnonym Türk - Türküt/Turkit may have similar linguistic connections. The Suishu tells us that the name Türk in their tongue denotes “helmet” and that it comes from the fact that the Jinshan (Altay mountains) where we find the Türks on the eve of their empire, “looks like a helmet. The people call a ‘helmet’ tujue, therefore, they call themselves by this name”142 This is a folk etymology and there is no attested Turkic form of türk meaning “helmet.” Róna-Tas has suggested a possible East Iranian connection, citing Khotanese-Saka tturakä “lid”.143 This is not a serious semantic stretch to “helmet,” but at this point must remain a conjecture. Bailey also proffered an Iranian etymology (somewhat more tentatively) from *tûra “strong”144 Finally, a Turkic etymology from the word türk, which means “one in the prime of youth, powerful, mighty” cannot be dismissed, although the meanings “powerful” and “mighty” have been contested.145 However one may etymologize or pair these names, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the Türk-Ašina, per se, had strong connections with – if not ultimate origins in – Irano-Tokharian East Turkistan, an area in which Iranians, Chinese, Northern nomads (e. g. Xiongnu) and Indian colonies had been in contact and mixing for centuries.146 The Türks, or at least the Ašina, were migrants to South Siberia-Northern Mongolia where we seem to find the major concentration of Turkic-speaking peoples. Bumın (d. 552) who founded the state, and his brother İštemi (552-575), the Yabğu Qağan who governed the western part of the realm, do not bear Turkic names. It has been suggested that these were tabooed names that hid their sacral 142

Liu CN, 1, p. 40. A. Róna-Tas, Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, trans. N. Bodoczky (Budapest, 1999), pp. 278-281. 144 Bailey, Khotanese Texts, VII, p. 103. 145 Róna-Tas, An Introduction to Turkology, pp. 10-13. Németh, HMK2, p. 84, proposed two Turkic possibilities: törü- “to come into existence, to be created” (see Clauson, ED, p. 533) and türk “strong, powerful, vigorous, mighty.” Clauson, ED, 542-3 and his Studies, pp. 84-88, however, views the ethnonym as Türkü (ethnonym) and distinguishes it from türk “the culminating point of maturity, just fully ripe, in the prime of life, young and vigorous” as two different words. Moreover, he (Studies, p. 87) disputes the notion of türk as meaning “strength.” It is earliest attested in the latter, non-ethnonymic sense, in Uyğur writings of the eighth century. See also discussion in Tryjarski, “Etnonim Türk ‘Turek; turecki’i związane z nim kłopoty” in his In Confinibus Turcarum. Szkice turkologiczne, pp. 91-101. 146 De la Vaissière, Histoire, p. 185. 143

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

Turkic names.147 We have, however, no comparable evidence for this custom among their successors. An Iranian etymology for Bumın deriving from *bûmî148 (< Aryan *bhûmî) “land” (Soġd. bwmh, bwm [vum] “land, world”149 is not inconceivable. Among their successors we find the names: *Muqan/Muğan/ Mahân/Muhan (553-572), Taspar (or more probably Tatpar, 572-581) and Nivar/Näbär/Nawâr (581-587). None of these names is Turkic 150 – nor have they thus far been etymologized. In short, Türk origins are complex, multiple and in all likelihood involved significant groupings of non-Turks as well. Indeed, their ruling house, the Ašina, has a decidedly un-Turkic onomastic profile. Were they originally Turkic in speech? The Rus’ case, which has generated a huge literature largely tinged by nationalism, comes immediately to mind151 The first generations of Kievan Rus’ rulers, Askol’d, Dir, Rjurik, Oleg, and Igor’, all bore names that indicated their non-Slavic (Scandinavian) origins. By the third generation, that of Svjatoslav (d. 972), they were all at least bilingual and bore Slavic names, reflecting the numerically dominant ethno-linguistic milieu in which they found themselves. Their kinsmen, the Normans of France and England, underwent several, similar linguistic and cultural transformations.

Empires and tribes The imperial neighbors of the Tribal Zone were often active players in the shaping of peoples here. For the Türks this meant China and in particular the Tuoba/Tabġač or Northern Wei (386-534), who ruled 147

Zuev, Rannie tjurki: očerki istorii i ideologii, p. 7. Sanping Chen, “Son of Heaven Son of God: Interactions among Ancient Asiatic Cultures Regarding Sacral Kingship and Theophoric Names” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, ser. 3, 12 (2002), p. 300. 149 Rastorgueva and Edel’man, ESIJaz., II, pp. 134-135; V. Rybatzki, “The Titles of Türk and Uigur Rulers in the Old Turkic Inscriptions,” Central Asiatic Journal, 44/2 (2000), p. 218. Bumın’s name is given in Chinese as Tumen (tu “land, earth, soil, ground, territory” + men “door, gateway”), which may hint at the meaning of his name. 150 Golden, Introduction, pp. 121-122; Rybatzki, “The Titles of Turk and Uigur Rulers” Central Asiatic Journal, 44/2 (2000), pp. 206-221. 151 See the thorough discussions in V. Ja. Petruxin. Načalo étnokul’turnoj istorii Rusi IX-XI vekov (Smolensk, 1995) and G. Schramm, Altrusslands Anfang (Freiburg im Breisgau, 2002) . 148

PETER B. GOLDEN

Northern China on the eve of their emergence. The Wei, themselves of Altaic (most probably Xianbei) origin, were periodic protagonists of the Rouran. Thus, the initial Türk encounter with China, their imperial neighbor, came through the cultural filter of a partly sinicized people that shared elements, however attenuated, of their Altaic cultural and steppe background. The Sui (581-618) and Tang (618-907) who succeeded the Wei also had backgrounds in the complex Xianbei and Sino-Xianbei frontier world.152 The Tang, in particular, were politically, economically and culturally deeply engaged in Central Asia. The Türk-Ašina make their appearance in history at a crucial moment in the sixth century. The Tuoba/Tabġač had collapsed and divided into two, the Eastern Wei (534-550) and the Western Wei (535557). The former was soon replaced by the Qi (550-577) and the latter by the Northern Zhou (557-581), dynasties that had a tenuous hold on power. These critical turnovers occurred just as the Türk-Ašina were making the transition to a powerful polity, an early state and were, indeed, connected with that process. As the Wei splintered, the Avars/Rouran, under Anagui Qağan (520-552), because of growing internal divisions, also became very vulnerable. Both the Wei and Avars were seeking allies to buttress their fragile power. When the Eastern Wei made an alliance with Anagui, their rivals, the Western Wei, in 545, were now open to connections with Bumın, the Türk Ašina ruler, increasingly an unhappy vassal of the Avars. Bumın had been probing the Chinese borderlands since the early 540s, actively seeking direct access to China. In 546, the Türks, perhaps exploiting the situation to add to their own military power, helped the Avars to defeat a Tiele attack. The Tiele, in any event, were potential rivals. Elements of the latter (the Gaoju) – and other peoples (e. g. the Wusun) had earlier been instigated to revolt by the Wei. When Bumın then asked for an Avar imperial bride as a reward for his services, he received a haughty refusal. According to the Zhoushu, Anagui replied: “you are my blacksmith slave. How dare you speak in this way”? 153 Bumın turned to the Western Wei who were ready to accommodate him. A 152

See 12 above and Sanping Chen, “A-gan Revisiteed – The Tuoba’s Cultural and Political Heritage? Journal of Asian History 30/1 (1996), pp. 46-71 and his “Succession Struggle and the Ethnic Identity of the Tang Imperial House” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, ser. 3, 6/3 (1996), pp. 379-405. 153 Liu, CN, I, p. 7; A. Taşağıl, Gök-Türkler (Ankara, 1995), I, pp. 17, 96; R. Drompp, “Imperial State Formation in Inner Asia: The Early Turkic Empires (6th to 9th Centuries)” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58/1 (2005), pp. 103-104.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

royal bride was duly dispatched and Bumın promptly revolted against the Avars in 552. The Avars were shattered and Anagui committed suicide. Some of the surviving Avars fled to the Northern Qi, who returned them “to the north” in 553. Rouran internecine strife continued and the Türks struck them again. Once more the Rouran fled to the Northern Qi, who this time brought them under their control, settled them, provided provisions and beat back the Türks who were pursuing them. The troubles continued and in 554 and 555, the Avars, pressed by the Northern Qi, were also battered by the Türks. They fled to the Western Wei. The Turks repeatedly asked the Western Wei to kill off the “refugees” Some 3000 Rouran were handed over to the Türk envoys and beheaded. The Western Wei retained the remaining Rouran, all underage (probably the children of the entourage that had accompanied the last members of the Rouran royal house), as slaves. 154 The Rouran/Avars in the eastern steppe zone were finished as an effective force. Meanwhile, Bumın’s brother, İštemi, the Sir Yabğu Qağan, established Türk power as far as the Pontic steppes and by 568, if not earlier, was in contact with Constantinople.155 In the complex twists and turns of Chinese policies, the northern Chinese dynasties, clearly, had been playing the all too familiar game of turning “barbarian” against “barbarian” They occasionally hedged their bets, granting favors or assistance now to the Rouran, now to the Türks. In the process, they provided the catalyst for Türk state formation. Was the Türk state already in the process of becoming? Was it the result of internal forces, the domestic crises that Di Cosmo156 would see as the primary catalyst for state formation in the Inner Asian steppe? Or, was Chinese intervention the necessary external spark that brought the Türks to statehood? Did China believe that it could replace the Rouran/Avars with another, perhaps more pliant and less powerful regime? The Chinese or Sinicized regimes with which we are dealing here did not last long enough for us to get a clear sense of what their purpose was – other than to keep the Northern nomads off balance. Whatever the goals of the Eastern Wei and their immediate successors were, their actions set the Türks on the road to statehood. The dynasts

154

See varying accounts in Liu, CN, I, 6-7, 10, 17, 35-36; Taskin, Materialy, pp. 294295 (Beishi). 155 Golden, Introduction, pp. 127-128. 156 N. Di Cosmo, “State Formation and Periodicization in Inner Asian History,” Journal of World History, 10/1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 1-40.

PETER B. GOLDEN

of North China were themselves too weak to impose a solution that would be completely satisfactory to them. Nomadic polities became states usually in response to stimuli coming from the imperial, sedentary world.157 In that sense, China was certainly the mid-wife, at the very least, in the birth of the Türk state. The rise of the Mongol empire provides an interesting parallel. Here, the politically weak Jin/Jurchen through their attempts at micromanipulation of the Mongols and other tribes either directly or through their proxies, the Tatars, touched off that chain of events that produced Chinggis Khan. The Türks quickly put together an ethnically diverse state as was typical of steppe realms. The Tongdian reports that Muqan, Bumın’s son and successor, “in the west defeated the Rouran (Avars) and Hephthalites (Yeda).158 ln the east, he marched on the Qitan. He went to the north and subjugated the Qigu (Qırğız). All the countries beyond the borders of China submitted to him out of fear.” His lands extended from Liao-hai in the east to the Bei-hai (Baykal) in the north and the Western Sea (Xi hai) in the west.159 Both the Northern Zhou and the Northern Qi now sought marital alliances with him. 160 The Türks brought under their sway the Tiele confederation, that included many of the Oğuric tribes in the Western Eurasian steppes, the Bayırqu, Ediz, Tarduš, Töliš and the powerful Toquz Oğuz confederation in the East. The latter included groupings such as the Uyğurs, Turkic-speakers who themselves constituted a substantial tribal union and the Basmıl, a people of possibly Oğuric speech, who would subsequently be led by a branch of the Ašina.161 The Tatar, Qitan and Tatabı (= the Qay, Chin. 157

Xazanov, Kočevniki, esp. pp. 362ff. / Khazanov, Nomads, esp. pp. 228ff. This may be a reference to the Türk pursuit of what became the European Avars. A Türk ruler later berated the Byzantines “for making a treaty with the Uarkhoniai, our slaves (he meant the Avars) who have fled their masters, see Blockley/Menander, pp. 174/ 175. 159 Taşagıl, Gök-Türkler, I, p. 97. 160 S. Jagchid and V. J. Symons, Peace, War, and Trade along the Great Wall (Blomington-Indianapolis, 1989), p. 146. 161 See P. B. Golden, “Cumanica V: The Basmıls and the Qıpčaq,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 15 (2006/2007), pp. 19-21, 26ff. As late as the latter part of the eleventh century, Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî lists them among the Qay, Yabâqu and Tatâr (the Qay and Tatar are Mongolic peoples) “each of these groups,” he reports, “has its own language, but they also know Turkic well.” Kâšġarî/Dankoff, I, p. 83, pointing thus to the difference in their speech from Common Turkic. The name Basmıl itself might reflect an Oğuric form of Common Turkic *Basmıš < bas- “to press, crush, oppress, to make a surprise attack” (Clauson, ED, pp. 370-371). 158

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

Xi), Mongolic peoples, and probably the Qurıqan, who were also part of the Tiele, submitted. Among the subject Turkic groupings were the Oğuz, Qarluqs and Qırğız, the latter recognized as having a Qağan (the imperial title) of their own. The Qarluq ruling house whose head bore the title of elteber (subject ruler) also appears to have come to be led by a house of Ašina origin 162 The Sir, who were probably located northwest of the Türks proper and were in close alliance with them, were another powerful tribal union or subunion. Kljaštornyj, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, has attempted to identify them with the later Qıpčaq union.163 With the exception of a very fragmentary and doubtful notice in the early Uyğur inscriptions (Moyun Čur/Šine Usu, the most recent reading omits the reconstruction of qıbčaq entirely)164 the Qıpčaqs do not appear in any of the Türk or Uyğur runic inscriptions. The same may be said with regard to the Kimeks, the tribal union from which the Qıpčaqs subsequently emerged in their own right onto the stage of history. Subjects of the Türk also included the Az, Čik and İzgil who may have been Iranian, Uralic or of some other ethnicity and the Iranian Soġdians who played an important commercial and cultural role in the Türk state. The Soġdians, here, were playing an already wellestablished role in with regard to their relations with the nomads, one that would continue well into the Middle Ages.165 Türk Qağans spent a 162

Al-Mas‘ûdî, Murûj aḏ-Ḏahab wa Ma‘âdin al-Jawhar, ed. Ch. Pellat (Beirut, 1966), I, p. 155, writing in the 930’s speaks of a Qarluq “Qağan of Qağans,” who was ruler of the Turks, apparently sometime after 840. He cites his name as ��‫( �ـ‬Šâba), var. lect. ��‫( �ـ‬Šâna, perhaps a corruption of Ašina), see also O. Pritsak, “Von den Karluk zu den Karachaniden” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 101 (1951), p. 281. 163 S. G. Kljaštornyj, “Kypčaki v runičeskix pamjatnikax” Turcologica 1986 (Leningrad, 1986), pp. 153-164. S. M. Axinžanov, Kypčaki v istorii srednevekovogo Kazaxstana (Alma-Ata, 1989), pp. 40-57, 62-63, who accepts Kljaštornyj’s hypothesis, also places them among the Tiele tribes. He sees their earliest habitat as extending from northwestern Mongolia and parts of the Altay to southem Kazakhstan and views them, under the name Sir, as having played an equal role with the Türk in the period of the second Türk Qaganate (ca. 682-742), cf. the references to the Türk Sir budun. After a disastrous defeat, they adopted the name Qıpčaq meaning “unlucky, unfortunate” as a protective name to ward off further misfortunes. The collapse of the Türks brought them further west where subsequently they became part of the Kimek union. 164 Moriyasu and Ochir, Provisional Report, pp. 178, 182-183. The older reading, *Türk Qıbčaq, may be found in G. Ajdarov, Jazyk orxonskix pamjatnikov drevnetjurkskoj pis’mennosti VIII veka (Alma-Ata, 1971), p. 344. 165 Golden, Introduction, pp. 141-146; De la Vaissière, Histoire, pp. 185-188, 202-203.

PETER B. GOLDEN

good deal of their time, keeping this polyglot, polyethnic, and fluid tribal mass under control – as the Orxon inscriptions eloquently attest. The Türk experience, in many respects, was not greatly different (except in physical scale) than ethnogenesis and state formation in other parts of Eurasia. In Europe, we also find a great sedentary empire, Rome (and later Byzantium), like China, attempting to make sense of and manage the welter of peoples on its periphery.166 In both the East and the West, tribal “peoples” were created by the imperial powers – or perhaps more accurately one can say that ethnic groupings that had the potential to coalesce into larger, more orderly units were encouraged to do so by the great powers who gave or withheld, as they saw fit, the enormous benefits and prestige that came to a “barbarian” chieftain from the granting to him of access to imperial society and its goods. By privileging him in this fashion, by establishing him as the chieftain with whom they would deal, the great empires helped to make him master of other kindred tribes and attract followers from beyond his immediate circle. 167 “Tribes,” R. Brian Ferguson, has observed, “can evolve without states, but states make a lot of tribes and most named tribes in the ethnographic record exist under the spell of states.”168 This is an essential part of ethnogenesis in the frontier or tribal zones of the great states. Here, the latter can go beyond the shaping of tribes. They can shape new ethnicities from groups that are either reacting to their aggression or are directly manipulated by them.169 The Xiongnu, for example, became a powerful steppe polity in response to Chinese expansion as Nicola Di Cosmo has recently shown.170 At the very least, from the Imperial point of view, it was easier to deal with only one “Barbarian” ruler rather than a host of chieftains.

166

Useful discussions are found in P. Anderson, Passages fom Antiquity to Feudalism (1974, reprint: New York-London, 1988), pp. 107-109 on the Roman impact; Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung, p. 15. 167 R. B. Ferguson and N. L. Whitehead (eds.), War in the Tribal Zone (Santa Fe, 1997), p. 13. 168 See R. Brian Ferguson, “A Paradigm for the study of War and Society” in War and society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, ed. K. Raaflaub and N. Rosenstein (Cambridge, Mass. 1999), p. 419. 169 D. A. Chapell, “Ethnogenesis and Frontiers” Journal of World History, 4/2 (1993), p. 272. 170 Di Cosmo, Ancient China and its Enemies, pp. 174-176.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

Recent studies have shown that the ethnonyms that came to be associated with the peoples called “Franks,” “Lombards,”171 “Goths,” et al. derived, it appears, from their warrior elites. War-bands, led by dynamic, charismatic chieftains (some of them “kings” of some particular grouping), took in or brought under their sway a variety of heterogeneous groupings. The latter adopted the ideology of the charismatic chieftains and the name of the ruling group as political designations. Origin myths were created or refashioned. Despite – or more likely because of this diversity, claims for the purity of blood or descent, especially of the ruling clans, were put forth. These claims are sometimes reflected in our sources and must have had some resonance in the tribal world.172 This reconstruction has its critics173 Nonetheless, there are many parallels with the Türks and the variety of Türk origin tales undoubtedly reflects their heterogeneous origins.174 This pattern, well known to Europe, is also observable in the steppe world where tribal genealogies were similarly manipulated for political purposes. In the western zone, the origin myths – or at least the versions of them that have come down to us – were not uninfluenced by the models of the Graeco-Roman traditions. There was a dual interaction here: the Romans/Byzantines, trying to make sense of this bewildering array of armed and potentially dangerous “barbarians,” classified them according to patterns known to their ethnographic traditions. The Byzantines often used the same, by now archaic, names, taken from Herodotus and other classical authors and hence conforming to the ethnographies of the ancient world.175 The tribal elites, ever anxious to maintain access to the Roman world, were prepared to tailor their profiles, as it were, to fit Roman preconceptions of what a “people” should be. These cultural filters were passed along with literacy (in 171

For a survey of the material on Lombard/Langobard origins, see N. Christie, The Lombards (Oxford, 1995), pp. 1-30. See also the remarks of C. R. Bowlus, “Ethnogenesis: The Tyranny of a Complex” in Gillet (ed.), On Barbarian Identity, pp. 247-249, which is critical (pp. 239-256) of the “Ethnogenesis Theory.” 172 See Wolfram, Roman Empire, p. 3. 173 Cf Bowlus, ‘“Ethnogenesis: The Tyranny of a Complex” in Gillet (ed.), On Barbarian Identity, pp. 239-256, among others in that volume and the defense offered by W. Pohl, “Ethnicity, Theory, and Tradition: A Response” in Gillet (ed.), On Barbarian Identity, pp. 221-239. 174 See discussion in Sinor, “The Legendary Origins of the Türks” in Žegas and Voorheis (eds.), Folklorica: Festschrift für Felix J. Oinas, pp. 223-257. 175 “Scythian” was used to denote various Oğuric Turkic peoples, European Avars, Khazars, Turkic Bulğars, Hungarians, Pečenegs, Oğuz, Cumans, the Seljuks, Mongols and early Ottomans, see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 2, pp. 279-283.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Latin) to “Barbarian” historians who interpreted their past, real and invented, in ways, vocabularies and categories that would be understandable to the Graeco-Roman literary world. In the west, the Frankish confederation took shape in the third century AD in considerable interaction with the Roman Empire176 in a pattern which David Harry Miller has termed “frontier ethnogenesis”177 Like the Xiongnu in Inner Asia, the groupings that became the Franks were responding to the powerful imperial military presence that had come to their borders.178 In a sense, the genesis of the Franks may be viewed as another example of Roman engineering – in this instance putting into place, perhaps without always intending to do so – political and ethnic infrastructures rather than roads and aqueducts. In the western Eurasian steppes we have the example of the Čërnii Klobouci, an amalgam of steppe tribes, remnants that had not been conquered by the Qıpčaqs, who were brought into the Rus’ state and served as border guards. 179 This was an early stage of ethnogenesis. Their various component parts, e. g. the Berendiči, Kayepiči (Qay-opa), as well as some Pečeneg and Western Oğuz groupings, having been organized politically by the Rus’, in time could have formed a distinct people. This process was stopped short by the Mongol invasions. Even once established, the actual components of a particular ethnonym could change over time. These were highly fluid political entities. The Franks of the fourth century, as Patrick Geary has noted, were not the same as the Franks of the sixth century. “Names were,” he notes, “renewable resources. They held the potential to convince people of continuity, even if radical discontinuity was the lived reality.”180 “Ethnic names,” as Edward James notes in his study of the Franks, “are 176

Wolfram, Roman Empire, pp. 48-49. See D. H. Miller, “Ethnogenesis and Religious Revitalization beyond the Roman Frontier: The Case of Frankish Origins,” Journal of World History, 4/2 (Fall, 1993), pp. 277-285. See the brief overview of the early Franks in W. Pohl, Die Germanen (München, 2000), pp. 33ff. and E. James, The Franks (Oxford, 1988), pp. 11ff. and the critical survey of the Traditionskern model by A. C. Murray, “Reinhard Wenskus on ‘Ethnogenesis’, Ethnicity, and the Origin of the Franks” in Gillet (ed.), On Barbarian Identity, pp. 39-68. 178 See Wolfram, Roman Empire, pp. 41-42. 179 See P. B. Golden, “Černii klobouci” Symbolae Turcologicae – Studies in Honour of Lars Johanson, ed. A. Berta, B. Brendemoen, and C. Schönig, in the Transactions of the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, vol. 6 (Uppsala, 1996), pp. 97-107. 180 See P. J. Geary, The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton, 2002), p. 118. See also Pohl, “Conceptions of Ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies” Archaeologia Polona 29 (1991), pp. 39-49 and Curta, The Making of the Slavs. 177

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

but labels. They may be applied to people who would not use that name of themselves; they may gather together groups of people who would not think of themselves as constituting one group.”181 The steppe world has examples of that as well. More directly related to our theme are the activities of Tang Taizong (627-649) with respect to the Eastern Türks. The Tang played a key role in the collapse of the Eastern and Western Türk Qağanates (who were subjugated during the reign of his son, Gaozong (649-683). After the collapse of the first Türk Qağanate in the east, in 630, Taizong, we are told, at the behest of the nomads who had now come under his control, assumed the title of “Heavenly Qağan” and declared that he alone “loved” the “Barbarians” and as a consequence, they followed him “like a father or mother” 182 His purposes – and those of his successors who continued to use this title have been much debated. This was, in any event, an extraordinary claim by the Tang, made all the more extraordinary by the apparent willingness of the Northern nomads to accept this.183 After having engineered the downfall of the first Türk Empire in the east in 630, the Tang attempted to assimilate the Türks by bringing them south of the Yellow River. The ruling clan, high ranking nobles and clan chiefs were given Chinese titles, brought into Tang service, and settled in the capital. When assimilation failed, at least with regard to the rank and file tribesmen, Tang Taizong resettled them on the frontier to function as part of the border security against other nomads. The Türks were soon hard-pressed by the Xueyantuo (perhaps to be identified with the Sir Tarduš), one of their former subject confederations. Taizong brought them to territories (634) within and on the borders of China (the sources are insufficient to determine the full pattern), helping thus to preserve them as a distinct political and ethnic grouping – and a still viable force to help in China’s frontier defense. There was resistance. In 639, one of the Türk leaders made an attempt against Taizong, causing the latter to shift policy and move the Türks north of the Yellow River, to serve now as a “client state,” under an Ašina, in protecting the borders. This was also aimed at the Xueyantuo (Sir Tarduš). Taizong made it clear to the latter that he 181

James, The Franks, p. 6. C. Holcombe, The Genesis of East Asia 221 B. C. - A. D. 907 (Honolulu. 2000), p. 23. 183 See discussion in Pan, Yihong, Son of Heaven and Heavenly Qaghan. Sui-Tang China and its Neighbors (Bellingham, Washington, 1997), pp. 179, 382-391, who attributes this as well as the dynasty’s openness to foreign, especially Central Asian cultural influences, to the non-Chinese elements in their background. 182

PETER B. GOLDEN

would help the Türks if the Xueyantuo attacked them and did so in 641. He played different factions against each other and (640) had rejected a request of a Sir Tarduš Qağan, Yi’nan, for a Tang bride, hoping, thereby, to lessen his claims to qağanal status. Xueyantuo pressure on the Türks continued nonetheless and in 644 they were again allowed within Chinese borders in the Ordos. After Yi’nan’s death (645), the Sir Tarduš quickly faded (646) beset by internal problems and external foes within the steppe (the Uyğurs). In short, Taizong deliberately preserved the Eastern Türks, coming to their aid when necessary, determining who would govern them, and maintaining their viability as an ethnopolitical group in the interests of Chinese policy. This was done so that the Türks “could continue to function” as defenders of the Tang frontier. The Xueyantuo, now weakened, were also brought under Tang rule. Such interventions and micromanagement, where possible, of the affairs of the peoples in the tribal zone was standard practice. In this fashion, Tang power was extended to the Western Türks as well by 659.184 Without Tang intervention, the Eastern Türks would have vanished. Taizong’s goal, of course, typical of a ruler operating in the tribal zone, was to maintain an equilibrium, keeping all the nomads capable of causing mischief off balance. Needless to say, he could not predict the ultimate results. The Eastern Türks revived a generation later and formed the Second Türk Empire (682-742), responding in part to the real fear that they would simply fade away among the deracinated folk serving on the Chinese frontiers, while their leaders became Tang servitors. Sanping Chen has recently suggested that the Turk revolt was not so much a national liberation movement as a “consequence of the growing alienation felt by a (junior) partner in a Särbo-Turco-Chinese joint venture that was tilting more and more toward agrarian traditions”185 This is not the impression left by the Old Türk inscriptions which depict their time in Tang service as tantamount to servitude and warned the Türks not to be taken in again by the sweet words and goods of China.186 Among the Türk elite, the China experience had heightened their sense of Türk identity – perhaps because they, the elite, had come so close to succumbing to Sinicization. This wariness of China is seen in the Orxon 184

See Pan, Son of Heaven, pp. 179, 187-196; H. Bielenstein, Diplomacy and Trade in the Chinese World 589-1276 (Leiden, 2005), pp. 386-389, 413-415. 185 Chen, “Succession Struggle and the Ethnic Identity of the Tang Imperial House,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, ser. 3, 6/3 (1996), pp. 396-397. 186 Tekin, Orhon Yazıtları, pp. 2-4.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

inscriptions. In the inscription devoted to Tonyuquq, the chief advisor to Elteriš/Ilteriš, the Ašina who renewed the Türk Qağanate, he says that he was “shaped in the Chinese state” (tabğač ilinge qılıntım) where the Türk people, having surrendered, “had perished, had become used up, had ceased to exist” (Türk boḏun ölti alqıntı yoq boltı).187 This coming from a man with a Chinese education!188 As we have noted, all the imperial societies that bordered with the tribal northlands, China, Iran, Rome, were anxious to create some order in their tribal zones. Those who ventured directly into the tribal zone, such as China and Rome, created or manipulated peoples and sometimes states with results that were not always favorable to them. Iran rarely became directly involved with the steppe although it too sought to control the tribes through economic access and even – in very special cases – marital ties with the royal house. But the Shahs had learned from the fate of those who recklessly entered the steppes. The Achaemenid founder, Cyrus, died at the hands of vengeful Scythians. The Sâsânid Peroz (459-484) was killed in a campaign in the steppe against the Hephthalites, the very nomads who had helped him seize power.189 The Byzantines never sent an army into the steppe, but sought through diplomacy, bribes and the constant juggling of tribal alliances to maintain order in the tribal zone. They did, however, periodically engage in military activity closer to home in the Balkans. Here, the Byzantine presence on the Danubian frontier, 190 as well as in the

187

Ajdarov, Jazyk orxonskix pamjatnikov, p. 324. S. G. Kljaštornyj, “Ton’jukuk-Ashidé juan’čžen”’ Tjurkologičeskij Sbornik (Moskva, 1966), pp. 202-205, who derives Tonyuquq’s name from ton “first” + yuquq (< yoq-/yuq- “to preserve, value” = Chin. Yuan Zhen “First Treasure.: Yoq/yuq-, however, is not noted in Clauson, ED, pp. 897-898 (yuq- “to stick (to something)”) in this meaning. For ton, see Clauson, ED, p. 513: tun “first born.: In Chinese, he was Ashide Yuan Zhen. Ashide (EMC ʔa ʂɨ təәk, LMC ʔa ʂṛ təәəә̆k, Pulleyblank, Lexicon, pp. 2374, 283) is the name of his clan. It is also noted in a Tibetan document (see F. Venturi, “An Old Tibetan Document on the Uighurs” Journal of Asian History 42/1 (2008), p. 21: a-she sde). Zuev, Rannie tjurki, pp. 86, 133, 168-169, believes that it renders *Aštaq, which represented the “in-law” clan of the Ašina. He views the Tonyuquq inscription as a means to promote a notion of co-rulership with the Ašina. The mother of An Lushan, the half Soġdian-half-Türk Tang general who revolted in 755 against the Tang was descended on his mother’s side from the Ashide (Liu, CN, 1, 267). 189 R. N. Frye, Ancient Iran, pp. 322-323; McGovern, The Early Empires of Central Asia (Chapel Hill, 1939), pp. 414-415. 190 See Curta, The Making of the Slavs, who argues that Slavic ethnicity was “invented” by the Byzantines. 188

PETER B. GOLDEN

Balkans played a crucial role in the crystallization of the Slavic peoples.

The spread of the ethnonym Türk Janhunen has pointed to the instability of ethnonyms in Eastern Inner Asia, remarking that they can be transferred to smaller social units (“subethnic groups and clans”) or “borrowed by alien groups.” Under such conditions of flux, long-term continuities are difficult to prove.191 In sum, ethnonyms take shape in multiple environments, in both that of the “host” and that of the “significant other” – often a major neighboring state with which it is in contact. Languages spread by conquest and by more pacific modes. Igor’ D’jakonov’s notion of the movement of IndoEuropean languages in relay race fashion192 comes to mind in which the tongue of some core group is adopted by peoples among whom they settle and then a new group, now a mix of the two or more peoples, but bearing the ethnic designation of the dominant language, brings the language – and ethnonym – to yet another grouping and the process of linguistic change and further mixing continues. We should bear this in mind in looking at the Turks. All of the peoples under Türk rule took the name Türk as a political designation. Rašîd ad-Dîn (d. 1318), in his discussion of the Turkic and Mongolic tribes of Inner and Central Asia, repeatedly notes that ethnonyms spread as political designations. Most of the Turkic peoples, he remarks, now call themselves “Mongol” (Muġûl) after the latter had established their hegemony in the steppe in the same way that earlier many peoples had adopted the name Tatar when they were the paramount force in the Eastern steppes.193 The Mongols themselves, he comments, were, “in ancient times, one tribe of the collectivity of tribes of the steppe-dwelling Turks.” 194 This shows how widespread the ethnonym Türk had become in the Muslim and steppe world as a generic term for the pastoral nomadic, Turkic and Mongolic-speaking 191

Janhunen, Manchuria, p. 25. I. M. Diakonov, “Language Contacts in the Caucasus and the Near East” in T. L. Markey and John A. C. Greppin (eds.), When Worlds Collide: Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-Europeans (Ann Arbor, 1990) and his The Paths of History (Cambridge, 1999), p. 19. 193 Rašîd ad-Dîn, Jâmi‘ at-Tawârîx, ed. M. Rawšan and M. Mûsawî (Tehran, 1373/1994), I, 41-44, 50ff. 194 Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rawšan and Mûsawî, I, p. 78. 192

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

peoples. Muslim authors remark on the sense of jinsiyya, a complicated Arabic term which we may translate here as “national solidarity,” that the Turks and Mongols felt, and which was occasionally used as a ploy by the Mongols to win over Turkic peoples.195 During and after the Türk era, the designation Türk was used in reference to the Khazars (ca. 650-965), a successor state that derived from the Western Türk empire196 and later the Hungarians, some of whose political institutions had their origins in the Khazar state. The Uyğurs who completed the overthrow of the Türk with their expulsion of the Ašina-led Basmıl in 744 continued to use the term Türk to denote both the Turkic peoples and the literary language that had developed in the Türk state. The Uyğurs themselves made significant contributions, during and after their imperial period (post 840), to its further development. Thus, for example, the eleventh century Uyğur translator of the Chinese biography of Xuanzang, the famous Chinese Buddhist pilgrim and traveler, refers to his translation tvğač tilintin “Türk tilinče“ from Chinese language “into the Türk tongue”197 In that same work, as was noted previously, the ethnonym Xiongnu is rendered as Türk yočul bodun “Turk nomadic people.”198 This expression is also found in the Turkic translation from the Tokharian version of the Maytrisimit: erk Türk yočul bodun “strong, Türk nomadic people”199 Clearly, Türk is being used here as a generic, not a specific reference to the actual Türks nor necessarily an indication that the Xiongnu were Türks. Interestingly

195

Cf. Ibn al-Aṯîr, Al-Kâmil fî’t-Ta’rîx, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Beirut reprint, 1965-1966 which differs in pagination from the original Leiden edition of 1851-1876), XII, pp. 368, 375, 385-386, on the Mongol appeal to the Qıpčaqs. 196 E. Bretschneider, Medieval Researches From Eastern Asiatic Sources (London, 1910), ll, p. 93: the Gesa [Ko-sa] “who belong to the stock of the T’u-chüe;” Maljavkin, Tanskie xroniki, pp. 84 (Xin Tang-shu), 272, n. 652; Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. c. de Boor (Lipsiae, 1883), I, pp. 315, 407, 409, 433, 435 (Khazaria = Τουρκία), K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili (T’bilisi, 1955), I, p. 223; al-Ya‘qûbî, Ta’rîx, ed. M. Th. Houtsma (Leiden, 1883), II, pp. 375-395. 197 L. Ju. Tuguševa (ed., trans.), Ujgurskaja versija biografii Sjuan’-czana (Moskva, 1991), p. 96 (V87, lines 11-14). 198 Tuguševa, Ujgurskaja versija, pp. 17-22, 132 (Vl, 43, lines 18-19), 133 (VI, 44, line 24) and her “O slovosočetanii “Türk Yočul Bodun’ v drevnetjurkskix pis’mennyx pamjatnikax” in S. G. Kljaštornyj, Ju. A. Petrosjan (eds.), Tjurkskie i mongol’skie pis’mennye pamjatniki (Moskva, 1992), pp. 97-101. 199 Ş. Tekin (ed.), Maytrisimit (Ankara, 1976), p. 157 (85/21-22).

PETER B. GOLDEN

enough, a Soġdian document of the early eighth century uses xwn “Hun” to denote “Turk”200 The Khazar Cambridge Document published by Schechter, which dates to the mid-tenth century, refers to the Oğuz and the Oğuz lands as ‫( טורקו‬Ṭwrqw) and ‫( טורקיא‬Ṭwrqia). 201 The Rus’ chroniclers of the eleventh-twelfth century term the Oğuz Торкъ, Торчинъ, Торци. 202 These forms may reflect Türk or a variant Törk. Both the Hebrew and Rus’ forms do not conform to the usual systems of transcribing Türk. If this is Türk it would indicate a continuation of this term among the Oğuz. The Arabs’ first encounter with Turkic-speaking nomadic peoples was with the Western Türks with whom they warred in the Caucasus and Central Asia in the seventh and eighth century. The Islamic geographers, Arab and Persian, adopted it as a generic term for all the Turkic peoples, following here the paradigm of the Arab tribes. As noted above, al-Iṣṭaxrî (mid-tenth century) emphasized that the “Turks” have “one tongue.”203 The notion of a Turkic linguistic and cultural community, perhaps influenced by the Arabs’ understanding of their own tribal past, was present in the earliest Turko–Islamic literature. Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî cites a Turkic saying that clearly juxtaposes Turk and non-Turk: “There is no Turk without a Tat (just as) there can be no hat without a head” (tatsız Türk bolmas bašsız börk bolmas).204 Tat is the term used for “alien” and in particular the Iranian population205 with which the Turks had been and were in constant contact in Central Asia. Kâšġarî renders this saying into Arabic as “there is no Persian except in the company of a Turk, just as there is no cap without a head to put it on,” probably wishing to cast the Turks in a less dependent light. Kâšġarî blended the Judeo-Christian-Islamic genealogical tradition with that of the Turks. As we noted above, Kâšġarî reported that “in origin,” the Turks were twenty tribes. He also added that “each tribe has branches whose number only God knows” With the exception of the

200

Kljaštornyj, Ist. Central’noj Azii, p. 422, n. 39, citing B. A. Livšic, “Sogdijskij bračnyj kontrakt načala VIII v. n. é.: Sovetskaja Etnografija No. 5 (1960), p. 103. 201 N. Golb, O. Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca, 1982), pp. 94, 112-115. 202 Cf`. Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej (Moskva – Sankt Peterburg / Petrograd / Leningrad, 1843-1995), I, c. 84, 162, 163 etc. 203 Al-Iṣṭaxrî, Kitâb Masâlik wa Mamâlik, ed. de Goeje, p. 9. 204 Kâšġarî/Dankoff II, p. 103. The translation is mine. 205 Clauson, ED, p. 449.

ETHNOGENESIS IN THE TRIBAL ZONE

Oğuz (who were then rulers of the Middle East under the Seljuk house), he limited his discussion only to the “great tribes”206 Further indications for the generic use of the ethnonym Türk can be seen in the creation by Muslim authors of a Persian-based folk etymology for the ethnonym Türkmen < Türk + suffix of strengthing men. This was a term that evolved in a Turko-Muslim milieu and was first applied to Oğuz (with whom it ultimately became firmly affixed) and Qarluqs who had Islamized. Al-Bîrûnî explained it as deriving from Turk-mânand “resembling a Turk” Rašîd ad-Dîn gives a more detailed explanation indicating that it developed as a result of Turk acculturation to Iranian Transoxiana. He suggests that in this region they were influenced by “the water and climate, by degrees, their appearance became like that of the Tâžîks, the Tâžîk peoples called them Turkmân, that is ‘resembling Turks.’” 207 Thus, the name Türk, originally associated with a relatively small and distinct ethnos had thus become widely applied by Turkic-speakers and their neighbors to the collectivity of peoples speaking Turkic and, in the Mongol era, to Mongol as well. By this era it had come to denote Turko-Mongolian nomad, one coming out of the Imperial Steppe political tradition and had taken on a life of its own in both the nomadic and sedentary worlds.

206 207

Kâšġarî/Dankoff I, p. 82. Al·Bîrûnî, Kitâb al-Jamâhir fî Ma‘rifat al-Jawâhir, ed. S. Krenkow (Ḥaidarâbâd, 1355/ I936-37), p. 205; Rašîd ad-Dîn, ed. Rawšan and Mûsawî, I, p. 55. This etymology was also known to Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî/Dankoff I, p. 353, II, p. 362.

WAR AND WARFARE IN THE PRE-ČINGGISID WESTERN STEPPES OF EURASIA*

Russian and Ukrainian scholars, whose national histories have been so closely intertwined with the movements of steppe peoples, saw the struggle of Rus’, their common progenitor, with the Steppe as one of the key themes of not only their own histories, but by extension that of Europe as a whole. Rus’, they averred, was the shield that heroically held off the hordes of Asia. This was the struggle of Forest and Steppe, Steppe and Sown.1 Nomadic depredations culminating in the Mongol conquest, were seen as the source of many if not all of the modern problems that beset that region. Thus, V. V. Kargalov wrote that the * There is some ambiguity in the geographical nomenclature. “Eurasia” can denote the whole of the European-Asian landmass or the meeting ground of “Asia” and “Europe” traditionally placed around the Ural mountains. “Western Eurasia,” thus, can designate the western zone of the Euro-Asian continent (in effect Europe) or the western zone of the region of contact. By the term “Western Steppes of Eurasia” I mean the regions bounded by the Hungarian plains in the West and the TransVolgan steppes in the East extending to the borders of Western Uzbekistan. This corresponds, grosso modo, to the Pontic-Caspian steppes of the Classical authors. The southern rim of this zone is the Crimea and the North Caucasian mountains. 1 See the writings of the leading figures of nineteenth century Russian history, Sergej M. Solov’ëv (1820-1879), Istorija Rossii s drevnejšix vremën (Moskva, 19881966), I/1-2, pp. 352,357,383, 647-648 and Vasilij O. Ključevskij (1841-1911), Kurs russkoj istorii (Moskva, 1987-1990), I, pp. 282ff. For a fuller discussion of the historiography of this theme, see Ruslana M. Mavrodina, Kievskaja Rus’ i kočevniki (Pečenegi, Torki, Polovcy) (Leningrad, 1983) and her “Rus’ i kočevniki,” Sovetskaja istoriografija Kievskoj Rusi, ed. Vladimir V. Mavrodin et al., (Leningrad, 1973), pp. 210-221. See also the leading Ukrainian scholar, Myxajlo Hruševs’kyj (1866-1934), Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy (L’viv, 1904-1922, reprint: Kyïv, 1992-1996), I, pp. 203ff, II, pp. 505-506, 530, 533. A brief survey of this literature may also be found in my “Aspects of the Nomadic Factor in the Economic Development of Kievan Rus’,” Ukrainian Economic History. Interpretive Essays, ed. Ivan S. Koropeckyj. (Cambridge, Mass., 1991), pp. 58-62.

PETER B. GOLDEN

“the eternally billowing nomadic storm cut off Rus’ from the centers of trade … Rus’s war with the steppes lasted for centuries; it was an unbroken and exhausting one.” 2 These conceptualizations of the nomad-sedentary encounter were often adopted, uncritically, by Western scholars. Jerome Blum attributed the problems of the twelfth century Rus’ economy to the “unprecedented frequency and violence” of the nomadic (Cuman) raids. Richard Pipes, who appears to have considered the Pontic steppes as the birthright of the Eastern Slavs, writes that the latter “had to abandon the steppe and withdraw to the safety of the forest” because nomad incursions had made life “unbearable”3 Few scholars were prepared to see anything positive in the encounter with the steppe. Most recently, however, a more nuanced appraisal of the steppe-sedentary interaction in Eurasia has begun.4 In the pre-Činggisid era, the nomads never attempted to conquer Rus’.5 Indeed, one can demonstrate that in the period from ca. 350 (the advent of the Huns into the region) and until the Mongol conquests, it was the nomads who were either driven off or forced to make accommodations. 6 The nomads were, occasionally, a nuisance, especially in frontier steppe regions where they considered the Slavic colonists the interlopers. But, trade and the productive forces of the Kievan Rus’ economy were not adversely affected, nor did the population suffer any decline.7 Although there are a good number of brief studies of different aspects of Byzantium’s interaction with the steppe, thus far there has 2

VadimV. Kargalov, “Poloveckie nabegi na Rus’” Voprosy Istorii (1965), No. 3, p. 68, see also his larger study, Vnešnepolitičeskie faktory razvitija feodal’noj Rusi (Moskva, 1967). 3 Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1961, reprint: New York, 1964), p. 57; Richard Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime (New York, 1974), p 37. 4 See the broader canvas of Anatoly M. Khazanov, Andre Wink (eds.), Nomads in the Sedentary World (Richmond, 2001). 5 Omeljan Pritsak, “The Polovcians and Rus’” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 2 (1982), p. 380 who concluded that there was no Cumans “danger” and that the Cumans “never aimed to occupy even a part of a frontier Rus’ principality.” 6 See Peter B. Golden, “Nomads and Their Sedentary Neighbors in Pre-Činggisid Eurasia” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 7 (1987-1991), pp. 41-81. 7 Golden, “Aspects of the Nomadic Factor,” pp. 99-101; Thomas S. Noonan, “The Flourishing of Kiev’s International and Domestic Trade, ca. 1100-ca. 1240” in Ukrainian Economic History, ed. Koropeckyj, pp. 102-146. David B. Miller, “The Kievan Principality in the Century before the Mongol Invasions: An Inquiry into Recent Research and Interpretation” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, X/1-2 (1986), p. 223.

WAR AND WARFARE

been no attempt to view this history as a whole.8 The Byzantines had very practical reasons for an interest in the steppe. Movements of peoples often had direct consequences for the Byzantine borderlands and occasionally core territories. These are discussed in the remarkable De Administrando Imperio of the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 949-959).9 Byzantine historiographical traditions, with their frequently archaicizing inclinations, often provide unique data. The Byzantines, of course, had Herodotos, whose description of Scythia and the Scythians provided numerous topoi for later authors. The latter, as any perusal of sources such as Anna Komnena or Niketas Khoniates will show, often preferred the more “classical” sounding “Scythian” to some barbarous contemporary ethnonym. A complete study of the relations between Iran and the TurkoMongolian steppe has yet to be written. In the Sâsânid era (ca. 226651), the nomads were a constant factor in Iranian history. Beginning in the latter half of the eleventh century, some centuries after the AraboIslamic conquest of Iran (651), the region came to be dominated by nomadic peoples who had come in from Central and Inner Asia. Thereafter, with some exceptions, the military-political leadership of this region has remained largely in the hands of steppe nomad invaders or their descendants. The historiography of Medieval Transcaucasia, another “frontline” region of sedentary states, is similarly lacking in studies that look for broader patterns of relations with the steppe world. We are now much better informed about the workings of nomadic society and its need to interact with the sedentary world.10 Our purpose 8

Gyula (Julius) Moravcsik’s monumental Byzantinoturcica (2nd ed., Berlin, 1958) is an excellent collection of onomastic, textological, historiographical and bibliographical material, but makes no attempt to present a full picture of the 1100 year Byzantine encounter with the steppe. His Bizánc és a magyarság (Budapest, 1953), rev. Eng. trans. Byzantium and the Magyars, trans. M. Szegedy-Maszák et al. (Amsterdam, 1970) is a thorough survey of the interaction of one steppe people with Byzantium. Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453 (London, 1971) is sensitive to these issues, but concerned with a broader range of themes. 9 Henceforth noted as DAI, ed. Julius (Gyula) Moravcsik, trans. Romilly Jenkins (Washington, D. C., 1967). Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s name has become so well known in this form that I have used it instead of Konstantinos Porphyrogennêtos which is the form more in keeping with the transcriptions used elsewhere in this paper. 10 See Anatoly M. Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, trans. J. Crookenden (2nd ed., Ann Arbor, 1994) and Sechin Jagchid, Van Jay Symons, Peace, War, and Trade along the Great Wall (Bloomington, 1989).

PETER B. GOLDEN

here is to examine one aspect of the steppe-sedentary encounter, the military dimension, in the period extending from ca. 350 to ca. 1200. It is this theme that lies at the heart of the larger question of nomadsedentary interaction. We will begin with a brief overview of the nomads and their military political encounters from the Huns to the Cuman-Qıpčaqs. We will then engage in a closer examination of a number of specific themes dealing with the art of war in the steppes.

The Western Steppes: Migrations and Military Encounters In the first centuries C. E., Roman and Parthian military encounters with the then largely Iranian steppe peoples, were not unknown. The Romans fought against and occasionally were able to use the Alans, who, by the first century C. E., were the dominant force in the Pontic steppes. They periodically troubled Roman interests (especially the Bosphoran statelet) in the Crimea, with which they also traded, and were an ever-present invasion threat into Transcaucasia, Anatolia, and Iran through the Caucasian passes.11 The Roman general Arrian (95175), the famous historian of the conquests of Alexander the Great, also composed the Contra Alanos in which he sketched the means of dealing militarily with them. Here we already see the familiar nomadic strategies of feigned retreats, flanking maneuvers etc.12 The East Roman/Byzantine state inherited these geopolitical and strategic concerns, which were a source of anxiety given the relative propinquity of the imperial capital, Constantinople, to the uneasy northern frontiers. It was the entrance, ca. 350, of the Huns into the Caspian-Pontic steppe zone, however, that produced far greater concern for the northern frontiers. This was the beginning of a series of waves of migration of Turkic peoples from their South Siberian-Mongolian homeland to the West. Nomadic movements in Eurasia almost always went from East to West.

See Julian Kulakovskij, Alany po svedenijam klassičeskix i vizantijskix pisatelej (Kiev, 1899); Michael Rostovtzeff, “The Sarmatae and Parthians,” The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. S. A. Cook et al., (Cambridge, 1936, reprint: 1954), XI, pp. 9597; Richard N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia (Cleveland-New York, 1963), pp. 155156 12 See also the convenient summary of Roman information about the Alans prior to the arrival of the Huns in Bernard Bacharach, A History of the Alans in the West (Minneapolis, 1973), pp. 3-25 and pp. 126-132 which provides an English translation of the fragment of Arrian’s work that survives.

WAR AND WARFARE

The origins of the European Huns remain the subject of some considerable debate, in particular the question of their relationship, if any, to the Huns of Asia (the Xiongnu of the Chinese sources).13 The Hunnic union in Europe that eventually created one of its centers in Pannonia (= Hungary) contained a variety of peoples, including Iranian nomads, Germanic and Slavic subjects, together with an Inner Asian, most probably Altaic, core. The series of migrations that had brought them westward also caused the movement into the region of a number of other tribal groupings, some of which were, possibly, Turkic in speech.14 By 375, the Alans and Goths had been hit, as well as other lesser known Iranian and Germanic peoples, and were pressed or fled westward to the hoped for safety of the Roman territories. In 395, spurred on by famine in the steppe, the Huns came through the Caucasus and raided Anatolia and Iran. They quickly established a pattern of raiding alternating with military service in both the Roman and the Persian empires, exploiting as best they could the ongoing Roman-Sâsânid rivalry. In 434, Attila (d. 453) and his brother, Bleda (whom he murdered in 444), became the dominant chieftains of a substantial union of Huns with their center in Pannonia. Attila, for a time, embarked on a series of expeditions against the Roman realm, east and west, that caused some anxiety. His goal, however, was not conquest, but extortion or at least the regularization of the “subsidies” that Roman authorities were paying him not to do precisely what he was doing. As Maenchen-Helfen noted, he was “more than a nuisance to the Romans, though at no time a real danger”15 Although they caused 13

See the cautionary comments of Denis Sinor, “The Hun Period,” The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. D. Sinor (Cambridge, 1900), pp. 177-179, who suggests that it may have become a generic term for Inner Asian nomads. Arguments for a more direct relationship are presented in Károly Czeglédy, “From East to West: The Age of Nomadic Migrations in Eurasia” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 3 (1983), pp. 25-125. The standard works on the European Huns are E. A. Thompson, The Huns (1948), rev. ed, by Peter Heather, (Oxford, 1996); Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, ed. M. Knight (Berkeley, 1973). See also Attila és Hunjai, ed. Gyula Németh (Budapest, 1940). Németh, in his “A Hunok nyelve” in the latter work, while aware of the ethnic complexity of the Hunnic union, stressed (pp. 217-226) the Turkic elements. Recent scholarship is more cautious, see András Róna-Tas, Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages (Budapest, 1999), p. 208. 14 On the ethno-linguistic questions, see Peter B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 57-67 (on the Xiongnu), pp. 87-88. 15 Manechen-Helfen, World of the Huns, pp. 125-126. See also Denis Sinor, “The Historical Attila,” Attila. The Man and his Image, ed. F. H. Bäuml and M. D. Birnbaum (Budapest, 1993), pp. 1-29.

PETER B. GOLDEN

some damage, most of these campaigns were not successful. Indeed, given his base in Pannonia, it is likely that Attila was unable to command the requisite number of horses needed for true nomadic raiding.16 Attila’s union quickly collapsed in internecine turmoil following his death in 453. His eldest son, Ellac, perished in 454 in a struggle with subject tribes that had revolted. Sensing weakness, Constantinople, at first, was no longer willing to negotiate subsidies with the “barbarians” (a perennial theme of nomad relations with Byzantium), but subsequently relented after gaining more favorable terms. 17 The inability to obtain “gifts” and “tribute” (often not clearly distinguished), an important source of domestic authority for nomadic leadership, undoubtedly weakened the Attilids. A decade later, ca. 463, Priskos (d. sometime after 472), to whom we are indebted for much of our information about Attila, reported the arrival of another grouping of Inner Asian and in this instance undoubtedly Turkic tribes: the Šarağurs (Σαράγουροι), Oğurs (Οὔρωγοι = Ὤγουροι) and Onoğurs (Ὀνόγουροι). They had been driven westward, probably from present day Kazakhstan, by the Sabirs (Σαβίροι), who in turn had been pushed westward by the Avars of Inner Asia. The latter had been set into motion by “the tribes who lived by the shore of the Ocean.” The Šarağurs (* Šara Oğur “White/Yellow Oğurs”), having defeated the Akatir Huns (Ἀκατίροις Οὔννοις) after “many battles,” then “approached the Romans, wishing to win their friendship.” Apparently, some sort of arrangement was worked out for within a few years we find them attacking Sâsânid Transcaucasia.18 In 480, we have the first clear mention of the Bulğars, another Oğuric union, which the Emperor Zeno (r. 474-491) used against the Ostrogoths in 482. But within a few years they were allied, for a time (488-489), with the Gepids (again against the Ostrogoths) and then are reported troubling Byzantine possessions as well.19 They were soon perhaps by the late fifth century, but certainly by the early sixth century - followed into the region by the Sabirs. Although the Šarağurs quickly 16

Rudi Lindner, “Nomadism, Horses and Huns” Past and Present, 92 (1981), pp. 3-19. See Priskos’s account in The Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, ed. trans. R. C. Blockley (henceforth: Priskos/Blockley, Liverpool, 1981, 1983), II, pp. 352/353354/355. 18 Priskos/Blockley, II, pp. 344/345, 353/353-354/355. 19 Veselin Beševliev, Die Protobulgarische Periode der Bulgarischen Geschichte (Amsterdam, 1980), pp. 76ff. 17

WAR AND WARFARE

faded from view, these Oğuric tribes, speaking a distinct form of Turkic (representing an earlier form of or a form diverging from Common Turkic) were now one of a welter of “Scythian” or “Hunnic” nomadic groupings reported in the Late Roman sources.20 The Byzantines took most note of those who posed some threat to them. Attempts were made to convert one or another grouping thereby bringing them into the Christian Commonwealth of which the Byzantine emperor considered himself the head. The Byzantines, like their imperial neighbor and rival, Sâsânid Iran and distant China, practiced an elaborate policy of subsidies or divide and conquer. It was, on the whole, cheaper and certainly less dangerous to buy the nomads off. Outfitting and sending costly expeditions into the steppe with no guarantee of even finding the elusive nomads, much less defeating them, was at best a risky business. Ideally, one group could be supported and encouraged to check the others. This policy was graphically illustrated in the mid-sixth century when the Byzantines, responding to danger from the Kutrigurs (*Quturoğur from *Toqur Oğur “Nine Oğurs”), were able to seduce their kinsmen, the Utrigurs (*Uturğur = Otur Oğur “Thirty Oğurs”),21 to destroy the former (see below). Once bought, however, the nomads frequently did not stay bought. Prokopios noted that some Sabir chieftains had alliances with Rome, others with Persia. Both empires periodically paid them fixed amounts of gold, adding more as the need arose,22 but the nomads often proved to be fickle allies. Thus, the Sabirs, on occasion, carried out devastating raids into Transcaucasia and Byzantine Asia Minor.23 This situation was difficult to manage as Constantinople had to deal with often rapidly shifting or largely diffused power groupings. Empires prefer to have a single tribal entity through which they can manage the forces in the “tribal zone” on their borders and therefore the imperial governments often sought to identify individuals or groups among the “barbarians” that could serve this purpose. In some areas, anthropologists have found that expansive states will even create tribes or tribal structures and become involved in ethnogenetic processes with 20

See Golden, Introduction, pp. 92-106. On these names, see Golden, Introduction, p. 99 and the literature noted there. 22 Prokopios, De Bello Gothico: History of the Wars, ed. trans. H. B. Dewing (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass. - London, 1919), II, pp. 536/537, VIII, p. 154/155. 23 Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. De Boor (Leipzig, 1883, reprint: Hildesheim, 1963), I, p. 161, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, ed. Eng. trans. Cyril Mango and R. Scott (Oxford, 1997), p. 245. 21

PETER B. GOLDEN

a view towards creating stable forces on the frontier with which they can deal.24 In 552, Bumın of the Ašina clan25 of the Türks overthrew the Rouran Rouran in Mongolia, founding the First Türk Empire (552-630 in the East, 552-659 in the West, see below). The Rouran (Abar/Avar may have been their self-designation) ruling house was massacred and those that were not brought under direct Türk control ultimately fled westward sometime after 555. In 558, a people calling themselves the Abars or Avars,26 having recently arrived in and taken control over the tribes of the Pontic steppe zone, dispatched an embassy to Constantinople. As was typical of Eurasian nomads, they sought “gifts” which hopefully would become regular subsidies, offered their military services, and implied, of course, that these same services could be turned against Byzantium. Before they could fully consolidate their position, the Türks, under İštemi, Bumın’s brother, were on the scene (their first embassy to Constantinople was in 568, although earlier contact in 562 may also have taken place27). The Türks had established an empire that stretched across Eurasia, from the Crimea to Manchuria.28 It was organized along a bipartite, 24

R. Brian Ferguson and Neil L. Whitehead, “The Violent Edge of Empire” War in the Tribal Zone, ed. R. Brian Ferguson and Neil L. Whitehead (Santa Fe, 1992), p. 13. 25 Chin. A-shih-na most recently etymologized as deriving from Iranian, cf. Soġd. ’axs’n’k (*ǝxšânêk) “blue,” Khotanese Saka âṣṣeina - aššena “blue,” Tokharian A aśna “blue, dark” = Kök Türk, see Sergej G. Klyashtorny, “The Royal Clan of the Turks and the Problem of Early Turkic-Iranian Contacts” Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XLVII/3 (1994), pp. 445-447. 26 On the much debated problem of the relationship of the European Avars to the Rouran and Hephthalites and the Uar-Hun question, see Czeglédy, “From East to West,” AEMAe, 3 (1983), pp. 38, 67ff. See also Arnulf Kollautz and Hiyasuki Miyakawa, Geschichte und Kultur eines völkerwanderungszeitlichen Nomadenvolkes (Klagenfurt, 1970), 2 vols. 27 Theophanes Byzantios in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. Karl Müller, 4 (Paris, 1885), p. 270, see also Walter Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567-882 n. Chr. (München, 1988), pp. 40-41. 28 A useful outline of Türk history can be found in Thomas J. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier. Nomadic Empires and China (Oxford, 1989), pp. 131-150. See also Wolfgang E. Scharlipp, Die Frühen Türken in Zentralasien (Darmstadt, 1992). A more detailed study is that of Ahmet Taşağıl, Gök-Türkler (Ankara, 1995) based largely on the Chinese sources. These are also collected in the classic study by Edouard Chavannes, Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux (1900) published with his Notes Additionnelles (1903, Paris, 1941) and Liu Mau-tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (Tu-küe) (Wiesbaden, 1958), 2 vols. Lev N. Gumilëv’s Drevnie tjurki (Moskva, 1967) has many interesting suggestions, but is not always reliable.

WAR AND WARFARE

East-West principle: the Eastern Qağan was superior while the Yabğu Qağan governed the western zone. The Western Türks, as the new, clearly dominant force in the western steppe zone, were brought into alliance with Byzantium. But the Avars, who had taken refuge in Pannonia (ca. 567-568), Attila’s old habitat, did not disappear, and Constantinople felt the need to have diplomatic relations with them as they, too, demanded their payments. This infuriated the Türks. Thus, in 572 a Byzantine ambassador was upbraided by the Türk ruler of the western part of the empire for having diplomatic dealings with the Avars, “our slaves who have fled their masters.”29 Subject peoples such as the Alans and Onoğurs, who had resisted the “invincible might of the Türks,” another Byzantine envoy was informed in 576, were now also “numbered amongst our slaves.”30 While Constantinople wavered between a policy of appeasement of the Avars and meeting their treaty obligations with the Türks, the Avars were establishing the contours of their new domain. The Gepids of Pannonia had been driven out and the Lombards who had made common cause with the Avars against the former now also left for hopefully happier prospects in Italy. Joined by other tribal groupings seeking shelter from the Türks, the Avars by the 580s were raiding Byzantine holdings in the Balkans. The raids were often joined with Slavic campaigns that had begun several decades earlier. While the latter ultimately culminated in wide-scale migration and settlement, the military activities of the Avars who, on occasion, in the past also fought the Slavs on behalf of Byzantium,31 were limited to the raiding typical of the nomads of that era. In 626, however, the Avars and their Slav allies attempted an attack on Constantinople coordinated with Sâsânid Iran. The attack failed. In its aftermath (or perhaps even before this unsuccessful bid), Avar might appears to have weakened.32 Slav and Bulğar elements were breaking away.

Menander Protector: The History of Menander the Guardsman, ed. trans. R. C. Blockley (Liverpool, 1985), pp. 174/175. 30 Menander/Blockley, 174/175. The Byzantine embassy of 576 also brought with it some 106 Türks who had come to Constantinople at different times; some had been there a “long time,” others had come with earlier embassies (Menander/Blockley, 170/171). This would seem to indicate that there was already some history of contact. 31 Menander/Blockley, pp. 192/193-193/194 discussing events of 578. 32 On these wars, see Pohl, Die Awaren, pp. 58ff.; J. Kovačević, Avarski kaganat (Beograd, 1977), pp. 41-81.

PETER B. GOLDEN

The Türko-Byzantine relationship also underwent periods of strain, especially with regard to joint actions against Iran. In 589, the Türks had been soundly defeated near Herat by the Sâsânids. Moreover, their own state was torn by internecine strife due, in part, to the complexities of the succession system in which sovereignty rested in a charismatic clan. Unless carefully regulated, over time a number of claimants to the Qağanal dignity invariably appeared with attendant domestic strife. In 603, a major revolt of the subject Tiele33 grouping (which included many of the Oğuric tribes in the West) took place. Although weakened, the Türks were still able to join the Byzantines (ca. 625/626) in Herakleios’s counteroffensive against Sâsânid Iran in Transcaucasia, where they assisted in the taking of T’bilisi in 628.34 But, by 659, the Western Türk Qağanate had succumbed to Tang China as the Eastern Qağanate had earlier in 630. Although the Türk Qağanate (second empire: 682-742) revived in the East and once again extended its power to Central Asia, the mantle of qağanal authority in the westernmost steppes had by then passed to the Khazars. Comprised of a variety of Turkic peoples speaking Common Turkic and Oğuric languages as well as Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Slavic, and Palaeo-Caucasian elements, the ruling house was most probably of Ašina origin. 35 Türks and Byzantines bound by shared

Chin. Tiele presumably rendered some Turkic term. On the various theories, see Golden, Introduction, pp. 93-94. 34 The chronology of these events is not entirely clear. See Movsês Dasxuranci,̣ The History of the Caucasian Albanians, trans. Charles Dowsett (London, 1961), pp. 81-88; K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Simon Qauxč’išvili (T’bilisi, 1955), I, pp. 225, 374375. According to Nikephoros (d. 828, writing in late 770’s-780’s), the alliance was arranged in 626 when Herakleios was in Lazica. The assault on Iran proper was put off because of the Avaro-Persian attempt on Constantinople in that year, see Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History, ed. trans. Cyril Mango (Washington, D. C., 1990), pp. 54/55-58/59. The Türk-Khazars netted considerable booty from these and subsequent campaigns, see Thomas S. Noonan, “Russia, the Near East, and the Steppe in the Early Medieval Period: An Examination of the Sassanian and Byzantine Finds from the Kama-Urals Area” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, II (1982), pp. 275ff. 35 For narratives of Khazars history, see Douglas M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954); Mixail I. Artamonov, Istorija Xazar (Leningrad, 1962); Peter B. Golden, Khazar Studies (Budapest, 1980), 2 vols.; Anatolij P. Novosel’cev, Xazarskoe gosudarstvo i ego rol’ v istorii Vostočnoj Evropy i Kavkaza (Moskva, 1990).

WAR AND WARFARE

geopolitical concerns continued the entente.36 Both states were faced with the rapidly expanding Arabian Caliphate. Following the conquest of Iran (651), the Arabs quickly moved northwards on two fronts, into the Caucasus and Central Asia. Here, they faced the Khazar Qağanate, which was centered in the North Caucasian steppelands and adjoining regions of the Pontic steppes and the lower Volga, and the Western Türk Qağanate, also known as the On Oq (“ten arrows”), centered in Turkistan, which was already riven by internal disputes and divided into two subconfederations. In 737, the Muslim forces, in what may have been a coordinated effort, had administered a serious defeat to the On Oq, had captured the Khazar Qağan in the lower Volga and had forced him to convert to Islam. This marked the culminating point of the Arabo-Khazar struggle for domination of the Caucasus. The Khazar ruler soon abjured Islam, but major Khazar-Arab wars were now, with some exceptions, largely a thing of the past. The boundaries between the two empires were established in the North Caucasus, with Bâb al-Abwâb/Darband serving as the principal Arab outpost on the always dangerous steppe. The Khazars, in turn, shifted their center to the lower Volga, establishing in that region their capital city Atıl/İtil (still undiscovered). Seeking further integration into the larger, monotheistic Mediterranean world with which it now had extensive trade relations, the Khazar leadership and core clans by the late eighth and into the ninth century converted to Judaism, wary perhaps of the political baggage that conversion to either Islam or Christianity would have brought. The Khazar state, one of the largest of its era, extended from an often uneasy border in the Crimea to the Middle Volga, and from Kiev to the steppe approaches to Khwârazm. For a time, it dominated the NorthSouth trade. By the tenth century, faced with the influx of new steppe peoples in particular the Pečenegs who occupied the Pontic steppes and the Oğuz who were sometimes allies and sometimes troublesome neighbors in the East, the growing power of the Rus’ state and the loss of its paramountcy in trade to its own vassal state of Volga Bulğaria, Khazaria began to fade. In 965, it fell to the combined attacks of the Rus’ and the Oğuz. In neighboring Central Asia, events were taking place that would transform that region, over the centuries, into a distinct Islamo-Irano36

A less positive view of this relationship is taken by Thomas S. Noonan, “Byzantium and the Khazars: A Special Relationship ?” Byzantine Diplomacy, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (Aldershot, 1992), pp. 109-132.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Turkic cultural zone and have an impact on the western steppes.37 With the collapse of the Türk empire in 742 and the flight ca. 745 of the Ašina-led Qarluqs, an important constituent tribal confederation of the Eastern Türk state, to the Western Türk lands, the stage was set for the meeting of the Tang army and the once again surging Arabs at the Battle of the Talas (751) in present day Kazakhstan. The Arabs won in part due to the defection of the Qarluqs to the Muslim side. By 766, the Qarluqs had brought much of the On Oq territory under their control.38 The defection, however, did not mean immediate Islamization. Indeed, the Ṭâhirids (821-873) and the Sâmânids (819-1005), Eastern Iranian dynasties that came to represent Caliphal interests in Transoxiana and Eastern Iran, in the early ninth century launched a number of campaigns against the pagan Qarluqs whose number also included Christianized elements undoubtedly stemming from the Soġdian urban populations with which they were in contact. The beginning of the use of Turkic military slaves by the ‘Abbâsids was closely connected with gifts to the caliphs of Turkic warriors taken in these campaigns.39 The Qarluqs were soon joined, in the 770s, by the restless and explosive Oğuz tribal union who nomadized to their West, along the Syr Darya and up to the Volga. The Oğuz ultimately dislodged the Pečenegs and sent them westward into the Pontic steppes which they came to dominate by the end of the ninth century.40 The Oğuz union also faced pressure from the Kimek Qağanate located in Western

See Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, ed. Robert L. Canfield (Cambridge, 1991). 38 The political and military history of this region and era are discussed in Hamilton A. R. Gibb, The Arab Conquests in Central Asia (New York, 1923, reprint: New York, 1970) and Christopher I. Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia. A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages (Princeton, 1987). 39 See Golden, Introduction, pp. 189-201 40 Peter B. Golden, “The Migrations of the Oğuz” Archivum Ottomanicum, 4 (1972), pp. 45-84. The most thorough summary of Oğuz tribal history is that of Faruk Sümer, Oğuzlar (3rd ed., İstanbul, 1980). For the history of the Pečenegs, see Akdes Nimet Kurat, Peçenek Tarihi (Istanbul, 1937); Petre Diaconu, Les Petchénègues au Bas Danube (Bucharest, 1970); Omeljan Pritsak, “The Pečenegs: A Case of Social and Economic Transformation” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 1 (1975), pp. 211-235 and a brief overview in Lajos Ligeti, A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban (Budapest, 1986), pp. 362-364, 382-385, 506-511; Golden, Introduction, pp. 264-270.

WAR AND WARFARE

Siberia.41 All of these were offshoots, to varying degrees, of the Türk state. The Oğuz and Qarluqs were frontline nomadic polities facing the Irano-Islamic forces of the Caliphate in the Transoxanian marches. The latter were the Islamized heirs of the earlier Soġdian statelets and Khwârazm and retained their mercantile traditions. The slave trade, in particular, was a major source of wealth and the Sâmânids even established training schools for their human harvests. According to the Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam, Farġâna, the “Gate of Turkistân,” was one of the portals through which “great numbers of Turkish slaves” were brought.42 The campaign of the Sâmânid Ismâ‘îl b. Aḥmad, in 893, that was directed to the Zaravšan valley and the city of Ṭarâz, netted some 10-15,000 prisoners (including the wife of the Qarluq ruler) and killed 10,000 others.43 The whole of the Irano-Muslim city-state world was bounded by forts facing the steppe to fight the “Infidel Turks”44 Over time, some of the tribes, or elements of them, were drawn to and embraced Islam, usually through the activities of Muslim merchants and Ṣûfı orders. They then became the new champions of Islam, a role that increasingly became associated with Turkic peoples and was soon realized in the early Islamic Turkic states, the Qarakhanids (992-1212) in Central Asia and the Seljuks (1040-1194) in the Near East, but these issues lie beyond the purview of this essay. Qarakhanid military practices, however, about which we have some information, are helpful in understanding those of other, contemporary steppe peoples, and are noted for comparative purposes. The Oğuz union was unstable and generated pressures that could be felt from the Pontic steppes and the Rus’ lands to the Near East. The Qarluqs were one of the tribal groupings that came to constitute the Qarakhanid core. Relations between the tribes were often uneasy, even in the absence of religious differences. 41

Kimek history is still little studied. See Bulat E. Kumekov, Gosudarstvo kimakov IXXI vv. po arabskim istočnikam (Alma-Ata, 1972) and Golden, Introduction, pp. 202-205. 42 Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam, ed. M. Sutoodeh (Sutûdah) (Tehran, 1340/1962), p. 112, Ḥudûd al‘Ālam. The Regions of the World, trans. Vladimir F. Minorsky (London, 1937, reprint with additions, 1971), p. 115-116. 43 Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn Jarîr aṭ-Ṭabarî, Ta’rîḫ aṭ-Ṭabarî. Ta’rîḫ ar-Rasûl wa’lMulûk, ed. Muḥammad Abu’l-Faḍl Ibrâhîm (Cairo, 1967-1969), X, p. 34; Abu’lḤasan ‘Alî al-Mas‘ûdî, Murûj aḏ-Dahab wa Ma‘âdin al-Jawhar, ed. Charles Pellat (Beirut, 1966), V, p. 150. 44 See descriptions in the Ḥudûd, ed. Sutoodeh, pp. 113-118, trans. Minorsky, pp. 116119.

PETER B. GOLDEN

Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî, a scion of the Qarakhanid royal house, writing in the 1070s after the Seljuks had made themselves masters of the core Islamic lands, noted that the Oğuz and the Čigil (a subconfederation of the Qarluqs) fought constantly and that the “enmity between the two peoples persists to the present”45 Events in Central Asia, as we have already noted, often spilled over into the Pontic steppes. The Oğuz, pressured by the Kimek state, pushed out the Pečenegs who became a powerful presence in the Black Sea region. Byzantine policy, as we learn from the emperor-historian, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 945-959), was largely predicated on using the Pečenegs to control the steppe access to the Crimea (the Byzantine listening post in the steppe) and to Byzantium’s northern frontiers, a role previously held by the Khazars before they weakened.46 Prefaced by several failed attempts in 909 and 910 (and very likely some decades earlier) a major Rus’ raid down the Volga into the Caspian Islamic lands was carried out in 912-913. The Khazar ruler is depicted as remarkably passive during these incursions through the heart of his territory. He allowed the Rus’ to pass through unobstructed and then permitted his Muslim subjects to butcher them in retaliation for the damage inflicted on their coreligionists along the southern Caspian coast. The details and dating are uncertain. 47 The local chronicle, the Ta’rıḫ al-Bâb, reports that hostilities between the Khazars and local Muslims had been going on since 90148 which may explain the Khazars’ behavior. Another major Rus’ raid in 943-944 brought the city of Barda’a under their control for a time, but also ended badly for them. 49 Although the Rus’ had been thwarted, the 45

Maḥmûd al-Kâšγarî, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dîwân Luγât at-Turk), ed. trans. Robert Dankoff in collaboration with James Kelly (Cambridge, Mass., 19821985), I, p. 301. 46 In addition to his DAI, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, trans. Jenkins, see also Frank Wozniak, “Byzantium, the Pechenegs, and the Khazars in the Tenth Century” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 4 (1984), pp. 299-316 and Jonathan Shepard, “Constantine VII’s Doctrine of “Containment” of the Rus,” GENNADIOS k 70-letiju akademika G. G. Litavrina, ed. B. N. Florja (Moskva, 1999), pp. 264-283. 47 See account of al-Mas‘ûdî, ed. Pellat, I, pp. 218-221 (for events of the raid sometime after 300/912-913). For a full discussion, see Vladimir F. Minorsky, A History of Sharvân and Darband (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 111-112; Golden, Khazar Studies, I, pp. 80-81. 48 Minorsky, History, pp. Arabic, pp. 4, 17/26, 42 49 Reported in Dasxuranci,̣ trans. Dowsett, p. 224 and Abu ‘Alî b. Muḥammad Ibn Miskawaih, Tajârub al-Umam, ed. H. F. Amedroz, trans. D. S. Margoliouth (Oxford, 1920-1921), II, pp. 62-67/V, pp. 67-73.

WAR AND WARFARE

Khazar hold was clearly loosening. The Khazar Hebrew documents of the mid-tenth century depict a beleaguered empire, facing hostility from Byzantium, the Rus’ and their subject peoples and neighbors. The Khazar ruler, Joseph writes that Rus’ forays down the Volga were no longer tolerated, adding, “I war with them. If I left them in peace for one hour, they would destroy the entire land of the Ishmaelites up to Baghdad”50 Several years later (965), Khazaria, as we have previously noted, was mortally wounded. We find the first mention of the Pečenegs in the Rus’ sources s. a. 915. They had been driven westward by pressure from the Oğuz and others. The final impetus westward may have been touched off by the Sâmânid attacks on the Qarluqs in the 890s. The Pečenegs were allowed to cross Rus’ lands, after reaching an accord with the Rus’ grandprince Igor’, to get to the Danube whither they had been summoned by Byzantium anxious to exert pressure on Balkan Bulgaria. How Byzantium established contact with the Pečenegs is unclear. The Crimea, long a Byzantine intelligence center for the steppe, is the most likely candidate. The Pečenegs had occupied the previously Hungarianheld section of the Pontic steppe termed Etelköz (“the land between the rivers,” possibly the Don-Danube region or the Dnepr-Danube mesopotamia).51 Pečeneg involvement in the Danubian borderlands of Byzantium became an oft-repeated pattern. In 920, however, we learn of the first hostile Pečeneg-Rus’ encounters when Igor’ attacked them. Nonetheless, Pečeneg forces served along with Varangians and Slavs in Igor’s assault on Constantinople in 944.52 Byzantium, however, was a much more adept player in building coalitions, and was every bit the equal of China in using “barbarians” to fight “barbarians.”53 Having invited the Rus’ to invade Bulgaria, Constantinople soon found itself with an unwanted guest in that region and turned to the Pečenegs to 50

Pavel K. Kovkovcov, Evrejsko-xazarskaja perepiska v X veke (Leningrad, (1932), Hebrew text, p. 32/Russ. trans. p. 102. On Khazar difficulties with their neighbors, see the “Schechter Document” in Norman Golb and Omeljan Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca, 1982), pp. 106-121 51 Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej (henceforth PSRL, Moskva - St. Peterburg / Petrograd / Leningrad, 1841-1995), I, c. 42; Obolensky, Byzantine Commonwealth, p. 106; György Györffy, “Sur la question de l’établissement des Petchénègues en Europe” Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XXV/1-3, (1972) pp. 283-292. For the DneprDanube location, see Róna-Tas, Hungarians and Europe, pp. 325ff., 413. 52 PSRL, I, cc. 42, 45. 53 On the Chinese policy, see Lien-sheng Yang, “Historical Notes on the Chinese World Order” in John K. Fairbank (ed.), The Chinese World Order (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), p. 33.

PETER B. GOLDEN

pressure the Rus’ prince Svjatoslav by attacking Kiev in 968. Svjatoslav’s continuing interest in the region was ended in 972 when the Pečenegs, probably at Constantinople’s behest, ambushed and killed him after the Byzantines had forced him to leave Bulgaria.54 Far more serious and prolonged warfare between the Rus’ and the Pečenegs broke out during the rule of Vladimir I (r. 978-1015), beginning in 988 and lasting until ca. 1006-1007. This may have been touched off by Vladimir’s alliance with the Oğuz, the traditional enemy of the Pečenegs, which was manifested in a joint raid on Volga Bulğaria in 985 and by the Rus’ ruler’s aggressive posture toward the steppe. The Pečenegs became enmeshed, on the losing side, in the Rus’ throne struggle following Vladimir’s death that brought Jaroslav (r. 1019-1054) to power.55 Very likely under Rus’ and Oğuz pressure, the Pečenegs now began to direct their attention to the potentially vulnerable Byzantine Danubian frontier. When their raids into Byzantine territory ended unsuccessfully in 1036, the Pečenegs once again sought to establish a threatening presence on the Rus’ frontiers where they were soundly defeated by Jaroslav.56 Once again, the Pečenegs found themselves on Byzantium’s Danubian frontiers.57 Here, Constantinople was able to play on internal disputes, giving sanctuary and favor to the loser in an internal power struggle. Continuing pressure from their steppe enemies brought even more Pečenegs into Byzantine service which proved to be a mixed blessing. By 1053, unable to control them as they had hoped, Constantinople was compelled, by treaty, to recognize their selfgoverning status within the imperial borders. This did not solve the problem. Moreover, Byzantium was under serious attack in the East as the Oğuz tribesmen unleashed by the Seljuk conquests began to make themselves felt. While many Oğuz moved into the Near East, another grouping, called Tork (pl. Torci) in the Rus’ sources and Οὔζοι by the Byzantines, occupied the Pečenegs’ former territory in the Pontic steppe. By 1054, they were at war with Rus’, and in 1064 were also driven to the Danubian frontiers of the empire where they were 54

PSRL, I, cc. 72, 73. PSRL, I, c. 121-124,127-129, 141-142; Ivan M. Šekera, Kyïvs’ka Rus’ XI st. u mižnarodnyx vidnosynax (Kyïv, 1967), 79-80, 99-108. 56 PSRL, I, cc. 150-151; Diaconu, Les Petchénègues, pp. 39-49. 57 The classic account (although in need of some updating) of Byzantine-Pečeneg relations remains V. G. Vasil’evskij, Vizantija i Pečenegi in his Trudy (SPb., 1908), I. 55

WAR AND WARFARE

defeated by the Byzantines (1064) and Hungarians (1068). Fragments of the Oğuz, Pečenegs, and other smaller nomadic groupings that had remained in the Pontic steppes were now organized into the “People of the Black Hats” (Rus. Černii klobuci), a nomadic borderguard grouping in service to the princes of Kiev.58 In 1071, the Seljuks defeated the Byzantines at Mantzikert and Anatolia was opened to Turkish conquest. Pečeneg attacks and other nomadic troubles in the Balkans, which drew Constantinople’s attention, may have been a contributing factor59 in the Oğuz takeover of considerable Anatolian territory. Now determined to rid themselves of this threat, the Byzantines once again turned to the steppe. Their new partners were the Qıpčaqs, a complex tribal union of Turkic and very probably Mongolic elements of diverse origins. Their core derived from the Kimek union which had collapsed in the early eleventh century under the impact of a migration touched off in Inner Asia by the Qun,60 pursued in turn by the Qay. The Qun/Qumans and the Qıpčaqs (who nomadized in the western lands of the Kimek union) now came together to form a new union (which other elements coming from Inner Asia would later join) known generally as the Qıpčaqs, while its westernmost subgrouping was also called Quman [Cuman] and its eastern subgrouping was also known as Qanglı.61 Their arrival touched off a series of migrations that spilled over into the Pečeneg and Türkmen (Oğuz) lands. 62 The neighboring Khwârazmšâh state (in

Peter B. Golden, “The Černii Klobouci,”, Symbolaie Turcologicae. Studies in Honour of Lars Johanson, eds. Arpád Berta, Bernt Brendemoen, and Claus Schönig, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Transactions, 6 (Uppsala, 1996), pp. 97-107. 59 Kurat, Peçenek Tarihi, p. 165. 60 The ethnonym Quman (Cuman or Coman) is believed to derive from Qun, cf., Gyula Németh, “A kunok neve és eredete” Századok, 76 (1942), pp. 166-178. The still unresolved question of Qun/Cuman origins is far too complex a question to be dealt with here, see Josef Marquart (Markwart), Über das Volkstum der Komanen in Willi Bang, Josef Marquart, Osttürkische Dialektstudien in the Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil. hist. Klasse, N. F., XIII/1 (Berlin, 1914), pp. 25-238; Pritsak, “The Polovcians and Rus’,” AEMAe, 2 (1982), pp. 321339; Seržan M. Axinžanov, Kypčaki v istorii srednevekovogo Kazaxstana (AlmaAta, 1989), pp. 39ff. The name Quman was loan-translated into Rus’ as Polovci “the pale, pale-yellow ones,” Lat. Pallidi etc. 61 See the literature noted in Golden, Introduction, pp. 270-273. 62 The migration is recorded in the Ṭabâ‘i al-Ḥayawân by al-Marwazî writing ca. 1120: Sharâf al-Zamân Tahir Marvazî on China, the Turks and India, ed. trans. Vladimir F. Minorsky (London, 1942), Arabic, p. 18/trans. pp. 29-30.

PETER B. GOLDEN

present-day Western Uzbekistan) felt their presence by the early 1030’s. In 1055, the Cumans make their first appearance in the Rus’ chronicles and in 1061 the first Cuman raid on Rus’ is recorded.63 Their territories, in time, extended from the Danube to the borderlands of Khwârazm and from Western Siberia to the Crimea and North Caucasian steppes. The period 1055-1120 was marked by considerable aggression as the Cumans explored the boundaries of their new habitat and tested the defenses of the Rus’ settlements that bordered on the steppe. Initially, they were allies of Byzantium, helping Constantinople to defeat and fatally weaken the Pečeneg union in 1091, although they refused to participate in the bloodbath that followed.64 The last gasp of Pečeneg bellicosity took place in 1121/1122 (or 1122/1123) and was soundly defeated.65 In time, however, the Cumans would also take to raiding the Byzantine borderlands (e. g. 1148, 1152 [or 1155], 1160, 1190s). Interspersed with accounts of these raids are notices of Cuman units serving as allies in the Byzantine military forces.66 In the late 1180s, they played an important role in the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire of the Asenids (1185-1279) 67 and produced their successor dynasties, the Terterids (1280-1323) and Šišmanids (13231393). They were equally important in the Khwârazmšâh state in the East which by the late twelfth-early thirteenth century had become a major force in the Middle East as well. In Khwârazm, elements of the sometimes turbulent Qıpčaqs (our data is sparse here) established marital ties with the Khwârazmšâhs, thus becoming one of the forces 63

PSRL, I, 162, 163. Vasil’evskij, Vizantija i pečenegi, pp. 96ff. Anna Komnena [Comnena], Alexiada, ed. L. Schopen, A. Reiferscheid (Bonn, 1839, 1878), I, pp 396-409, deflects the blame for the slaughter of Pečeneg prisoners from her father. In addition, I have made reference to the English translation, The Alexiad, trans. E. R. A. Sewter (Baltimore, 1969), pp. 253-260 and the recent Russian translation which has a full and useful commentary: Aleksiada, Russ. trans. Ja. N. Ljubarskij (SPb., 1996), pp. 233-239. 65 Mixail V. Bibikov, Vizantijskie istočniki po istorii Drevnej Rusi i Kakvaza (SPb., 1999), pp. 199-228. 66 See Bibikov, Vizantijskie istočniki, pp. 244ff. 67 D. A Rasovskij, “Rol’ polovcev v vojnax Asenej s vizantijskoj i latinskoj imperijami v 1186-1207gg.” Spisanie na Bŭlgarskata Akademija na Naukite, 58 (1939), pp. 203-211 considers their role crucial. See also the remarks of Bibikov, Vizantijskie istočniki, pp. 250-257. For a brief overview of the complicated origins of the Second Bulgarian Empire, see John V. A. Fine, Jr., The Late Medieval Balkans (Ann Arbor, 1987), pp. 10-17. 64

WAR AND WARFARE

behind the throne – not always to the benefit of the state.68 Meanwhile, in Rus’, by 1118-1120 the Cumans had been soundly trounced by Vladimir Monomax (d. 1125) and one of their tribal groupings had even taken refuge in Georgia, whither they had been invited by the Georgian king Davit’ Aġmašenebeli (1089-1125) with whom there were marital ties. Here, these Cumans played an important role in freeing the kingdom of the Seljuk threat and establishing Georgia as the premier regional power. Although many of these Qıpčaqs returned to their steppe homeland after the death of their nemesis, Vladimir Monomax, the Georgian crown continued to rely on Qıpčaq forces, in addition to their feudal army, up to the Mongol conquest.69 By the 1130’s, as the unity of Rus’ faded, the Cumans played an increasingly central role in the internecine strife of the Rjurikids (the ruling house of the Rus’ state), as different Cuman subgroupings took service and formed alliances (and sometimes marital ties) with the warring Rus’ factions. 70 Thus, in the twelfth-thirteenth century, as Gumilëv suggests, the “Cuman land and Kievan Rus’ constituted one polycentric state” 71 The Cumans, stateless like the Pečenegs and Western Oğuz, their predecessors in the Pontic Steppes, were saved from the fate of the latter by integrating themselves into the regional politico-military system (Rus’, Byzantium and the Balkans, Transcaucasia, Khwârazm). In the Ponto-Caspian and trans-Volgan steppes, the Pre-Činggisid nomads raided the sedentary world to gain access to its goods, served in it as mercenaries and “allies,” but they never attempted to conquer it. Turkic soldiers were much in demand well beyond the confines of the Eurasian steppe as can be seen from the prominent military role played by the Qıpčaqs in particular in the ġulâm/mamlûk system in the Islamic world. Indeed, after the advent of the Seljuks, Turks of one or another 68

See Axinžanov, Kypčaki, pp. 191-216 and İbrahim Kafesoğlu, Harezmşahlar Devleti Tarihi (Ankara, 1956); Zija M. Bunijatov, Gosudarstvo xorezmšaxov-anuštiginidov 1097-1231 (Moskva, 1986). 69 Peter B. Golden, “Cumanica I: The Qıpčaqs in Georgia” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 4 (1984), pp. 45-87. 70 For various periodizations of Cuman-Rus’ relations, see D. Rasovskij, “Polovcy. IV. Voennaja istorija polovcev” Seminarium Kondakovianum, 11 (1940), pp. 95-127; Svetlana A. Pletnëva, “Poloveckaja zemlja” Drevnerusskie knjažestva X-XIII vv. ed. L. G. Beskrovnyj (Moskva, 1975), pp. 260-300; Mavrodina, Kievskaja Rus’ i kočevniki, pp. 61-62. 71 Lev N. Gumilëv, Drevnjaja Rus’ i velikaja step’ (1989, reprinted in his Sočinenija, Moskva, 1997), I, p. 365.

PETER B. GOLDEN

grouping (though predominantly Oğuz or Qıpčaq) tended to make up the military and political elites in the Islamic heartlands. Western and eastern sources underscore the martial nature of Turkic nomadic society.

The Martial Image of the Eurasian Nomads in Contemporary Sources Sima Qian, writing of the Xiongnu, says that “they herd their flocks in times of peace and make their living by hunting, but in periods of crisis they take up arms and go off on plundering and marauding expeditions. This seems to be their inborn nature … The Xiongnu make it clear that warfare is their business”72 In distant Byzantium centuries later, these views were echoed: Agathias (d. 580), in his relation of the attack on Constantinople by the Kutrigur Zabergan, comments that the “cause of the attack was, in the truest sense, the iniquity of the barbarian and the longing for gain”73 The Turkic nomads’ desire for the spoils of war is underscored by the ninth-century Arab essayist al-Jâḥiẓ who reports the comments of Ḥumayd b. ‘Abd al-Ḥamîd to the effect that the Turks do not fight for the sake of religion, sect, overlordship, group solidarity, etc. but “solely for booty”74 Anna Komnena recounts the incident in 1087 when the Pečenegs called on the Cumans to join them in a raid on Byzantine lands. By the time the Cumans arrived, the Pečenegs had already acquired considerable booty. The Cumans, who had not participated in the fighting nonetheless demanded a share of the booty. When this was denied them, they attacked and defeated the Pečenegs.75 These themes run through the historical traditions of all the peoples with whom the nomads came in contact. Many of them are summed up in the Strategikon attributed to the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582-

Sima Qian, trans. Watson, II, pp. 129, 143. Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque, red. Rudolf Keydell (Berlin, 1967), p. 178, Agathias, The Histories, trans. J. D. Frendo (Berlin-New York, 1975), p. 147 renders it “Though his real motive was the innate violence and rapacity that characterizes the behaviour of barbarians”. 74 al-Jâḥiẓ, Manâqib Jund al-Ḫilâfa wa Faḍâ’il al-Atrâk: Hilâfet Ordusunun Menkıbeleri ve Türkler’in Fazîletleri, Turk. trans. Ramazan Şeşen (Ankara, 1967), p. 70 75 Ed. Schopen, I, pp. 352-353, trans. Sewter, pp. 228-229, trans. Ljubarskij, p. 213. 73

WAR AND WARFARE

602). It has an important notice on the Türks and Avars and it is worth quoting in full: “The Scythian peoples are, as they say, of one way of life and organization; they are without a single government (πολυαρχά and free from the business of politics (ἀπράγµονα). Only the [nations] of the Turks and Avars give thought to military organization. The [nation] of the Turks is numerous and free, set free from the variety and severity of the great number of human affairs. They are trained in nothing but to be ready to attack the enemy courageously. The [nation] of the Avars is the most maleficent, changeable and experienced in warfare. These [peoples], then, as they are governed by a single ruler, are subjected to cruel punishments from their commanders for their mistakes. Governed not by love but by fear, they bravely bear the toils of battle and hardship. They suffer heat and cold and the remaining lack of necessities, being nomads. Being superstitious, secretive [κρυψίβουλα or “treacherous”], friendless, faithless and governed by the greed for things, they are contemptuous of oaths, they neither observe compacts nor are they satisfied with gifts, but even before they accept a gift they are setting schemes and subversion of what has been agreed upon. Skilfully calculating the suitable times, they immediately make use of them, endeavoring to prevail against their enemies not so much by hand as by deceit and by sudden attacks and by the closing off of military necessities.”76 The theme of the nomad as naturally warlike is a constant topos in Byzantine literature. Theodore Synkellos, in his homily on the Avar attack on Constantinople of 626 says that the Avar were “a wild people whose life is war.”77 Anna Komnena remarks of the Pečenegs that “they possess an innate talent for war.”78 The emphasis on martial valor can be seen in the custom of the Türks, recorded in the Zhou shu, of placing stones on the grave of their dead “according to the number of people he had killed during his life.”79 Some of the epitaphs listed the number of enemies captured and slain.80

Mauricius, Strategicon, ed. Rumanian trans., H. Mihăescu (Bucharest, 1970), p. 268. See Pohl, Die Awaren, p. 168; Denis Sinor, “The Inner Asian Warriors” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 101 (1981), p. 134. 78 Ed. Schopen, I, pp. 344-345; Ljubarskij, p. 209; Sewter, p. 224 renders this as “war is in their blood.” 79 Liu, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, p. 10. 80 Igor’ V. Kormušin, Tjurkskie enisejskie épitafii (Moskva, 1997), pp. 37-38, 172 77

PETER B. GOLDEN

Ibn al-Faqîh (10th century) gives the following account of how the Turks reared their children for the warrior’s life: “if a son is born to one of them, he raises him, feeds him, and carries out his wishes until he becomes an adult. When [the child] reaches maturity, he extends to him a bow and arrow and takes him from his domicile and says to him ‘look out for yourself!’ After that, the son becomes to him [the father] like a stranger whom he does not know. Thus their custom demands that they act with their children, both young men and girls.”81 To the Byzantines, it appeared that war produced wealth for the nomads. Priskos, who spent some time in Attila’s camp as ambassador, recounts his conversation with a Greek who had turned “Scythian”. The latter said that “after a war, men amongst the Scythians live at ease, each enjoying his own possessions and troubling others or being troubled not at all or very little.”82 The threat of war was an even more efficacious method of extracting wealth. Dengizikh, Attila’s son (whose head was later brought to Constantinople), in the 460’s threatened war unless the empire gave him and his army “land and money”. The Emperor Leo I (r. 457-474), who was largely under the control of the Alan Aspar and other “barbarian” elements running the East Roman military at that time, having earlier rejected the Attilids’ request, was now quite agreeable and indeed “was well-disposed to those of the foreign peoples who came into alliance with him.”83 Theophylaktos Simokattes (d. mid-seventh century?), who continues the work of Menander, states that the Türks had grown very rich from the tribute they extorted from Iran.84 Gardîzî (writing ca. 1040, but based on earlier sources) reports that the Pečenegs possessed great quantities of horses, sheep, weapons and many gold and silver vessels, the latter not the products of a pastoral economy.85 81

Ibn al-Faqîh, Mašhad ms., f. 169 b, cited in F. M. Asadov, Arabskie istočniki o tjurkax v rannee srednevekov’e (Baku, 1993), p. 46. 82 Priskos/Blockley, II, pp. 268/269. 83 Priskos/Blockley, II, pp. 354/355. We will discuss treaty and tribute below. 84 Theophylaktos Simokattes, Historia, ed. C. De Boor, rev. P. Wirth (Stuttgart, 1972), p. 121, The History of Theophylact Simocatta, Eng. trans. Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby (Oxford, 1986), pp. 80-81. After their defeat in 589 at the hands of Bahrâm, the Türks, according to Theophanes, ed. De Boor, I, p. 262/Mango, p. 385, were now forced to pay the Persians the 40,000 gold coins that had previously been the tribute paid to them by Iran. 85 Abu Sa‘îd ‘Abd al-Ḥayy b. Daḥḥâk al-Gardîzî, Ta’rîḫ-i Gardîzî, ed. ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Ḥabîbî (Tehran, 1363/1984), p. 579, see also Arsenio P. Martinez, “Gardîzî’s Two Chapters on the Turks” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 2 (1982), p. 152.

WAR AND WARFARE

Another common theme is the barbarism and perfidy of the Eurasian nomads. The dealings of the Byzantine Emperor Justin I (r. 518-527), a rough-hewn soldier whose policies were probably guided by his gifted nephew and successor Justinian I (527-565), with the “Huns” (most probably the Sabirs are meant here) in 521/522 provide a graphic illustration of the difficulties with nomadic “alliances”. Justin sent “envoys and gifts” to Zilgibis (Ζιλγιβίς) with whom a treaty against Iran had been concluded. The Persian ruler, Kavad (r. 488-531), however, also sent an embassy to Zilgibis, concluding a treaty with him as well. Ultimately, Zilgibis opted to bring his 20,000 warriors over to Sâsânid service. Justin then informed Kavad that Zilgibis had sworn an oath to be his ally, and added that “it is necessary that we, as brothers, become friends and not made the sport of these dogs”. Kavad concurred and had Zilgibis killed along with his troops.86 Justin II (r. 565-578), Justinian’s nephew who became mentally unbalanced in the latter part of his reign, is reported to have told an Avar ambassador that “it is more painful to be the friends of the Avars - nomads and foreigners than their enemies, since their friendship is treacherous”.87 The emperor Tiberios I (r. 578-582), who had been Justin’s co-ruler, in a campaign into Caucasian Albania ca. 575 took hostages from the Sabirs and Alans. He then made a proposition to a Sabir and Alan delegation that he would pay double whatever the Persians were paying them to serve as his allies. The envoys duly agreed. Later, however, they “revolted” and “taking no account of their hostages, joined the Persians.” Once again large sums were offered to those who would come over “willingly.”88 “Alliances,” even after they were cemented with cash payments (or the promises of such), were rarely permanent. Al-Qazwînî (d. 1283) in his Âṯâr al-Bilâd (composed ca. 1275) says of the Turks of “Turkistân,” that “they are distinguished from the rest of the peoples by their numbers, extreme bravery, endurance, their likeness to predatory animals (ṣûrat al-sibâ’).” He then goes on to tell the story of a Khwârazmian merchant caravan whose own military slave guards turned on them, saying “we want to kill you and take your 86

Accounts are found in Theophanes, ed. De Boor, I, pp. 167-168/trans. Mango, 25456; Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf (Bonn, 1832), p. 615, Chronicon Paschale 284-628 AD, trans. Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby (Liverpool, 1989), pp. 106107; Io. Malalas, Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf (Bonn, 1831), pp. 414-415; The Chronicle of John Malalas, trans. Elizabeth Jeffreys et al., (Melbourne, 1986), pp. 234-235. 87 Menander/Blockley, pp 140/141. 88 Menander/Blockley, pp. 162/263.

PETER B. GOLDEN

goods. We will sell them and buy with them horses and weapons. We will go (to join) the service of the Sulṭân.” The merchants were able to trick them with a plan of cooperation and they were subsequently arrested by the Khwârazmian ruler and crucified.89 Whether the story is true or not is inconsequential; what is most telling is that al-Qazwînî, a popular author, found it entirely plausible. The clerical authors and annalists of the Eastern Slavic chronicles, often simply term the nomads poganye, the “pagans” or the “accursed pagans” The memory of Avar cruelties to the Duleby Slavs was preserved in the Rus’ chronicles. With some satisfaction, the Povest’ vremjannyx let recalled the destruction of the Avar state (late 790’s) commenting that it gave rise to a saying in Rus’ that continued in use during the centuries up to the time of the compilation of the Rus’ primary chronicle (twelfth century) “they perished like the Avars” (pogiboša aki Obre).90 Duplicity in politics was hardly the monopoly of the nomads. Menander reports the speech made by the Western Türk ruler, who appears under his title Türk-šad (Τούρξανθος), to the Byzantine envoy Valentinos in 576 when the latter asked the Türks to fulfill their treaty obligations and come to Constantinople’s support against Iran: “Are you not those very Romans who use ten tongues and lie with all of them?” Placing ten fingers in his mouth, he added “as now there are ten fingers in my mouth, so you Romans have used many tongues. Sometimes you deceive me, sometimes my slaves the Uarkhonitai.”91 The reference here is to Byzantium’s continuing diplomatic contacts with the Avars (Uarkhonitai). Menander, in his account of the Avar designs on the Balkan city of Sirmium, in 579, records the fears of the Avar Qağan regarding Byzantine intentions and inducements” Many of the peoples,” the Qağan says, “who had beforetimes come to this land had first been enticed with such gifts by the Romans, who in the end had attracted and destroyed them utterly.”92 The words uncannily mirror those of the Kül Tegin inscription (S5-6) warning the Türks to be wary of the enticements of China: “(China) gives without care (buŋsuz) gold, silver, embroidered silk brocade (išgüti). The word of the Chinese people (Tabğač bodun) is sweet, its brocades (ağısı) are soft. Deceiving with sweet words and soft brocades, it draws near a distant people and 89

Zakarîya b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmûd al-Qazwînî, Âtâr al-Bilâd wa Aḫbâr al-‘Ibâd (Beirut, 1389/1969), p. 514. 90 PSRL, I, cc. 11-12. 91 Menander/Blockley, pp 172/173-174/175. 92 Menander/Blockley, pp 226/227.

WAR AND WARFARE

after having them settle nearby, they begin to think evil thoughts about them. They do not permit good, wise or brave people to move … Being deceived by the sweet words and soft brocades, O Türk people, many died.”93

The Art of War in the Steppes The sources are unanimous in their portrait of the steppe peoples as being the most skilled in warfare. According to Arab ethnic stereotyping, the Chinese were the masters of crafts and manufacture, the Greeks excelled in philosophy and wisdom, the Sâsânids in politics and the Turks in warfare.94 What was the Eurasian nomads’ art of war? First, we should note that, on the whole, war in the steppe for the nomads was usually not as destructive in its consequences as it was for the sedentary world.95 Unless caught by surprise (which did happen), the nomads usually could quickly move out of harm’s way.96 This was not so of the sedentary, agrarian population of those states immediately bordering on the steppes. In 1103, Vladimir Monomax, the Rus’ ruler, in response to the advice from the družina (comitatus) of Svjatopolk, another prince with whom he was conferring, not to embark on a Spring campaign for fear of ruining the peasants and their ploughed lands, replied “I am surprised that you are sorry for the horse with which one ploughs but do not take into consideration that when the peasant (smerd) begins to plough, the Cuman will come and strike him with an arrow, he will take his mare and riding into his village he will take his wife and children and all his property.”97 Although often giving the impression of loosely flowing forces, seeming to extemporize tactics as they went along, the Eurasian nomad armies were highly organized and disciplined. By the era of the Türk Empire, the nomads across Eurasia were facing powerful, sedentary states and empires which they could not threaten with impunity. 93

Orhon Yazıtları, ed. Talât Tekin (Ankara, 1988), pp. 2/3-4/5. Cf. the comments of al-Jâḥiẓ/Şeşen, p. 80. 95 Joseph Fletcher, “The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 46 (1986), p. 14. 96 The Rus’, especially under Vladimir Monomax in the early twelfth century, carried out a number of attacks into Cuman lands, overrunning the Cuman “towns” and returning with many prisoners and booty, e. g. the campaign of 1103 and those that followed, see PSRL, I, cc. 277-279, II, cc. 252-256, VII, pp. 19-20. 97 PSRL, II, c. 252-253. 94

PETER B. GOLDEN

Responding to this, the nomads developed more structured armies, adopted new military technologies and created a heavily armed cavalry. 98 Organized according to the decimal principle (clearly articulated in the Činggisid armies about which we are much better informed), the armies were ordered according to cosmological concepts, geographical directions, colors and numbers. There was also a hierarchy of rank, observed in drinking and feasting ceremonies that in states such as the Türks and Khazars, could be hereditary.99 Tribal confederations were often built on a process of superstratification as other steppe peoples were brought into the union and often placed in the front ranks of fighting units.100 Mobilization was all-inclusive. In preparing for a campaign against Sâsânid holdings in Transcaucasia in 626, the Türk-Khazar ruler “ordered all those who were under his command – divers nations and tribes, mountain-folk and plain-dwellers, men who lived under roofs and others who slept beneath the stars, seamen and landsmen … to come when he gave the signal, well prepared and ready-armed.”101 This was, as Denis Sinor has phrased it, a “people’s army;” there being no native Turkic or Mongol term specifically for “soldier.”102 Turkic designated a “warrior” with the term er “human male, man” and hence “fighting man, husband,” etc. 103 Derived from this was eren “men” (based on a plural form) which came to mean “real man, fighting 98

Julij S. Xudjakov, Vooruženie srednevekovyx kočevnikov Južnoj Sibiri i Central’noj Azii (Novosibirsk, 1986), pp. 136-137. 99 See the comments of Pohl, Die Awaren, p. 164; İbrahim Kafesoğlu, Türk Bozkır Kültürü (Ankara, 1987), p. 71. See there also (p. 32) for the hierarchy of rank as well as Abdülkadir İnan, “Orun ve “Ülüş Meselesi” in his Makaleler ve İncelemeler (Ankara, 1968), pp. 241-254. Epigraphic evidence for the decimal system can be seen in the Uyğur Moyun Čur inscription (N6): bıŋa bašı “head of a military unit of 1000,” see Gubajdulla Ajdarov, Jazyk orxonskix pamjatnikov drevnetjurkskoj pis’mennosti VIII veka (Alma-Ata, 1971), p. 344. The Crimean Tatars of the sixteenth and seventeenth century still maintained these organizational principles, see L. J. D. Collins, “The Military Organization and Tactics of the Crimean Tatars 16th-17th centuries” in War, Technology and Society in the Middle East, eds. V. J. Parry and M. E. Yapp (Oxford, 1975), p. 258. 100 Gyula Németh, A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (Budapest, 1930, 2nd rev. ed., 1991), p. 45; György Györffy, “A csatlakozott népek” Századok, 92 (1958), pp. 4476 reprinted in his A magyarság keleti elemei (Budapest, 1990), pp. 43-79; Artamonov, Istorija xazar, p. 345. 101 Dasxuranci/Dowsett, ̣ pp. 82-83. 102 Sinor, “The Inner Asian Warriors,” JAOS, 101 (1981), p. 134. 103 Sir Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford, 1972), p. 192.

WAR AND WARFARE

man”104 The Turkic inscriptions of the Orxon and Yenisei make note of the er at “warrior-name” that a youth acquired at maturity and the completion of a rite of initiation involving hunting or military activity. Such customs were not unknown to later Turkic societies. 105 The Mongol term, cerig “warrior, soldier, army, military,” derives from the Turkic čerig “troops drawn up in battle order” and then “army, troops.”106 Other terms we encounter are: alp “brave” (also “tough, resistant, hard to overcome”) > alpağut “warrior” and tonga “hero, outstanding warrior.”107 Women were included in the ranks of this fully mobilized society. Prokopios, aware, of course, of the legends of the Amazons whose origins he traces to the region of the Sabirs, reports that in the aftermath of “Hunnic” (i. e. Sabir) raids into Byzantine territory, the bodies of women warriors were found among the enemy dead.108 East Roman or Byzantine sources also knew of women rulers among the nomads. Malalas, among others, mentions the Sabir Queen Bôa/Bôarêz/Bôarêks (Βώα, Βωαρήζ, Βωαρήξ) who ruled some 100,000 people and could field an army of 20,000.109 In 576 a Byzantine embassy to the Türks went through the territory of Ἀκκάγας “which is the name of the woman who rules the Scythians there, having been appointed at that time by Anagai, chief of the tribe of the Utigurs.”110 The involvement of women in governance (and hence in military affairs) was quite old in the steppe and was remarked on by the Classical Greek accounts of the Iranian Sarmatians.111 It was also much in evidence in the Činggisid empire. These traditions undoubtedly stemmed from the necessities of nomadic life in which the whole of society was mobilized. Ibn al-Faqîh, embellishing on tales that probably went back to the Amazons of Herodotos, says of one of the Turkic towns that their 104

Clauson, ED, p. 232. Kül Tegin, E31: inim kül tegin er at bultı “my younger brother Kül Tegin received his warrior-name,” see Tekin, Orhon Yazıtları (Ankara, 1988), p. 16; Kormušin, Tjurkskie enisejskie épitafii, pp. 128, 146, 172, 258-259; Sergej G. Kljaštornyj, Dmitrij G. Savinov, Stepnye imperii Evrazii (SPb., 1994), pp. 70-71. 106 Mongolian-English Dictionary, ed. Ferdinand D. Lessing et al. (3rd reprinting, Bloomington, 1995), p. 173; Clauson, ED, pp. 428-429. 107 Clauson, ED, pp. 127,128, 515. 108 Prokopios, Loeb ed., V, pp. 74-79. 109 Malalas, ed. Dindorf, pp. 430-431; Theophanes, ed. De Boor, I, p. 175, see also Golden, Khazar Studies, I, p. 258. 110 Menander/Blockley, pp. 172-173. 111 Anatolij M. Khazanov, Social’naja istorija skifov (Moskva, 1975), pp. 85-86. 105

PETER B. GOLDEN

“women fight well together with them,” adding that the women were very dissolute and even raped the men.112 Less fanciful evidence is found in the Jiu Tangshu, which, s. a. 835, reports that the Uyğur Qağan presented the Tang emperor with “seven women archers skillful on horseback”113 Anna Komnena tells of a Byzantine soldier who was unhorsed with an iron grapple and captured by one of the women defenders as he charged the circled wagons of the Pečenegs.114 Women warriors were known among the already Islamized Türkmen tribes of fifteenth century Anatolia and quite possibly among the Ottoman ġâzîs (cf. the Bacıyân-ı Rûm “sisters of Rûm”).115 As contemporary and modern authors have noted, the nomadic lifestyle “promoted martial qualities, the equestrian archer, the coordinated hunt in times of peace, the tactical army in times of war.”116 Indeed, herding, hunting and raiding formed a seamless web, one easily leading into the other. The importance of the hunt for military training was not lost on the Byzantines. The Strategikon of Maurice discusses this at length, noting that the “Scythian” method has greater risks involved.117 Of the European Huns Jordanes noted that “they know nothing but hunting” and having formed into a tribe, attacked their neighbors. They were “most adept in horseriding” (ad equitandum promptissimi) and “very well versed in bows and arrows” (et ad arcos sagittasque parati). 118 Contemporaries were also impressed with the speed with which these forces moved. The Činggisid Mongols, it has been estimated, could cover about 200 kilometers per day.119

112

See Mašhad ms. 174a in Asadov, Arabskie istočniki, p. 55. Colin Mackerras, The Uighur Empire according to the T’ang Dynastic Histories (Canberra, 1972), p. 122 114 Anna Komnena, ed. Schopen, I, p. 358, trans. Sewter, p. 231, trans. Ljubarskij, p. 216. 115 See discussion in Mehmet Fuad Köprülü, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Kuruluşu (2nd ed. Ankara, 1972), pp. 159-161. 116 Fletcher, “The Mongols,” HJAS, 46 91986), p. 14. 117 Maurice, Strategikon, ed. Mihăescu, p. 380. 118 Jordanes, Getica: Iordan, O proisxoždenii i dejanijax getov, ed. Russ. trans. Elena Č. Skržinskaja (Moskva, 1960), Latin, p151/Russ. 123, 125-6, 128, cited by Priskos/Blockley, II, 222/223. 119 According to the estimate of Krzystof Dąbrowski, Teresa Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk and Edward Tryjarski, Hunowie europejscy, Protobułgarzy, Chazarowie, Pieczyngowie (Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk, 1975), p. 109. 113

WAR AND WARFARE

Training The fluidity of movement, so typical of the nomadic art of war, derived not only from a life spent constantly in the saddle. These were well-schooled and disciplined armies. Theophylaktos Simokattes says that the Oğur people was one of the strongest nations “on account of its large population and its armed training for war.”120 The Western Türk Qağans, according to aṭ-Ṭabarı had a special protected zone consisting of a meadow and a mountain in which hunting was forbidden. This was perhaps the private preserve (Turk. qoruğ) of the Qağan. There were three days of training in the mountain and three days in the meadow. Weapons (bows and arrows) were also stockpiled here.121 As was noted earlier in the Strategikon (see above), the Türks “are trained in nothing but being ready to attack the enemy courageously.” Discipline was strict. The Strategikon also remarks that the Türks, “governed not by love but by fear,” “bravely bear the toils of battle and hardship.” The Khazar general, Bluč’an, was cruelly executed when he failed to bring the Georgian princess Šušan alive (she committed suicide) to the Qağan who wanted to marry her.122 Ibn Faḍlân who in 921-922 journeyed to the Volga Bulğars, vassals of the Khazars, reports that when the Khazar qağan sent out a military force: “it cannot retreat for any reason in any way. If it is put to rout, they kill all who turned away. As for the commander and his deputy, if they are put to rout they are confined and their children are confined. They [the children] are [then] given, in their presence, to others. They view this in the same way as if they were criminals. Their utensils (matâ’) and their weapons and homes [are also given away to others]. Sometimes, [the Qağan] cuts each one of them into two pieces and crucifies them and sometimes he hangs them by the neck from trees. Sometimes, he reduces them to a lowly rank, if he feels kindly towards them.”123 Armies based on tribal unions, especially those containing unwilling members, were not easy to hold together, hence the harsh discipline. 120

Theoph. Sim., ed De Boor, pp. 257-258, trans. Whitby and Whitby, p. 189. aṭ-Ṭabarî, ed. Ibrâhîm, VII, p. 113. 122 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 249-250. He was strangled by two horsemen pulling on ropes about his neck in opposite directions. 123 Aḥmad ibn Faḍlân, Risâla: Ibn Faḍlân’s Reisebericht, ed. Germ. trans. and commentary by Ahmet Zeki Validi Togan in Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 24/3 (1939), Arabic text, p. 45/Germ. p. 101. 121

PETER B. GOLDEN

Byzantine sources report that the Avars were much concerned about this. In the campaign of 601, the Qağan “became greatly terrified” over the large number of defections and made great efforts to win back the defectors. The Strategikon attributed the desertions to the instability of the nomads, their greed and the lack of kinship among the tribes.124

Battle Order: Offense and Tactics The term for troops in a battle order or battle-line in Turkic was čerig (see above), which eventually replaced Old Turkic sü to denote “army.” 125 One who was able to break the battle-line was called sökmen,126 which was also a military title and later, in Anatolia, a dynastic name. According to Jordanes, Attila, at the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, held the center with his best forces (cum suis fortissimis), placing the subject peoples on the wings.127 Such, perhaps, was the preferred arrangement in unions that were composed of highly diverse ethnic elements. The Strategikon has a lengthy section on this.128 It begins by noting that the Türks and Avars do not set up a proper military camp, but “are scattered about according to tribe and clan,” although sentries are sent out and posted at a distance to prevent a surprise attack. They begin to draw up their battle order (παρατάξις) at night. Unlike the Byzantines and Persians who form three units [or divisions], the Türks and Avars are divided into different groupings (µοίραις), “compactly joining together the divisions in order to appear as one battle line.” They also hold a force outside of the battle line,129 which they use for ambushes and to help those who are in difficulty. Spare horses are held behind the lines and the baggage train is one or two miles from the troops in the battle line and kept off to the right or left. The ranks are somewhat uneven, but the front (τὸ µέτωπον) “is both even and thickly packed.”130 124

Theoph. Sim., ed De Boor, p. 293, trans. Whitby and Whitby, p. 217; Strategikon, ed. Mihăescu, p. 272. 125 Clauson, ED, pp. 428-429, 781. 126 From sök- “to tear apart, pull down, break through,” Clauson, ED, p. 819. 127 Jordanes/Skržinskaja, Lat. p. 162, Russ. p. 105. 128 Strategikon, ed. Mihăescu, pp. 270-274. 129 This is most probably the reserve force, yetüt noted by Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî/Dankoff, II, p. 106 “reserves in an army. It is taken from the phrase yetüt sač “hair that is left loose after being tied.” Clauson, ED, p. 886, reads this as yatut < yat- “lie down,” i. e. lying down, waiting.” 130 The Strategikon, ed. Mihăescu, notes elsewhere (p. 74) that the arrangement of forces in units of varying sizes is typical of the Türks and Avars.

WAR AND WARFARE

They prefer to fight “from afar, with ambushes and encirclement of the enemy, false retreats and [unexpected] wheeling around, counterattacks, and lines that are wedge-shaped, that is, are scattered.” Once the opponents are defeated, they run them down and completely destroy them. If they take refuge in a fort, they wear them down and force them to surrender. The large number of horses that they have with them requires considerable pasturage. This can work to their disadvantage. They do not fight well on foot and prefer to deal with tightly formed opposing infantry from horseback. If they are defeated, the author of the Strategikon warns, they should be pursued with caution, because they do not recognize defeat, but will stage counterattacks and “will make it their business, through many ways, to attack the enemy.” The nomads’ tactics were carefully observed by the Byzantine military and adopted in their own training. In his discussion of the “Scythian drill,” this same author says that no distinction is made between attackers and defenders, they form one battle line, divided into two halves and practice an encirclement maneuver (κύκλωσιν). In the “Alan drill” the feigned retreat and counterattack was practiced.131 The nomads shooting arrows in retreat were every bit as effective as when attacking. 132 The feigned retreat, associated with the nomads for a millennium, nonetheless continued to fool their enemies. In the 629/630 Türk-Khazar campaign in Transcaucasia, the Khazars met the Sâsânid troops and “immediately took flight, but only to appear later on both flanks to challenge” the Persians. They then surrounded and destroyed the Persian army.133 In the Qarakhanid army, as described by Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî, there was the tactic called the “Pleiades battle order” (ülker čerig) in which the troops retreated in squadrons and then following the lead of one, would turn around and attack.” Using this stratagem they are seldom routed.” The attack on the flanks was called bögürle-: ol yağını bögürledi “he broke into the enemy ranks from right or left so that he routed him without meeting him head on”134 The Cumans were

131

Strategikon, ed. Mih¸aescu, p. 158 al-Jâḥiẓ/Şeşen, p. 67. 133 Dasxurancị /Dowsett, pp. 104-105. 134 From bögür “kidney”> bögürle- “to hit on the kidneys,” see Kâšġarî/Dankoff, I, p. 128, II, p. 319; Clauson, ED, pp. 328-329. 132

PETER B. GOLDEN

great masters of the feigned retreat and counterattack as they demonstrated in campaigns in the Balkans in 1187 and 1205.135 The arrangements of troops could vary according to topography and other strategic factors. Thus, Theophylaktos Simokattes in his descriptions of a number of Avar engagements has them divided into fifteen companies in one, a single division in another and twelve companies in yet another battle.136 In the eleventh century, Michael Psellos saw only disorder, remarking of the Pečenegs, that “they are not divided up by battalions and when they go to war they have no strategic plan to guide them.” They attack, he writes, “in one mass, close-packed and pell-mell” and “when they break away there is no order in their retreat.” Nonetheless, he notes, they remarkably all re-group.137 Anna Komnena, however, who was a far better observer of military affairs, recounts that in the 1087 campaign, the Pečenegs “know how to arrange a phalanx. So, after placing ambuscades, binding together their ranks in close formation, making a sort of rampart from their covered wagons (on this see below), they advance en masse,” shooting arrows from a distance.138 Not all forces of Eurasian nomadic origin were mounted, although the overwhelming majority of our references to them would appear to indicate that most were. For example, Agathias mentions a Sabir mercenary force in Byzantine service who were heavy infantry (ὁπλιτών).139 Battles were sometimes prefaced by “scare tactics” According to Menander, the Avars at the beginning of a battle raised “a wild cacophony,” howling and beating their drums and “raising such a noise as to stress and terrify the Romans.” Having experienced this on a number of occasions, the Byzantine commanders used to forewarn their troops, thereby lessening the impact.140 135

Niketas Choniatês, Historia, ed, H. -L. van Dieten (Berlin, 1975), pp. 397, 616-617, Eng. trans. O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniatês, trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984), pp. 218, 337 136 Theoph. Sim., ed. De Boor, pp. 286, 287, 288, trans. Whitby and Whitby, pp. 212, 213. 137 Michael Psellos, Chronographia: Michel Psellos, Chronographie, ed, trans. E. Renauld (Paris, 1926, 1928), II, pp. 124-127, Eng. Michael Psellus, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers, trans. E. R. A. Sewter (Baltimore, 1966), pp. 318-319. 138 Anna Komnena, ed. Schopen, I, pp. 344-345, trans. Ljubarskij, 209-210, trans. Sewter, p. 224. 139 Agathias, ed. Keydell, p. 106, trans. Frendo, p. 87. 140 Menander/Blockley, pp. 130/131.

WAR AND WARFARE

The ambush was a favorite tactic and is commented on by virtually all the sources. The Strategikon devotes a section to the feigned retreat and “Scythian ambush.” Two famous incidents involving rulers may be noted. The Hephthalites killed the Sâsânid ruler Pêrôz (r. 459-484) leading him into a trap that consisted of “a series of carefully camouflaged pits and trenches that stretched over the plain for a very great distance.”141 Sometime ca. 619, the Avars attempted to abduct by ambush the Byzantine Emperor Herakleios. The latter barely escaped, fleeing back to Constantinople with his foes in hot pursuit. 142 The Khazars in their wars with the Arabs in the North Caucasus (e. g., s. a. 652/653) are also reported to have set ambushes, hiding behind the thickets and shooting arrows at the Arabs.143 Campaigns were planned and often coordinated with other groups or peoples favorable to them. During the Türk-Khazar invasion of Caucasian Albania in 628, the invaders had “planned it all in advance,” the various groups being given different military targets. Dasxuranc’i reports that they “all attacked as one man and swallowed up our country at the time appointed.”144 During the Arab siege of the Khazar North Caucasian city of Balanjar in 652/653, the Khazars outside the city coordinated a joint attack with the defenders against the Arabs that broke the siege and killed the Arab commander.145 Probably the most ambitious undertaking was the failed joint AvarPersian attack on Constantinople in 626. However, this was not the first such coordinated Avar land and sea attack. In his attempt on Sirmium in 579, the Avar Qağan had boats built on the spot to transport part of his forces and sent them off, rowed by oarsmen who were obviously inexperienced in this. Meanwhile, his larger land force marched off as well. He deceived the Byzantines, saying that he was intending to attack the Slavs who had not paid him their annual tribute. The Avars built a bridge and cut the city off. In the meantime, the Byzantines, who were busy fighting the Persians as well, tried to scare them off with intimations that the Türks might attack them. The Avars were aware that Constantinople was bluffing and suggested that the city, which the Qağan considered strategically important as a Byzantine staging area for attacks against the Avars, be evacuated. Byzantine attempts at 141

Agathias, ed. Keydell, pp. 157-158, trans. Frendo, p. 130. Nikephoros/Mango, pp. 50/51-52/53. 143 aṭ-Ṭabarî, ed. Ibrâhîm, IV, pp. 304-305. 144 Dasxuranci/Dowsett, ̣ p. 97. 145 aṭ-Ṭabarî, ed. Ibrâhım, IV, p. 304. 142

PETER B. GOLDEN

averting the attack by sending “gifts” to buy off the enemy also failed. The Byzantines remained determined to retain the city but despite these efforts lost it, finally, in 582.146

Defense The Strategikon faults the Türks and Avars for not establishing a proper bivouac, and being instead scattered about “according to clan and tribe.”147 The most common nomadic tactic of defense was the circling of the wagons on which the nomads moved their families and possessions. Thus, Anna Komnena reports that as the Pečenegs prepared for battle, “they fenced off their army with covered wagons, like towers, and then moved by units against the emperor and began to shoot their arrows from a distance”148 In a campaign of 1121-22 (or 1123), the Pečeneg response to a Byzantine attempt to surprise them with a dawn attack was to deploy their wagons in a circle. They, then, “positioned a goodly number of their troops on them and fashioned a palisade. They cut many oblique passage ways through the wagons, enabling them to take refuge behind them as though they were walls whenever hard pressed … When rested they sallied out through the gates … This tactic devised by the Patzinaks, which, in effect, was the same as fighting from walls, frustrated the Roman assault.”149 The nomads also brought defense materials with them, a kind of portable fort. Gardîzî reports that the Khazars had each of their horsemen bring with him a “peg sharpened at [one] end (that is) the length of three cubits … These pegs are implanted [in a circle] around the army. [Then,] a shield is hung from each peg” forming a palisade.150 Perhaps something similar can be seen in Jordanes’s account of the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields. At one point, Attila, hard-pressed by the Visigoths, retreated to the cover of the “fences of his camps” (septa 146

Menander/Blockley, pp. 216/217-226/227; Pohl, Die Awaren, pp. 70-76; Kovačević, Avarski kaganat, pp. 46-51. 147 Strategikon, ed. Mihăescu, p. 270 148 Anna Komnena, ed. Schopen, I, pp. 344-345, trans. Ljubarkskij, pp. 209-210, trans. Sewter, p. 224. 149 Nik. Choniatês, ed. van Dieten, pp. 14-15, trans. Magoulias, pp. 10-11. See the detailed account in John Kinnamos, Ioannis Cinnami Epitome, ed. A. Meineke (Bonn, 1836), pp. 7-8, Eng. trans.: The Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. Charles M. Brand (New York, 1976), pp. 15-16. 150 Gardîzî, ed. Ḥabîbî, p. 582, Martinez, pp. 154-155; Marwazî/Minorsky, Arabic, p. 21/33 has a similar account, adding “in this way in less than an hour round the encampment a wall is made which cannot be pierced.”

WAR AND WARFARE

castrorum).151 Menander tells us that the Byzantine embassy of 569 as it made its way through the Türk-controlled territory of the Χοαλιτῶν or Χολιατῶν, “travelled through fortresses.”152 Ibn Rusta (writing ca. 903, but based on earlier sources from the mid- to late ninth century 153 ) says that the Khazars dug trenches (ḫandaqat) “about themselves” to serve as protection from the Majġariyya (Magyars) and other neighboring peoples. 154 They also constructed (or had constructed for them) forts situated at strategic points. Thus, in 838, the Byzantines built the fort of Sarkel (noted as Šarkil, Sarqil or Sarqil, cf. Σάρκελ, ‫שרכיל‬, ‫שרקל‬, ‫ סרקל‬etc. ) on the Don, as a protection, it would appear, against the Pečenegs. Three hundred Khazar guards were posted there.155 There were also riparian Khazar defense units on the lower Volga and lower Don aimed at checking the Oğuz and Rus’ amongst others. Of them, our source, al-Mas‘ûdî, only says that they are in a “state of armed readiness” but gives no description of their fortifications - if any.156 There was a Khazar fort at the Straits of Kerč (usually identified with Ταµάταρχα of the Byzantine

151

Jordanes/Skržinskaja, Russ. p. 107, Lat., p. 164. Elsewhere, Jordanes/Skržinskaja, Russ. p. 101, Lat., p. 159, mentions a “village” (vicum) - or more likely a camp or ordu, which was “like an immense city” (instar civitatis amplissimae) with stout walls. Attila preferred these camps to cities. Priskos/Blockley, II, pp. 264/265 also mentions a village in which Attila had a residence which was surrounded by “a wooden wall which was built with an eye not to security but to elegance.” The walls also had towers. 152 Menander/Blockley, 120/121-122/123. Some are inclined to see various Turkic names here, cf. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 345 and the literature cited there. 153 Tadeusz Lewicki, Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny (WrocławWarszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk, 1956, 1969, 1977), II/2, pp. 7-17; Ignatij Ju. Kračkovskij, Arabskaja geografičeskaja literatura in his Izbrannye sočinenija (Moskva-Leningrad, 1955-1969), IV, pp. 131-133, 159-160; Mihály Kmoskó, Mohamedán írók a steppe népeiről (Budapest, 1997), I/1, pp. 66-69. 154 Abu‘Alî b. ‘Umar Ibn Rusta, Kitâb al-A‘lâq an-Nafîsa, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1892), p. 143. 155 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, DAI,ed. Moravcsik, trans. Jenkins, pp. 182/183184/185; Theophanes Continuatus, Historiae, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), pp. 122124. See also Golden, Khazar Studies, I, pp. 239-243 for the forms of this toponym. For the most recent description of Sarkel, see Svetlana A. Pletnëva, Sarkel i “šëlkovyj put’” (Voronež, 1996). [Sarkel’s construction is now dated to 840-41, see C. Zuckerman, “Two Notes on the Early History of the thema of Cherson” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 21 (1997), pp. 210-222]. 156 al-Mas‘ûdî, Murûj, ed. Pellat, I, p. 218.

PETER B. GOLDEN

sources and the later Rus’ city of Tmurtorokan’ 157 ), which the Byzantines tried to destroy using the Rus’.158 Whether this fort was actually constructed by the Khazars or taken over by them is unclear. Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentions a series of “deserted cities” to the west of the Dnestr facing Balkan Bulgaria. These may have been forts built to protect the river crossings. Although the names given by our source may be Pečeneg, they appear to antedate Pečeneg control of that region. They may go back to Khazar times or even earlier. The traces of churches and crosses found there suggested to Constantine that these were earlier Byzantine settlements. Perhaps, like Sarkel, they had been built for the Khazars by the Byzantines. In any event, in his day, they were no longer serving any military function.159 The Volga Bulğars, whose ruler, a vassal of the Khazar Qağan, converted to Islam in the early tenth century, requested in his letter to the Caliphate that resulted in the dispatch of the mission of 921-922 that was to aid him in creating a Muslim infrastructure for his state that a fort be built by the Arabs for him “out of his fear of the king of the Khazars.” 160 The Balkan Bulğars had fortifications to which they retreated from the attacks of Constantine IV (r. 668-685). 161 The existence of fortifications was, obviously, a necessity dictated by terrain and foes. The Kimek, a Qağan-led state centered in Western Siberia, had no fortified or walled settlements,162 since the surrounding Uralic forest peoples with whom they had extensive trade relations simply did not pose that kind of threat. Of the various Eurasian nomads in the Western Steppes, only the Türks and the Khazars who derived in part from the latter, constituted actual states. Not surprisingly, we are somewhat better informed about their military structure. We shall focus on the Türk-Khazar and Khazar forces. Archaeological evidence indicates that at least some portion of the Türk army consisted of heavy cavalry alongside the light cavalry bowmen so typical of the Eurasian steppe armies. 163 The North 157

See discussions in Golb and Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents, pp. 36, 104105, 128,137 158 Shepard, “Constantine VII’s Doctrine,” GENNADIOS, P. 266. 159 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, DAI, ed. Moravcsik, trans. Jenkins, pp. 168/169; Golden, Khazar Studies, I, pp. 249-250. 160 Ibn Faḍlân/Togan, Arabic, p. 35/Germ. pp. 80-81. 161 Nikephoros/Mango, pp. 90/91. 162 Gardîzî, ed. Ḥabîbî, p. 553, Martinez, p. 122. 163 Gumilëv, Drevnie tjurki, pp. 68-70, suggests that the light cavalry was drawn from subject populations and that it was their heavy cavalry that gave the Türks their

100

WAR AND WARFARE

Caucasian Huns, a vassal people of the Khazars ruled by Alp İlteber included among his forces Hunnic and other “vigorous peoples of the land of Gog … bearing halberds, and archers and cataphracti, armoured and helmeted.”164 This, perhaps, indicated a force that had both heavy cavalry and archer-light cavalry. Ibn Saʻîd, a thirteenth century author from Muslim Spain, says that the Khazars had unusually large horses,165 indicative, perhaps, of heavy cavalry. Archaeological evidence would appear to indicate the presence of heavy and light cavalry among the Khazars,166 the Pečenegs, Western Oğuz (Torks) and Cumans.167 In the early Türk-Khazar or Proto-Khazar period (up to ca. 650), when the Khazars were not yet clearly distinguished from the Türk Qağanate, we have some evidence, hardly surprising, for the existence of an elite force, perhaps a royal comitatus like the Böri of the Türks.168 In the Transcaucasian campaign of 626, Herakleios was given a “strong, elite force of cavalry and skilled archers, about a thousand in number” which may refer to such a grouping.169 It is interesting that Dasxuranc’i distinguishes between the cavalry (probably heavy cavalry) and the archers (most probably the light cavalry). The number of troops probably points to the decimal system typical of the Eurasian nomads. Ibn A‘ṯam al-Kûfî, in his account of the warfare in the North Caucasus between the Arabs and Khazars that took place in 731, notes advantage. See also Xudjakov, Vooruženie, pp. 137, 166 who views the light cavalry as being the basic military core of the Türks. 164 Dasxurancị /Dowsett, p. 150; Dieter Ludwig, Struktur und Gesellschaft des Chazaren-Reiches im Licht der schriftlichen Quellen (Münster, 1982), pp. 228-289. 165 See (Oxford)Bodleian, ms. I, 874, f. 71 cited in Dunlop, History, p. 225. 166 Svetlana A. Pletnëva, Očerki xazarskoj arxeologii (Moskva-Ierusalim, 1999), pp. 207-208 and illustration 122 167 Svetlana A. Pletnëva, “Pečenegi, torki i polovcy v južnorusskix stepjax',” Trudy Volgo-Donskoj arxeologičeskoj ékspedicii, I, in Materialy i issledovanija po arxeologii SSSR, 62 (Moskva-Leningrad, 1958), p. 197. Some of the literary sources (e. g. Psellos, ed. Renauld, II, pp. 124-127, trans. Sewter, pp. 317-319), however, portray the Pečenegs as an undisciplined mass without helmets, shields etc. i. e. light cavalry. 168 Liu, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, pp. 9, 181: “all the guard officers [of the Türks, pbg] are called fu-li” (= böri “wolf,” the Türk ancestral totem). 169 Dasxuranci/Dowsett, ̣ p. 87. Ludwig, Gesellschaft, pp. 286-287, quite properly, wonders whether this was an already existing force or one specially selected for the occasion. Theophanes, ed. de Boor, I p. 316, trans. Mango, p. 447 says it numbered 40,000; see also Dionysius of Tel Maḥrê in The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, ed. trans. A. Palmer et al. (Liverpool, 1993), p. 137. The chronology of these events is confused, Theophanes dating it to 624/625.

101

PETER B. GOLDEN

the presence of “one thousand men from the ṭarḫâns of the Khazars whom the king of the Khazars had organized there,” a reference, perhaps, to a special unit or comitatus of the ruler. In that same author’s account of Marwân’s successful foray into Khazaria in 737, mention is made of a Khazar commander, named Hazâr Ṭarḫân, and the “40,000 sons of ṭarḫâns” serving with him. 170 While the number is almost certainly unrealistic, and this could hardly be the same unit mentioned more than a century previously in connection with Herakleios, it might, nonetheless, again point to a special, elite force or royal comitatus drawn from the ranks of those who held the dignity of tarqan. The latter is an ancient, Inner Asian title (possibly of Xiongnu origin) that by this time denoted important administrative responsibilities.171 These “40,000 sons of ṭarḫâns” are, perhaps, the “retinue” (ḥâšiya) of 4000 that the Qağan had, according to al-Iṣṭaḫri.172 The title tudun, a high Türk title often associated with tax collection, noted among the Khazars, may also have involved some military police functions.173 The command of the army was always in the hands of the Yabğu Qağan (Jebu Xak’an of the Armenian sources) or of his son who bore the title Šad. The latter had a council of advisors as well as a “trusted governor and tutor”174 By the mid-ninth century, when the Khazars come fully into the view of the Muslim sources, we begin to see the outline of the dual system of rule that is fully in evidence in the tenth century and later authors. By this time, the Qağan had become a sacral ruler and the day to day administration of governmental affairs, including the military, was in the hands of the Qağan-Beg (variously given in our sources as Qağan Beg, Beg, Šad, Yillig). Indeed, his mere

170

Abu Muḥammad Aḥmad b. ‘Alî Ibn A‘tam al-Kûfî, Kitâb al-Futûḥ, ed. ‘Abdu’lMu‘îd Ḫân Buḫârî (Hyderabad, 1969-1975), VIII, pp. 61,72. 171 Golden, Khazar Studies, I, p. 181; Ludwig, Gesellschaft, pp. 151-153, 289 would also see in the entourage (aṭrâf) of the son of the Qağan, noted by Ibn A‘tam alKûfî, VIII, pp. 52-53, another reference to a grouping of his “closest dependents and nobles.: On tarqan, see Clauson, ED, pp. 539-540. 172 Abu Isḥâq Fârisî Iṣṭaḫri, Kitâb Masâlik al-Mamâlik, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1870), p. 220. 173 Pronounced *tôḏun according to Clauson, ED, p. 457; Golden, Khazar Studies, I, pp. 215-216; Ludwig, Gesellschaft, 287. 174 Dasxuranci/Dowsett, ̣ pp. 95, 98; Ludwig, Gesellschaft, p. 287. Here we see an example of the atabeg system, known under a variety of names among the Turkic peoples, on Seljuk atabeg, see Osman Turan, Selçuklular Tarihi ve Türk-İslâm Medeniyeti (Ankara, 1965), pp. 221-222; on the atalıq of the Uzbeks, see Robert. D. McChesney, Waqf in Central Asia (Princeton, 1991), p. 58.

102

WAR AND WARFARE

presence was enough to halt bloodshed. As al-Iṣṭaḫri notes, “they do not fight with him because of their veneration of him.”175 We have several relatively detailed reports on the Khazar army. Ibn Rusta (whose sources date to the mid- to late ninth century) says that the Šad calls up a levy of horsemen from the powerful and wealthy “commensurate with their possessions.”176 He conducts annual raids on the Pečenegs, personally leading the army. His soldiers “have a handsome appearance,” going out “in full armament, having banners, spears and strong coats of mail. His mounted retinue (rakâbuhu) [number] 10,000 horsemen, among whom [are those] who are bound by wages paid to them and among them [also] are those who are levied on the rich.”177 When he is out on campaign, he is preceded by “a drumlike contraption shaped like the sun which a horseman who rides in front of him carries. He goes forth and his army follows him and they see the light of that sun-like (drum).” War booty is brought to the Šad who takes what he likes and then gives the rest to be distributed. Gardîzî, clearly based on the same sources, has a similar account, adding that the annual raids on the Pečenegs netted animals (mâl) and captives. He also remarks that the Šad (text: išâd) “himself takes the land/agricultural tax (ḫarâj) and dispenses it to the army.”178 Of the 10,000 horsemen,179 “some of these receive a salary and some are from the military following (waḍî‘at) of the wealthy who accompany the king in their own armor and equipment.” Here, we are probably dealing with the comitatus or military retinue of the tribal or clan chiefs. Even when this army goes out, “they still leave a large army at home to protect their families and wealth.” In Gardîzî, the sun-like drum 175

al-Iṣṭaḫri, ed. de Goeje, p. 224; see also al-Mas‘ûdî, Murûj, ed. Pellat, I, p. 214. On the Khazar sacral rulership, see P. B. Golden, “Gosudarstvo i gosudarstvennost’ u xazar: vlast’ xazarskix kaganov,” Fenomen vostočnogo despotizma. Struktura upravlenija i vlasti, ed. N. A. Ivanov (Moskva, 1993), pp. 211-233. 176 This and the account that follows are found in Ibn Rusta, ed. de Goeje, p. 140. The Šad is noted as îšâ in this author. 177 This, perhaps, hints at some kind of feudal structure in which wealthy families were required to produce certain numbers of soldiers (according to the size of their holdings?), a foreshadowing of later Mamlûk and Muġal practices, see John Critchley, Feudalism (London, 1978), pp. 24-27, 40, 59-60; Robert Irwin, The Middle East in the Middle Ages. The Early Mamlûk Sultanate 1250-1382 (Carbondale-Edwardsville, 1986), p. 40. 178 This and the account that follows are found in Gardîzî, ed. Ḥabîbî, pp. 580-582, Martinez, pp. 154-155. My translation occasionally differs slightly from that of Martinez. 179 The same figure is repeated by al-Marwazî/Minorsky, Arabic, p. 21/33.

103

PETER B. GOLDEN

contraption is replaced by the scouts carrying candles who go before the king providing light so that the army may advance. Al-Iṣṭaḫri (writing in the mid-tenth century but drawing on earlier sources180) says, as we have previously noted, that the Khazar king has a retinue/entourage of 4000. He adds further that the king has a constant army of 12,000 men (when one dies he is replaced).” They do not receive a regular salary (jirâya dârra) except for whatever trifle reaches them after a long period” This army assembles around the ruler when war or some other calamity occurs. The army together with the king and his retinue and the so-called “pure Khazars” (al-ḫazar al-ḫullaṣ, perhaps a corruption of some term for the Qalis/Ḫalis/ Khwârazmians 181 ) lived in the western part of the capital city, Atıl/İtil.182 Al-Mas‘ûdî, writing in the 930’s, has an important notice on the Ors (��‫�ا��ر‬: al-Ursiyya183), the name of the Khwârazmian guard that constituted the standing army (jund) of the king and in whom the king placed his “complete trust” They were permitted the free and public practice of their Islamic faith and the chief minister (wazır) of the king was, in al-Mas‘ûdî’s time, selected from their number. They were not required to participate in Khazar wars against Muslims. “Of them, there rides with the king 7000 archers in cuirass, helmets, and coats of mail. They also have lancers who have weapons and arms in the Muslim manner.”184 These were, perhaps, heavy cavalry in the Iranian tradition. Our source adds that “among the kings of the East in this region, no one except for the king of the Khazars has armed forces of mercenaries (junûd murtaziqa).”185 It is unclear if this statement refers to the Ors guard or the salaried soldiers noted in our other sources – if they are not one and the same. The Khazar Qağans could also draw on the manpower of their subject peoples, the North Caucasian “Huns,” the Iranian Alans, the 180

Kračkovskij, Arabskaja geografičeskaja literatura in his Izbrannye sočinenija, IV, pp. 196-198; Mihály Kmoskó, “Die Quellen Iṣṭachri’s in seinem Berichte über die Chasaren,” Kőrösi Csoma Archivum, I (1921-1925), pp. 141-148 181 See Dunlop’s discussion of this question, History, pp. 94-95, esp. n. 21. 182 al-Iṣṭaḫri, ed. de Goeje, pp. 220-222. Ibn Ḥawqal, Kitâb Ṣûrat al-Arḍ (Beirut, 1992), pp. 330ff., his contemporary closely follows this account. 183 On the proper reading, see Tadeusz Lewicki, “Un peuple iranien peu connu: les *Arsiya ou *Orsiyya” in Gy. Káldy-Nagy (ed.), Studies in Honour of Julius Németh (Budapest, 1976), pp. 31-33 and Peter B. Golden, “Cumanica III: Urusoba,” Aspects of Altaic Civilization III, ed. Denis Sinor (Bloomington, 1990), pp. 33-46. 184 al-Mas‘ûdî, Murûj, ed. Pellat, I, p. 213. 185 al-Mas‘ûdî, Murûj, ed. Pellat, I, p. 214.

104

WAR AND WARFARE

Oğur Turkic Bulğaric peoples of the Ponto-Caspian steppes and Middle Volga region, the Burtas of the Volga region and others. Of the Burtas (Burṭâs, Burdâs Russ. Brutas), whose ethnicity is uncertain,186 we have sparse and contradictory notices. In part, this may stem from their complex ethnic antecedents. Two groups appear to be present, one nomadic or semi-nomadic, the other settled. They lacked a central political authority and had different burial customs, a clear indication of two distinct populations. Ibn Rusta and Gardîzî say that they have 10,000 mounted warriors. They are armed with bows, javelins and battle axes and fight constantly with the Volga Bulğars and Pečenegs.187 The Volga Bulğar confederation, 188 composed of three tribal groupings, was ruled by a “king” who had the title of yılṭawar.189 His authority was not always accepted by the different elements in the Bulğar union, as Ibn Faḍlân notes. The only taxes due him were one sable pelt per household (fî kull bait),190 but if the king sent out a raiding party, he was entitled to a share in the booty along with the rest.191 The Ḥudûd says that they could put forth 20,000 horsemen.192 Ibn Rusta and Gardîzî allow them only 10,000 horsemen, Ibn Rusta noting that their warriors, had armor and sharp weapons. Gardîzî says simply that they have good weapons and riding stock.193 Our sources on the details of the military forces of the later nomads are remarkably meager. Gardîzî reports that the Pečenegs were engaged in slaving expeditions against their neighbors (and were raided in return) and had many weapons and “banners and pennants which they raise up in battle [as well as] bugles made from the horns of oxen which 186

Omeljan Pritsak, “The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion to Judaism” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, II (1978), p. 264, suggests: *Furtas the “River As”. The As or Alano-As were an Iranian people of the steppe zone and North Caucasus. 187 Ibn Rusta, ed. de Goeje, pp. 140-141; Gardîzî, ed. Ḥabîbî, pp. 582-583, Martinez, pp. 155-157; MarwazîMinorsky, Arabic, p. 21/33. Gardîzî elsewhere says only the well to do have horses. 188 For a general overview, see Tryjarski, “Protobułgarzy” in Dąbrowski et al., Hunowie, 181ff. 189 Yılṭawar = Common Turkic il-teber “a title for a tribal ruler subordinate to a superior ruler,” on il-teber see Clauson, ED, p. 134. 190 Ibn Rusta, ed. de Goeje, p. 141, however, says that they paid their ruler a tribute of one “riding animal.: The same tax was levied on marriages. 191 Ibn Faḍlân/Togan, Arabic, pp. 27,33/Germ. pp. 60, 74-75. The Burtas were frequent targets of their raids. 192 Hudûd, ed. Sotoodeh, p. 195, trans. Minorsky, p. 163. 193 Ibn Rusta, ed. de Goeje, pp. 140-141; Gardîzî, ed. Ḥabîbî, p. 582, 585, Martinez, pp. 155,158.

105

PETER B. GOLDEN

they sound in battle.”194 Both the Pečenegs and the Cuman-Qıpčaqs lacked central leadership, a circumstance that their opponents tried to exploit.195

Numbers It is almost impossible to gauge with any degree of accuracy the number of troops that any of these groups could field. The numbers given in our sources are, most probably, inflated. They frequently refer to their “great multitudes.” 196 The Rus’ chronicles compare their numbers to “great forests” (jako borove velicii).197 An Avar general, having defeated the Byzantines, sent the Byzantine commander the message “why, I ask you, when you are weakened by your small numbers compared with the Avars and the Scythians, did you dare to give battle?”198 The nomads, with their much fuller mobilization may have, indeed, outnumbered their opponents. The nomads also gave the appearance of being very numerous and this may have accounted for their large numbers in the eyes of their contemporaries. The Strategikon, with its sharp and experienced soldier’s eye, simply states that it is hard to estimate their numbers because the nomadic armies “have so many horses.”199 Warriors returning again and again on fresh mounts would certainly give the impression of seemingly inexhaustible forces. Let us briefly examine some of the numbers given in our sources. At the Battle of Nedao (454) which pitted the sons of Attila against their subject peoples, the Hunnic forces were said to have suffered 30,000

194

Gardîzî, ed. Ḥabîbî, p. 579, Martinez, pp. 151-152. Golden, Introduction, pp. 266-267, 279-280. Cf. the incident, in 1121/1122 or 1122/1123, reported by Niketas Choniat˙s, ed. van Dieten, pp. 13-16, trans. Magoulias, pp. 10-11 in which the Emperor John Komnenos sent Pečeneg-speaking envoys to the different field camps of the Pečenegs in an attempt to persuade at least some of them to withdraw. 196 Cf. Anna Komnena, trans. Ljubarskij, p. 202, Sewter, p. 214, who refers to their “enormous resources of manpower.: 197 PSRL, II, c. 254, 267, e. g “the Cuman forces came like forests and one could not see them all.” The seventeenth century French traveller Beauplan (G. de Levasseur) observed the density of the Crimean Tatar forces on the move, commenting that “the trees in the forest are not more thickly packed,” cited in Collins, “Crimean Tatars” in Parry and Yapp (eds.), War, Technology and Society, p. 265. 198 Menander/Blockley, pp. 148/149-150/151. 199 Strategikon, ed. Mihăescu, p. 242. 195

106

WAR AND WARFARE

casualties. 200 The “Hunnic” chieftain Zilgibis, ca. 522, had 20,000 troops.201 The Sabir “Queen” Boarêks, in 527/528, who was reported to have had “100,000 people” under her command, defeated a “Hunnic” rival who had a military force of 20,000.202 Prokopios mentions a Sabir force of 12,000. 203 The Kutrigur Zabergan, in his attack on Constantinople in March 559, split up his forces, one unit of which is noted as consisting of 7,000 horsemen.204 In his interview of the first Türk embassy to Constantinople, the Emperor Justin II learned that 20,000 Avars had fled from the Türks while others remained as subjects.205 The Tarniakh, Kotzagêr and Zabender who joined the Avars in Pannonia were 10,000 in number.206 The Avar Qağan sent a force of 10,000 Kutrigurs to raid the Byzantine lands, commenting that if they should be destroyed, it “shall cause me no pain.” 207 In 578, the Byzantines brought in a force of 60,000 Avar heavy cavalry (ἱππέων θωρακοφόρων) to fight the Slavs who were plundering the Balkans.208 In 599, in a series of clashes with the Byzantines, the Avars lost 4,000 in one engagement, 9000 the next day and 15,000 in a following battle. A Byzantine surprise attack produced 30,000 casualties among the Avar forces including their allies and subjects. In yet another battle 3,000 were captured.209 The Türk-Khazars could afford to give Herakleios, as we have seen, a force of 40,000 for his Caucasian campaigns. 210 More realistic numbers are noted by the later Arab geographers, e. g. 7,000 in al-Mas‘ûdî, 10,000 in Ibn Rusta, 12,000 in al-Iṣṭaḫrî (see above). The 200

Priskos/Blockley, II, p. 320/321; Jordanes/Skržinskaja, Latin, p. 173/Russ., p. 119. The latter (Latin, p. 165/Russ. 109) gives 165,000 as the number of slain on both sides at the Catalaunian Fields. 201 Theophanes, ed. de Boor, I, p. 167, trans. Mango, p. 254 and other sources. 202 Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 430, trans. Jeffreys et al., p. 249; Theophanes, ed. de Boor, I, p. 167, trans. Mango, p. 254 . Agathias, ed. Keydell, p. 139, trans. Frendo, p. 115 calls the Sabirs “a large and populous nation also extremely warlike.: The 100,000 of Boarêks, most probably not to be taken literally, may have referred to the total population of her tribal union. 203 Prokopios, De Bello Gothico (Loeb ed.), V, 154/155. 204 Agathias, ed. Keydell, p. 178, trans. Frendo, p. 147. 205 Menander/Blockley, pp. 114/115-116/117. 206 Theoph. Sim., ed de Boor, p. 260, trans. Whitby and Whitby, p. 191. 207 Menander/Blockley, pp. 136/137. 208 Menander/Blockley, pp. 192/193. 209 Theoph. Sim., ed. de Boor, pp. 287-289, trans. Whitby and Whitby, pp. 212-213. 210 Theophanes, ed. de Boor, I, p. 316, trans. Mango, p. 447 s. a. 624/625; see also Dionysius of Tel-Maḥrê, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, ed. trans., A. Palmer et al., p. 137.

107

PETER B. GOLDEN

Burtas, as we have seen, were credited with the substantial force of 10,000 (see above). Before their migration to Pannonia, the Hungarian tribal union (Majġarî), had 20,000 horsemen who fought, usually successfully, with many of their neighbors and conducted slave raids against the Ṣaqâliba.211 Al-Mas‘ûdî says that the Alans in the Caucasus region could field 30,000 horsemen.212 Further to the east, Ibn al-Faqîh in his discussion of Sâmânid campaigns against the pagan Turks of Central Asia, notes that 20,000 Muslims led by Ismâ‘îl b. Aḥmad (r. 892-907) faced 60,000 Turks. Al-Mas‘ûdî remarks that Ismâ‘îl, in his campaign of 280/893-4, took 15,000 Turks captive and killed 10,000.213 Occasionally, we get more regionally defined figures. The Ḥudûd mentions the village “Bîglîlîġ” in the Tuxs country of the Turks that can field 3000 men. 214 The Kimek who had an important state in western Siberia had 20,000 mounted warriors.215 The powerful Uyğur empire is reported to have had 30,000 (Gardîzî), 20,000 (Ibn al-Faqîh) or 12,000 (Tamîm b. Baḥr) mounted warriors. 216 Pečeneg forces deployed against Byzantium in 1087 are noted as 80,000 (including Hungarian and other allies) and 36,000.217 Omeljan Pritsak, on the basis of John Skylitzes’s statement that in 1048 the eleven districts of the western part of the Pečeneg realm had a population of some 800,000 people, estimated that each “district” had about 72,727 people, thus concluding that the forty districts mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his De Administrando Imperio218 in the mid-tenth century would have yielded a total population of 2.8 to 3 million people. Since each district, he claims, would support a force of 10,000 211

Hudûd, ed. Sotoodeh, pp. 87-88, trans. Minorsky, p. 101. See also alMarwazî/Minorsky, Arabic, p. 22/35. 212 al-Mas‘ûdî, Murûj, ed. Pellat, I, p. 230. 213 See the Mašhad Ms., f. 172a-b, cited in Asadov, Arabskie istočniki, pp. 51-52; alMas‘ûdî, Murûj, ed. Pellat, V, p. 150. 214 Ḥudûd, ed. Sotoodeh, p. 84, trans. Minorsky, p. 99. 215 Vladimir F. Minorsky, “Tamîm b. Baḥr’s Journey to the Uighurs” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 10 (1948), pp. 282, 284; Asadov, p. 48 (Ibn al-Faqîh). 216 Gardîzî, ed. Ḥabîbî, p. 570, trans. Martinez, p. 135; Minorsky, “Tamîm b. Baḥr’s” BSOAS, 10 (1948), pp. 279-284, 303; Asadov, Arabskie istočniki, pp. 47-48 (Ibn alFaqîh, Mašhad ms., ff. 170a-b. 217 Anna Komnena, trans. Ljubarskij, pp. 203, 210, trans. Sewter, pp. 217, 225. 218 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, DAI, ed. Moravcsik, trans. Jenkins, pp. 166/167. We are not sure what Constantine meant by “districts” (µέρη). These were most probably clan groupings whose numbers could change over time.

108

WAR AND WARFARE

(tümen), the Pečeneg army must have equalled 400,000. But, Pritsak termed this a “tentative estimation” and we should view it in that spirit.219

The Accoutrements of War Flags, banners or standards,220, the horsehair or horse tail standard,221 as well as various markings,222 are all well-documented. Flags used for military purposes may have been adopted from China where they appear quite early.223 The Türks used flags with a golden wolf’s head. The Pečenegs and Cumans are also depicted as having flags and banners. Representations of them can be seen in the illustrations of some of the Rus’ chronicles.224 Armor was widespread, but armor (Turk. yarıq) made of metal (e. g. a metal breast plate,225) appears to have been rather more limited to the wealthy. Some types of armor mixed metallic and non-metallic substances. Horses were also armored, some lightly, others more heavily.226 With regard to the armaments of the Türks, the Zhou shu says “they have bows, arrows, whistling arrowheads,227 coats of armor/mail, long cavalry spears and swords. They also carry daggers as a belt 219

Pritsak, “The Pečenegs” AEMAe, I (1975), p. 227. The terms are Old Turk. batraq > badraq > baḏraq > bayraq, uruŋnu, urğu, urğa, sanjaq, see Clauson, ED, pp. 236, 307; Recep Toparlı, Kıpçak Türkçesi Sözlüğü (henceforth, KTS, Erzerum, 1993), p. 168; The King’s Dictionary. The Rasûlid Hexaglot: Fourteenth Century Vocabularies in Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Greek, Armenian and Mongol, ed. Peter B. Golden, trans. T. Halasi-Kun, Peter B. Golden, Louis Ligeti and Edmund Schütz (Leiden, 2000), p. 284 (204C19). Sanjaq is related to: sančıš “battle, struggle, war,”sančıš- “to stab one another” < sanč- “to stab,” sančıq- “to be routed,” see Clauson, ED, pp. 835, 836. 221 Turk. tuğ which could also denote a kind of “drum,” see Clauson, ED, p. 464. 222 E. . g. bečkem, Oğuz. berčem a kind of badge made of “silk or the tail of a wild ox that warriors wear on the day of battle,” taŋnuq “ a “piece of silk fastened to the heads of lances and standards in war time,” see Clauson, ED, pp. 295, 519 223 Robin D. S. Yates, “Early China,” War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, Kurt Raaflaub and Nathan Rosenstein (Cambridge, Mass., 1999), p. 13. 224 Liu, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, p. 9; Gardîzî, ed. Ḥabîbî, p. 579, Martinez, p. 152; Xudjakov, Vooruženie, p. 166; Pletnëva, “Pečenegi, torki i polovcy,” pp. 197198. 225 Cf. Qarakhanid sây yarıq, or chain mail, e. g. Qarakhanid küpe yarıq “coat of mail” Clauson, ED, pp. 687 (küpe “a small metal ring”), 858, 962. 226 A. I. Peršic, I. Ju. Semënov and V. A. Šnirel’man, Vojna i mir v rannej istorii čelovečestva, (Moskva, 1994), II, pp. 157-158. 227 This type of arrow goes back to the Xiongnu, see Sima Qian/Burton, II, p. 134, see also Xudjakov, Vooruženie, p. 150. 220

109

PETER B. GOLDEN

adornment.”228 Archaeologically, these items are all attested. Bows were of the compound type, with a variety of arrows. Arrow-heads were made of iron or bone in a variety of shapes, including armor-piercing types. There were several types of swords, sabers, daggers, lances, battle-axes and shields.229 The Strategikon paints a similar picture, noting that the Türks, Avars, and other “Hunnic” peoples wear armor and have “swords, bows and lances, most of them in battle make use of two sets of arms. They mount up the lances on their shoulders and hold the bows in their hands, using both as need requires. Not only do they wear armor, but the horses of their notable ones are also covered with iron and felt in the front areas. They train diligently, especially for equestrian archery (ἐφίππον τοξείαν).” 230 Elsewhere, this source makes mention of “cavalry lances (κονταρία καβαλλαρικὰ) with leather straps across the middle, in the Avar style,” protective neckpieces (περιτραχήλια) “in the Avar style,” as well as other types of clothing and protective coverings “in the Avar style.”231 Clearly, the Byzantines were willing to learn from their nomadic foes. In the mid-twelfth century, the Cumans were still relying on the same weapons: “[they carry] curved bows and arrows, in battle they wheel about with spears.”232 As for production, the nomads made some of their own arms. The Türks in the Altai were, originally, metal workers, presumably weaponmakers, for the Rouran.233 This coincided with the spread of the stirrup and, deriving from that, more heavily armed men and armored cavalry.234 Indeed, it has been claimed that the Türks invented the hard saddle with two stirrups so well suited for warfare.235 Iron is not readily available to the steppe peoples. The Türks took pains to put on a show for a Byzantine embassy travelling through Soġdia, offering them iron 228

Liu, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, p. 9. See also Xudjakov, Vooruženie, pp. 137-163 for detailed descriptions. 230 Strategikon, ed. Mihăescu, pp. 268, 270. 231 Strategikon, ed. Mihăescu, pp. 50,52. 232 Niketas Choniatês, ed. van Dieten, p. 94, trans. Magoulias, p. 54. 233 Liu, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, pp. 5,40. The tale in the Sui-shu says the the Altay mountains (Chin. Jin-shan “Golden Mountain = Altay > Altañ, cf. Mongol altan, Turk. altun “gold”) where the Ašina Türk first come into the view of the Chinese sources means “helmet” and that they took their name from this. The etymology is incorrect, but it undoubtedly points to what kind of metal-working the pre-imperial Türks were doing. 234 Pohl, Die Awaren, p. 164. 235 Peršic et al., Vojna i mir, II, p. 154. 229

110

WAR AND WARFARE

for sale. Menander thought that their real purpose “was to demonstrate that they had iron mines. For it is said that amongst them iron is not easily obtained.”236 Muslim sources state that the Turks have little iron and make their arrowheads and spearheads from bone.237 Sinor surmises that the nomads acquired weapons from trade with the sedentary world, the use of specialized craftsmen taken captive, and through the taxation of conquered, sedentary populations. 238 This often led to very circumspect trading policies on the part of the sedentary world. However, he neglects another source: war booty.239 As a consequence, other types of weapons became known to them. The Avars appear to have borrowed some Frankish-style weapons such as spears with winged points.240 The nomads were most famous for their prodigious skills in archery, the form of combat that was most closely associated with them.241 AlJâḥiẓ comments that if 1,000 Turkic mounted archers drew their bows and shot at the same time, 1,000 of their foes would be hit.242 Poisoned arrows were not unknown.243 Another important weapon was the lasso,

236

Menander/Blockley, pp. 116/117-118/119. Aḥmad ibn abî Ya‘qûb b. Ja‘far al-Yaʻqûbî, Kitâb al-Buldân,ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1892), p. 295, see also the anonymous Köprülü Library Ms. 1623 (Risâla fî’l-Aqâlîm), ff. 209b-210a in Şeşen, Hilâfet, p. 35. 238 Sinor, “The Inner Asian Warriors” JAOS, 101 (1981), p. 142. E. g., the Khazars, according to the PSRL, I, cc. 16-17, took a tribute from the Poljane Slavs of the Kiev region of one sword per hearth. The Khazars had locally produced sabers (with one cutting edge) whereas the Poljane produced swords that were doubleedged. 239 After destroying a Persian army in Armenia, ca. 629/630, Movsês Dasxuranci/̣ Dowsett, p. 106, reports that the Khazars plundered the corpses and took their weapons. 240 W. Szymański. E. Dąbrowska. Awarzy, Węgrzy (Wrocław-Warszawa-KrakówGdańsk, 1979), p. 84 241 At the Battle of Nedao, all the “national” weapons were on display: “. . . a remarkable spectacle took place, where the Goth fought with his pike, the Gepid with his sword, the Rugian broke the weapons in his own wound, the Suavian was on foot, the Hun fought with his arrows, the Alan formed his heavy-armed battle line, the Herul his light-armed one” (Alanum gravi, Herulum levi armatus aciem strui), Jordanes/Skržinskaja, Latin p. 173/Russ. pp. 118-11. Cf. also Olympiodorus/Blockley, II, pp. 182. 183, on the “natural talent” of the Hunnic kings for archery.” 242 al-Jâḥiẓ/Şeşen, pp. 66-67. 243 Ibn al-Faqîh, Mašhad ms. f. 173b cited in Asadov, Arabskie istočniki, p. 54. Pečenegs in Hungarian service were also said to use poisoned arrows (toxicatis sagittis), see Tryjarski, Pieczyngowie, p. 559; György Györffy, Besenyők és 237

111

PETER B. GOLDEN

especially as the capture of the enemy for ransom or sale into slavery, was an important goal of the nomads. The long experience with herd management made them particularly proficient. Al-Jâḥiẓ remarks of the Turks that “no one can feel himself safe from their lasso”244 Although engineering and siege machinery are not usually associated with the nomads, our source indicates that they could be quite ingenious in these areas, often making use of the talent locally available or imported from elsewhere. According to Priskos, the “Scythians” besieging Naissus (Niš) first constructed bridges to cross the river and then “brought up beams mounted on wheels” on which they massed fire power that cleared the walls of their defenders. In addition, rams and scaling ladders were used.245 The Sabirs, Prokopios tells us, “fashioned some kind of device” (µηχανήν τινα ἐπετεχνήσαντο) that was totally new to the Byzantines: a type of battering ram propelled by forty men who were inside it and protected while others with long poles and hooks pulled down the stones that were dislodged from the wall.246 The Avars were said to have acquired the siege technology from a Byzantine captive. In the 626 siege of Constantinople, they “constructed siege engines, namely wooden towers and tortoise shells”247 Regarding the Arabo-Khazar warfare in the North Caucasus in the 650s, there are a number of notices telling of Arabs being hit or killed by stones hurled from mangonels.248 In 1184, the Cumans under Könček besieging Kiev brought in a Muslim (besurmenin, most probably from Khwârazm) who was an expert in “living fire” (apparently some kind of naphtha compound) “and they magyarok in Kőrösi Csoma Archivum, I (1939), reprinted in his A magyarság keleti elemei, p. 113. 244 al-Jâḥiẓ/Şeşen, p. 79. The commanders of a Byzantine force defeated by “Huns” in 528 were lassoed as they fled, see Malalas, ed. Dindorf, pp. 432-3, trans. Jeffreys et al, p. 254. 245 Priskos/Blockley, II, pp. 230/231-232/233. 246 Prokopios, De Bello Gothico (Loeb ed.), V, pp. 156/157-158/159. Malalas, ed. Dindorf, pp. 430-431 also remarks that they had excellent siege machinery. 247 Theoph. Sim., ed. de Boor, pp. 102-103, trans. Whitby and Whitby, p. 66; Nikephoros/Mango, pp. 58/59. The “tortoise shells” (χελῶναι) = the Roman testudo “a pent-house formed of shields overlapping each other like scales on a tortoise’s back,” see Henry G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (7th ed., Oxford1889), p. 886 or Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, rev. ed. H. S. Jones (9th ed., Oxford, 1940, reprinted 1968), p. 1987 χελώνη “tortoise, tortoise-shell, pent-house or shed for protecting besiegers, = Lat. testudo “overlapping shields.” 248 E. g. aṭ-Ṭabarî, ed. Ibrâhîm, IV, p. 306.

112

WAR AND WARFARE

had tight catapult bows (luci tuzii samostrelnii) which fifty men could barely pull.”249

Water Transport250 The nomads had others, more knowledgeable than themselves in this area, build watercraft for them. Thus, on occasion, the Avars brought in Slavic or even Lombard shipwrights. 251 But, they also constructed water-crossing devices of their own. In the siege of Thracian Chersonese in 559, the Sabirs fashioned small boats from “enormous quantities of very long reeds of exceptional thickness and toughness” and then “devised improvised rowlocks and outriggers on either side.” 252 Shovels were used for oars. Niketas Khoniatês describes another Cuman device: a skin filled with straw and “stitched so tightly that not a drop of water could penetrate within.” After tying them to the horses’ tails, the Cumans and their goods would get on them and navigate them “as if it were a boat and the horse a sail.”253

Treaty and Tribute A full analysis of nomad-sedentary diplomatic relations and the oftimes tortured political dealings between the steppe and settled worlds is too large a theme to be dealt with in any detail here. We may, however, simply sketch some general patterns. The nomads were often seen as fickle and untrustworthy, bellicose and rapacious.” They are always eager,” Agathias notes, “to raid strange lands and the lure of pay and the hope of plunder are sufficient incentive for them to fight now for one people, now for another, changing sides with bewildering rapidity.”254 An example of their mercurial conduct (as viewed from the perspective of the sedentary world) can be seen in a notice in Ibn alAṯîr. In 517/1123-24, the people of Darband and Širvân in the North 249

PSRL, II, c. 634-635. See extensive discussion in Denis Sinor, “Water-Transport in Central Eurasia” UralAltaische Jahrbücher, XXXIII (1961), pp. 156-179. 251 Theoph. Sim. ed. de Boor, p. 226, trans. Whitby and Whitby, pp. 162-163; Paulus Diaconus, Pauli Historia Langobardorum, ed. G. Waitz in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, 48 (Hannover, 1878), p. 154. 252 Agathias, ed. Keydell, pp. 191-192, trans. Frendo, pp. 157-158; 253 Nik. Choniatês, ed. van Dieten, p. 94, trans. Magoulias, pp. 54-55. 254 Agathias, ed. Keydell, p. 139, trans. Frendo, p. 115. 250

113

PETER B. GOLDEN

Caucasus were spared serious problems when a dispute broke out between the Georgians and their Qıpčaq allies that ended up with the departure of the besiegers “as if they were defeated.” 255 Even well established relationships, cemented by marital ties, could suddenly turn sour. How could sedentary states manage these relationships? They were aware that the nomads wanted and needed the manufactures and foodstuffs of the settled world. The threat of cutting off that access (if it could, indeed, be carried out) was one possible, albeit often uncertain means of controlling the nomads’ behavior. Thus, in the aftermath of Attila’s death, his sons sent an embassy to Constantinople asking for a peace treaty and the establishment of border markets on the Danube “in the old manner” so that they could “exchange whatever they requested.” The Emperor Leo I at first refused saying that access to Roman trade should be denied them because they had already caused too much damage, but later agreed.256 The Chinese sources have very similar accounts. 257 Merchants from the sedentary world sometimes played a role in guiding the nomads’ policy. Thus, the Huns who were attacking Iran in 484 were said to be guided by “Eustace, a merchant of Apamea.”258 The manipulation of trade, however, was premised on the ability to withstand an attack. Occasionally, Byzantium and Iran cooperated in maintaining a strong defense on the Caucasian passes, the usual invasion routes of the nomads into Anatolia and Iran. 259 Subsequently, after the Muslim takeover of these key strategic posts, Byzantine help was no longer given, but the same concern and vigilance remained. The walls of Darband/Bâb al-Abwâb were manned, Ibn Rusta tells us, by 1,000 men day and night.260 Offensive strategies were risky, but not unknown. The 255

‘Izz al-Dîn ibn al-Aṯîr, Al-Kâmil fî’t-Ta’rîḫ, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden, 1851-1876, reprint: Beirut, 1965-1966 with different pagination), X, p. 615 256 Priskos/Blockley, II, pp. 252/253. 257 See Jagchid and Hyer, Peace, War and Trade, passim. 258 The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, trans. F. J. Hamilton, E. W. Brooks (London, 1899), pp. 151-152. Omeljan Pritsak, Origin of Rus’ (Cambridge, 1980), I, pp. 15-17, sees nomadic empires as deriving from the impact of international trade and the activities of “professional empire builders rooted in urban civilizations” 259 Priskos/Blockley, II, pp. 346/347, 353/353-354-355. 260 Ibn Rusta, ed. de Goeje, p. 148. In Central Asia as well, the old defense systems dating to the pre-Islamic Soġdian rulers were maintained “as a protection against the raids of the tribes of the Turks,” see Abu’l-Ḥasan ‘Alî al-Mas‘ûdî, Kitâb atTanbîh wa’l-Išrâf, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1894), p. 65.

114

WAR AND WARFARE

nomads could be attacked, especially in winter, when, as the Strategikon tells us, “their horses are suffering misery” from the weather. Herakleios’s Türk-Khazar allies faded away in the course of a winter campaign in Transcaucasia. 261 Rus’ campaigns were also sometimes undertaken in winter or early spring.262 In addition to stout defenses and a strong military posture, there were several other strategies employed to stem nomadic incursions. The most common were: alliance and conversion, the sending of gifts and payment of tribute (which sometimes meant outbidding one’s rivals or giving in to ever-escalating demands), divide and conquer. Negotiations were often hazardous (for both sides) and were sometimes used (by both sides) to mask offensives. 263 When the Pečenegs crossed the Danube and were raiding Byzantine lands in 1122, John Komnenos (r. 1118-1143) sent out Pečeneg-speaking envoys to the different chieftains to negotiate while he secretly prepared an attack.264 In 1118, the Volga Bulğars simply poisoned the Cuman princes who had come, most probably, to extract something from them.265 Alliances and the treaties by which they were formalized rarely lasted long. Even the Khazar entente with Byzantium, which found expression in the marriage of a Khazar “princess” to the future Emperor Constantine V (r. 741-775) in 732, a most unusual act for the Byzantines whose royal house rarely married outside of the Byzantine realm, and in the building by Byzantium of forts for the Khazars in the ninth century, had, as I have already noted, its fair share of strains. By the mid-tenth century, the earlier amity had turned to open hostility, as we know from a Khazar Hebrew letter (the “Cambridge” or “Schechter” document266) and from Constantine Porphyrogenitus (see above). Treaty negotiations invariably focused on tribute, access to markets, and fugitives. It was often less costly and less dangerous to pay tribute. On occasion, the nomads were even allowed to purchase weapons in Constantinople with the money they had received as gifts or tribute.267 261

Theophanes, ed. de Boor, I, p. 317, trans. Mango, p. 448. Cf. PSRL, II, c. 260, VII, p. 21. The nomads also occasionally ventured a winter campaign, cf. PSRL, II, c. 257. 263 See Menander/Blockley, pp. 52/53. 264 Nik. Choniatês, ed. van Dieten, pp. 13-16, trans. Magoulias, pp. 10-11. 265 PSRL, II, cc. 284-285, VII, p. 24. 266 See new edition by Golb and Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents, pp. 101ff. 267 Cf. Priskos/Blockley, II, pp. 226/227, 236/237, 242/243, 254/255-256/257, the Huns constantly insisted on the return of “fugitives;” Menander/Blockley, pp. 42/43. In 565, the Avars pledged that they would provide Byzantium with “efficient 262

115

PETER B. GOLDEN

Tribute payments to favored allies were sometimes done with pomp and ceremony. An eighth-century Byzantine chronicle mentions a golden-roofed basilica in which tribute payments (πάκτα) were made to the Khazar Qağan and the Balkan Bulğar ruler.268 When the nomads conquered an area, the terms of surrender could be harsh. According to Movsês Dasxuranc’i, when the Türk-Khazars attacked Caucasian Albania in 628 as allies of Byzantium, the Qağan allowed those “nobles and leaders” who surrendered “to live and serve me.” As for the others, all males over fifteen years of age were to be killed and the women and children enslaved.269 The sedentary states and empires also attempted to convert the nomads to their respective faiths as one means of influencing and perhaps controlling them. This is too large a theme to be dealt with in this essay. We may merely note that the Armenian and Byzantine churches in the sixth and seventh century sent missionaries to one or another “Hunnic” people with only minimal and largely ephemeral success.270 The same may be said of later attempts to Christianize the Cumans. Islam, brought to the Turkic nomads by merchants and Ṣûfıs in Central Asia ultimately had greater success. Divide and conquer, as we have seen, was a policy often employed by the sedentary states at all ends of the steppe, occasionally with devastating results for the nomads. The use of one nomadic group against another was the cornerstone of Byzantine policy. The nomads, however, were also often able to exploit the internal divisions of the settled states. This was done, almost invariably, for short term gains. They were not, with few exceptions, interested in large-scale conquests or the take over of sedentary states. Byzantine rebels or claimants to the throne could often find support from nomadic troops. Thus, in 515, when Vitalian made his bid for power, he did so with a “large army of

protection. But, they would only be well-disposed to the Roman state in exchange for the most valuable gifts, yearly payments and very fertile land to inhabit,” Menander/Blockley, pp. 48/49-52/53. 268 Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai, ed. trans. A. Cameron, H. Herrin (Leiden, 1984), pp. 98/99. 269 Dasxuranci/Dowsett, ̣ p. 95. 270 Cf. Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 431, trans. Jeffreys et al., p. 250; Zachariah of Mitylene/Hamilton, Brook, pp. 329-330, Dasxuranci/Dowsett, ̣ pp. 153-166; Aleksandr V. Gadlo, Étničeskaja istorija Severnogo Kavkaza IV-X vv. (Moskva, 1979), pp. 80-82, 107ff.; Peter B. Golden, “Religion Among the Qıpčaqs of Medieval Eurasia” Central Asiatic Journal, 42/2 (1998), esp. pp. 226-237.

116

WAR AND WARFARE

Huns and Bulgars.”271 The Sâsânid Kavad I (r. 488-531) had close ties with the Hephthalites, to whom he paid tribute. They helped him to recover his throne in 499 after he had been deposed in 496 for his support of the Mazdakite movement. 272 Zachariah of Mitylene, in discussing events of 531-532, remarks that the Persians “hire large numbers of Huns and bring them to their assistance.”273 The nomadic presence was also used by the peoples of Transcaucasia whose often troubled relationships with their Sâsânid overlords ebbed and flowed depending on the degree of nomadic pressure on Iran.274 Khazars and Central Asians served in the Byzantine Imperial Guard,275 mirroring in some respects the ġulâm (military slave) institution of the Caliphate. The Rjurikid Vasil’ko Rostislavič (d. 1124 or 1125? a great grandson of Jaroslav I and prince of Terebovl’), who in 1092 had raided Poland with a force of Cumans, in 1097, planned to make use of the nomadic Berendei, Pečenegs, and Torks, who were often in Rus’ service, for a joint campaign against Poland and Danubian Bulgaria; he would then turn on the Cumans.276 Perfidy was not the exclusive possession of the nomad. The domestic political history of Kievan Rus’ from the middle of the twelfth century cannot be understood without reference to the nomadic forces brought in by the competing Rjurikid factions in their throne struggles. There is no evidence to indicate that the nomads actively manipulated these internecine struggles, but they were able to capitalize on them on occasion. The sedentary states, however, as we have seen, were able to play a deadly game of divide and conquer. In the Mediterranean world there was widespread use of mercenary bands drawn from the Eurasian steppe (and elsewhere). The Mongol conquests, and later the breakup of the Činggisid realms saw CumanQıpčaq soldiers in Egypt-Syria (the Mamlûk state), Hungary (as servitors of the crown), Balkan Bulgaria (the Terterid and Šišmanid dynasties), and Byzantine Anatolia (as border guards against the

271

Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 402-405, trans. Jeffreys et al., pp. 226-227. Theoph. Sim., ed. de Boor, pp. 160-161, trans. Whitby and Whitby, pp. 111-112, see also Richard N. Frye, The History of Ancient Iran (München, 1984), pp. 322-323. 273 Zachariah of Mitylene, trans. Hamilton and Brooks, p. 228. 274 Peter B. Golden, “The Turkic Peoples and Caucasia,” Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change, ed. R. G. Suny (rev. 2nd ed., Ann Arbor, 1996), pp. 46-47. 275 Warren Treadgold, Byzantium and its Army 284-1081 (Stanford, 1995), p. 110, 115; Mark Whittow, The Making of Byzantium 600-1025 (Berkeley, 1996), pp. 169-170. 276 PSRL, I, c. 266, II, c. 240. 272

117

PETER B. GOLDEN

Turks).277 All the major and minor states on the periphery of the steppe had military forces of Eurasian nomadic origin.

*** Are we justified in comparing Eurasian nomadic armies and tactics over a nearly thousand year period ? The sources would indicate so. Tactics used throughout this period, such as the feigned retreat, go back to the earliest notices on the nomadic peoples. Moreover, with the exception of the invention and spread of the stirrup, the technology of war, in the pre-gunpowder age, had undergone only relatively modest changes. Nomadic society in the western Eurasian steppes was conservative in many respects. With the exception of the Türk and Türk-Khazar states, advanced polities that were brought into this region from outside, these were stateless tribal polities. The tribes were, above all, political organizations based on kinship, real or fictitious. Kinship was the basis for political integration. More often than not, power within them was diffused, not centralized. 278 Tribes, it has been suggested, developed in response to states and even were, in some instances, created or manipulated by them. 279 Nomads succeeded in conquering sedentary states when they had social cohesion and a common purpose. This allowed them to fully exploit their military resources and take maximum advantage of their mobility, the key to their success.280 The nomads went to war to secure access to the goods produced by sedentary society. Sometimes, this resulted in the actual 277

Halil Inalcık, “The Question of the Emergence of the Ottoman State” International Journal of Turkish Studies, II/2 (1981-82), pp. 77-78. 278 Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, pp. 148-152; Patricia Crone, “The Tribe and the State,” States in History, ed. John A. Hall (Oxford, 1986), pp. 48-49, 55. 279 Morton Fried, The Evolution of Political Society (New York, 1967), pp. 168-170 and his The Notion of Tribe (Menlo Park, Calif., 1965), pp. 10, 30, 49, 52. Crone, “The Tribe and the State,” pp. 68-71, takes a somewhat different view concluding that states cause tribes to disappear. Nomads, however, she views as an “exception to the rule.” Among the nomads, the interference of states could “trigger the formation of higher political units, including embryonic states.: See also R. Brian Ferguson, “A Paradigm for the Study of War and Society,” War and Society, ed. Raaflaub and Rosenstein p. 419, who writes “tribes can evolve without states, but states make a lot of tribes and most named tribes in the ethnographic record exist under the spell of states.” Cf. also Bernard Bacharach, “Early Medieval Europe” in that same volume, p. 286, who notes that the Salian Franks “would seem to have had their ethnogenesis as Roman allies.” 280 Crone, “The Tribe and the State,” Hall (ed.), States in History, pp. 70-71.

118

WAR AND WARFARE

conquest of a sedentary state and the emergence of a nomadic state now grafted onto the pre-existing sedentary state. It often also meant a move out of the steppe (e. g. the Seljuks). Those that remained in the steppe, such as the Türks and the Türk-Khazars, created a vassal-tribute or trade-tribute system, usually allowing the conquered lands to retain their own internal political systems with only limited integration of nomad and sedentary. 281 The nomads first expanded to incorporate other nomads and those elements of the forest world and neighboring sedentary society whose products they wanted. The precursor to statehood was a “supra-tribal polity” or “imperial confederacy … autocratic and statelike in foreign affairs, but consultative and federally structured internally.”282 In the western steppes, the Oğuric tribes, the Pečenegs, Western Oğuz (Torks) and Cumans never reached even that stage. They remained loosely structured tribal unions. The CumanQıpčaqs had a less complex political organization than the Kimek Qağanate from which they, in part, derived. There was no unilinear movement “upward.” Rather, the nomads oscillated between loosely or more tightly structured unions depending to some degree on external pressures. The Rus’ defeats of the Pečenegs and Western Oğuz did not result in the appearance of statehood among the latter. Rather, it resulted in their migration and ultimate incorporation into other polities, both nomadic and sedentary. The Cuman-Qıpčaqs survived until the Mongol conquest, as we have noted, by taking advantage of Rus’ divisions and integrating themselves into the Rus’ power structure. In the western steppes, statehood came from without. Warfare here, unlike many other aspects of politics, was also largely divorced from religion. The Arabs fought the Khazars in the name of Islam. The Khazars, although a state, had no ideological counterpoise other than the defense of their turf. Raids into Muslim-dominated Transcaucasia were solely for booty and strategic advantage, never for conquest or faith. After the Judaization of the Khazar ruling clans and core tribes, there is only one notice reporting actions taken on the basis of religion: Khazar retaliation for the destruction of a Jewish synagogue in the Islamic world.283 In Central Asia, however, warfare based on 281

Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, pp. 228-233, 255; and the important study of Nicola Di Cosmo, “State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History” Journal of World History, 10/1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 30-32 on trade-tribute empires. 282 Fletcher, “The Mongols” HJAS, 46 (1986), p. 15; Barfield, The Perilous Frontier, p. 8. 283 Ibn Faḍlân/Togan, Arabic, p. 45/Germ. pp. 102-104.

119

PETER B. GOLDEN

religion, e. g. Muslim vs. Non-Muslim Turks, was more widespread. The Ottoman ġâzî tradition certainly had, at least in part, Central Asian alp eren (“brave warrior”) antecedents.284 Finally, we may note that Abram I. Peršic has concluded that the predatory raiding by the nomads often tended to retard economic development in the affected regions of the sedentary world while “the nomadic formations themselves, growing wealthy from their war booty, did not have the stimuli to develop productive forces. They remained stagnant, extensive, pastoral societies.” He further adds that Western Europe was not exhausted by constant warfare with the nomads, whereas frontline states, such as Rus’, were.285 This is a restatement of an old theme in Russian historiography.286 The most recent research, however, has shown that, at least in the case of Rus’, the example best known to Peršic’s Russian-speaking audience, there is no evidence for such a sweeping conclusion. Nomadic depredations did cause damage to some of the frontier regions of Rus’, 287 which were disputed territories in any event, but Rus’’s great problems of the twelfth century stemmed from the disunity and constant internecine warfare of the Rjurikids. When the nomads conquered sedentary states, the latter were usually already in a weakened state resulting from domestic problems. This the Mongols graphically illustrated in the thirteenth century across Eurasia.

APPENDIX: Terminology of Weaponry Terminology of general weaponry: tulum (“weapons, military equipment”), yaraq (“arms, military equipment)288 284

Mehmed Fuad Köprülü, Türk Edebiyatında İlk Mutasavvıflar (2nd ed., Ankara, 1966), pp. 208-217 and his Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Kuruluşu, pp. 146ff.; Vladimir A. Gordlevskij, Gosudarstvo sel’džukidov Maloj Azii in his Izbrannye sočinenija (Moskva, 1960), I, pp. 74-75. 285 Peršic, Vojna i mir, II, pp. 230-231. 286 Cf. Aleksandr E. Presnjakov, Lekcii po russkoj istorii. Kievskaja Rus’ (Moskva, 1938, reprinted in his Knjažoe pravo v drevnej Rusi. Lekcii po russkoj istorii (Moskva, 1993), pp. 336-338: Rus’ absorbed the blows from the steppe and paid for it by its exhaustion in the struggle with the nomads. 287 P. A. Rappaport, “Iz istorii Južnoj Rusi XI-XII vv.: Istorija SSSR, 5 (1966), pp. 113116. 288 Qarakhanid, see Clauson, ED, pp. 500, 962; Toparlı, KTS, p. 236. Much of the terminology from the pre-Činggisid era is recorded only in the Qarakhanid sources. His terminology, however, is fairly uniform in Turkic.

120

WAR AND WARFARE

Armor and body defenses bütülük “cuirass,”289 demür kömlek/temür kömlek “armor” (lit” iron shirt”),290 yarıq “body armor, chain mail, plate armor, breastplate, coat of mail,” küpe291yarıq (“coat of mail”), sây yarıq “a breast plate, plate armor,” 292 yošuq, yašıq, yıšıq, ošuq “helmet,” 293 sağıt “Gerät, Instrument, Ausrüstung in allgemeinem, besonders Pferedegeschirr … Waffen” < Pers. sâḫt “stirrup leather, horse armour, saddle and bridle. . .,”294 tuma “cuirass of war,”295 tura “shield,” qalqan “shield,”296 yağır “small iron shield.”297 There was considerable variation in size, shape and material. Leather armor was common.298

Bow and Arrow yâ, yay “the bow,”, yatan “wooden bow,” 299 oq “arrow,” üčleč “featherless arrow used to shoot at rabbits and made of sticks joined at the tip by a piece of iron,”300 qalwa/qalva “blunt hunting arrow,”301 289

Qıpčaq, Kaare Grønbech, Komanisches Wörterbuch (Copenhagen, 1942), p. 71; Toparlı, KTS, p. 52. 290 Qıpčaq, Toparlı, KTS, pp. 67, 200. 291 Kübe, küpe “one of the rings making up chain-mail,” Qıpčaq “coat of mail, military equipment,” Clauson, ED, p. 687, Toparlı, KTS, p. 142; Grønbech, KWb., p. 157. 292 Türk, Uyğur, Qarakhanid, Khwârazmian, Qıpčaq, Clauson, ED, pp. 858,962; Hexaglot, ed. Golden, pp. 196B9, 204C22. 293 Clauson, ED, p. 977; Hexaglot, ed. Golden, p. 204C23. The Cuman tovulğa “helmet” < Mong. doġulġa (Grønbech, KWb., p. 250, Lessing, p. 271; Hasan Eren, Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlüğü (Ankara, 1999), p. 410) is borrowing that probably stems from the period after 1200. 294 In Qıpčaq in this and other meanings, Khwârazmian Turkic sağıtlığ “armoured,” Čağatay sawut “coat of mail,” see Clauson, ED, 806; Grønbech, KWb., p. 212; Toparlı, KTS, p. 166.: 295 Qıpčaq, Abu Ḥayyân, Kitâb al-İdrâk li-Lisân al-Atrâk, ed. Ahmet Caferoğlu (Istanbul, 1931), Arabic, p. 66/Turk. trans. p. 107. 296 Uyğur, Qarakhanid, Khwârazmian, Qıpčaq et al., Clauson, ED, pp. 531, 621. 297 Qıpčaq, Clauson, ED, p. 905; İdrâk, ed. Caferoğlu, pp. Arabic. 95/Turk. trans. p. 117. 298 E. g. among the early Hungarians, see Csanád Bálint, Die Archäeologie der Steppe (Wien-Köln, 1989), pp. 213-217. The Pečenegs and Cumans had very similar weapons and armor, with leather helmets with iron points, leather shields etc., see Akdes Nimet Kurat, IV-XVIII Yüzyıllarda Karadeniz Kuzeyindeki Türk Kavimleri ve Devletleri (Ankara, 1972), p. 106. 299 Clauson, ED, pp. 869, 892. 300 Clauson, ED, p. 26; Kâšġarî/Dankoff, I, p. 127. 301 Qarakhanid, Clauson, ED, p. 617.

121

PETER B. GOLDEN

čığılwâr/čığılvâr oqı “short arrow for cross-bow,” 302 qatutluğ oq “poisoned arrow,”303 bašaq “arrow-head, iron head of an arrow,” 304 temürgen/temren/ timren/demren, demiren, oq temiri “iron tip of an arrow, iron arrow-head,”305 kesme “a broad arrow-head,” yasıč “a broad arrow-head,”306 suqım “the whistle for the arrow,”307 ilgü, ülkü “archery target.”308

Swords, Spears, Cudgels etc. balta “ax, battle-ax,” bögde/bügde, “dagger,” qılıč “sword,” 309 šebšebi “a sword drawn from its sheath,” 310 čomaq, čoqmar/čoqmaq/čoqman “cudgel, mace” 311 tumar “arrow of a cudgel,” 312 süngü “lance, spear.” 313 The length, material and construction of the latter varied with time and place.314 The Khazars, according to Ibn al-Faqîh, made spear-heads of very good quality.315

302

Qarakhanid, < Iran.:crossbow” conjectured by Clauson, ED, 408; Kâšġarî/Dankoff, I, p. 367. 303 Qarakhanid, Clauson, ED, p. 596. 304 Qarakhanid, Khwârazmian, Qıpčaq, Čağatay, Clauson, ED, p. 378; Toparlı, KTS, p. 34. 305 Middle Oğuz, Qıpčaq, Qarakhanid, Clauson, ED, p. 509; Toparlı, KTS, p. 200; Hexaglot, ed. Golden, pp. 198A18, 205A1. 306 Qarakhanid, Qıpčaq, Clauson, ED, pp. 751, 974. 307 Clauson, ED, p. 811. 308 Toparlı, KTS, pp. 92, 225. 309 Clauson, ED, pp. 325, 333, 618; Toparlı, KTS, pp. 33, 118. On the sword cult among the nomads, see Maenchen-Helfen, Wordl of the Huns, pp. 278-280. 310 İdrâk, ed. Caferoğlu, Arabic, p. 54/Turk., p. 96; Toparlı, KTS, p. 189. 311 Čomaq is attested in the Pre-Mongol era and in Middle Qıpčaq, the other forms are found in fifteenth century Ottoman, both are probably loan-words, see Clauson, ED, pp. 422-423. 312 Toparlı, KTS, p. 213. 313 Türk, Uyğur, Qarakhanid, Qıpčaq etc. < sung “a battle,” süngüš “battle,” süngüš- “to fight one another,” sÜngÜglÜg “lancer” etc., Clauson, ED, pp. 834-835, 839. 314 Sinor, “The Inner Asian Warriors” JAOS, 101 (1981), p. 141. 315 Abu Bakr Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Isḥâq Ibn al-Faqîh, Kitâb al-Buldân, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1885), p. 50; Ludwig, Gesellschaft, p. 295.

122

WAR AND WARFARE

Bibliography Abu Ḥayyân, Kitâb al-İdrâk li-Lisân al-Atrâk, ed. Turk. trans. A. Caferoğlu. Istanbul: Evkaf Matbaası, 1931. Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque, ed. Rudolf Keydell. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1967. Agathias, The Histories, trans. J. D. Frendo. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975. Ajdarov, Gubajdulla. Jazyk orxonskix pamjatnikov drevnetjurkskoj pis’mennosti VIII veka Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1971. Anonymous, Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam, ed. M. Sutoodeh (Sutûdah). Tehran: Dânišgâh-i Tahrân, 1340/1962. Eng. trans. See Minorsky, Vladimir. Artamonov, Mixail I. Istorija Xazar. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Érmitaža, 1962 Asadov, Farda M. Arabskie istočniki o tjurkax v rannee srednevekov’e. Baku: Élm, 1993. Axiņzanov, Seŗzan M. Kypčaki v istorii srednevekovogo Kazaxstana. AlmaAta: Nauka, 1989. Bacharach, Bernard. A History of the Alans in the West. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973 Bálint, Csanád. Die Archäeologie der Steppe. Wien-Köln: Böhlau, 1989. Barfield, Thomas J. The Perilous Frontier. Nomadic Empires and China. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. Beckwith, Christopher. I. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia. A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. Beševliev, Veselin. Die Protobulgarische Periode der Bulgarischen Geschichte. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980. Bibikov, Mixail V. Vizantijskie istočniki po istorii Drevnej Rusi i Kakvaza. Sankt Peterburg: Aletejja, 1999. Blockley, R. C. ed., trans. The Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus. Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1981, 1983. 2 vols. Blum, Jerome. Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, 1961, rpt.: New York: Atheneum, 1964. Bunijatov, Zija M. Gosudarstvo xorezmšaxov-anuštiginidov 1097-1231. Moskva: Nauka, 1986. Canfield, Robert L. ed. Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1991. Chavannes, Edouard. Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux. St. Petersburg, 1900, published with his Notes Additionnelles. St.

123

PETER B. GOLDEN

Petersburg, 1903, Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1941, rpt.: Taipei:Ch’eng Wen Publishing, 1969. Choniatês, Niketas. Historia, ed, H. -L. van Dieten. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1975. Eng. trans. O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniatês, trans. Harry J. Magoulias. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984. Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf. Bonn: Weber, 1832 Chronicon Paschale 284-628 AD, trans. Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989. Cinnamus, see Kinnamos Clauson, Sir Gerard. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Collins, L. J. D.: The Military Organization and Tactics of the Crimean Tatars 16th-17th centuries.: War, Technology and Society in the Middle East. eds. V. J. Parry and M. E. Yapp Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975, pp. 257-276. Comnena, Anna, see Komnena, Anna Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai. ed. trans. Avril Cameron and Judith Herrin. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Critchley, John. Feudalism. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1978. Crone, Patricia.: The Tribe and the State.: States in History, ed. John A. Hall. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986, pp. 48-77. Czeglédy, Károly.: From East to West: The Age of Nomadic Migrations in Eurasia.: Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 3 (1983), pp. 25-125. Dąbrowski, Krzystof, Teresa Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk and Edward Tryjarski, Hunowie europejscy, Protobułgarzy. Chazarowie. Pieczyngowie. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1975. Dasxuranc ̣i, Movsês. The History of the Caucasian Albanians. trans. Charles Dowsett. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Diaconu, Petre. Les Petchénègues au Bas Danube. Bucharest: Éditions de l’Académie de la République Socialiste de Roumanie, 1970. Di Cosmo, Nicola.: State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History.: Journal of World History, 10/1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 30-32 Dunlop, Douglas M. The History of the Jewish Khazars. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954. El-Cahiz, Hilâfet Ordusunun Menkıbeleri ve Türkler’in Fazîletleri, Turk. trans. Ramazan Şeşen Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü, 33, ser. III/A8, 1967. Eren, Hasan. Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlüğü. Ankara, 1999. Ferguson, R. Brian and Neil L. Whitehead, “The Violent Edge of Empire.: War in the Tribal Zone, ed. R. Brian Ferguson and Neil L. Whitehead. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1992, pp. 1-30.

124

WAR AND WARFARE

Ferguson, R. Brian.: A Paradigm for the Study of War and Society.: War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. ed. Kurt Raaflaub and Nathan Rosenstein, Center for Hellenic Studies, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 389-437. Fine, Jr. John V. A. The Late Medieval Balkans. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1987. Fletcher, Joseph.: The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives.: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 46 (1986), pp. 11-50. Fried, Morton. The Notion of Tribe. Menlo Park, Calif.: Cummings, 1965. Fried, Morton. The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House, 1967. Gardîzî, Abu Sa‘îd ‘Abd al-Ḥayy b. Ḍaḥḥâk. Ta’rîḫ-i Gardîzî. ed. ‘Abd alḤayy Ḥabîbî. Tehran: Dunyâ-yi Kitâb, 1363/1984. Eng. trans. see Martinez, Arsenio P. Frye, Richard N. The Heritage of Persia. Cleveland-New York: World, 1963. Gadlo, Aleksandr V. Étničeskaja istorija Severnogo Kavkaza IV-Xvv. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta, 1979. Gibb, Hamilton A. R. The Arab Conquests in Central Asia. New York, 1923, rpt.: New York: AMS Press, 1970. Golb, Norman and Omeljan Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982. Golden, Peter B.: The Migrations of the Oğuz.: Archivum Ottomanicum, 4 (1972), pp. 45-84. Golden, Peter B. Khazar Studies. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980. 2 vols. Golden, Peter B.: Cumanica I: The Qıpčaqs in Georgia.: Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 4 (1984), pp. 45-87. Golden, Peter B.: Nomads and Their Sedentary Nieghbors in Pre-Činggisid Eurasia.: Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 7 (1987-1991), pp. 4181. Golden, Peter B.: Cumanica III: Urusoba.: Aspects of Altaic Civilization III, ed. Denis Sinor, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990, pp. 33-46. Golden, Peter B.: Aspects of the Nomadic Factor in the Economic Development of Kievan Rus’,” Ukrainian Economic History. Interpretive Essays, ed. Ivan S. Koropeckyj. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1991, pp. 58-101. Golden, Peter B. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1992. Golden, Peter B. “Gosudarstvo i gosudarstvennost’ u xazar: vlast’ xazarskix kaganov.: Fenomen vostočnogo despotizma. Struktura upravlenija i vlasti, ed. N. A. Ivanov. Moskva: Nauka, 1993, pp. 211-233. Golden, Peter B.: The Černii Klobouci,” Symbolaie Turcologicae. Studies in Honour of Lars Johanson, eds. Árpád Berta, Bernt Brendemoen,

125

PETER B. GOLDEN

and Claus Schönig, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Transactions, 6. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1996, pp. 97107. Golden, Peter B.: The Turkic Peoples and Caucasia,” Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change, ed. Ronald G. Suny. rev. 2nd ed., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996, pp. 45-67. Golden, Peter B.: Religion Among the Qıpčaqs of Medieval Eurasia” Central Asiatic Journal, 42/2 (1998), pp. 180-237. Golden, Peter B. (ed. ). The King’s Dictionary. The Rasülid Hexaglot: Fourteenth Century Vocabularies in Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Greek, Armenian and Mongol, edited with introductory essays and commentary by Peter B. Golden, trans. T. Halasi-Kun, Peter B. Golden, Louis Ligeti and Edmund Schütz. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Gordlevskij, Vladimir A. Gosudarstvo sel’džukidov Maloj Azii. Vol. 1 of Vladimir A. Gordlevskij, Izbrannye sočinenija. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Vostočnoj Literatury, 1960, pp. 31-318. Gumilëv, Lev N. Drevnie tjurki. Moskva: Nauka, 1967. Gumilëv, Lev N. Drevnjaja Rus’ i velikaja step’. 1989, rpt. ed in his Sočinenija, Moskva: Izdatel’stvo DI-DIK, 1997, I. Györffy, György.: Sur la question de l’établissement des Petchénègues en Europe.: Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XXV/1-3, (1972) pp. 283292 Györffy, György.: A csatlakozott népek.: Századok, 92 (1958), pp. 44-76 rpt. ed in his A magyarság keleti elemei. Budapest: Gondolat, 1990, pp. 43-79 Györffy, György.: Besenyők és magyarok.: Kőrösi Csoma Archivum, I, Er. Bd. (1939), pp. 397-500 rpt. ed in his A magyarság keleti elemei, pp. 94-191 Hruševs’kyj, Myxajlo. Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy. L’viv, 1904-1922, rpt.: Kyıv: Naukova Dumka, 1992-1996. 10 vols. Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam, see Anonymous, Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam. See also Minorsky, Vladimir. Ibn A‘ṯam al-Kûfî, Abu Muḥammad Aḥmad b. ‘Alî. Kitâb al-Futûḥ, ed. ‘Abdu’l-Mu‘îd Ḫân Buḫârî. Hyderabad: Osmania University, Osmania Oriental Publications Bureau, 1969-1975. 8 vols. Ibn al-Aṯîr, ‘Izz al-Dîn. Al-Kâmil fî’-t-Ta’rîḫ, ed. C. J. Tornberg. Leiden: Brill, 1851-1876, rpt.: Beirut: Dâr Ṣâdir, 1965-1966 with different pagination), 12 vols. Ibn Faḍlân, Aḥmad. Risâla: Ibn Faḍlân’s Reisebericht, ed. Germ. trans. and commentary by Ahmet Zeki Validi Togan. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 24/3, Leipzig, 1939. Ibn al-Faqîh, Abu Bakr Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Isḥâq. Kitâb al-Buldân, ed. M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1885.

126

WAR AND WARFARE

Ibn Ḥawqal, Abu’l-Qâsim Muḥammad. Kitâb Ṣûrat al-Arḍ. Beirut: Dâr Maktaba al-Ḥayyât, 1992. Ibn Miskawaih, Abu ‘Alî b. Muḥammad. Tajârub al-Umam, ed. Henry F. Amedroz, trans. David S. Margoliouth. Oxford: Blackwell, 1920-1921. 7 vols. Ibn Rusta, Abu ‘Alî b. ‘Umar. Kitâb al-A‘lâq an-Nafîsa. ed. M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1892. Inalcık, Halil.: The Question of the Emergence of the Ottoman State.: International Journal of Turkish Studies, II/2 (1981-82), pp. 7778. İnan, Abdülkadir .: Orun ve “Ülüş Meselesi” in his Makaleler ve İncelemeler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1968, pp. 241-254. Irwin, Robert. The Middle East in the Middle Ages. The Early Mamlûk Sultanate 1250-1382 Carbondale-Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986. al-Iṣṭaḫrı, Abu Isḥâq Fârisî. Kitâb Masâlik al-Mamâlik, ed. M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1870. Jagchid, Sechin and Van. Jay Symons, Peace, War, and Trade along the Great Wall. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. al-Jâḥiẓ Abu ‘Uṯmân ‘Amr b. Baḥr, Manâqib Jund al-Ḫilâfa wa Faḍâ’il alAtrâk, see El-Cahiz Jordanes, Getica: Iordan, O proisxoždenii i dejanijax getov, ed., Russ. trans. Elena Č. Skržinskaja. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Vostočnoj Literatury, 1960. Kafesoğlu, İbrahim. Harezmşahlar Devleti Tarihi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956. Kafesoğlu, İbrahim. Türk Bozkır Kültürü. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Araşstırma Enstitüsü, 1987. Kargalov, Vadim V.: Poloveckie nabegi na Rus’.: Voprosy Istorii (1965), No. 3, pp. 68 -73. Kargalov, Vadim V. Vnešnepolitičeskie faktory razvitija feodal’noj Rusi. Moskva: Vysšaja Škola, 1967. K’art’lis C’xovreba. ed. Simon Qauxč’išvili. T’bilisi: Saxelgami, 1955. vol. I al-Kâšγarî, Maḥmûd. Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dîwân Luγât atTurk), ed. trans. Robert Dankoff in collaboration with James Kelly. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982-1985. 3 vols. Khazanov, Anatoly M. (see also Xazanov, Anatolij M. ). Nomads and the Outside World, trans. J. Crookenden (2nd ed., Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994. Khazanov, Anatoly M. and Andre Wink, eds. Nomads in the Sedentary World. Richmond: Curzon, 2000. Kinnamos, John. Ioannis Cinnami Epitome, ed. A. Meineke. Bonn, 1836. Eng. trans.: Kinnamos, John, The Deeds of John and Manuel

127

PETER B. GOLDEN

Comnenus, trans. Charles M. Brand. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Kljaštornyj, Sergej G. (see also Klyashtorny, Sergei G. ) and Dmitrij G. Savinov, Stepnye imperii Evrazii. Sankt Peterburg: Farn, 1994. Klyashtorny, Sergei G. [Kljaštornyj, Sergej G. ], “The Royal Clan of the Turks and the Problem of Early Turkic-Iranian Contacts” Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XLVII/3 (1994), pp. 445-447. Ključevskij, Vasilij O. Kurs russkoj istorii. Moskva: Mysl’, 1987-1990. Kmoskó, Mihály.: Die Quellen Iṣṭachri’s in seinem Berichte über die Chasaren.: Kőrösi Csoma Archivum, I (1921-1925), pp. 141-148. Kmoskó, Mihály. Mohamedán írók a steppe népeiről. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 1997, I/1. Kovkovcov, Pavel K. Evrejsko-xazarskaja perepiska v X veke. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk, 1932. Kollautz, Arnulf and Hiyasuki Miyakawa, Geschichte und Kultur eines völkerwanderungszeitlichen Nomadenvolkes. Klagenfurt: Rudlof Habelt, 1970, 2 vols. Komnena, Anna [Comnena, Anna]. Alexiada, ed. L. Schopen, A. Reiferscheid. Bonn, 1839, 1878; The Alexiad, Eng. trans. E. R. A. Sewter Baltimore: Penguin, 1969; Aleksiada, Russ. trans. Ja. N. Ljubarskij (SPb., 1996). Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad. Türk Edebiyatında İlk Mutasavvıflar. 2nd ed., Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1966. Köprülü, Mehmet Fuad. Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Kuruluşu. 2nd ed. Ankara: Başnur Matbaası, 1972. Kormušin, Igor’ V. Tjurkskie enisejskie épitafii. Moskva: Nauka, 1997. Koropeckyj, Ivan, ed., Ukrainian Economic History. Interpretive Essays, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1991. Kovačević, Jovan. Avarski kaganat. Beograd: Srpska Književna Zadruga, 1977. Kračkovskij, Ignatij Ju. Arabskaja geografičeskaja literatura. vol. 4 of Ignatij Ju. Kračkovskij, Izbrannye sočinenija. Moskva-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk, 1955-1969. Kulakovskij, Julijan. Alany po svedenijam klassičeskix i vizantijskix pisatelej. Kiev, 1899 Kumekov, Bulat E. Gosudarstvo kimakov IX-XI vv. po arabskim istočnikam. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1972. Kurat, Akdes Nimet. Peçenek Tarihi. Istanbul: Devlet Basımı, 1937 Kurat, Akdes Nimet. IV-XVIII Yüzyıllarda Karadeniz Kuzeyindeki Türk Kavimleri ve Devletleri Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1972. Lewicki, Tadeusz. Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny. WrocławWarszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1956, 1969, 1977.

128

WAR AND WARFARE

Lewicki, Tadeusz.: Un peuple iranien peu connu: les *Arsiya ou *Orsiyya.: Studies in Honour of Julius Németh. ed. Gy. Káldy-Nagy. Budapest: Loránd Eötvös University, 1976. pp. 31-33. Liddell, Henry G. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. 7th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1889. Liddell, Henry G. and Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, rev. ed. H. S. Jones. 9th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940, rpt. 1968. Ligeti, Lajos. A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1986. Lindner, Rudi.: Nomadism, Horses and Huns.: Past and Present, 92 (1981), pp. 3-19. Liu Mau-tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (Tu-küe) Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1958, 2 vols. Ludwig, Dieter Struktur und Gesellschatf des Chazaren-Reiches im Licht der schriftlichen Quellen. Münster: Philosophische Fakultät der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, 1982. Mackerras, Colin. The Uighur Empire according to the T’ang Dynastic Histories. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1972. Maenchen-Helfen, Otto. The World of the Huns, ed. M. Knight. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Malalas, Ioanes, Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf. Bonn, 1831. Eng. trans. The Chronicle of John Malalas, trans. Elizabeth Jeffreys et al., Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1986. Marquart (Markwart), Josef. Über das Volkstum der Komanen. Bang, Willi and Josef Marquart, Osttürkische Dialektstudien in the Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil. hist. Klasse, N. F., XIII/1. Berlin, 1914, pp. 25-238. Martinez, Arsenio P.: Gardîzî’s Two Chapters on the Turks” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 2 (1982), pp. 109-217. Al-Marwazî, Šarâf al-Zamân Ṭâhir, Sharâf al-Zamân Tahir Marvazî on China, the Turks and India, ed. trans. Vladimir F. Minorsky. London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1942. Al-Mas‘ûdî, Abu’l-Ḥasan ‘Alî . Murûj aḏ-Ḏahab wa Ma‘âdin al-Jawhar, ed. Charles Pellat Beirut: al-Jâmi‘at al-Lubnâniyya, 1966-1979. 7 vols. Al-Mas‘ûdî, Abu’l-Ḥasan ‘Alî. Kitâb at-Tanbıh wa’l-Išrâf, ed. M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1894. Mauricius, Strategicon, ed. Rumanian trans., H. Mihăescu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1970. Mavrodina, Ruslana M.: Rus’ i kočevniki.: Sovetskaja istoriografija Kievskoj Rusi, ed. Vladimir V. Mavrodin et al., Leningrad: Nauka, 1973. Mavrodina, Ruslana M. Kievskaja Rus’ i kočevniki (Pečenegi, Torki, Polovcy). Leningrad: Nauka, 1983

129

PETER B. GOLDEN

McChesney, Robert D. Waqf in Central Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Menander Protector, The History of Menander the Guardsman, ed. trans. R. C. Blockley Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985. Miller, David B.: The Kievan Principality in the Century before the Mongol Invasions: An Inquiry into Recent Research and Interpretation.: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, X/1-2 (1986), pp. 215-240. Minorsky, Vladimir F. Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam. The Regions of the World, trans. Vladimir F. Minorsky London: Gibb Memorial New Series, XI, 1937, rpt. with additions, 1971. Minorsky, Vladimir F.: Tamîm b Baḥr’s Journey to the Uighurs” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 10 (1948), pp. 275305. Minorsky, Vladimir F. A History of Sharvân and Darband. Cambridge: Heffer, 1958) Mongolian-English Dictionary, ed. Ferdinand D. Lessing et al., 3rd rpt. Bloomington: The Mongolia Society, 1995. Moravcsik, Gyula (Julius), Byzantinoturcica., 2nd ed., Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958, 2 vols. Moravcsik, Gyula, Bizánc és a magyarság. Budapest, 1953, rev. Eng. trans. Byzantium and the Magyars, trans. M. Szegedy-Maszák et al. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1970. Müneccimbaşı, see Minorsky, A History of Sharvân and Darband Németh, Gyula. A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása. Budapest, 1930, 2nd rev. ed.: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991. Németh, Gyula.: A Hunok nyelve.: Attila és Hunjai. ed. Gyula Németh. Budapest: Magyar Szemle Társaság, 1940. Németh, Gyula.: A kunok neve és eredete” Századok, 76 (1942), pp. 166-178. Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History, ed. trans. Cyril Mango. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990 Noonan, Thomas S.: Russia, the Near East, and the Steppe in the Early Medieval Period: An Examination of the Sassanian and Byzantine Finds from the Kama-Urals Area” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, II (1982), pp. 269-302. Noonan, Thomas S.: The Flourishing of Kiev’s International and Domestic Trade, ca. 1100-ca. 1240.: Koropeckyj, Ivan, ed., Ukrainian Economic History. Interpretive Essays, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1991. pp. 102-146. Noonan, Thomas S.: Byzantium and the Khazars: A Special Relationship ?” Byzantine Diplomacy, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1992), pp. 109-132. Novosel’cev, Anatolij P. Xazarskoe gosudarstvo i ego rol’ v istorii Vostočnoj Evropy i Kavkaza. Moskva: Nauka, 1990. Pipes, Richard. Russia under the Old Regime. New York: Scribner’s, 1974.

130

WAR AND WARFARE

Obolensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Paulus Diaconus, Pauli Historia Langobardorum, ed. G. Waitz in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, 48, Hannover, 1878. Peršic, Abram I., Jurij I. Semënov and Viktor A. Šnirel’man, Vojna i mir v rannej istorii čelovečestva. Moskva: Institut Étnologii I Antropologii Russkoj Akademii Nauk, 1994. 2 vols. Pletnëva, Svetlana A.: Pečenegi, torki i polovcy v južnorusskix stepjax'.: Trudy Volgo-Donskoj arxeologičeskoj ékspedicii, I, in series Materialy i issledovanija po arxeologii SSSR, 62. Moskva-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk, 1958, pp. 151-226. Pletnëva, Svetlana A.: Poloveckaja zemlja.: ed. L. G. Beskrovnyj. Drevnerusskie knjažestva X-XIII vv. Moskva: 1975, pp. 260-300. Pletnëva, Svetlana A. Sarkel i “šëlkovyj put’.: Voronež: Izdatel’stvo Voronežskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 1996. Pletnëva, Svetlana A. Očerki xazarskoj arxeologii. Moskva-Ierusalim: MostyGešarim, 1999. Pohl, Walter. Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567-882 n. Chr. München: Beck, 1988. Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej . Moskva-St. Peterburg/Petrograd/Leningrad: Arxeografičeskaja komissija, Nauka, 1841-1995. 40 vols. Porphyrogenitus, Constantine, De Administrando Imperio, ed. Julius (Gyula) Moravcsik, trans. Romilly Jenkins. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1967. Presnjakov, Aleksandr E. Lekcii po russkoj istorii. Kievskaja Rus’. Moskva, 1938, rpt. in his Knjažoe pravo v drevnej Rusi. Lekcii po russkoj istorii. Moskva: Nauka, 1993. Pritsak, Omeljan.: The Pečenegs: A Case of Social and Economic Transformation.: Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 1 (1975), pp. 211-235. Pritsak, Omeljan “The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion to Judaism” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, II (1978), pp. 261-281. Pritsak, Omeljan, “The Polovcians and Rus’” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 2 (1982), pp. 321-380. Prokopios, De Bello Gothico: History of the Wars, ed. trans. H. B. Dewing. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass. - London: Harvard University Press, 1919. II, Psellos, Michael. Chronographia: Michel Psellos, Chronographie, ed, French trans. E. Renauld. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1926, 1928), 2 vols. Eng. trans.: Michael Psellus, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers, trans. E. R. A. Sewter . Baltimore: Penguin, 1966. Al-Qazwînî, Zakarîya b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmûd. Âṯâr al-Bilâd wa Aḫbâr al‘Ibâd. Beirut: Dâr Bayrût, 1389/1969.

131

PETER B. GOLDEN

Raaflaub, Kurt and Nathan Rosenstein, eds. War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Center for Hellenic Studies, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999, Rappaport, P. A.: Iz istorii Južnoj Rusi XI-XII vv.: Istorija SSSR, 5 (1966), pp. 113-116. Rasovskij, D. A.: Rol’ polovcev v vojnax Asenej s vizantijskoj i latinskoj imperijami v 1186-1207gg.: Spisanie na Bŭlgarskata Akademija na Naukite, 58 (1939), pp. 203-211 Rasovskij, D. A.: Polovcy. IV. Voennaja istorija polovcev.: Seminarium Kondakovianum, 11 (1940), pp. 95-127; Róna-Tas, András. Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages. trans. N. Bodoczky. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999. Rostovtzeff, Michael.: The Sarmatae and Parthians.: In The Imperial Peace A. D. 70-192. Ed. S. A. Cook et al. vol. XI of The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936, rpt.: 1954), pp. 91-130. Solov’ëv, Sergej M., Istorija Rossii s drevnejšix vremën. In S. M. Solov’ëv, Sočinenija. Moskva: Mysl’, 1988-2000, 23 vols. Scharlipp, Wolfgang E. Die Frühen Türken in Zentralasien. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992. Shepard, Jonathan.: Constantine VII’s doctrine of “Containment” of the Rus.: GENNADIOS k 70-letiju akademika G. G. Litavrina, ed. B. N. Florja. Moskva: Indrik, 1999, pp. 264-283. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, ed. trans. A. Palmer et al. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993. Sinor, Denis.: Water-Transport in Central Eurasia” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, XXXIII (1961), pp. 156-179. Sinor, Denis.: The Inner Asian Warriors” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 101 (1981), pp. 133-144. Sinor, Denis.: The Hun Period,” The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. Denis Sinor Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 177-179 Sinor, Denis.: “The Historical Attila,” Attila. The Man and his Image, ed. Franz H. Bäuml and M. D. Birnbaum. Budapest: Corvina, 1993, pp. 1-29. Sümer, Faruk. Oğuzlar. 3rd ed., Istanbul: Ana Yayınları, 1980. Szymański. W. and E. Dąbrowska. Awarzy, Węgrzy Wrocław-WarszawaKraków-Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1979. Šekera, Ivan M. Kyïvs’ka Rus’ XI st. u mižnarodnyx vidnosynax. Kyïv: Vydavnyctvo Akademiï Nauk Ukraıns’koï RSR, 1967. Aṭ-Ṭabarı, Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn Jarîr. Ta’rîḫ aṭ-Ṭabarı. Ta’rîḫ ar-Rasûl wa’l-Mulûk, ed. Muḥammad Abu’l-Faḍl Ibrâhîm. Cairo: Dâr alMa‘ârif, 1967-1969. 10 vols. Taşağıl, Ahmet. Gök-Türkler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1995.

132

WAR AND WARFARE

Tekin, Talât. Orhon Yazıtları. ed. and Modern Turkish translation. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988 Theophanes Byzantios. In Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. Karl Müller, Paris: Firmin Didot, 1885. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. De Boor. Leipzig: Teubner, 1883, rpt.: Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1963. Theophanes. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. trans. Cyril Mango and Roger Scott. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Theophanes Continuatus, Historiae, ed. Immanuel Bekker. Bonn, 1838. Theophylaktos Simokattes, Historia, ed. Carl De Boor, rev. Peter Wirth. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972. Theophylaktos Simokkates, The History of Theophylact Simocatta, Eng. trans. Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Thompson, E. A. The Huns (1948), rev. ed, by Peter Heather, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Toparlı, Recep. Kıpçak Türkçesi Sözlüğü. Erzerum, 1993. Treadgold, Warren. Byzantium and its Army 284-1081. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. Vasil’evskij, V. G. Vizantija i pečenegi Vol. 1 of his Trudy. Sankt Peterburg/Leningrad: Izdanie Imperatorksoj Akademii Nauk/Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSR, 1908-1930). 4 vols. Whittow, Mark. The Making of Byzantium 600-1025. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Wozniak, Frank.: Byzantium, the Pechenegs, and the Khazars in the Tenth Century.: Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 4 (1984), pp. 299-316 Xazanov, Anatolij M. . Social’naja istorija skifov. Moskva: Nauka, 1975. Xudjakov, Julij S. Vooruženie srednevekovyx kočevnikov Južnoj Sibiri i Central’noj Azii. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1986. Yang, Lien-sheng.: Historical Notes on the Chinese World Order.: The Chinese World Order, ed. John K. Fairbank. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Universituy Press, 1968, pp. 20-33. Al-Ya‘qûbî, Aḥmad ibn abî Ya‘qûb b. Ja‘far. Kitâb al-Buldân, ed. M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1892. Yates, Robin D. S.: Early China.: War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval World. Ed. Kurt Raaflaub and Nathan Rosenstein. Center for Hellenic Studies, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 7-45 Zachariah of Mitylene. The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, trans. Frederick J. Hamilton, Ernest W. Brooks. London: Methuen, 1899.

133

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES: ΟγURS, ΟNOγURS AND KHAZARS

The Pre-Hunnic and Hunnic Era The migrations of Inner Asian nomads, whether precipitated by internal forces or the pressures generated by their powerful sedentary neighbours, when blocked to the south (by China or Iran) invariably were directed towards the western steppes. The Trans-Volgan and especially the Caspo-Pontic steppelands were ideally suited to the nomadic economy, providing rich grasslands and easy access to the goods of sedentary society. As a consequence, the nomads attracted or pushed into this zone were varied in numbers and military might. A few were conquerors of the Eurasian land mass, others their vanquished steppe foes. Still others were the fragments of tribal confederations caught up in the movements of more powerful neighbours. The earliest, unmistakably Altaic nomads first come to the attention of our sources in connection with just such a transcontinental migration associated with the movements of tribes that would constitute, in part, the European Huns. They entered a region that had hitherto largely been the preserve of Iranian nomads. Iranian ethnic elements were politically absorbed and subsequently would play a not insignificant role in the ethnogenesis of the various Turkic tribes of Western Eurasia. The Hunnic movement westward, from whatever Inner or Central Asian starting point we may posit for it and whatever the relationship of its ruling clans to the still problematic Hsiung-nu may have been, undoubtedly pushed before it and brought with it tribes of Turkic speech. Jordanes (ed. Skržinskaja, p. 151, 273n., 387; Priskos, EL, p. 121; Maenchen-Helfen, Huns, p. 23), the sixth century Gothic historian, taking some of his “ethnica” from Priskos, mentions the “Alpidzuri,

135

PETER B. GOLDEN

Alcidzuri, Itimari, Tuncarsi and Boisci,” “Scythian” tribes that were swept away by the Hunnic advance. These tribes which, apparently, lived near the Volga, retreated towards the Danube. Here, their resistance to Hunnic overlordship continued (Gadlo, p. 14). As with so many others, their names appear only fleetingly in the sources; their subsequent fate remains unknown. A more formidable but only slightly more durable grouping were the Άκατίροι/Άκατζίροι/Acatiri/Acatziri. This ethnonym has often been etymologized as *Ağač-eri “man of the forest”, i. e “forest people” for which there are parallels in other Turkic groups (Moravcsik, BT, II, pp. 58-59; Maenchen-Helfen, “Akatir”,, and his Huns, pp. 427ff. ). It has also been interpreted as *Aq Qazir > Xazar (Henning, “A Farewell”, pp. 502-506: Hamilton, “Toquz Oγuz”, pp. 34, 57 n. 47). Neither of these theses has been firmly grounded in anything beyond phonetic resemblance. Although not infrequently stated, there is no solid proof of a Khazar-Akatir connection. Jordanes, in whose day they had already been subsumed by other peoples, notes the “Acatziri” as “a most powerful (people) ignorant of the fruits of the earth, who live from their flocks and by hunting” (ed. Skržinskaja, p. 136). Their tribal confederation, which appears to have lacked any strong central authority, was brought under Hunnic control ca. 445 or 447 and placed under the command of Attila’s eldest son from his wife Κρέκα, (var. Ήρεκαν, Turk. Arı(ğ) qan “pure ruler” ? If not Germ. Erka, Herkja). This was probably Ellac (*ilek < ilig? Németh, “A hunok nyelve”. pp. 223-224; Maenchen-Helfen, Huns, pp. 407-408). One of the leading Akatir chieftains, Κουρίδαχος, however, through guile and diplomacy managed to retain his independence for some time (Priskos, EL, p. 130; Maenchen-Helfen, Huns, pp. 105, 195).

The Ογuric Tribes After the breakup of Attila’s confederation following his death and the defeat of the Huns, at the hands of rebellious subject tribes, at Nedao in 454 (leading to Ellac’s death), it is unclear if the Akatirs regained their independence. In 463, however, they were attacked by the Šarağurs whose appearance marks the entry of the Ογuric (frequently termed “Bolgaro-Čuvašic”, “Hunno-Bolgaric” etc. ) tribes into the Caspo-Pontic steppe zone. The Akatirs now fade from the scene, presumably subsumed by their conquerors. The appearance of these Ογuric Turkic peoples is connected with a notice in Priskos describing (with some touches borrowed from

136

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

Herodotos and other sources), a series of migrations and tribal displacements, ca. 463, that began in Inner Asia. According to this account, the Σαράγουροι, *Ώγούροι (text. Οὒρωγοι) and Όνόγουροι had been compelled to migrate to the North Caucasian and Pontic steppes under pressure from the Σάβιροι. The latter, in turn, had been forced to take flight by the peoples inhabiting the coast of the ocean. The unnamed ocean peoples were themselves the victims of hostile natural forces and man-eating griffins (the latter lifted from Herodotos. see Priskos, EL, p. 586; Moravcsik, BT, II, pp. 219. 227-228, 262-263, 267-268; Dovatur/Herodotos, pp. 110/111). The tribes may be identified as the Šara(o)γurs (“White/Yellow Ογurs”). *Ογurs, Οnoγurs, Sabirs and Abars/Avars. The forms of these names are fairly regular, except for that of the Οnoγurs which slips in and out of our sources in a number of guises: ołxontor (Ananias Širakec’i, 7th cent. ), Ούννογούνδουροι (Nikephoros. early 9th cent. ), Uluğundur (Ibn Kalbī, 820: ar. translit” ’LĞNDR - d. Red. ). Vłêndur Bulgar (Movsês Xorenac’i. last third of the 8th cent. ), Wunundur (Ḥudūd al-ʻĀlam, 982; ar. translit” WNNDR). Wulundur (al-Mas‘ūdī. mid-10th cent.; ar. translit” WLNDR), N. nd. r (Gardīzī, ca. 1050), cf. Hung. Nándor Fehervár “Belgrad” (Markwart, “Ein arabischer Bericht”. p. 276; Ligeti. MNyTK, p. 269). The name Ογur itself should be viewed as the Ογuric equivalent of Oγuz (On the still problematic etymology of Oγuz, see Kononov, Rodoslovnaja turkmen, pp. 82-84, n. 31, who proposed a root *oğ “clan, tribe”. But, see also the cautionary remarks of Sevortjan, Etim. slov., I, pp. 414-417). The linguistic characteristics of this grouping that set it apart from Common Turkic have most recently been discussed by Róna-Tas (“Periodization”, pp. 144-145). The starting point of the migrations is unclear as are the mysterious, coastal catalysts. The attempts that have been made to identify them with obscure tribal names in Chinese sources (e. g. Wu-chieh, Ho-ch’ieh etc.) are conjectural at best. Of their origins little is known. The Avars/Juan-juan in Mongolia had been warring, at this time, with elements of the T’ieh-lê confederation [T’ieh-lê Arch. Chin. T’įəәkləәk: Teklek/Tiglig = Tegreg “hoop, ring” = “wheeled (cart)”, cf. Chin, name for the Uyγurs, Kao-ch’e “High Carts”. Hamilton, “Toquz Oγuz”, pp. 25, 26; Czeglédy, ΝΝ, p. 18]. The T’ieh-lê were a far-flung confederation whose constituent tribes and clans extended from Inner Asia to the Western Eurasian steppes (Liu, I, pp. 127-128; Hamilton, “Toquz Oγuz”, pp. 26-27). Their dispersion over such a wide area is perhaps to be connected with ongoing warfare and resultant tribal

137

PETER B. GOLDEN

displacements, beginning ca. 350 A. D., associated with the activities of the Uar-Hun tribes that formed the Juan-juan state. The relationship of these T’ieh-lê to the earlier Ting-ling of the Chinese sources, although often asserted, is not clear. The Ογuric tribes, it would seem, were one of the westernmost groupings of the Tieh-le which also included the Uyγurs-Toquz Oγuz and perhaps the Oγuz. They appear to have been located in Western Siberia and Kazakhstan, on the borders of Iranian Central Asia, before the events of ca. 460-463, having, in all likelihood, been brought there in the course or aftermath of the Hsiung-nu-Hun and Uar-Hun movements. The Sabirs, then, must have lived to the east or perhaps north-north-east of them (Western Siberia? Eastern Turkistan?). The Avar attack precipitated the Sabir movements which brought the Ογuric tribes to the Caspo-Pontic steppes (Moravcsik, “Onoguren”, pp. 59ff.; Czeglédy, NN, pp. 17-18, 95-96, 108). Within a few years of their arrival, the Šarağurs, ca. 467. had attacked the Akatirs and other “Hunnic” tribes and then raided Sasanid holdings in Transcaucasia. Their subsequent fate is unrecorded. They are noted in the supplement to a Syriac translation of Zacharias Rhetor’s Ecclesiastical History (“Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor”), ca. 555, which is based on a Middle Persian rendering of some Greek original. Indeed, the ethnographic data contained in this work may well go back to Priskos. The supplement notes the ’wngwr (Οnoγur), ’wgr (Ογur), sbr (Sabir), bwrgr (Burγar = Bulγar), kwrtrgr (Kutrigur). ’br (Abar), ksr (Kasar? Kasir? Akatzir?), srwgwr (Sarurgur = Šaraγurs) and others (Pigulëvskaja, Sirijskie istočniki, pp. 83-84; Czeglédy, “Bemerkungen”, pp. 293-294 and his “Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor”, pp. 137-139, 141). This listing probably reflects a situation well before 555. It is not unlikely that the Šarağurs were either subsumed by some other confederation or themselves split apart to form new ones. This dissolution and reconstitution of the nomads into new formations was a consistent feature of their political life. Thus, Agathias (d. between 579582) in a brief excursus on the Pontic steppe nomads, notes “all of them are called in general Scythians and Huns and in particular according to their nation. Thus, some are Κοτρίγουροι or Οὐτρίγουροι and yet others are Οὐλτίζουροι and Βουρούγουνδοι and others (are called) as has become customary and usual for them. The Οὐτρίγουροι and Βουρούγουνδοι were known up to the time of the Emperor Leo and the Romans of that time and appeared to have been strong. We, however, in this day, neither know them nor, I think, will we. Perhaps they have perished or perhaps they have moved off to very far places” (ed.

138

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

Keydall, p. 177). Jordanes, Agathias’ contemporary, also depicts a bewildering array of steppe peoples: “Located towards the south are the people of the Acatziri, a most powerful (people), ignorant of the fruits of the earth, who live from their flocks and by hunting. Beyond them, above the Pontic Sea is the habitat of the Bulgari, whom the evils of our sins have made famous. There too are the Hunni (who), like the most fecund soil of the most powerful peoples, sprouted up a rabid duo of peoples. Some are called Altziagiri, others Saviri who, nonetheless, have different habitats: next to Cherson, are the Altziagiri, to which the greedy merchant brings the goods of Asia. (They are the ones) who, in summer, wander through the fields, (their) far-flung habitats, according to (where) food for their herds draws them. In winter, they bring themselves back to (the region) above the Pontic Sea. The Hunuguri, however, are famous because from them comes the trade in marten skins (pellium murinarum, possibly sable or ermine PBG).” (ed. Skržinskaja, p. 136). Our sources, largely Byzantine or Byzantine-derived, rarely deal with all of these peoples at once. Rather, they trace the main events in the history of this or that grouping whose activities at that moment are of concern to Constantinople. An illustration of this is afforded by the monitory tale of the Kutrigurs and Ut(r)igurs.

The Kutrigurs and Ut(r)igurs The forms of these ethnonyms have not been firmly established, one and the same source sometimes offering several variants: Kwrtrgr (Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor), Κουτρίγουροι (Menander, Prokopios, Agathias), Κουτούργουροι (Prokopios), Κοτρίγουροι (Agathias), Κοτρίγοροι (Agathias), Κουτρίγοροι (Menander), Κοτράγηροι, Κουτράγουροι, Κοτριαγήροι (Menander, Prokopios, Agathias), = Κοτζαγουροι? (Theophylaktos Simokattes), Οὺτ(τ)ρίγουροι (Menander, Prokopios, Agathias), Οὺτούργουροι (Prokopios), Οὺτρίγουροι (Agathias) etc. (see Moravcsik, BT, II, pp. 171-172, 238-239). Νémeth (HMK, pp. 90-91) suggested that Kuturgur was a metathecized form of *Toqur(o)γur “the Nine Ογurs” and that Uturgur = Otur(o)γur “Thirty Οğurs”. More recently, Ligeti (MNyTK, p. 342) proffered, albeit without much argumentation, an etymology from utur- “to resist” (Clauson, ED, p. 38, 67). Prokopios places them in the Azov-Don zone, near the Tetraxite Goths. It is presumed that they entered this region together with the

139

PETER B. GOLDEN

other “Ογuric” peoples in the famous migration of 463. Their relationship to the other Ογurs, in particular the Šaraγurs and Bulγars is not clear. Similarly, it cannot be ascertained with any degree of assurance (as Zlatarski, I., pp. 89-90, and Gadlo, p. 81 do) that Γορδᾱς/Γρώδ, the “king of the Huns of the Bosporos”, who, as a consequence of Byzantine diplomacy, converted to Christianity and his anti-Christian brother Μουάγερις/Μοῡγελ (Malalas, pp. 432-432, Theophanes, pp. 175-176) are to be connected with them or with the Magyars (Németh, HMK, pp. 165-170). Prokopios tells of their common descent from a king who had two sons, Utigur and Kutrigur who split off to form two separate but closely related peoples. The Kutrigurs, who occupied the western zone of this territory, frequently raided Byzantine possessions in the Balkans. This proved to be their undoing. In 551, the Kutrigurs, under Χινιαλών, one of their most skilled military chiefs, attacked, as allies of the Gepids, Imperial lands. The emperor Justinian I (527-565) promptly responded by enciting, through diplomacy and bribes, the Utigurs to attack their kinsmen. This they did, under Σανδίλ(χος), causing great destruction. The badly mauled Kutrigurs now sought peace with the Empire; some 2000 of them even entering Imperial service and receiving lands in Thrace. This enraged Σανδίλ(χος) who could not understand why these defeated enemies of the Empire should now enjoy the fruits of imperial favour, living better than his people. In 558, however, the revived Kutrigurs under Ζαβεργάν, perhaps responding to pressures produced by the advent of the “European Avars”, raided the Empire and once again Justinian called on the Utigurs who repeated their earlier success. The fratricidal strife encouraged by Byzantine diplomacy and initially resisted by Σανδίλ(χος) led, so our sources affirm, to the virtual decimation of these two tribes (Prokopios, Loeb ed., V, pp. 84-95, 235251; Agathias, pp. 176-179; Menander, pp. 42/43, 44/45). In reality, this was not entirely so. Some Kutrigur und Utigur remnants were swept up by the Avars who had made their entry into this region in 558 (Menander, pp. 138/139). When the latter sought safety from the Türks by fleeing to Pannonia, they apparently brought Kutrigur elements with them. Other Kutrigurs may have come later. Thus, it is reported that the Κοτζαγηροί (if this form is truly a garbling of Kutrigur), together with the Ταρνιάχ and perhaps the Ζαβενδὲρ fled to the Avars from the Türks (Theophylaktos Sim., p. 260; Marquart. Streifzüge, p. 504). Still others, such as the Utigurs, remained in the Pontic steppes (see below) quickly falling under the sway of the Türks who gained control over the Caspo-

140

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

Pontic steppes by the late 560s. Thus, an Utigur chieftain, ‘Ανάγαιος, together with other Türk forces, is noted among those attacking Bosporos in 576 (Menander, pp. 178/179). The Türk era, for which our sources are regrettably reticent, is crucial to an understanding of the formation of the Turkic nomads of Western Eurasia. It was under the Türk aegis that the Khazar and Bulğar polities took form. Before turning to an examination of the consequences of the Türk (and to a lesser extent Avar) impact on the Western Eurasian steppes, we must trace the history of the most important of the Ογuric peoples, the Οnoγurs whose fortunes are closely tied with the Bulğars and other steppe peoples.

The Ογurs, Onογurs and Bulγars As was noted earlier, the Ογur and Onοğur Urheimat is still problematic. We first encounter them as they were propelled westward in a series of migrations from Western Siberia-Kazakhstan set off in Eastern and Inner Asia. Theophylaktos Simokattes (ed. de Boor, p. 260) mentions the Onογur city Βακάθ which was destroyed in an earthquake sometime before his day (early 7th century). The apparent Iranian (cf. Soydian kaθ, kanθ “city”) name of this city would seem to point to a locale in or around Iranian Central Asia. Indeed, Theophylaktos mentions “Sogdiana” in his next sentence. Movsês Dasxuranc’i/ Kałankatuac’i (trans. Dowsett, p. 63), in a notice that may pertain to the late 4th century, mentions Honagur “a Hun from (the land of) the Honk’”, who raided Persia. If Honagur, here is, indeed, the eponymous symbol for the Onοğurs, then their habitat immediately prior to 463 would have to have been within striking distance of Transcaucasia and Iran. Perhaps they are to be connected with the Hyōn who so troubled Sasanid Iran. Whatever their urban accomplishments (it has been conjectured that they were more developed in agriculture and other sedentary pursuits than the other Turkic peoples, see Kollautz, Miyakawa, Geschichte, I, p. 157), Pseudo-Zarachias Rhetor knows them as tent-dwelling nomads. Jordanes, as we have seen, associated them with the fur trade, one of the most important and lucrative commodities of international commerce of that era. Such a connection would imply contact with the Finno-Ugrian peoples of the forest-steppe zone. Whether this commercial connection is vital to establishing old Hungarian-Onογur (> (H)ungar) ties is not clear. The classical formulation of Hungarian proto-history (cf. Németh, HMK, Ligeti (ed.),

141

PETER B. GOLDEN

MŐT) not only implied this, but brought elements of the Hungarians to the North Caucasian steppelands near the Onοğurs. This and many other aspects of this formulation have since been challenged, most recently by Ligeti himself (MNyTK, p. 349). There is not an abundance of information on the Ογurs and Onογurs. They and the Ογurs were conquered by the Avars and then the Türks (Menander, ed. Blockley, pp. 50/51, 124/125, 174/175). The Ογurs were probably placed under direct Türk control, for Menander (pp. 124/125) describes the “leader of the Οὐγούρων” as the one who “maintained” the authority of the Türk Jabγu Qaγan in that region. Their habitat, at that time, extended from the North Caucasian (Kuban river zone) steppelands to the lower Don. Theophylaktos has a long and still problematic notice on them in his version of the “Letter of the Türk Qaγan to the Emperor Maurikios”. After discussing the Türk victories over the Hephthalites and Avars and activities near Northern China, he notes that: “the Qağan set off on another undertaking and subjugated all the Ὀγώρ. This people is (one) of the most powerful because of their numbers and their training for war in full battle-gear. They have made their abodes towards the East, whence flows the river Τίλ, which the Turks have the custom of calling the “Black”. The oldest chieftains of this people are called Οὐάρ and Χουννί” (Theoph. Simokattes, pp. 257258). He then explains that these “Ouar and Khounni” are now masquerading in Eastern Europe as the Avars. If the “Til” (Qara Til) is indeed the Volga (Atıl/Itil), then clearly we are dealing with the Ογurs. If the action is taking place in Inner Asia, Ὀγώρ may perhaps represent Uyγur (see discussion in Czeglédy, ΝΝ, pp. 101ff. ). The account, in a garbled form, may also point to the Ογuric character of the European Avars. Later in his account, the Qaγan notes that “when the Ogor, then, were brought completely to heel, the Qaγan gave over the chief of the Κὸλχ to the bite of the sword” (Theoph. Simokattes, p. 259). Once again, if this is the Western Eurasian theatre of events (Kolx must refer to some unknown Ογuric tribe), it would also indicate some continued resistance by the Ογurs to Türk domination. Our later notices on the Onογurs are less ambiguous, but not particularly informative. The Ravenna Anonymous (7th century) places the Οnoγurs near the “Pontic sea”. Their habitat, from ca. 463 onward, extended from the North Caucasus (Kuban river zone) to the lower Don. A Byzantine episcopal listing of the mid-8th century (but referring to an earlier period) notes a bishopric of the Onογurs (Moravcsik, “Onoguren”, pp. 64-65). Perhaps more importantly, a series of sources

142

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

connects them with the Bulγars. Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, writing in the mid-10th century (De Thematibus, ed. Pertusi, p. 85), says that the Bulγars “formerly called themselves Οὐνογουνδούροι.” Nikephoros, early 9th century (ed. de Boor, p. 24) calls Κούβρατος the master of the Οὐνογουνδούροι. Theophanes (ed. de Boor, I, p. 356) writes of the Οὐννογουνδούρων Βουλγάρων. Agathon (early 8th century, see Moravcsik, “Onoguren”, pp. 67-68, Beševliev, Periode, p. 302) notes the “ἔθνος των Οὐννογουρων Βουλγάρων”. Clearly, then, the Onογurs formed one of the core elements of that tribal confederation that entered the Balkans under the name Bulγar. At what time and under what circumstances the Onογurs, or at least elements of them, joined the Bulγars is not reflected in our sources. Bulğar origins are quite complex, in part because they are obscured by a number of anachronistic references. The name has been etymologized by Νémeth (HMK, pp. 38, 95) from bulğa- “to mix, confuse” (cf. Clauson, ED, p. 337 bulğa:- “to stir. . . to confuse, disturb (someone), produce a state of disorder”), who suggested the meaning “mixed ones”. More likely and perhaps more closely adhering to the traditions of Turkic tribal names denoting turbulence, would be the rendering of this ethnonym as “Those who disturb, stir up trouble” (cf. Tekin, Tuna Bulgarian, pp. 62-63). Those notices that place them as a significant force on the historical stage before 480 are undoubtedly anachronistic. Others, sometimes to the confusion of later researchers, insert them into an earlier historical context in order to give contemporary medieval readers a clear idea of the areas involved. This is true, for example, of the mention of the Vłendur Bulgar noted in Movsês Xorenac’i (trans. Thomson, p. 185). Medieval Bulgarian tradition (the Bulgarian Prince List, see Pritsak, Fürstenliste, pp. 36-37, 63-64) connected their royal line with the Huns. It seems likely that elements of those tribes that subsequently constituted the Bulğar confederation were of Hunnic origin or had been politically part of the Hunnic nation. The process, begun perhaps after the death of Attila’s son (H)ernac (= Bulgarian Irnik), by which these tribes fused with the Onοğurs and others was not noted by our sources. Nonetheless, by the time of the Emperor Zeno (474-491), they were very much on the scene, acting as allies (mercenaries) of the Empire. By 491, they were already raiding Byzantine holdings. Their relationship to the Kutrigurs who seem to supplant them in the sources after the opening decades of the 6th century, remains problematic. It seems, however, very likely that the later Kutrigurs were, in part, if not

143

PETER B. GOLDEN

in whole, subsumed by the Bulγars at various stages. The Armenian Geography ascribed to Movsês Xorenac’i (actually the work of Ananias Širakec’i) lists a number of Bulğar groupings in the North CaucasianKuban steppes “who are called after the names of the rivers there: Kup’i Bulğar, Duč’i Bulkar, Ołxontor Blkar, the “immigrant Č’dar Bulkar” (ed. Soukry, p. 25; Marquart, Streifzüge, p. 57, trans. Hewsen, p. 55, commentary p. 10). The Avar invasion, which appears to have brought some Kutrigur elements to Pannonia, and the Türk conquest of the Western Eurasian steppes, marked an important stage in the political development of the Bulγar union. The Dulo clan noted in the later Bulgarian Prince List, has been connected with the Tu-lu subconfederation of the Western Türk/On Oq noted in the Chinese sources (Pritsak, “Stammesnamen”. p. 55, Fürstenliste, p. 64, connects them with the Hsiung-nu ruling house as well). Our sources, of course, reflect nothing of this complex, conjectured genealogical history. The T’ieh-lê revolt in 603 against Türk overlordship (Liu, I, p. 108; Czeglédy” Ogurok”, pp. 61-63) undoubtedly had ramifications in the West. As the Ογuric tribes, including elements of the Bulγar, were part of the T’ieh-lê superconfederation, Türk power may have been weakened here in the course of the revolt, perhaps allowing splinter dynasties of the ruling Türk house to carve out states for themselves. If the Dulo = Tu-lu equation is correct (and this is by no means certain), it would point in this direction. In any event, Türk power soon went into decline and the Avars apparently reasserted themselves in the Pontic steppes where the Bulγar union was concentrated. It was here that “Magna Bulgaria” took shape under Qubrat and in response to new conditions. In the early 7th century, Κούβρατος/Κοβρᾱτος/Коурть> ( < Turk, qobrat- quvrat- “to gather”? An honorific? Clauson, ED, p. 586) with the at least tacit support of Byzantium broke away from the Avars. Qubrat was the nephew of Ὀργανᾱς (Nikephoros. p. 24) who has been identified, conjecturally, with the Türk prince *Baγatur (Mo-ho-tu) Hou who perished in internecine strife in 631 (so Gumilëv, Tjurki, pp. 202204; Kollautz, Miyakawa. I, p. 159) and Гостоунъ of the Bulgarian Prince List. Whatever Qubrat’s antecedents and dynastic connections may have been, he had manoeuvred himself into a strong political position in the West. The 7th century Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, preserved in Ethiopian translation, taking his account, obviously, from a Byzantine source, tells (ca. 619) of a certain “Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of

144

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

Constantinople and … had grown up in the imperial palace. And between him and the older Heraclius (reg. 610-641, PBG), great affection and peace had prevailed.” (John of Nikiu, p. 197). The passage may also be understood to mean that “Organa” was baptized. However one may interpret it, the notice shows that the Byzantines were seeking an alliance with an important steppe power to control the strategically vital Pontic zone, the backdoor to the Empire. In 635 Qubrat, “ruler of the Οὐννογουνδούροι, successfully revolted against the Avars and concluded a treaty with Herakleios (Nikephoros. p. 24). The confederation that came into being, “Magna Bulgaria” or παλαιὰ /µεγάλη Βουλγαρία is next noted at its point of dissolution. Qubrat died “when Konstantinos (Konstans II, reg. 641-668, PBG) was in the West” (i. e. ca. 663-668, PBG, Theophanes, I, p. 357, Nikephoros, p. 33). He had admonished his five sons, (Βατ)βαιᾱν(ός), Κότραγος, Ἀσπαρούχ and two unnamed others “never to separate their place of dwelling from one another, so that by being in concordance with one another, their power might thrive” (Nikephoros, p. 33, Theophanes, I, p. 357). The sons, however, did separate. Batbayan remained in their ancestral lands east of the Don “Kotragos” (perhaps an eponymous symbol of the Kutrigurs) shifted slightly westward, crossing to the other side of the Don. The other, unnamed brothers migrated still further westward, one going to Italy and the other falling under the rule of the Avar Qaγan in Pannonia. The third brother, Asparux (Исперих of the Bulgarian Prince List) went to the Danube and subsequently crossed, ca. 679, into Imperial territory. Although it is possible that the confederation put together by Qubrat was already beginning to break apart due to internal forces, it seems far more likely that these strains were the result of Khazar pressure. The Armenian Geography takes note of “Asparhruk son of Xubraat who fled from the Khazars out of the Bulgarian mountains” (Marquart, Chronologie, pp. 88-89, trans. Hewsen, p. 55 has “The son of Kubrat fled from the Hippic mountains”). The letter of the 10th century Khazar ruler Joseph says simply that the Khazars drove out the ‫( וננתר‬V. n. n. t. r. = Vunundur = Onoγundur, Kokovcov, p. 32). Clearly, this was a struggle to determine which confederation would succeed to the Turk patrimony in the Western Eurasian-East European steppes. The Danubian Bulgarian state that was thus created, fused with the Slavic and other inhabitants of their new habitat, the Bulγars becoming the politico-military elite. Thereafter, their historical role was played out largely in the context of Byzantine-Balkan relations. Ultimately,

145

PETER B. GOLDEN

they adopted Orthodox Christianity (in 864) and slavicized. The remaining Bulγars of the Pontic steppe were absorbed into the Khazar Qaγanate. Some Bulγars subsequently (perhaps as late as the early 9th century), migrated northwards, up the Volga, giving rise to the Volga Bulγar state. Those Bulγars that remained in the Pontic steppe were later termed “Black Bulgars”. This brief perusal of Bulγar history has introduced the Khazars who would dominate the Western Eurasian steppes until the latter half of the 10th century. In the foregoing we have seen put into historical and geographical context a number of the elements that were united in the Khazar confederation. Before turning to the Khazars, however, we must briefly glance at one other grouping that played an important role in their formation: the Sabirs.

The Sabirs The question of Sabir origins is one of the largely neglected and vexing problems of early Turkic history. As we have seen from their involvement in the 463 migrations, they were west of the Avars (Mongolia) and east of the Ογuric tribes (Western Siberia, Kazakhstan?). Most of the reconstructions of their history connect them, in one form or another, with Western Siberia, whence they expelled some Ογuric people(s), (cf. Németh, HMK, pp. 183-186). They came there, it is argued, from Central Asia (T’ien-shan region? Czeglédy, NN, p. 19). Attempts to connect them with the Turfan region (e. g. Henning, “A Farewell”, p. 502; Németh, HMK, pp. 109-111) have not been judged successful (Ligeti, MNyTK, pp. 342-343). Their stay in Western Siberia left an imprint, it has been suggested, on the local Ugrian cultures, giving the name Sabir > Sibir to the region itself, although the latter is not attested until the Mongol era (Ligeti, MNyTK. p. 344). Patkanov (“Sabiren”, esp. pp. 269ff. ) and Artamonov (Ist. Xazar, p. 66) viewed them as Ugrians who later turkicized (Artamonov). Pritsak (“Säbirs”, pp. 28-29), in an unusual twist, saw them as a Hsien-pi (= Säbir) ruling clan, the *Mâgč-ger > Magyar, that settled (3rd century AD) among the Ob-Irtyš Ugrians, creating the future Hungarian tribal union. Without further digressions into the vagaries of Hungarian ProtoHistory, we are on firmer ground in locating them in the Middle Volga region as well as east of the Urals (Sinor, “Outlines”, pp. 521, 529). The Suwār/Sawār noted by Ibn Faḍlān (ed. Kovalevskij, pp. 139, 321)

146

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

among the Volga Bulγars certainly attest to their presence there later. By 503-504, they were in the North Caucasian steppes where they came into the purview of Byzantine sources. Arab and Armenian sources also know them in the North Caucasus: Suwār/Sawār (e. g. Ibn Xurdāḏbīh, p. 124), Savirk’ (Ananias Širakec’i, trans. Hewsen, pp. 57, 124 = Pseudo-Movsês Xorenac’i, ed. Soukry, p. 27; Marquart, Streifzüge, p. 58). In a pattern that was typical of the nomads of Western Eurasia, they sold their military services to the neighbouring sedentary powers. The Sabirs were, however, unusually fickle with respect to Byzantium and Iran. One interesting Sabir personality noted in the Byzantine sources was “Queen” Βώα/Βωαρήξ/Β(ο)αρήζ (Malalas, p. 430, Theophanes, I, p. 175, Skylitzes-Kedrenos, I, p. 644), widow of Βαλάχ, who attempted to fashion a stronger tie to Constantinople. She is described as having 100,000 people under her rule. In 568, the Avars “destroyed” them (Menander, pp. 50/51). How extensive this destruction actually was is hard to assess. Menander (pp. 162/163, 166/167, 198/199) later mentions groups of them, together with the Alans, in Caucasian Albania where they demonstrated their customary fickleness. Having succumbed and given hostages to the Byzantines, they immediately revolted and joined the Persians. The Byzantines then transferred them to the other side of the Kura river. But, in 578, there were again Sabirs in Persian service. Thereafter, their name fades from the sources. Our knowledge of Sabir internal organization is equally sparse. Prokopios notes their large numbers and many chieftains who cleverly gained subsidies from both Iran and Byzantium. They were skilled in building unique siege devices (Prokopios, Loeb ed., V, pp. 155ff. ). Our sources mention only a small number of Sabir names. These are Turkic of an undetermined provenance: Βαλάχ: Balaq < bala-q “child, young of an animal”, Βαλµάχ/ Βαρµάχ: Balmaq/Barmaq < barmaq “finger”, Ἴλιγερ: iliger < ilig “prince” + er “man”, Κούτιλζις; < qut “heavenly good fortune” + elči “emissary”. Βωαρήξ etc. remains problematic (Rásonyi, Magyar Nyelv, XXVIII (1932), pp. 101-102; Golden, KhSt., I, pp. 257-258). Németh explains their ethnonym as coming from sap“to go astray”, i. e. the “wanderers, nomads” (HMK, p. 189).

The Formation of the Khazar State There are a number of references, of dubious historical value, to the Khazars in the period prior to the arrival of the Türks in the Caspo-

147

PETER B. GOLDEN

Pontic steppes. We are somewhat better served by elements of Sâsânid tradition, as preserved in the Arabic-writing historians of the Islamic era, that connect them with the historical events of the reign of Khusrau Anôšarvān (531-579). By this time, the Türks were already active in affairs here. Many of the references to the Khazars undoubtedly refer to the Türks. The Khazars, as a distinct political organization, took shape only in the Türk period. The latter, in pursuit of the fugitive Avars (or Hephthalites) conquered the Caspo-Pontic steppes ca. 568. Multifaceted and not always smooth relations with Byzantium and a largely hostile relationship with Iran were established. This set in place a pattern of political relations that the Khazars would inherit and maintain with the Empire and the Arab Muslim successor states of the Sâsânids. In their initial burst of energy, the Western Türks had organized the nomadic tribes of Western Eurasia. Within several decades, however, Türk unity itself shattered. By the early 630’s, internecine strife divided the Western Türks into two rival factions, the “Tu-lu” and “Nu-shih-pi” of the On Oq. In the period up to the 630’s, the names Turk and Xazar are virtually interchangeable in our sources. This is particularly true for the accounts of the Türko-Khazar involvement, under the leadership of the Jabγu (Yabγu) Qaγan (Arm. Jebu Xak’an, Georg. Jibγu, Byz. Ζιέβηλ, Σιλζίβουλος, (Sir Jabγu), Σπαρζευγοῡν (Išbara Jabγu), Pahlavi (Sin) jêpîk, Arab. Sinjibū, Golden, KhSt., I. pp. 187-190), in the great Byzantine-Sāsānid war of 602-628. As Türk power receded in the western steppes in the period 630-650, two successor-states, under Türk dynasties, emerged: Magna Bulgaria (see above) and the Khazar Qaγanate.

The Question of Khazar Ethnogenesis The 12th century Syriac historian, Michael the Syrian, transmits a legend, presumably Byzantine in origin but passed on to him via a Middle Iranian and thence Syriac reworking, which tells of the arrival “from Inner Scythia” of the eponymous ancestor of the Khazars (Kazarīg) to the land of the Alans called “Barsāliā” and of the coming of the Bulγars (Bulgarios) to their Balkan homeland in the time of the Emperor Maurikios (582-602, see, Czeglédy, “Bemerkungen”, p. 244; Marquart, Streifzüge, pp. 484-485; Dunlop, p. 5). However fanciful the tale (the Bulγars were on the scene well before Maurikios but did not take Moesia until the last quarter of the 7th century), it might point to an actual Khazar tribe migrating from Central Asia (perhaps in the

148

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

context of the T’ieh-lê revolt?) to Western Eurasia or possibly to the time in which their Türk dynasty established itself. Recent studies of the paleoanthropology of parts of Khazaria, which, given the polyethnic nature of the Khazar state and the impossibility of determining with absolute certainty the ethno-linguistic affiliations of these different groups, cannot be considered the most reliable evidence, nonetheless seem to indicate an Inner Asian (Mongoloid) political elite ruling over a more mixed population (Ševčenko, “Xarakteristika”, pp. 158-159). Analogous situations are not lacking in Eurasia. It is unclear, however, whether this Inner Asian population is to be linked to the Türk ruling elite or to the Khazars per se who, in turn, had conquered other peoples of the region. There have been a number of theories regarding Khazar origins. We may briefly note them here with the caveat that the issue is far from resolved: 1) Khazars = Akatzirs (e. g. Henning, “A Farewell”, pp. 502-506; Gadlo, pp. 59-66. Pritsak, “Conversion”, pp. 261-263, equates the Khazars with the Akatzirs, but places over the latter a Türk [A-shih-na] dynasty). 2) Khazars = a compound of Ογuric peoples, the Sabirs and a ruling stratum of Western Türks (e. g. Németh, HMK, p. 204; Czeglédy, NN, pp. 99 and other works, Golden, KhSt., I. p. 53). Qazar is explained (Németh, HMK, pp. 37, 238) as deriving from qaz- “errer, vagabonded” (see full discussion in Golden, KhSt. I, pp. 123-133). 3) Khazars = Sabirs, the latter are Ογuric, i. e. Turkicized Ugrians (Artamonov, Ist. Khaz., pp. 43. 68, 76, 78, 115, 127). 4) Khazar = Uyγurs (Dunlop, pp. 34-40), cf. the Ko-sa (= Qazar) tribe of the latter. Chinese sources do, indeed, record the ethnonym Qazar as K’o-sa (K’at-sât = Qasar) and Ho-sa (γāt-sāt = Xasar/the latter of probable Iranian mediation, see Chavannes, Notes, p. 78; Ligeti, MNyTK, p. 355) which seems very much like the Toquz Oγuz/Uyγur tribal name Ko-sa (*Qasar). A most interesting variant of this theory has recently been expounded by Róna-Tas. Uyγur runic inscriptions, those of Šine Usu and the more recently analyzed, fragmentary Tes and Terxin texts (Kljaštornyj, Sov. Tjurk. (1980), 3, pp. 82-85, AOH, 36 (1982), pp. 335-366; Sov. Tjurk. (1983), 6, pp. 7690, AOH, 39 (1985), pp. 137-156) mention the name Qasar; the historical context is not clear. The name, as well as several others noted there, may be treated as an anthroponym or ethnonym. Róna-Tas has suggested that this is an earlier form of Qazar, namely Qasar. The

149

PETER B. GOLDEN

forms Qazar/Xazar, all coming from 9th century or later sources, show, he argues, the s > z shift typical of Ογuric at a later stage. The ethnonym itself he derives from the title Caesar via Middle Pers. Kesar. cf. Tibet, dru-gu Ge-sar. These Qasars, he hypothesizes, were groups that fled from or following the Arab invasion of Khazaria in 737 (Róna-Tas, “Kazar”, pp. 349-380, “Materialen”, pp. 42-44). It should be noted that Qasar is found as a personal name among Khazar elements as well as Uyγurs (from which it probably passed to the Mongols) and in Medieval Qıpčaq as the name for a kind of dog. What relationship, if any, these may have to the Caesar > Kesar > Qasar > Qazar formulation has not been established. 5) Khazars derive from a Hephthalite grouping near Xurâsân which migrated westward to the Caucasus in the late 5th - early 6th century. Here they probably joined with the Sabirs and others (Ludwig, pp. 24ff.). All of these theories are conjectural, some, obviously, more than others. The palaeoanthropological material remains largely mute. The linguistic evidence is both sparse and equally ambiguous. The 10th century Arab geographer, al-Iṣṭaxrī, in one part of his Kitâb al-Masālik wa’l-mamālīk (ed. de Goeje, p. 225) writes that the “language of the Bulγars resembles the language of the Khazars.” Yet, elsewhere in his work, he comments that Khazar differed from Turkic and Persian “nor does any distinct tongue of mankind share any of its characteristics” (ed. de Goeje, p. 222). Al-Bīrūnī, in his al-Āṯār al-bāqiya (pp. 41-42), says that the Bulγār and Sawâr have a language that is “a mixture of Turkic and Khazar”. This would seem to strengthen the case for their Ογuric linguistic affinities. The “Bulgaro-Turkic” loanwords in Hungarian if they are, in fact, in part of Khazar or Qabar origin (a still open question) would lend considerable credence to this view as well. Most of the words that have come down to us in a variety of Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, Greek, Armenian, Georgian, Slavic and Latin sources are titles or names common to the Turkic world (e. g. qaγan, bäg, tarxan, jabγu, qatun, il-teber, tudun, yilig (ilig), šad, baγatur etc. ). These do not carry particular markers that might indicate whether they are Common Turkic or Ογuric. Only one place-name, Sarkel/Šarkil (in Byzantine sources Σάρκελ, in Hebrew sources ‫שרכיל‬: Šarkîl or Sarkîl, cf. the problematic readings from the Firkovič collection: ‫ שרקל‬Š/Srql and ‫ סרקל‬clearly Srql), translated as “white dwelling” or “white-town”, may be an indication of Ογuric speech (Golden, KhSt., I, pp. 239-243). This important fortress was located in old Bulγar territory with a mixed

150

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

population. Thus, it is possible that it came into our sources in its Bulγaric garb. It does not resolve the question. Some words, not unexpectedly, show Iranian influences (e. g. Hazār Tarxan, Kundājīq) not to mention older borrowings such as šad. There are a number of names and titles recorded in our sources that are still enigmatic (e. g. salīfān. jāwsīγr). The Khazar Empire was a polyethnic, polyglot state in which we may presume that Common and Ογuric Turkic were spoken as well as varieties of Iranian, Finnic, Ugric, Slavic and indigenous North Caucasian languages. In addition to the Türk ruling element, the Sabirs probably played an important role. The close connection of the Sabirs and Khazars is hinted at, in garbled fashion, in the 10th century historian al-Mas‘ūdī’s comment that Xazar is Persian, in Turkic it is Sabīr (Kitāb at-Tanbīh, ed. de Goeje, p. 83). Did the Khazars come from Central Asia before or during the early stages of Türk rule? Did they evolve from the Sabirs? These questions we cannot answer with any degree of certainty. What is certain, however, is that they first become clearly delineated in our sources in the Türk era and it is in the context of a successor state of the Türks that we must view them.

Khazar History As we noted earlier, when Western Türk power declined, the rival Bulγar and Khazar tribal unions came into conflict. Our sources are silent as to whether these clashes were surrogate struggles reflecting the larger strife between the Tu-lu and Nu-shih-pi of the On Oq or the territorial conflicts of competing tribal unions seeking the succession to the Turk power in the Western steppes. Artamonov (Ist. Khaz., pp. 170171) suggested that the defeated Nu-shih-pi Qaγan, I p’i she-kuei (Chavannes, Documents, pp. 4, 32. 33, 58. 59. 265, 266) fled to the Khazars, ca. 651, and hence this date marks the beginning of Khazar history as such. The evidence is highly circumstantial at best. The 10th century Ḥudūd al-‘Ālam (transl. Minorsky, pp.161-162, ms. facs. Golden, KhSt., II, plate 23) reports that Ṭarxān Xāqān, ruler of the Khazars, “is one of the descendants of Ânsā” Minorsky in the 1970 ed. (p. LXIX) rejected the reading *Āsenā < Ānsā in favor of Īšā < Īšād (Ibn Rusta, Gardīzī), the Khazar variant of the Old Iranian and thence Turkic title šad (see Bombaci, “šaḍ”, pp. 167-193). If correct, this would remove any textual justification for an A-shih-na presence among the Khazars. But, if the Qaγanal and šad/Qaγan-bäg lines

151

PETER B. GOLDEN

represent two different clans, as seems likely, then Ṭarxān Xāqān could hardly have descended from the Īšāds. Our problems, however, do not end here. The clan-name A-shih-na itself is troubling. Beckwith (Tibetan Emp., pp. 206-208) has linked the Chinese form with Ἀρσίλας (which he reads as *Aršila) “the most ancient monarch of the Turks” (Menander, p. 172). He connects this with the Tocharian title Āršilānci. If this hypothesis is correct, Ānsā etc. could in no way be related to Ashih-na etc. However we may resolve this question, the existence of the Qaγanate among the Khazars can only be associated with the Türk royal house. There was no other source of legitimation in the steppe (Golden, “Ideology”, pp. 37ff. ). Khazar political development may also have been accelerated by the appearance of the Arab threat in the Caucasus. The early centres of Khazar power were the North Caucasian steppes and the cities of Balanjar and Samandar which have yet to be satisfactorily identified (see latest theories in Magometov, Obrazovanie, pp. 26-60). Balanjar was first attacked by the Arabs in 642. After a decade of desultory raiding, full-scale warfare began in 652 and continued, with periodic truces, until 737. The primary objective of the Arabs, as it had been of the Byzantines and Persians before them, albeit undertaken with considerably more vigour by the Muslims, was to secure the passes and prevent the periodically devastating raids that the Khazars unleashed on Transcaucasia. Sometimes, the raids were conducted by Khazar vassals, such as the “North Caucasian Huns” of Alp Ilut’ūer (Alp *İl-tewär [i. e. the Türk title İl-teber]). At other times, a representative of the Qaγanal house itself might assume command. Much fighting centred around control of the city of Darband (Pers. “pass”), which the Arabs called “Bāb alAbwāb”, the “Gate of Gates”, the key to protecting their rich Transcaucasian holdings. The Khazars were also the occasionally difficult allies of Byzantium. Their encroachments on the Crimea, a substantial part of which was in their hands by the mid-7th century (Khazar tuduns, tax officials, are noted in Kherson by Theophanes, I, pp. 378, 379 in the early 8th century), were certainly not welcome. Their occasional flirtation with political exiles, such as Justinian II (685-695, 705-711) were equally disturbing. But the presence of a common foe, the Arabs, created an enduring relationship. This point was clearly made in 732, in the midst of gruelling Arabo-Khazar warfare, by the marriage of

152

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

Konstantinos, son and heir of the reigning Byzantine Emperor, Leo III (717-741), to Čičäk, daughter of the Khazar ruler (Theophanes, I, pp. 409-410; Moravscik, “TZITZAKION”, pp. 71-76). Byzantine marital alliances with “barbarian” royal houses were a rarity. Arab-Khazar hostilities reached a culminating point in the 737 campaign of Marwān (later Umayyad Caliph) deep into Khazaria which ended in the capture and forced conversion of the Qaγan to Islam (Ibn A‘ṯam al-Kūfī, VIII, pp. 71-74; Dunlop, pp. 81-84). This Arab victory brought the era of sustained warfare to an end. Neither side was victorious. The Arabs had secured their hold over much of Transcaucasia, but had not been able to expand caliphal hegemony to Khazaria. Islam, at least as the official religion of the Khazar ruling elite was short-lived. Bāb al-Abwāb became the dividing line between the Dār al-Islām and Khazaria. There were still occasional Khazar raids, the last substantial one coming in 799 (Tabarī, II, pp. 647ff). Some of these raids may have been coordinated with Byzantium. A number of them, however, appear to have been responses to breakdowns in Arab-Khazar diplomacy over local issues (e. g. the suspicious death of a Khazar princess married to the Arab governor of “Armīniyya”, in the early 760s, see al-Ya‘qūbī, Ta’rix, II. p. 466; Łewond, p. 132/Arzoumanian trans. pp. 125-126). As relations with the Muslims took on a more pacific quality, areas of conflict with Constantinople came to the fore. The Byzantines are probably to be implicated in the unsuccessful anti-Khazar revolt of John of Gothia, in the 780’s, in the Crimea. This region, long their outpost on the steppe, was vital to their security. In 786, the Khazars, perhaps in response to events in the Crimea, assisted Leon, a local Georgian dynast (and grandson of the Khazar ruler) to break free of Byzantine domination in Western Georgia (K’art’lis C’xovreba, I, p. 251). Despite these rifts, the relationship founded on strategic considerations, especially from the Byzantine point of view, remained intact until the 10th century. Thus, in 838, the Byzantines aided in the construction of the fortress Sarkel (see above) on the left bank of the Don, aimed at controlling the movements of the Hungarians (who were usually Khazar allies) and the Pečenegs.

The Khazar Empire: Society and Organization The picture of 9th century Khazaria preserved in the Islamic geographical and historical sources of the 10th century, is that of a

153

PETER B. GOLDEN

powerful and well-ordered state. From the capital city (or cities) on the lower Volga, the Qaγan’s authority extended westward to the Pontic Bulγars, Kiev and elements of the Eastern Slavs, to Volga Bulγaria and the surrounding Finno-Ugric peoples in the north, to the Khwārazmian steppes and elements of the Trans-Volgan As and Oγuz in the east and the Alano-As and various indigenous peoples of the North Caucasus in the south. Ibn Faḍlān (ed. Kovalevskij, p. 313, ed. Togan, p. 44) remarks that hostages were sent to the Khazar capital from 25 subject peoples. Presiding over this was an elaborate dual qaγanate. The senior qaγan was a sacral king, a symbol of the qut (“heavenly good fortune”) of the dynasty, who played no active role in the administration of the state. In the event of misfortune, he could be killed in an effort to regain heavenly favour (al-Mas‘udī, Murūj, I, pp. 214-215). The “real king”, called qaγan-bäg, šad or yilig was in charge of the daily functions of government. Beneath him, according to Ibn Faḍlān (preserved in Yāqūt. Mu‘jam, II, p. 438) were the k. nd. r (perhaps kündü. cf. Hung, kende) and Jāwšîγr (čavuš??). The investiture of the Qaγan, replete with shamanic ceremonies and ritual strangulation of the Qaγan (al- Iṣṭaxrī, p. 224) exactly mirrored that of the A-shih-na -ruled Türks (Liu, I. p. 8). The ruler had at his disposal a salaried comitatus, the Ors (< Aors, al-urusīya in the Muslim sources, see Lewicki, “Un peuple”, pp. 3133), a Muslim Iranian grouping from Khwārazmian territory. In the 10th century, the chief minister of the Qaγan was from this ethnic group (although by that time all Muslims in Khazaria were apparently known by this name). The royal comitatus also had within its ranks recruits from the sons of the wealthy (perhaps clan chiefs, bägs). Troops were also raised based on taxes assessed from the wealthy (probably Muslim merchants, Ibn Rusta, pp. 139-140). Subject peoples were similarly expected to provide troops. We are not well informed regarding the daily workings of Khazar government. Clearly, this was a government with a state apparatus, considerably in advance of the loosely held tribal confederations typical of the Eurasian nomads. The government collected taxes in the form of custom duties on the lucrative international trade that crossed its borders linking Northern Europe with the Islamic world (usually from Khazaria to Khwārazm) and Central Europe with the East. Regular assessments were also taken from the population on food, drink etc. A judiciary system, based on religious affiliation, existed consisting of seven judges, two for the Muslims, two for the Jewish Khazars, two for

154

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

the Christians and one for the pagans (al- Iṣṭaxrī, p. 221; al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūj, I, p. 214). Christianity had been present in Khazar-controlled territories (e. g. the Crimea) for some time. We may presume that it was of the Byzantine Orthodox type, although Eurasian nomadic states were often convenient refuges for heterodoxies of the Mediterranean world. Islam was largely associated with the mercantile, urban population and probably emanated from Khwārazm. The source of Khazar Judaism, which appears to have been of the Rabbinical rather than Qaraite type (Ankori, Karaites, pp. 64-79), is still much debated as is the date of their conversion. Al- Mas‘ūdī (Murūj, I, p. 212) says that the “king of the Khazars converted to Judaism during the caliphate of Hārûn arRašīd” (786-809). This probably marked the culminating phase of a process that had begun after 737. Faced by two great, rival sedentary empires, each defining itself by religion, the defeat of that year and the forced acceptance of Islam by the Qaγan had brought the religious question to the fore. The motives for the choice of Judaism have also been the subject of some scholarly polemics. Politically, Judaism left them subject neither to the Caliph nor Emperor and this may well have been a factor. But, the personal preferences of the qaγans and the impact on them of local Jewish personalities should also not be excluded. Byzantine sources completely ignore Judaism in Khazaria. The Muslim sources state that Judaism was limited to the Khazar ruling elite or to the actual Khazars as such, while the Muslims constituted the largest single grouping in Khazar society. Once again, other evidence is lacking (for an overview of these questions, see Golden, “Khazaria”. pp. I27ff. ). We have evidence that, in addition to variants of the Türk runic script, the Khazars wrote in Hebrew (cf. the letter of king Joseph and the Kievan letter etc. ). Undoubtedly, there were other aspects of Khazar cultural life on which Judaism had some impact. The question of the Khazar capital is equally complex. A number of names of cities appear in our sources: Atıl/İtil, Qazar/Xazarān, Xamlīx, Qutluγ, *Han balıγ, Sarıγšin. These may be the names of different capitals, ordus of the Qaγans, of different parts of the same capital (as seems to be the case in some instances), different names of the same capital or some combination of the above. The same sources report that only the ruling house had dwellings of stone or brick. All others lived in tents. The majority of the urban, mercantile population, largely Iranian and Muslim, resided in the western half, while the Qaγans and the “pure-bred” Khazars (al-xazar al-xullaṣ which may be a garbling of Xwalis, a term associated with Khwārazm, and perhaps referring to the

155

PETER B. GOLDEN

Ors comitatus. see discussion in Dunlop, pp. 91-93, n. 94) resided in the eastern half. Other sources (e. g. al- Mas‘ūdī) report a threefold division of the city. Khazaria’s ethnic complexity was to some extent reflected in the economy as well. The Khazars and kindred tribes were nomads or semi-nomads. The Ḥudūd (p. 161) notes “cows, sheep and innumerable slaves” as its basic exports, all “products” associated with the nomadic economy. Some elements were sedentarizing and taking up agriculture, viniculture or other pursuits, the not uncommon fate of poorer nomads in an imperial society. The presence of a class of native “wealthy”, from whom special military assessments were taken (see above), indicates advancing social differentiation, perhaps a manifestation of which may be seen in the semi-sedentarization of the elite. Khazar involvement in other areas of production is unclear. They seem to have produced isinglass, a product not incompatible with a sedentarizing population along the Volga. Most other goods came to Khazaria as tribute from subject peoples or as transit goods. From the latter the Khazars took a tithe. The Ḥudūd (p. 162) reports that “the well-being and wealth of the king of the Khazars are mostly from the maritime customs.” Khazar power, to some extent, had become dependent on this. When revenue slackened off, Khazaria, subject to the numerous stresses of any polyethnic empire and facing new internal and external challenges, began to weaken. Thus, the vassal Bulγars were not only economic competitors but by adopting Islam in the early 10th century were clearly signalling a bid for independence. The wars with the Pečenegs were a steady drain and the Rus’ posed a new threat.

The Fall of Khazaria The Qabar revolt (probably in the latter half of the 9th century) was the first clear sign of a diminution of their power. The expulsion, in the late 9th century, of their allies, the Hungarians (to whom the Qabars had fled) by the Pečenegs was yet another indication that Khazaria was increasingly unable to control the steppes. This change was not lost on Byzantium which reoriented its policies accordingly. The new outlook is reflected in the De Administrando Imperio of the Emperor Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos (writing in 952) which suggests which forces (e. g. the Alans) are to be employed against the Khazars and focuses much of its attention on the Pečenegs, the new steppe power to be courted. The mortal blow, however, came from the Rus’. The latter

156

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

had been staging a series of raids from the Volga into the Caspian Islamic lands beginning in the early 10th century. The rulers of İtil appear to have acquiesced initially in these raids even though they angered their Muslim subjects. Ca. 960 this attitude changed. The Khazar ruler, Joseph, wrote to Ḥasdai b. Šaprut, a Jewish courtier of the Spanish Umayyads, that he warred with the Rus’ for “If I left them in peace they would destroy the whole world of the Ishmaelite land up to Baγdād” (Kokovcov, pp. 24, 32, 83-84). In all likelihood, then, the one campaign reported by the Rus’ sources (PSRL, I, p. 65) s. a. 965, was part of a longer period of hostilities. The ruler of Kiev, Svjatoslav, allied with elements of the Oγuz (Ibn Miskawaih, II, p. 209), sacked İtil and perhaps Sarkel (Golden, “Oγuz”, pp. 77-80). Thereafter, there are scattered references to Khazar groupings in the Crimea, Rus’ and elsewhere. But, these were only fragments. Typical of nomadic formations, they were subsumed by other nomadic groups and their name “disappears” as a politically important ethnonym. Many “Khazars”, of course, were not Khazars but members of other groups under Khazar domination. They could now resurface under their own names or those of the new ruling tribes. The sedentary population, largely non-Khazar in any event, remained. The Jewish community of Kiev that appears in a few notices in the Rus’ chronicles was undoubtedly of Khazar origin (see Golb, Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Docs. ). The fate of the Qağans of İtil, who according to Ibn al-Aṯīr (Beirut, ed., VIII, p. 565) converted to Islam under Khwārazmian tutelage, is unknown. The fall of the Khazar Empire marked the end of statehood, and the Türk traditions associated with it, for the nomads of Western Eurasia until the coming of the Činggisids. The Hungarians, who maintained some of these traditions, were soon drawn into the orbit of the res publica christiana and “pagan” institutions, such as the dual kingship (gyula-kende relationship) were replaced by a Christian monarchy. The Pečenegs and Cumans never developed a political organization beyond the level of a tribal confederation. Those Oγuz who remained in the steppe (i. e. exclusive of the Seljüks) were similarly lacking in political development. Thus, it is with Khazaria, that the Türk legacy in the Western steppes came to an end.

157

PETER B. GOLDEN

Bibliography Primary Sources Abu’l-Gāzī Bahādur Xān, Šajara-yi Tarākima, see under Kononov Agathias, Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum Libri Quinque, ed. R. Keydell (Berlin, 1967). Anon., Ḥudūd al-‘Ālam, trans. V. F. Minorsky (Gibb Memorial Series, new series, XI, London, 1937. rev. 1970). al-Balāḍurī, Kitāb Futūḥ al-buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1895). al-Bīrunī, al-Āṯār al-bāqiya, ed. C. E. Sachau (Leipzig, 1878, reprint: 1923). Chavannes, Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux, Notes Additionelles, (Paris, 1941). Dasxuranc’i/Kałankatuac’i, Movsês, Patmut’iwn Ałuanic’ašxarhi, ed. M. Emin, (Moskva, 1860, reprint: Tiflis. 1912). Engl. trans.: The History of the Caucasian Albanians, trans. C. Dowsett (London, 1961) EL = Excerpta de Legationibus. ed. C. de Boor (Berlin, 1903), for text of Priskos Gardīzī: V. V. Bartol’d, “Izvlečenie iz sočinenija Gardizi Zajn al-axbār. Priloženie k Otčëtu o poezdke v Srednjuju Aziju s naučnoju cel’ju. 1893-1894” in his Sočinenija (Moskva. 1963-1973), VIII. Martinez, A. P., “Gardīzī’s Two Chapters on the Turks”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, II (1982), pp. 109-217. Golb, N., Pritsak, O., Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca, 1982). Herodotos: Dovatur, A. I. et al., Narodv našej strany v “istorii” Gerodota (Moskva. 1982). Ibn A‘ṯam al-Kūfī, Kitāb al-Futūḥ, ed. M. ‘Abdu’l-Mu’īd Khān (Hyderabad. 1968-1975). Ibn al-Aṯīr, ‘Izz ad-Dīn, Al-Kāmil fī’t-ta’rīx, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden, 18511876, reprint: Beirut, 1965-1966). Ibn Faḍlān, Aḥmad, Risāla, ed. S. Dahhān (Damascus, 1379/1960). Kovalevskij, A. P., Kniga Axmeda Ibn Fadlana o ego putešestvii na Volgu v 921-922 gg. (Xar’kov, 1956). Togan, A. Z. V., „Ibn Faḍlān’s Reisebericht” in the Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XXIV/3 (Leipzig, 1939). Ibn Hawqal, Kitāb al-Masālik wal-mamālik, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1873). Kitāb Ṣūrat al-arḍ, ed. J. H. Kramers (Leiden-Leipzig, 19381939), I-II. Ibn Miskawaih, Tajārub al-Umam/The Eclipse of the ‘Abbāsid Caliphate, ed. H. F. Amedroz, trans. D. S. Margoliouth, I-IV (Oxford, 19201921).

158

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

Ibn Rusta, Kitāb al-A‘lāq an-nafīsa, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1892). Xvol’son, D., Izvestija o xozarax, burtasax, bolgarax, mad’jarax, slavjanax i russax Abu-Ali Axmeda ben Omar ibn Dasta (SPb., 1869). Ibn Xurdāḍbih, Kitāb al-Masālik wa’l-mamālik, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1889). al-Iṣṭaxrī, Kitāb al-Masālik wa’l-mamālik, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1870). John of Nikiu, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, trans. R. H. Charles (London, 1916). Jordanes, Getica, O proisxoždenii i dejanijax getov, ed. trans. E. Č. Skržinskaja (Moskva, 1960). K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili (Tbilisi. 1955, 1957). Kokovcov, P. K., Evrejsko-xazarskaja perepiska v X veke (Leningrad, 1932). Kononov, A. N., Rodoslovnaja turkmen (Moskva-Leningrad, 1958). Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, trans. R. J. H. Jenkins (Dumbarton Oaks, Washington/D. C., 1967). De Thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi (Studi e Testi, 160, Città del Vaticano, 1952). Lewicki, T., Źrodła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny, I-II/2 (Wroclaw Krakow – Warszawa, 1956-1977). Łewond, Patmut’iwn Łewondeay meci vardapeti Hayoc’, ed. I. Ezeanc’ (SPb., 1887). History of Łewond the Eminent Vardapet of the Armenians, trans. Z. Arzoumanian (Philadelphia, 1982). Liu, Mau-tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T’u-küe), (Gottinger Asiatische Forschungen, 10, Wiesbaden, 1958), I-II. Malalas, Io., Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf (Bonn, 1831). al-Mas’ūdī, Kitāb at-Tanbīh wa’l-išrāf, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1894). Murūj aḏ-Ḏahab wal-ma‘ādin al-jawhar, ed. Ch. Pellat (Beirut, 1966-1970). Menander, Menander Protector, The History of Menander the Guardsman, ed. trans. R. C. Blockley (Liverpool, 1985). Nikephoros: Nicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880). Pigulëvskaja, N. V., Sirijskie istočniki po istorii narodov SSSR (MoskvaLeningrad, 1941). Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej (Moskva-SPb. /Leningrad, 1841-1980). Priskos, see EL. Prokopios, History of the Wars, ed. H. B. Dewing (Loeb Classical Library, V, Cambridge. Mass. - London, V, 1928). Ravennatis anonymi Cosmographia, ed. J. Schnetz (Leipzig, 1940).

159

PETER B. GOLDEN

Širakec’i, Ananias, Ašxarhac’oyc’: The Geography of Ananias Sirakec’i (Ašxarhac’oyc’), Introduction, translation, commentary R. M. Hewsen (Wiesbaden, 1992) Skylitzes: Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae ope, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1839). aṭ-Tabarī, Kitāb Axbār ar-rusūl wa’l-mulūk, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 18791901). Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig. 1883). Theophylaktos Simokattes, Historiae, ed. C. de Boor (1887, reprint: Stuttgart, 1972). Xorenac’i, Movsês, History of the Armenians, trans. R. W. Thomson (Cambridge, Mass. - London, 1978). (?) Geographie de Moıse de Corene, ed. trans. A. Soukry (Venise, 1841), see also Širakec’i. al-Ya‘qūbî, Ta’rîx, ed. M. Th. Houtsma (Leiden, 1883). Yāqūt, Mu‘jam al-buldān, ed. F. von Wüstenfeld (Leipzig, 1866-1873). Zacharias Rhetor, Die sogenannte Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor, trans. K. Ahrens, G. Krüger (Leipzig, 1889).

Secondary Literature Angelov, D., Obrazuvane na bŭlgarskata narodnost (Sofia, 1971). Ankori, Z., The Karaites in Byzantium (New York - Jerusalem, 1959). Artamonov, M. I., Istorija xazar (Leningrad, 1962). Beckwith, C., The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia (Princeton, 1987). Beševliev, V., Die Protobulgarische Periode der Bulgarischen Geschichte (Amsterdam, 1980). Bombaci, “On the Ancient Turkish Title (šaδ)” Gururājamañjarika. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Tucci (Napoli. 1974). Clauson, G., An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford, 1972). Czeglédy, K., “Khazar Raids in Transcaucasia in AD 762-764”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, XI (1960). “A korai történelem forrásainak kritikájához”, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia nyelv és irodalomtudományi osztályának közleményei, XV (1960). “Bemerkungen zur Geschichte der Chazaren”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, XIII (1961). Nomád népek vándorlása napkelettől napnyugalig (Budapest, 1969). Cited as NN. “Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor on the Nomads” in L. Ligeti (ed. ), Studia Turcica (Budapest, 1971).

160

NOMADS OF THE WESTERN EURASIAN STEPPES

“Ogurok es Türkök Kazáriában” in A. Bartha et al., Magyar Őstörténeti Tanulmányok (Budapest, 1977). Dąbrowski. K., Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk. T., Tryjarski, E., Hunowie europejscy, Protobułgarzy, Chazarowie, Pieczyngowie (Wrocław Warszawa, 1974). Dunlop. D. M., The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton. 1954). Gadlo, A. V., Étničeskaja istorija Severnogo Kavkaza IX-X vv. (Leningrad, 1979). Golden, P. B., “The Migrations of the Oγuz”, Archivum Ottomanicum, IV (1972). Khazar Studies (Budapest, 1980), I-II. “Imperial Ideology and the Sources of Political Unity Amongst the Pre-Činggisid Nomads of Western Eurasia”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, II (1982). “Khazaria and Judaism”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, III (1983). Gumilëv, L. N., Drevnie Tjurki (Moskva, 1967). Hamilton, J. R., “Toquz Oγuz et On Uyγur”, Journal Asiatique, 250 (1962). Henning, W. B., “A Farewell to the Khaghan of the Aq-Aqatärān”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XIV (1952). Kljaštornyj. S. G., Drevnetjurkskie runičeskie pamjatniki kak istočnik po istorii Srednej Azii (Moskva. 1964). “Terxinskaja nadpis’, Predvaritel’naja publikacija”, Sovetskaja Tjurkologija, (1980). 3 = “The Terkhin Inscription”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, XXXVI (1983). “Tesinskaja stela, predvarital’naja publikacija”, Sovetskaja Tjurkologija, (1983). 6 = “The Tes Inscription of the Uighur Bögü Qaghan”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, XXXIX (1985). Lewicki, T., “Un peuple iranien peu connu: les *Arsīya ou *Orsīya”, HungaroTurcica. Studies in Honour of Julius Németh (Budapest, 1976). Ligeti, L., “A kazár Σάρκελ név jelentéséhez”, Magyar Nyelv, XXXII (1937). (ed. ), A magyarság őstörténete (Budapest, 1943). MNyTK: A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás ellőt es az Árpád-korban (Budapest, 1986). Ludwig, D., Struktur und Gesellschaft des Chazaren-Reiches im Licht der schriftlichen Quellen (Münster. 1982). Maenchen-Helfen, O., “Akatir”, Central Asiatic Journal, XI (1966). The World of the Huns (Berkeley, 1973). Magometov, M. G., Obrazovanie xazarskogo kaganata (Moskva. 1983). Marquart, J., Die Chronologie der alttürkischen Inschriften (Leipzig, 1898). Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge (Leipzig, 1903). “Ein arabischer Reisebericht über die arktischen Länder aus dem 10. Jh.:, Ungarische Jahrbücher, IV (1924).

161

PETER B. GOLDEN

Minorsky, V. F., A History of Sharvān and Darband (Cambridge, 1958). Moravcsik, Gy., “Zur Geschichte der Onoguren”, Ungarische Jahrbücher, X (1930). “Proisxoždenie slova TZITZAKION”, Seminarium Kondakovianum, IV (1931). Byzantinoturcica (Berlin, 2nd ed., 1958). Németh, HMK: Németh, Gy., A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (Budapest, 1930). - “A hunok nyelve”, Gy. Németh, Attila és hunjai (Budapest, 1940). Patkanov, S., “Über das Volk der Sabiren”, Keleti Szemle, I (1900). Pritsak, O., “Stammesnamen und Titulaturen der altaischen Völker”, Uralaltaische Jahrbücher, XXIV (1952). Die bulgarische Fürstenliste (Wiesbaden, 1955). “From the Sabirs to the Hungarians”, Hungaro-Turcica. Studies in Honour of Julius Németh (Budapest, 1976). “The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion to Judaism”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, II (1978). Rásonyi, L., “A honfoglaló magyarsággal kapcsolatos török tulajdonnevekhez”, Magyar Nyelv, XXVII (1932). Róna-Tas, A. .: The Periodization and Sources of Chuvash Linguistic History”. A. Róna-Tas (ed. ). Chuvash Studies (Budapest - Wiesbaden, 1982). “A kazár népnévről”, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, LXXXIV (1982). “Materialien zur alten Religion der Türken”, W. Heissig, H. -J. Klimkeit (eds. ), Syncretismus in den Religionen Zentralasiens (Wiesbaden, 1983). Sinor, D., “Autour d’une migration de peuples au Ve siècle”, Journal Asiatique, 235 (1946-1947). “The Outlines of Hungarian Prehistory”, Journal of World History / Cahiers d’Histoire Mondiale, IV (1958). The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge, 1990). Ševcenko, A. V., “Xarakteristika srednevekovogo naselenija nizov’ja Volgi”, Issledovanija po paleoantropologii i kraniologii SSSR (Sbornik Muzeja Antropologii i Étnografii. XXXVI, Leningrad. 1980). Sevortjan, E. V., Étimologiceskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov (Moskva, 1974, 1978, 1980). Tekin. T., Tuna Bulgarları ve dilleri (Ankara, 1987). Zajączkowski, Ze studiów nad zagadnieniem chazarskim (Kraków, 1947). Zlatarski. V. N., Istorija na bŭlgarskata dŭržava prez srednite vekove (Sofia, 1918-1927. reprint: 1970).

162

PROTO-BULGARIAN σαρακ-τος/-τον

The Graeco-Bulgarian military inscription found in Malamirovo (formerly Xambarli) and dated to the year 813, contains a number of important terms in the Oğuric Turkic language of the Proto-Bulgarians.1 Beševliev, in his edition of the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptional material, classified this monument (No. 47 in his listing) as a “Militärbefehl” He suggests that it was addressed to the brother of the Xan Krum. The latter was, at that time, locked in combat with the Byzantine Empire. This struggle had begun in 755 as a consequence of the aggressive policies of the Byzantine Emperor Konstantinos Kopronymos (741775) and had only recently witnessed the death on the battlefield of the Emperor Nikephoros I (802-811) and the mortal wounding of his son Staurikios I (811). Krum’s brother was to have overall command of the Bulgarian army operating in the south, i. e. directly facing the Byzantines.2 The right wing of this army, according to the inscription, was under the command of the ičürgü boyla Τουκος.3 The left wing was to be under the boyla qavxan ( Ḫazar 36 . Таким образом, этноним *Qazar окажется связанным с Qasar, и сами хазары, соответственно, потомками Тие-лэ/ уйгурской группы. Эта идея не нова; Д. М. Данлоп (о котором см. ниже) уже делал попытку связать K’o-sa и Ho-sa “хазары” китайских источников с имеющими сходное название Ko-sa; он также, в значительной

Gombocz. Die bulgarisch-türkischen Lehnwörter // MSFOu, XXX. Helsinki, 1912, c. 199. Németh // A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása, c. 37, A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása2, c. 94. См. пространное обсуждение этого вопроса в: P. B. Golden. Khazar Studies. Budapest, 1980, I, c. 123-133. 34 О надписях см.: С. Г. Кляшторный. Терхинская надпись. Советская тюркология, 1980, No. 3, с. 82-95; английский вариант: “The Terkhin Inscription” // Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XXXVI, 1982, c. 335-366; K. Czeglédy. A terkhini ujgur rovásírásos felirat török es magyar történeti és nyelvészi vonatkozásai // Magyar Nyelv, LXXVII, 1981, c. 461-462; T. Tekin. Kuzey Moğolistan’daki Yeni bir Uygur Anıtı: Tariat (Terhin) Kitâbesi // Türk Tarih Kurumu Belleten, XLVI, No. 184 (1982), c. 795-838; L. Bazin. Notes de toponymie turque ancienne // Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XXXVI, 1982, c. 57-60; T. Tekin. The Tariat (Terkhin) Inscription // Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XXXVII, 1983, c. 43-86; С. Г. Кляшторный. Тэсинскся стела // Советская тюркология, 1983, № 6, с. 76-90 и его The Tes Inscription of the Uighur Bögü Qagan // Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XXXIX/I, 1985, c. 137-156. 35 L. Bazin. Pour une nouvelle hypothese sur l’origine des Khazar // Materialia Turcica 7/8, 1981-1982, c. 51-71. 36 A. Róna-Tas. A kazár népnévről // Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 84, 1982, c. 349379.

179

PETER B. GOLDEN

мере, рассматривал Ούρογοι Приска (см. ниже) как искажение этнонима Uyğur37. Эти построения также проблематичны. Живущий в Венгрии японский ученый Тору Сенга (Toru Senga) пришел к выводу, что уйгурское Ko-sa/Qazar – это не название племени, а родовое имя вождя племени Сикари (Sikari) подразделения токуз огузов (Toquz Oğuz), и что любые попытки поисков происхождения хазар в уйгурской конфедерации “неубедительны” 38 . Другая сложность состоит в том, что антропоним Qazar существует не только у уйгуров и монголов, но и, в форме *Qasar (Чат касар (Č’at’ Kasar) отмечено Мовсесом Дасхуранци 39 (Movsēs Dasxuranc ̣i) у гуннов Северного Кавказа, которые сами были вассалами хазар. Более того, в позднейшем кыпчакском слово qasar является термином для обозначения определенного вида собак (кинонимы, то есть имена людей, содержащие элемент “пес”, – не редкость у тюрков и монголов), и оно вполне может происходить от корня *qas, который ассоциируется со словами “челюсть, скулы”40. Вопрос, таким образом, остается открытым, мы же вернемся к нашей дискуссии о происхождении хазар. Следует отметить, что, по понятным причинам, венгры весьма интересовались восточными источниками по венгерской/протомадьярской истории. В 1990 г. была опубликована работа, включавшая фрагменты и переводы наиболее важных арабских и персидских авторов по истории венгров эпохи Завоевания Родины41. Михай Кмошко (1876 – 1931), опубликовал в 1920-х гг. ряд важных работ по арабским и персидским источникам о хазарах42. Однако первый том его труда “Мусульманские авторы о

D. M. Dunlop. The History of the Jewish Khazars. Princeton, 1954, c. 34-40. T. Senga. The Toquz Oghuz Problem and the Origin of the Khazars // Journal of Asian History, 24/1, 1990, c. 57-69. 39 Golden. Khazar Studies, I, c. 173-174. 40 См. Sir Gerard Clauson. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford, 1972, c. 666: qasığ; см. также P. B. Golden. The Dogs of the Medieval Qipčaqs // Varia Eurasiatica. Festschrift für Professor András Róna-Tas. Szeged, 1991, c. 52-53. 41 Gy. Pauler, S. Szilágyi (eds.). A magyar honfoglalás kútfői. Budapest, 1900. 42 M. Kmoskó. Die Quellen Istachri’s in sienem Berichte über die Chasaren // Kőrösi Csoma Archivium, I, 1921-1925, c. 141-148; Araber und Chaseren // Kőrösi Csoma Archivium, I, 1921-1925, c. 280-292, 356-368 и его: Gardizi a törökökről // Századok, 61, 1927, c. 149-171. 38

180

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

народах Степи” вышел в свет только недавно43. Кмошко провел также важное исследование о народах Степи в сирийских источниках, которое по сей день остается неопубликованным 44. Обращение хазар в иудаизм привлекло к себе внимание исследователей в трудные годы Второй Мировой войны45. Вопрос о хазарах неизбежно затрагивается в той или иной мере и в современных исследованиях, посвященных происхождению венгров. Например, Дьюла Кришто указал на вклад хазарских институтов власти, таких как, например, дуумвират и сакральный статус царя, в ранне-венгерскую политическую структуру 46 . В своей более поздней, переведенной на английский, работе, он затрагивает эту и другие релевантные темы, представляя свое видение хазарско-венгерских отношений. Кришто считает, что эти отношения начались не ранее 830-х гг.; отнеся восстание кабаров (которых он считает оногуро-булгарами) к 810-м гг., он датирует период тесного венгеро-хазарского союза как относительно короткий отрезок времени между 840 и 860 гг. (в этом утверждении он следует предположению, высказанному Марквартом)47. Итак, вклад венгерских исследователей в хазарские штудии относится в значительной степени к области лингвистики и анализа источников, и сделан он в рамках исследований по смежной дисциплине – венгерской протоистории. Интересно отметить, что ни одной книги, посвященной собственно хазарам, венгерскими учеными до сих пор написано не было.

M. Kmoskó. Mohamedán írók a steppe népeiről. Foldrajzi irodalom, I/1. Budapest, 1997. 44 См. K. Czeglédy. Monographs on Syriac and Muhammadan Sources in the Literary Remains of M. Kmoskó // Acta Orientalia Hungarica, 4, 1954, c. 19-91. [См. M. Kmoskó, Szír írók a steppe népeiről, Budapest, 2004] 45 Zs. Telegdi. A kazárok és a zsidóság // Az Izraelita Magyar Irodalmi Társaság Evkönyve, 62, 1940, c. 247-287. 46 Gy. Kristó. Levedi törzsszövetségetől Szent István allamaig. Budapest, 1980, c. 82. Хазарам посвящена большая часть первой главы книги: Antal Bartha. Hungarian Society in the 9th and 10th Centuries. Budapest, 1975. 47 Gy. Kristó. Hungarian History in the Ninth Century. Trans. Gy. Novak, rev. E. Kelly. Szegad, 1996, особенно глава XI; J. Marquart. Osteuropäische und Ostasiatische Streifzüge. Leipzig, 1903. Reprint: Hildesheim, 1961, c. 33.

181

PETER B. GOLDEN

Русская историография и хазарский вопрос В то время как венгерская школа была строго нацелена на столь важные для методологии, применяемой ими для реконструкции венгерской протоистории проблемы лингвистики, русские и советские ученые, находившиеся в полном смысле на передней полосе хазарских штудий, были в чистом виде историками, причем особенное внимание уделялось тем восточным источникам, которые были также важны для освещения вопроса о происхождении Руси и окружающих народов России и Советского Союза. Археологический компонент был, естественным образом, существенной составляющей этих исследований, поскольку территории, на которых были основаны эти кочевые объединения и ранние государства, находились в границах Российской Империи и Советского Союза. И действительно, русские и советские ученые имели уникальные преимущества при открытии и разработке этого материала. Одна из самых ранних попыток показать то, что было известно на тот момент о хазарах, была сделана В. В. Григорьевым (1816 – 1881), который посвятил хазарским политическим институтам и истории серию статей, появившихся в 1830-х годах; позднее эти статьи вошли в его книгу «Россия и Азия»48. Вскоре после этого, в 1840 г., появилась монография Д. И. Языкова о хазарской истории49. Сорок восемь лет спустя, П. В. Голубовский, который опубликовал в 1883 г. работу о постхазарских домонгольских кочевниках – соседях Руси, и в чьем распоряжении были переводы наиболее важных восточных источников, рассматривал вопрос о булгарах и хазарах. Однако, как позже заметил Артамонов, он не сказал почти ничего нового50.

В. В. Григорьев. О двойственности верховной власти у хазаров // Журнал Министерства Народного Просвещения, 1834, ч. III, с. 279-295; Обзор политической истории хазаров // Сын отечества и Северный архив, XLVIII, 1835, c. 566-595; О древних походах русских на восток // Журнал Министерства Народного Просвещения, 1845, ч. V, с. 229-287, переиздание в его: Россия и Азия. Санкт-Петербург, 1876. 49 Д. И. Языков. Опыт о истории хазаров // Труды Императорской Российской Академии, ч. I, Санкт-Петербург, 1840. 50 П. В. Голубовский. Болгары и хазары – восточные соседи Руси при Владимире Святом // Киевская Старина, XXII, 1888; М. И. Артамонов. История хазар, с. 20-30. См. также: Sorlin. Le probleme des Khazars, c. 425-426.

182

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

Хазарские штудии неизбежно стали частью более широкой темы исследований, которую можно обозначить как “Русь и Степь”, и которая по сей день является одним из ключевых вопросов русской историографии по Средним Векам. Вклад кочевников в формирование государств, политическую организацию, религию, язык и культуру восточноевропейских народов, в особенности русских и украинцев, был предметом постоянных дискуссий и о нем существует многочисленная сложная литература 51 . Для дочингизидского периода большое внимание уделялось политическим вопросам, то есть вопросу о роли Хазарского каганата и более поздних кочевых политических образований в развитии или разрушении экономики Киевской Руси. Редко кто проявлял интерес к взаимодействиям и заимствованиям в области культуры; в основном это были маргинальные ученые, независимые, то есть не являвшиеся членами научных институтов, и часто имевшие свои собственные политические воззрения. Здесь я имею в виду работы русских еврейских ученых Юлия Давидовича Бруцкуса (1870 – 1951) и Германа Марковича Бараца (1835 – 1922), которые пытались найти еврейские влияния, на культуру Древней Руси, переданные при посредстве хазар, 52 . Несколько нееврейских ученых, таких как Никита Александрович Мещерский (1907 – 1987), также позднее разрабатывали эти темы53. 51

См.: Р. М. Мавродина. Киевская Русь и кочевники (печенеги, торки, половцы). Ленинград, 1983; и ее же: Русь и кочевники B. В. Мавродин и др. изд. Советская историография Киевской Руси. Ленинград, 1973, с. 210-221. 52 См.: Ю. Д. Бруцкус. Письмо хазарского еврея. Берлин, 1924; его же: Истоки русского еврейства. Париж, 1939; и The Khazar Origin of Ancient Kiev // Slavonic and East European Review, May, 1944, c. 108-124; Г. М. Барац. Собрание трудов по вопросу о еврейском элементе в памятниках древнерусской письменности. Париж, 1927; см. также комментарий Данлопа: D. M. Dunlop. H. M. Baratz and his View of Khazar Influence on the Earliest Russian Historical Literature, Juridical and Historical // Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem, 1975, c. 345-367. Артамонов в Истории хазар, с. 32 называет Бруцкуса «дилетантом и фантазером». Бруцкус, который был некоторое время министром по еврейским делам Литвы в период между мировыми войнами, часто упоминается в мемуарах самого известного русскоеврейского историка того времени, С. М. Дубнова: Книга жизни. Воспоминания и размышления. Материалы для истории моего времени. Санкт-Петербург, 1998, с. 164, 210 и далее. Однако о Бараце в этой важной летописи русско-еврейской историографии ничего не сказано. 53 Н. А. Мещерский. Отрывок из книги «Йосиппон» в «Повести временных лет» // Палестинский Сборник, 2 (64-65), 1956, с. 60-67. Эти взгляды нашли более широкое отражение в: A. N. Konrad. Old Russia and Byzantium. The Byzantine

183

PETER B. GOLDEN

Российская наука очень рано ввела в оборот восточные источники, подготовив издания наиболее важных из них и переводы (на латинский, немецкий и русский языки), часто с учеными комментариями. Краткое описание этих компиляций следует порядку, в котором они формировали базу для значительной части последующих исследований. Первой из них было издание Х. Д. Френом (1782 – 1851) в 1823 г. Путешествия Ибн Фадлана54. Важные тексты были опубликованы в 1842 – 1844 гг. Б. А. Дорном (1805 – 1881) в его работе Beiträge zur Geschichte der kaukasischen Länder und Völker aus morgenländischen Quellen (“Введение в историю стран и народов Кавказа по восточным источникам”), четвертая часть которой содержала выдержки из ат– Табари, Хафиза-и-Абру и ибн-А'сама ал-Куфи 55. Несколько лет спустя, азербайджанский ученый Мирза М. Казем-бег опубликовал важную местную, написанную по-тюркски, северокавказскую хронику Дербенд-Наме с английским переводом56. С 1869 по 1880-е гг., обычно с интервалом в несколько лет, и не всегда в духе дружеского состязания, издавали свои сочинения Д. А. Хвольсон (1819 – 1911) – исследование и перевод Ибн Русте (чье имя он ошибочно прочел как Ибн Даста), – и А. Я. Гаркави (1835 – 1919) – сборники исламских источников по Руси и славянам и еврейских источников по хазарам. Оба они участвовали в жарких спорах по поводу еврейских надписей в

and Oriental Origins of Russian Culture // Philologische Beiträge zur Sudost- und Osteuropa-Forschung, I, Wien-Stuttgart, 1972, c. 26. 54 C. M. Fraehn (ed., trans.). Ibn-Foszlan’s und Araber Berichte über die Russen älterer Zeit, Санкт-Петербург, 1823. [Согласно библиографическому словарю Российской национальной библиотеки – Христиан Данилович Френ (17821851). [Прим. перев.] 55 Beiträge zur Geschichte der kaukasischen Länder und Völker aus morgenländischen Quellen. IV Tabary’s Nachrichten über die Chasaren, nebst Auszügen aus Hafis Abru, Ibn Aasem-El-Kufy // Memoires de l’Academie imperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, VI serie, IV, 1840 (Nachrichten появилась в 1842), c. 445-601. См. также его «Известия о хазарах восточного историка Табари». Пер. П. Тяжелов // Журнал Министерства Народного Просвещения, XLIII, No. 7, 8, 1844. [Во многих случаях, автор, говоря о русских ученых, приводит полностью их имена и отчества (Напр. Борис Андреевич Дорн). Выполняя перевод для русскоязычной аудитории, я сочла возможным, поскольку речь идет о людях весьма известных, ограничится инициалами. Прим. перев.] 56 Mizra A. Kazem-Beg. Derbend-Nameh, or the History of Derbend // Memoires de l’Academie Imperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersburg, VI, 1951, c. 435-711.

184

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

Крыму и коллекций караимского ученого А. С. Фирковича (1787 – 1874), фигуры весьма неоднозначной57. Кульминационным пунктом этого этапа хазарских штудий была публикация и перевод П. К. Коковцовым (1861 – 1942), ленинградским семитологом и учеником Хвольсона в 1932 г. знаменитой еврейско-хазарской переписки, а также релевантных отрывков из некоторых других еврейских источников. Эта требовавшая огромной эрудиции работа была призвана обеспечить текстологическую и историческую базу для решения проблемы подлинности переписки. Сдержано и осторожно, Коковцов, однако, склоняется к тому, чтобы считать переписку Хасдая Ибн Шапрута с царем Иосифом подлинной, хотя эти тексты, несомненно, и пострадали от времени и возможных более поздних искажений. Он, однако, выразил значительно меньше оптимизма в вопросе о том, относился ли к этому же времени, то есть к X в., уже изданный к тому времени С. Шехтером кембриджский текст58. Коковцов, скорее, усматривал в нем разнообразные параллели с Книгой Иосиппон, и предположил, что источником для части информации, содержащейся в этом документе, могло быть византийское литературное сочинение59. Традиция русской школы уделять особое внимание изданию, переводу и развернутому комментированию ключевых текстов, была продолжена и в работах ученых, эмигрировавших после крушения Российской Империи, например, в переводе В. Ф. Минорским (1877 – 1966) Худуд аль-Алам, обнаруженной в 1882 г. русским иследователем А. Г. Туманским; перевод сопровожден 57

Д. А Хвольсон. Известия о хазарах, буртасах, болгарах, мадьярах, славянах и руссах Абу-Али Ахмеда бен Омар ибн Даста. Санкт-Петербург, 1869. Сборник еврейских надписей. Санкт-Петербург, 1884; А. Я. Гаркави. Сказания мусульманских писателей о славянах и русских. Санкт-Петербург, 1870. Сказания еврейских писателей о хазарах и хазарском царстве. СанктПетербург, 1874. Altjüdische Denkmäler aus der Krim // Memoires de l’Academie imperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, VII serie, XXIV, 1877 (reprint: Wiesbaden, 1969). О Фирковиче см.: В. Л. Вихнович. Караим Авраам Фиркович. Еврейские рукописи, история, путешествия. Санкт-Петербург, 1997. Вихнович также дает краткие портреты Хвольсона (с. 131 – 133) и Гаркави (с. 163 – 165), которые также можно найти в: А. А. Вигасин и др. (ред.). История отечественного востоковедения с середины XIX века до 1917 года. Москва, 1977, с. 466-473. 58 S. Schechter. An Unknown Khazar Document // Jewish Quarterly Review, n. s., III, 1912, c. 181-219. 59 П. К. Коковцов. Еврейско-хазарская переписка в X веке. Ленинград, 1932, особенно с. V-XXXVI.

185

PETER B. GOLDEN

подробнейшим комментарием. Полный текст на персидском языке был издан иранским ученым Манучиром Сотудэ (Manučihr Sotūdeh) только в 1962 г.60; первое издание перевода Минорского вышло в 1937 г. Худуд– это анонимная персидская компиляция по географии, датируемая 982 г., которая содержит важные заметки о хазарах и их соседях 61 . В ходе работы над переводом и комментарием к Тарих аль-Баб, местной северо-кавказской хронике, элементы которой сохранились в Джамиʻ ад-Дувал османского историка Mюнеджджим Баши (Müneccimbaşı) (ум. в 1702 г.), Минорский обнаружил до тех пор неизвестную информацию по ономастике хазар и их миграции в 1064 году на Кавказ62. В 1939 г. башкирский эмигрант, историк и политический деятель Ахмед Зеки Валиди Тоган (1890 – 1970) выпустил издание и немецкий перевод мешхедской рукописи Путешествия Ибн Фадлана. Это описание путешествия Ибн Фадлана через Евразию в Волжскую Булгарию содержит уникальную информацию о хазарах и других народах этого района (огузах, русах, булгарах и т. д.). Здесь текст также снабжен обширными, иногда спорными, комментариями и отступлениями, равно как отрывками из тогда еще неизданных источников, таких как Ибн А’сам ал-Куфи63. В том же году вышел русский перевод, снабженный хотя и менее выверенным, но столь же эрудированным комментарием украинского ученого А. П. Ковалевского (1885 – 1969); в 1956 г. появилась более полная версия этой работы64. Эти сборники и издания/переводы имели огромное значение не только для хазарских штудий, но и для исследований по средневековой русской и восточноевропейской истории в целом. Традиция издания таких сборников источников была продолжена 60

Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam min al-Mašriq ilâ al-Maġrib. ed. M. Sutûdeh. Tehran, 1340/1962. V. Minorsky (trans.). Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam. The Regions of the World. A Persian Geography // E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series, n. s. XI, London, 1937; 2nd rev. ed., London, 1970. 62 V. F. Minorsky. A History of Sharvan and Darband. London, 1958. Слегка исправленная версия вышла по-русски: История Ширвана и Дербенда X – XI веков. Москва, 1963. О Минорском, который был учеником Крымского, см. ниже. См.: Вигасин и др. (ред.). История, с. 214. 63 A. Z. V. Togan. Ibn Fadlan’s Reiserbericht // Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XXIV/3, Leipzig, 1939. 64 А. П. Ковалевский. Путешествие Ибн Фадлана на Волгу. Москва–Ленинград, 1939. Книга Ахмеда ибн Фадлана о его путешествии на Волгу в 921-922 гг. Харьков, 1956. 61

186

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

польским ученым Тадеушем Левицким в его корпусе арабских источников по истории славян65, который содержит весьма много информации о хазарах и снабжен очень тщательным и эрудированным комментарием. Б. Н. Заходер (1898 – 1960) проделал очень полезное исследование корпуса мусульманских источников, так называемого “Каспийского свода”; он приводит переводы некоторых важнейших текстов, помещая их в широкий историографический контекст66. Заходер попытался проследить в этой подборке мусульманских авторов, писавших о Восточной Европе, источники некоторых часто повторяемых и иногда искаженных утверждений. Третья глава первого тома является самостоятельной 112-страничной монографией по хазарам, в которой, на основании, в основном, арабо-персидских источников, исследуются вопросы о происхождении хазар, религиях, распространенных в Хазарии, развитии урбанизации и политической структуры государства. В работе умело используются более ранние исследования, а также предлагаются некоторые новые перспективы. Возвращаясь к вопросам русской и советской историографии, мы можем отметить, что европейские историки XIX в., в целом, склонялись к весьма негативному взгляду на кочевников и их политическое и культурное влияние 67 . С. М. Соловьев (1820 – 1879) и В. О. Ключевский (1841 – 1911), столпы русской исторической науки XIX и начала XX вв., рассматривали русскую историю как борьбу Леса (то есть славян и, в конечном счете, Европы) против Степи (кочевников и, шире, Азии), где Руси

T. Lewicki. Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny. Wrocław-KrakówWarszawa, 1956, 1969, 1977. В другую его книгу, на этот раз посвященную еврейским источникам, не включено ничего, связанного с хазарами. См.: F. Kupfer, T. Lewicki. Źródła hebrajskie do dziejow Słowian i niektorych Innych ludów Środkowej i Wschodniej Europy. Wrocław-Warszawa, 1956. 66 Б. Н. Заходер. Каспийский свод сведений о Восточной Европе. Москва, 1962, 1967. 67 Так, например, А. А. Куник в самом начале русского завоевания Средней Азии, высказывал мнение о том, что кочевники были «низшими формами человечества», изучать которых следует по той же самой причине, по которой «естественные науки наблюдают и скрупулезно изучают низшие несовершенные организмы относительно наиболее развитых». См.: А. А. Куник. Исторические материалы и разыскания, 2: О Торкских Печенегах и Половцах по мадьярским источникам // Ученые Записки Императорской Академии Наук по первому и третьему отделению, 3, 1855, 714.

187

PETER B. GOLDEN

отводилась роль защитников Европы от варваров 68 . Однако, Ключевский в своей “Истории сословий в России” рассматривает Хазарский каганат более позитивно, очевидно отделяя его от тех негосударственных кочевых образований, которые за ним последовали. Он отмечает, что “хазарское иго” – широко обсуждаемый и эмоционально заряженный ярлык – имело положительное влияние на хозяйственное (Ключевский употребляет термин “промышленное”) развитие днепровских славян. Пользуясь “мирными средствами”, “хазары открыли славянам доступ к понтийским и каспийским рынкам”69. Таких же взглядов придерживался Михайло Грушевский (1866 – 1934), основатель современной украинской исторической науки 70 , который также рассматривал Хазарский каганат скорее позитивно, считая его “защитной стеной (забороло) Восточной Европы от азиатских орд”71. Этот взгляд разделял и М. К. Любавский (1860 – 1936)72. Вкратце говоря, хазары обеспечивали защиту, сделавшую для славян возможной колонизацию и торговлю с могущественным экономическим зонам юга Средиземноморского бассейна. Этот взгляд был также типичным для ученых евразийской школы. Ученый и эмигрант Г. В. Вернадский (1887 – 1973) видел, в 30-х годах, в хазарах “защитников торговых путей на Нижней Волге” распространивших к IX в. свою власть вплоть до Киева73. Этот подход нашел своих приверженцев также и в новой, советской науке. Ю. В. Готье (1873 – 1943) в своей, вышедшей в 1925 г., статье “Хазарская культура”, изображал хазар не столько как завоевателей, сколько как объединяющую силу, чья политика терпимости превратила весь регион в Pax Chazarica74.

Оба недавно переизданы: С. М. Соловьев. История России с древнейших времен // Сочинения. I/1-2, Москва, 1988-1996, с. 352, 357, 383, 647 – 648; В. О. Ключевский. Курс русской истории // Сочинения. I, Москва, 1987–1990, с. 282 и далее. 69 См. его Сочинения, VI, с. 252 – 253. 70 М. С. Грушевський. Історія України–Руси. Львів, 1904 – 1922, переиздание Киев, 1992 – 1996, I, c. 203 и далее; II, c. 505 – 506, 530, 533. 71 Грушевський. Історія України–Руси, I, c. 230. 72 М. К. Любавский. Лекции по древней русской истории до конца XVI века. Москва, 1918, с. 43 – 45. 73 Г. В. Вернадский. Опыт истории Евразии. Берлин, 1934, с. 51. 74 Н. Б. Готье. Хазарская культура // Новый Восток, 1925, кн. 8-9, с. 277, 292.

188

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

Этот доброжелательный взгляд на хазар и сегодня разделяют некоторые современные русские и украинские ученые75. Другие, такие как известный украинский медиевист, академик П. П. Толочко, полагали, что Русь была поглощена “постоянной борьбой” с Хазарией 76 . Кочевников, в том числе и хазар, он считает разрушительной силой, которая, в конце концов, “отрицательно повлияла на экономическое развитие сопредельных догосударственных формаций”77. Хотя некоторые ученые и оценивали роль хазар как в значительной мере положительную, в целом кочевники рассматривались как негативный фактор в истории восточных славян; такой подход был типичен для многих ведущих исследователей русской и украинской истории, писавших в XIX и начале XX вв. (таких как Н. И. Костомаров, П. В. Голубовский, Н. Я. Аристов, П. Н. Милюков, Г. В. Плеханов и другие) 78 , и продолжал доминировать в советскую эпоху (ср. работы Б. Д. Грекова, В. Т. Пашуто, В. В. Каргалова)79. В начале 1950-х гг. в дискуссию вмешалась внутренняя политика, что еще более обострило хазарский вопрос в советской науке. Подписанная неким “Ивановым”, краткая статья в газете “Правда” за 1951 г. содержала критику якобы преувеличенно положительной роли, которую, согласно некоторым ученым, например, Артамонову, сыграли хазары в ранней истории Руси. Б. А. Рыбаков, один из главных функционеров советской науки в области средневековой русской истории, написал после этого несколько резко негативных статей о роли хазар в истории Руси, намеренно умалив их и низведя до роли незначительного ханства. Собственно, хазарская тема стала почти табу. В значительной степени, это было связано с политическими событиями в Советском Союзе, со слегка 75

См.: В. Я. Петрухин. Начало этнокультурной истории Руси IX-XI веков. Москва, 1995, с. 87. 76 П. П. Толочко. Киевская Русь. Киев, 1996, с. 39. 77 П. П. Толочко. Древняя Русь. Киев, 1987, с. 159. 78 См. дискуссию в книге Мавродиной, Киевская Русь, с. 17-19, 21-23, 30-31, 34, 36, 38. 79 Б. Д. Греков. Киевская Русь, в его Избранных сочинениях, Москва, 1959, II, с. 373-375; В. Т. Пашуто. Об особенности структуры Древнерусского государства // А. П. Новосельцев, В. Т. Пашуто и др. (ред.). Древнерусское государство и его международное значение. Москва, 1965, с. 98; В. В. Каргалов. Внешнеполитические факторы развития феодальной Руси. Москва, 1967, с. 57.

189

PETER B. GOLDEN

завуалировано антисемитским “делом врачей” и “борьбой с космополитизмом”80. В такой атмосфере и учитывая еврейский компонент в хазарском вопросе, хазарским исследованиям, которые теперь стали почти полностью прерогативой археологов во главе с М. И. Артамоновым, был нанесен, как замечает в своей вышедшей в 1990 г. статье С. А. Плетнёва, “сокрушительный удар”. В сходном духе писал в своей книге, вышедшей в том же году, и покойный А. П. Новосельцев (о котором см. ниже); он в частности заметил, что Данлоп (см. ниже) смог опубликовать свою книгу (1954) раньше книги Артамонова “в значительной мере из-за ситуации, сложившейся в нашей исторической науке в конце 40-х – начале 50-х гг”. К 1958 г. эта атмосфера до некоторой степени изменилась. Артамонов, который в 1958 г. опубликовал статью о Саркеле, уже мог написать, что “Хазария была в то время большим государством, включавшим различные племена, населявшие южную половину европейской части нашей страны”. Плетнёва считала это замечание важным знаком того, что хазарские исследования все же продолжаются 81 . Тем не менее, в своей обсуждаемой ниже книге “История Хазарии”, опубликованной в 1962 г., Артамонов, хотя и критикуя тех, кто отрицал историческое значение хазар, все же считал необходимым сказать, что “выступление в “Правде” сыграло положительную роль: оно обратило внимание историков на бесспорную идеализацию хазар в буржуазной науке и на преувеличение их значения в образовании Русского государства.”; хазарская веротерпимость была, в значительной мере, объявлена “мифом”82. Новосельцев отмечает, что, несмотря на “оттепель”, эта “фундаментальная работа” могла

См. его: К вопросу о роли Хазарского каганата в истории Руси // Советская археология, 18, 1953, с. 128-150. 81 М. И. Артамонов. Саркел – Белая Вежа // Труды Волго-донской археологической экспедиции. I // Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР, № 62, 1958, с. 7; С. А. Плетнёва. Хазарские проблемы в археологии // Советская археология, 1990, № 2, с. 77-78. См. также её недавнюю книгу Очерки хазарской археологии. Москва-Иерусалим, 1999, с. 9. Некоторые другие детали упомянуты Плетнёвой в её воспоминаниях об Артамонове: Вспоминая М. И. Артамонова. // Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии, вып. VI, Симферополь, 1998, особенно с. 26-27. 82 Артамонов. История хазар, с. 37-38.

190

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

быть издана только в Ленинграде издательством Эрмитажа, директором которого тогда был Артамонов83. Эта проблема и ныне ни в коей мере не потеряла своей актуальности, и по-прежнему продолжаются живые дебаты о природе отношений и степени влияния между хазарами и Русью. Новосельцев, соглашаясь с Грушевским и Любавским в том, что хазарское присутствие делало возможной славянскую экспансию, предполагал, что в VII и VIII вв. славяне были “естественными союзниками хазар”84. Л. Н. Гумилёв подошел к проблеме совсем иначе. Он считал, что куманы (половцы), тюркская племенная конфедерация, традиционно считавшаяся до того черной овцой (bête noire) русской истории, были автономной, но интегральной частью Руси, причем два этих политических образования сформировали “единую русо-половецкую систему”, часть общего “полицентрического государства” 85 . В роли злодеев куманов заменили теперь евреи, хазары и другие86. На самом деле, идеи этой антихазарской школы советской эпохи (ассоциирующиеся с именами Рыбакова и Гумилёва) достигли такого накала, что, как отмечал В. Я. Петрухин, Хазария приобрела “черты почти метафизической империи зла, принесшей иго более страшное, чем татарское”87. Так Петрухин отвечал на замечания В. Кожинова, писавшего, что “хазарское иго было, без сомнения, куда страшнее для Руси, чем иго татаро-монгольское, в частности потому, что Русь еще только развивала свою народность, государственность и культуру”. И, однако же, по его мнению, эта борьба только способствовала усилению Руси. Кожинов заявлял, что хазарская проблема оставалась для Руси острой вплоть до правлении Ярослава Мудрого (единолично властвовавшего в 1036 – 1054), то

См. А. П. Новосельцев. Хазарское государство и его роль в истории Восточной Европы и Кавказа. Москва, 1990, с. 54. 84 Новосельцев. Хазарское государство, с. 185, 202, см. с. 45-66 – подробный историографический обзор хазарско-русских отношений. 85 См.: Гумилёв. Поиски, с. 311-312 и его Древняя Русь и Великая степь, Москва, 1989, с. 327. 86 Основной темой глав его книги Древняя Русь и Великая Степь, касающихся домонгольской эры, является слегка завуалированный антисемитизм. Эта и некоторые другие работы приправлены этническими теориями, которые имеют большее отношение к расовой теории в Центральной Европе во время, предшествующее Второй мировой войне, чем к современной науке. 87 Петрухин. Начало этнокультурной истории, с. 83-84.

191

PETER B. GOLDEN

есть уже значительно позднее разрушения русами хазарской столицы и срединных земель на Нижней Волге и на Дону в 965 г.88 Более современное, постсоветское исследование Р. Г. Ланды о месте ислама в истории России, однако же, вновь поднимает вопрос о важной роли Хазарии в том, что в VIII – IX вв. Русь вошла в контакт с Арабским Халифатом, одним из величайших центров мировой культуры. От хазар, полагает автор, Русь переняла важный опыт управления полиэтническим и мультиконфессиональным государством89; дебаты продолжаются.

Современные исследования по хазарам После этих необходимых предварительных замечаний мы можем обратиться к современным исследованиям, касающимся хазарской истории и культуры во всей широте. Мы можем сказать, что, если следовать хронологическому порядку, современное хазароведение, по сути, начинается с появления в 1936 г. исследования М. И. Артамонова по ранней истории хазар90. Это, однако, была лишь разминка перед написанием его основного труда, “Истории хазар”, публикация которого, в связи со Второй мировой войной и сложными политическими обстоятельствами последних лет сталинизма, была отложена, и состоялась только в 1962 г. В этом промежутке между написанием и выходом книги появилось несколько важных работ, с которыми Артамонов был знаком, и чьи данные и выводы он мог использовать. Израильский ученый А. Н. Поляк, известный своими исследованиями о мамлюках и арабском мире, издал в 1942 г. статью об обращении хазар в иудаизм. В переработанном виде она вошла в его монографию по Хазарии, вышедшую в 1942 г., а затем (с дополнениями) переизданную в 1944 и 1951 гг. Эти работы остались в значительной мере неизвестными. Затрагивая самые различные вопросы, Поляк предположил, что хазарское государство просуществовало до XIII в.; он искал корни восточно-

В. Кожинов. Творчество Илариона и историческая реальность его эпохи // Вопросы литературы, No. 12, 1988, с. 140 – 141. Здесь Кожинов следует тезису, выдвинутому С. А. Плетнёвой в Кочевники средневековья, Москва, 1982, с. 17, 120. 89 Р. Г. Ланда. Ислам в истории России. Москва, 1995, с. 32, 33. 90 М. И. Артамонов, Очерки древнейшей истории хазар. Москва, 1936.

192

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

европейских евреев в Хазарии и выдвинул гипотезу о том, что идиш происходит из Крымского готского языка91. Караимско-Польский тюрколог А. Зайончковский издал в 1947 г. свой труд “Исследования хазарской проблемы” (Ze studiów nad zagadnieniem chazarskim), который является реконструкцией части его “Хазарской библиографии” (Bibliografia chazarska), уничтоженной в 1944 г. в Варшаве. Важнейшей чертой этой работы является акцентирование тюркских черт хазар, а также некоторая полемика о хазарских лингвистических фрагментах, которые он рассматривал как кыпчакские по своему характеру. В этом исследовании и, в особенности, в других своих работах, Зайончковский пытался показать, что караимы Восточной Европы, говорящие на кыпчакском тюркском диалекте, были “наследниками” хазар 92 . Эта теория, придуманная не Зайончковским, и до сих пор еще имеет некоторых приверженцев, в основном среди караимских ученых93. Гораздо более важна вышедшая в 1954 г. книга английского ученого Дугласа Мортона Данлопа “История еврейских хазар” (The History of the Jewish Khazars). И через 50 лет после ее публикации книга Данлопа остается одной из фундаментальных работ по хазарам, и может считаться истинным началом современного хазароведения; это скрупулезное и честное исследование. Оно частично построено на материалах, собранных немецким семитологом Паулем Кале (Paul Kahle) и бельгийским византинистом Анри Грегуаром (Henri Grégoire), которые предполагали совместно написать книгу о хазарах; Вторая Мировая война разбила эти надежды, и Кале предложил написать 91

A. N. Poliak. Ḫazariyyah. Toldot mamlaḫa yehudit be-Eropa. Tel-Aviv, 1942, 1944, 1951. Новосельцев в книге Хазарское государство, с. 52-53, кратко описывает книгу Поляка, указывая, в частности, на интересное исследование хазарской экономики и ее роли в мировой торговле, распространения иудаизма, христианства и ислама в Хазарии и поисков ее наследников после 965 г. 92 Ср. его “O kulturze chazarskiej i jej spadkobiercach” Myśl Karaimska, 1946, c. 5-34; Karaims in Poland. Warsaw-Paris-La Haye, 1961, c. 20-23. 93 Ср. различные работы: S. Szyszman. Le roi Bulan et le problème de la conversion des Khazars // Ephémérides Theologicae Lovanienses, 33, 1957. Les Khazars. Problèmes et controversies // Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, 152, 1957, c. 174221; Les Karaïtes d’Europe. Uppsala, 1989. Ş. Kuzgun, Türklerde Yahudilik ve Doğu Avrupa Yahudilerinin Menşei Meselesi Hazar ve Karay Türkleri изд. 2-ое Ankara, 1993; М. Э. Хафуз, Караимы // Народы и культуры. Вып. XIV. Москва, 1993. О перерабатывании караимского самосознания см.: R. Freund. Karaites and Dejudaization // Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Comparative Religion, 30, Stockholm, 1991.

193

PETER B. GOLDEN

эту книгу Данлопу. Данлоп перевел наиболее важные относящиеся к хазарам мусульманские источники, провел подробнейший анализ еврейско-хазарской переписки, и воссоздал стройное течение хазарской истории, в особенности арабо-хазарских войн и отношений с Византией и Русью. Его в особенности интересовало время обращения хазар в иудаизм, и он перевел и проанализировал все мусульманские и еврейские источники по этому вопросу. Данлоп также исследовал причины упадка Хазарского государства, придя к заключению о том, что хазарская экономика была “в высшей степени искусственной” и находилась в сильной “зависимости от политического престижа и военной мощи”, благодаря которым обеспечивался сбор дани и налогов с товаров, следовавших через области, подконтрольные Хазарии. Когда хазарская военная мощь ослабла, “должна была рухнуть и вся экономическая система”. Как и в случае со многими другими “далекими от самообеспечения” кочевыми государствами, эта экономическая ахиллесова пята и то, что Хазарское государство существовало за счет поборов, сделало его “непригодным для долгого процесса формирования стабильной политической и экономической единицы”94. Артамонов считал книгу Данлопа “главным событием хазарской историографии”, поскольку она охватывает все доступные данные, собранные за предыдущие 100 лет исследований, но критиковал ее за то, что она не открывала “новых горизонтов” 95 . В действительности же, Данлоп сказал много нового96, хотя и всегда в спокойном тоне. Данлоп был, вне всякого сомнения, осторожен, и, возможно, это было к лучшему. Было довольно всевозможных умозрительных спекуляций о хазарах, и Данлоп вернул их с небес на землю. Он твердо установил факты, которые можно было подтвердить на основании письменных источников, предложил разумную реконструкцию хазарской политической истории, проанализировал наиболее серьезные из существовавших теорий и гипотез. То есть, была подготовлена солидная база для будущих исследований. Эта книга прошла испытание временем. Кроме этих работ, Артамонов мог опираться также на уже весьма существенную к тому времени традицию хазарских 94

Dunlop. History, c. 233-234. Артамонов. История хазар, с. 34. 96 Более позитивную критику см.: Новосельцев. Государство, с. 53-54. 95

194

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

исследований в России и за рубежом97. И однако же, он лишь мимоходом 98 упомянул работу украинского востоковеда А. Е. Крымского (1871 – 1942), “Введение в историю хазар”, вышедшую в 1941 г. В этой книге, ныне являющейся библиографической редкостью, исследуются также и вопросы, связанные с хазарским языком,. Я ее никогда не видел, и она не упомянута в двух биографиях Крымского, вышедших в 1971 и 1980 гг. Очевидно, она была частью большой двухтомной работы по хазарам, написанной на украинском языке и оставшейся неопубликованной99. Новосельцев отмечает интерес Крымского к хазарскому языку, не цитируя ни одной из его работ 100 . Публикация этого исследования выдающегося ученого или его частей (поскольку в некоторых вопросах оно, вероятно, устарело) все еще может представлять интерес. “История хазар” Артамонова содержала общий обзор истории степей Западной Евразии и, в этом смысле, в некоторой степени наследует традиции евразийцев101. Было очевидно, что правильное понимание хазар возможно только внутри более широкого евразийского контекста, и Артамонов эффективно этим воспользовался. Помимо подробного обращения к письменным источникам, Артамонов, как руководитель археологических экспедиций на Дону и в Дагестане, то есть на территории Хазарского государства, привнес в свою работу много информации по археологии региона, чем, как правило, пренебрегали большинство его предшественников. И, однако же, 97

Мы не можем процитировать здесь всю литературу, но можем отметить, как это сделал Артамонов, исследование И. Берлина Исторические судьбы еврейского народа на территории русского государства (Петроград, 1919), которое Артамонов назвал «серьезной работой», и которое осталось почти не замеченным хазароловедческой литературой. См.: Артамонов. История хазар, с. 32. Берлин проводит интересный анализ хазарской и еврейской топонимики в Восточной Европе. 98 Артамонов. История хазар, с. 34, прим. 151. 99 А. Кримський. Пролегомена до історіі хазарів, звідки вони взялися і яка їх мова. // Мовознавство, Київ 1941. См.: К. И. Хурницкий. Крымский как историк. Киев, 1971, с. 30-31; и его же: Агафангел Ефимович Крымский. Москва, 1980, с. 157-158. [ См. его недавно вышедшую в Хазарский альманах, т. 7 (2008) монографию «Історія хазарів з найдавніших часів до X віку», которую раньше считали утраченной]. 100 Новосельцев. Хазарское государство, с. 50, 64, прим. 31. 101 Можно отметить здесь: George Vernadsky. Ancient Russia. New Haven, 1943; и его же: The Origins of Russia. Oxford, 1959.

195

PETER B. GOLDEN

его “История хазар” гораздо больше ориентирована на истолкование письменных источников, которыми, к сожалению, Артамонов мог пользоваться только в переводах. За советом по истории тюрок он обратился к Л. Н. Гумилеву, ученому, склонному к слишком широким и необоснованным обобщениям, и, как и Артамонов, несведущему в области восточных языков102. Артамонов пришел к заключению о том, что многие тюркские народы Западной Евразии были тюркизированными уграми, – для какового тезиса у нас нет никаких надежных подтверждений. На самом деле, история венгров, самого известного из угорских народов, вступивших в тесный контакт с тюркским миром, показывает, что, несмотря на большое влияние тюркской культуры и языка, их язык остался угорским. Артамонов также предположил связь правящего дома хазар с A-shih-na (Ашина) – правителями Западных тюрок; некоторые исследователи (например, 103 Новосельцев ), подвергали это утверждение критике, другие же (например, Голден 104 ) приняли его более положительно. Артамонов верно понял сложную, полиэтническую структуру Хазарского государства, сочетавшего в себе несколько разных типов экономики. Хазарию он объявил “первым феодальным государством” Восточной Европы. Несмотря на то, что существует много определений феодализма, я не уверен, что хотя бы одно из них подходит к хазарскому государству. Наличия постоянной наемной армии (или, по крайней мере, воспринимаемой как таковая) – al-’rsiyya = Ors, – едва ли достаточно для определения государства как феодального. Это, скорее, напоминает институт comitiatus в государствах Евразии – потенциальный зародыш феодализма. Следуя уже разработанной линии, Артамонов видел позитивную роль хазар в истории Руси в том, что они являлись щитом против вторжений других евразийских кочевников. Войны Хазарии с расширяющимся Халифатом Омейядов способствовали также и выживанию Византии и привели к заключению союза 102

В то время Гумилев работал над своей книгой Древние тюрки, 1967. Новосельцев. Хазарское государство, с. 55. 104 Golden. Khazar Studies, I, c. 59, 219-221. Клановое или племенное название, транскрибируемое китайскими источниками как A-shih-na, недавно было этимологизировано С. Г. Кляшторным как производное от иранского Aššeina «синий» = тюркское Kök. См.: С. Г. Кляшторный, Д. Г. Савинов. Степные империи Евразии. Санкт-Петербург, 1994, с. 13-14 и его же: The Royal Clan of the Turks and the Problem of Early Turkic-Iranian Contacts // Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XLVII/3, 1994, c. 445-447. 103

196

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

между ней и хазарами. Так же, как и Данлоп, он видел в хазарах силу, сдержавшую арабов на пути в Восточную Европу. Начало обращения хазар в иудаизм Артамонов датировал 730-ми гг. В начале IX в., предполагал он, “царь” Овадия захватил власть, заставил правящую верхушку и кагана принять иудаизм в качестве государственной религии, чем предотвратил гражданскую войну и сакрализовал династию каганов, создав хазарское двоецарствие105. Эта гипотеза основана на замечании Константина Багрянородного о том, что кабары присоединились к венгерскому союзу после поражения в гражданской войне в Хазарии, и на указании в письме правителя Йосефа, что один из его предшественников, Овадия, преемник Булана, которому приписывают обращение в иудаизм, “обновил царство и укрепил веру, … построил синагоги и дома учения и собрал мудрецов Израиля”106. Эту теорию продолжила и развила Плетнева107, которая, в свою очередь, повлияла на работы Прицака и других108. И вся эта конструкция зиждется на одних только предположениях и догадках109. Мы не знаем ни когда жил Овадия, ни какие именно реформы он проводил. Константин ничего не сообщает о дате восстания кабаров, – хотя оно, по всей очевидности, и имело место до венгерской миграции в Паннонию. Мы не знаем, были ли кабары иудаизированы или нет. Лишь в случае, если недавние находки в Челарево (Сербия) действительно относятся к кабарам, у нас появляется свидетельство того, что они, возможно, следовали практике иудаизма 110 . Не нужно искать причину происхождения двоецарствия и сакрального статуса правителя власти в каком-то религиозном споре: подобное можно найти по всей Евразии. Более того, как могла сакрализация языческой династии кагана соотноситься с программой еврейских реформ? К сожалению, нам очень мало известно о динамике 105

Артамонов. История хазар, с. 278-280, 324 и далее. Constantine Porphyrogenius. De Administrando Imperio. Ed. Gy. Moravcsik, trans. R. Jenkins. Washington, D. C., 1967, c. 174 – 175; П. К. Коковцев. Переписка. Евр. текст, с. 21-24, 28-31. Перевод с. 75-80, 92-97. 107 С. А. Плетнева. Хазары. Москва, 2-е изд., 1986, с. 62 и далее. 108 Pritsak. The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion // Harvard Ukrainian Studies, II, 1978, c. 278-280. См. также: Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk // K. Dąbrowski, T. NagrodzkaMajchrzyk, E. Tryjarski. Hunowie europejscy, Protobułgarzy, Chazarowie, Pieczyngowie. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków, 1975, c. 400. 109 Критику этого тезиса см.: P. B. Golden. Khazaria and Judaism // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, III, 1983, c. 144 ff. 110 Плетнева. Очерки, с. 216-217. 106

197

PETER B. GOLDEN

внутреннего развития религии и государственности в Хазарии; необходимо знать гораздо больше, прежде чем подобные гипотезы смогут стать установленными фактами. Артамонов завершил свою работу неудачным замечанием. Указав на то положительное, что привнесли хазары, pax chazarica, он заканчивает тем, что принятие иудаизма было “роковым шагом”. Оно отделило власть от народа, заместило кочевание и обработку земли посредничеством в торговле, и привело к “паразитическому обогащению правящей верхушки”, чья власть держалась на копьях их наемной мусульманской охраны”. “Талмудическая образованность не затрагивала массы, оставаясь привилегией немногих. С этого времени роль Хазарского каганата стала резко отрицательной…” Он заканчивает словами: “Все богатство, собранное иудейскими купцами в Итиле, не могло купить сердец заселявших лесостепи славян, степных народов Причерноморья – печенегов, кочевников зауральской равнины – огузов, аланов, живших в горных ущельях Среднего Кавказа, и обитавших по Азовскому побережью булгар”. То есть, согласно Артамонову, Хазарию погубил иудаизм111. Принятие той или иной универсальной, монотеистической религии, – важный аспект истории различных народов Евразии. В некоторых случаях принятие новой веры первоначально вызывало значительное сопротивление изнутри, но нигде оно не приводило к упадку и падению государства. И наоборот, часто было верно обратное. Ни в одном другом случае, в контексте современных исследований по истории народов Евразии112, мы не найдем утверждений о том, что переход от язычества к монотеистической религии стал причиной распада государства. Развитие аналогичных религиозных и интеллектуальных институтов у других тюркских народов, таких как появление класса ученых, функционального эквивалента раввинства (ср., например, исламский институт улемов), не отдаляло правящий класс от народа, не приводило к потере военной мощи и не вызвало социального распада. Непосредственный сосед Хазарии, Волжская Булгария, как раз 111 112

Артамонов. История хазар, с. 457-458. Современные друг другу и враждующие религии, конечно, видели это в другом свете. Зороастрийское сочинение Dēnkart (известное в поздней редакции X века) приписывает упадок Рима христианству, хазар – иудаизму, а уйгуров – манихейству. См.: M. Molé. La légende de Zoroastre selon textes pehlevis. Paris, 1967, c. 236-237.

198

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

является примером обращения (в данном случае в ислам), с установлением всех исламских религиозных и религиозноинтеллектуальных институтов. Волжская Булгария процветала, пока не была поглощена волной завоеваний монгольских чингизидов. Слабость Хазарии была типичной для стареющих кочевых государств, сталкивавшихся с энергичными пришельцами (в данном случае, с печенегами и Русью), и с растущей враждебностью со стороны могущественных оседлых соседних государств, в случае Хазарии – ее бывшего “партнера”, Византии. Возможно, также сыграло свою роль уменьшение доходов, вызванное сменой торговых партнеров или появлением новых. Гипотеза Артамонова не основана на фактах, а ее антисемитский подтекст накладывает прискорбный отпечаток на эту, обладающую многими важными достоинствами, работу. В 1966 г. вышла в свет книга Л. Н. Гумилева “Открытие Хазарии”, местами полная фантазий, и снискавшая любовь массового читателя. Она включала результаты работы археологических полевых экспедиций на Дону, в дельте Волги и на Северном Кавказе. Хотя исследования на Дону и на Северном Кавказе и дали положительные результаты, но относительно хазарской столицы, Итиля, Гумилев пришел к выводу, что она была затоплена в дельте Волги из-за произошедших гидрологических изменений113. В 1967 г. ученица Артамонова, С. А. Плетнёва выпустила свою, в основном основанную на археологических источниках, книгу “От кочевий к городам”, в которой она рассматривала переход кочевников в Понтийско-Каспийских степях от кочевого к полуоседлому или оседлому образу жизни в хазарскую эпоху114. Плетнёва различает три различные формы или стадии кочевого образа жизни: 1) постоянное, почти непрекращающееся кочевье в течение всего года (таборное кочевье); 2) кочевье с постоянным зимним лагерем, при котором население мигрирует от весны до осени; 3) кочевническую систему, при которой часть населения кочует, а другая часть живет на месте оседло. Анализируя салтовомаяцкую культуру, которая ассоциируется с частью Хазарского царства, Плетнёва показывает, что население этой территории прошло все три эти стадии. Она приходит к заключению о том, что арабо-хазарские войны оказали отрицательное влияние на 113 114

См.: Гумилев. Открытие Хазарии // Сочинения, VI. С. А. Плетнёва. От кочевий к городам. Москва,1967.

199

PETER B. GOLDEN

кочевников, побуждая многих из них, кто потерял свои стада, оседать на земле. Мы не располагаем никакими свидетельствами, подтверждающими это утверждение. Происхождение хазарского двоецарствия Плетнёва видела, в то время, в конфедеративной природе Хазарского союза и в вере в божественное происхождение кагана, что привело к табуированию его персоны. Власть “царя” росла медленно, и переход реальной власти к царю, бывшему феодальным правителем, произошел мирно. Третья фаза, которая влекла за собой отход значительной части населения от кочевого образа жизни, привела к феодализации государства. В целом, вопрос о “степном феодализме” остается, в лучшем случае, весьма неясным, и никаких, помимо догадок, аргументов для подтверждения приведенных утверждений, не приводится. Тем не менее, это очень важная работа, вносящая большой вклад в изучение некоторых степных государств Западной Евразии. В частности, она уделяет гораздо больше внимания аланам и понтийским булгарам, бывшим под властью хазар, нежели самим хазарам. В 1976 г. Плетнёва издала краткую научно-популярную работу “Хазары”, которая была переиздана с некоторыми изменениями в 1986 г. В этой работе она продолжила развивать идеи Артамонова об Овадии и об отрицательных последствиях обращения в иудаизм, которое отделило небольшую, по ее мнению, клику иудаизированных хазар, кагана и итильскую аристократию от остального хазарского общества и ослабило и так уже расшатанные основы государства. Последовавшая гражданская война между иудаизированной итильской и нееврейской провинциальной (которая включала в себя христиан и мусульман) аристократией породила “хазарскую фронду”. Плетнёва заключает, что гражданская война сильно ослабила хазарское государство115. Опять же, все эти выводы основаны на догадках и произвольных допущениях. Попытка суммировать и обобщить имеющийся материал по хазарам была предпринята, в значительной мере по следам работ советских ученых, польской исследовательницей Тересой Нагродской-Майхжик в ее небольшой монографии “Хазары”, включенной в большую работу, изданную в 1975 г. и посвященную изучению европейских гуннов, прото-булгар, а 115

Плетнева. Хазары, в особенности с. 62 и след. о гражданской войне в Хазарии. Немецкий перевод 1-го изд.: Die Chasaren. Leipzig, 1978.

200

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

также печенегов. Внутри этой большой работы есть интересные и полезные разделы, посвященные тому немногому, что нам известно о социальной и экономической жизни Хазарии, о здоровье и гигиене, материальной культуре, повседневной жизни, условиях жизни и т. д. Однако, некритически следуя за Артамоновым, автор также видит в иудаизации “глубинную причину падения Хазарского государства”116. Некоторый интерес для хазарской темы представляет совместная работа Я. А. Фёдорова и Г. С. Фёдорова “Ранние тюрки на Северном Кавказе”, вышедшая в 1978 г. 117 Они совершенно правильно относят к хазарским временам развитие тюркского ядра на Северном Кавказе, полагая, что она происходит от племен, которые вливались в этот регион со времен гуннских вторжений. Кроме того, в работе прослеживаются, по крайней мере, частично, корни кумыков (также развившихся из местных кавказских элементов) и карачаево-балкарцев (последние, скорее, ведут свое происхождение от кыпчакизированных алан). Все эти вопросы, однако, ни в коей мере не могут считаться решенными, и тема хазарского наследия среди тюркоговорящих народов Северного Кавказа требует дальнейшего серьезного изучения. В том же 1978 г. появилась статья Омельяна Прицака об обращении хазар в иудаизм118. В ней автор кратко изложил свои взгляды на происхождение хазар, обещая более основательно рассмотреть эту проблему в следующих томах “Происхождения Руси”. Он также предположил происхождение хазарского дома каганов от западно-тюркского правящего клана Ашина (A-shih-na), но выдвинул теорию о том, что они овладели территорией ранних акациров (Akatzir), от имени которых он и производит этноним “хазар”. Будущий “царский”, то есть не-каганский клан, Барч/Вараз/Болчан (Barč/Waraz/Bolčan) – соответствующий династии Ишад/Бег/Йиллиг (Ihšĕd/Beg/Yillig) мусульманских источников, – так же, как и кабары и другие народы, пришли, по его мнению, из Западно-тюркского государства. Он считает, что где-то между 799 и 833 гг. бек (бег) становится реальным 116

Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk. Chazarowie // Dąbrowski et al. Hunowie europejscy, Protobułgarzy, Chazarowie, Pieczyngowie, c. 377 – 477, в особенности. c. 448449. 117 Я. А. Федоров, Г. С. Федоров. Ранние тюрки на Северном Кавказе. Москва, 1978. 118 O. Pritsak. The Khazar Kingdom’s Convertion to Judaism // Harvard Ukrainian Studies, II, 1978, c. 261 – 281.

201

PETER B. GOLDEN

соправителем государства. В тот же самый период бек принимает иудаизм (как это отмечено у ал-Масуди), а затем, в результате кабарского восстания или гражданской войны (вероятно, между 833 и 843 гг. ), каган потерял всю свою реальную власть и каганы были также иудаизированы. Впоследствии, в своих более поздних статьях, Прицак выдвинул теорию о том, что русский каганат происходит от хазарского кагана, который в 830-х гг. “был вынужден эмигрировать” из-за “религиозных противоречий”, то есть из-за попытки Барча/Вараза/Болчана (которых автор теперь именовал иранским торговым кланом) обратить его (кагана) в иудаизм119. По мнению Прицака, важную роль в обращении хазар в иудаизм играла еврейская международная торговая группа раданитов (Rādāniyya). Само же по себе обращение в иудаизм следует рассматривать в более широком контексте обращений “военизированных степных сообществ Евразии” в монотеистические религии Средиземноморского бассейна. Кроме этого последнего пункта, все остальное относится к сфере домыслов. Купцы, вместе со своими предметами торговли приносившие религии, алфавиты и другие элементы культуры, безусловно, играли некоторую роль в продвижении монотеистических религий Средиземноморского бассейна в степи Евразии. Возможно, они играли подобную роль и в этом случае, но у нас нет никаких тому прямых свидетельств. В двух работах А. В. Гадло по этнической истории Северного Кавказа с IV по XIII вв., первая из которых вышла в 1979 г., а вторая – в 1994 г., содержится много информации о хазарах, хотя, строго говоря, эти исследования посвящены более общим темам120. В этих работах есть несколько новых идей относительно различных сторон хазарской истории и исторической географии. Гадло, например, выдвигает теорию о том, что Семендер (который, возможно, надо идентифицировать с Тарки) в действительности был не хазарской столицей, а просто базой для набегов в Закавказье 121. Однако в смысле общего подхода, его работа не особенно отклоняется от общей линии трактовки хазарской 119

O. Pritsak. The Pre-Ashenazic Jews of Eastern Europe in relation to the Khazars, the Rus’ and the Lithuanians // H. Aster, P. J. Potichnyj (ed.). Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in Historical Perspective. 2nd ed. Edmonton, 1990, c. 3-21. 120 А. В. Гадло. Этническая история Северного Кавказа IV-X вв. Ленинград, 1979; Этническая история Северного Кавказа X-XIII вв. Санкт-Петербург,1994. 121 Гадло. Этническая история, с. 152-153.

202

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

истории, заданной Артамоновым, и представляет собой попытку отследить различные этнические процессы, происходившие в этот период на Северном Кавказе. Это – весьма важная тема. Что же касается самого Хазарского государства, автор приходит к выводу, что оно было “лоскутной” империей, послужившей основой для дальнейшего экономического и этнического объединения горных и степных районов. С ростом числа публикаций на хазарские темы, 1980-е гг. стали периодом расцвета хазарских штудий. В 1980 г. Питер Б. Голден опубликовал свои “Хазарские исследования” (Khazar Studies) – переработку его докторской диссертации 1970 г. Эта работа была пересмотрена и значительно дополнена в 1972 г., но публикация была отложена. Мои замечания об этой работе будут краткими и общими, поскольку оценку своей работы я должен предоставить другим. Дав краткое описание хазарской истории и общества, Голден в основном сосредоточился на разбросанных по разным источникам фрагментах хазарского языка. Том, содержащий собственно исследования, сопровождался томом факсимиле, взятых из различных рукописей, в которых встречаются хазарские слова. Из этих данных очевидно следует, что хазары были тюрками и что их титулатура и структура управления были очень близки к параллельным структурам Тюркского каганата, который Голден рассматривал как предшественника Хазарского. Отсутствие текстов на хазарском языке исключает более четкую его идентификацию с какой-либо из тюркских лингвистических подгрупп. В то время как некоторые ученые, как мы уже видели, убеждены в том, что языком хазар был огурский или “гуннский”, Голден пришел к заключению, что, за исключением, возможно, топонима Саркел (*Šarkil), лингвистический материал в значительной мере нейтрален. Анализ еще осложняется тем, что область влияния хазар включала множество тюркских (не говоря уже о других) народов, как огурских, так и говорящих на общетюркском языке. В сущности, источники могут именовать “хазарским” практически любой язык, на котором говорили в этом регионе 122. В 1983 г. Голден опубликовал статью о Хазарии и иудаизме, в которой вкратце рассматривается вопрос о еврейском прозелитизме. В этой статье он указывает эпохи и регионы, в которых иудеи проявляли в этом смысле наибольшую активность, и выдвигает гипотезу о том, что в приграничных зонах, таких как 122

Golden. Khazar Studies, I, c. 112 ff. список хазарских слов.

203

PETER B. GOLDEN

Хазария, евреи могли практиковать и практиковали прозелитизм, не опасаясь жестокого наказания со стороны христианского или мусульманского общества. Автор также критикует теорию Артамонова – Плетневой, которая пыталась представить как установленный факт то, что двоецарствие в Хазарии было следствием иудаизации. Голден продемонстрировал, что институт двоецарствия с сакральным правителем был явлением, известным многим обществам, и не имел ничего общего с принятием любой монотеистической религии 123 . В 1993 г. в статье, посвященной политической власти хазарских правителей, он вновь обратился к этим вопросам и, в частности, к проблеме двоецарствия у хазар124. Между тем, в 1982 г. вышла давно ожидавшаяся совместная работа Нормана Голба и Омельяна Прицака “Хазарско-еврейские документы X века”125, в которой Голб привел новое убедительное доказательство аутентичности еврейско-хазарской переписки. Он пересмотрел и переиздал “Письмо неизвестного хазарского еврея” (т. н. “Письмо Шехтера”) из Каирской генизы, а также опубликовал письмо хазарской еврейской общины Киева, датируемое началом X в., обнаруженное им в 1962 г. в кембриджской коллекции документов Каирской генизы. Голб показал, что эти хазарские евреи были скорее раввинистами, чем караимами, и что они, к тому моменту, уже вполне освоились с новой верой, создав миф о своем “возвращении” к иудаизму. Далее он предположил, что люди, именуемые в документе коэнами, могли быть потомками хазарских шаманов (камов), которые приняли иудаизм, сохранив свой жреческий статус в приемлемой еврейской форме. Этот процесс Голб назвал “метаморфозой жрецов”. Кроме того, в документе содержатся имена людей, подписавшихся под ним; некоторые из этих имен очевидно не еврейские, откуда вытекает вероятность того, что их носители были прозелитами. Помимо этого, документ содержит надпись, сделанную одним из широко распространенных по всей Евразии рунических тюркских шрифтов. Для хазарских исследований, это 123

P. B. Golden. Khazaria and Judaism // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, III, 1983, c. 127-156. 124 П. В. Голден. Государство и государственность у хазар: власть хазарских каганов // Н. А. Иванов (ред.). Феномен восточного деспотизма. Структура управления и власти. Москва, 1993, с. 211-233. 125 N. Golb, O. Pritsak. Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca, 1982. Русский перевод: Хазарско-еврейские документы X века. Пер. В. Л. Вихнович. Москва-Иерусалим, 1997-5757, с кратким комм. В. Я. Петрухина.

204

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

было событием экстраординарным. Прицак предпринял дешифровку этого уникального лингвистического материала (рунической надписи и имен несемитского происхождения) и пришел к заключению, что хазары говорили на огурском языке. Прицак же выдвинул теорию о том, что топоним Киев следует возвести к имени хазарского хорезмийского клана визирей Куйа (Kūya), и предложил новую хронологию развития Руси. Незачем и говорить, что эта столь богатая новыми и часто провокативными идеями и гипотезами работа вызвала разнообразнейшие критические отзывы126. Было подвергнуто критике утверждение о тюркском происхождении нееврейских имен 127 , а прочтение рунической надписи объявлено “произвольным”128. И несмотря на критику, работа остается важнейшей в своей области. В том же году вышла докторская диссертация Дитера Людвига, посвященная социальной и экономической структуре Хазарского государства 129 ; это тщательное исследование доступных письменных источников (на языке оригинала) и всей предшествующей литературы, содержащее много новых интерпретаций или уточнений частных вопросов хазарской истории, географии и социальной организации. Людвиг нашел несколько вероятных дополнительных лингвистических единиц для “Хазарского словаря” Голдена и выдвинул новую версию происхождения хазар. Он пришел к заключению о том, что первое заслуживающее доверия свидетельство о хазарах локализует их в районе Хорасана (то есть в восточных землях Ирана), и предположил, что они были частью эфталитского кочевого союза (“белых гуннов”) 130 . По каким-то “неизвестным причинам” на рубеже V и VI вв. они мигрировали в “предгорья Кавказа”, где встретили уже давно обосновавшееся там алано-булгарское население. Приблизительно в то же самое время, или чуть ранее, в 126

См. обзорную статью: P. B. Golden. A New Discovery: Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century // Harvard Ukrainian Studies, VIII/3-4, 1984, c. 474-486. 127 А. Н. Торпусман. Антропонимия и этнические контакты народов Восточной Европы в средние века // М. Членов (ред.). Имя – этнос – история. Москва, 1989, с. 48-53. 128 См.: И. Л. Кызласов. Рунические письменности евразийских степей. Москва, 1994, с. 34. 129 Dieter Ludwig. Struktur und Gesellschaft des Chazaren-Reiches im Licht der schriftlichen Quellen. Münster, 1982. 130 Ibid., c. 355-361.

205

PETER B. GOLDEN

этот регион пришли сабиры, которые были, вероятно, присоединены к Хазарскому союзу. Сначала доминирующим элементом были сабиры, но позже лидерство перешло к хазарам в результате некого “кризиса” неясного свойства. Распад государства эфталитов, скорее всего (“с осторожностью”), датируемый временем до 567 г., привел к еще одной миграции булгар и хазар на запад, причем последние появляются теперь в Северном Дагестане. В то время как многие хазары пошли дальше на запад, значительная их часть осталась теперь под властью западных тюрков. Именно эти тюрки/хазары заключили около 626 г. союз с Ираклием и воевали против Ирана131. Многие (если не все) из этих предположений, однако, проблематичны и, весьма вероятно, анахроничны. Безусловно, на восточной и северной границах Сасанидского Ирана были некие тюрки-кочевники. Некоторые из них, несомненно, были отброшены на запад военными походами Сасанидов и бурными событиями, начавшимися в Степи в результате распада сначала государства жуанжуаней, а потом государства эфталитов. Тем не менее, мы не располагаем никакими надежными свидетельствами, которые помогли бы связать хазар с эфталитами. Высокоученая реконструкция Людвига, как и многие другие, остается в высшей степени предположительной. В 1970-х гг. Томас С. Нунан опубликовал ряд глубоких статей по экономической истории Восточной Европы, основанных на данных нумизматики и археологии. Интерес к появлению на Руси диргемов неизбежно привел его к хазарскому вопросу, что и нашло отражение в серии исследований, появившихся в 1980-х гг. и посвященных различным аспектам хазарской экономики. Нунан всегда задавал важные вопросы и давал ответы, отличавшиеся новизной и подталкивавшие к дальнейшим исследованиям. Так, в своей статье 1982 г. после тщательного изучения данных он дает отрицательный ответ на вопрос о существовании у хазар денежной экономики, несмотря на то, что “изначально был склонен полагать, что у хазар была денежная или, по крайней мере, частично денежная экономика”132. В работе, опубликованной в том же году и в том же журнале, Нунан попытался проследить, каким путем сасанидские и византийские товары 500 – 650 гг. н. э. попадали в 131 132

Ibid., c. 24-68. T. S. Noonan. Did the Khazars Possess a Monetary Economy? The Numismatic Evidence // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, II, 1982, c. 219-267.

206

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

район средней Камы. Он пришел к выводу о том, что прямых контактов не было, и что скорее византийские и сасанидские товары в Поволжье привозили народы Степи, в особенности ранние хазары, участвовавшие в войнах Ираклия с Сасанидами в Закавказье. Хазары использовали эти товары для покупки мехов и те попадали дальше на север133. Продолжая эту тему в статье о нумизматических свидетельствах о Хазарии IX в., Нунан, все еще не считавший, что хазары чеканили свою собственную монету, приходит к выводу о том, что основная масса хазарского экспорта происходила из богатых мехами северных стран: из Волжской Булгарии и Руси, и именно туда текли арабские диргемы в IX и X вв. Он замечает, что если большинство монет шло туда, то “историческая нумизматика поднимает некоторые фундаментальные вопросы о хазарской торговле и хазарской экономике в IX в”134 Торговля между хазарами и исламским миром, указывает Нунан в статье 1984 г., началась только после окончания арабохазарских войн. К 800 г., в создавшихся более мирных условиях, мусульманские купцы проложили дорогу в Хазарию, привозя назад меха, рабов и богатства северных лесов; это подтверждается фактом перемещения хазарской столицы в столь важный теперь район Волги. Хазарская экономика “все более зависела от доходов от этой торговли, и хазары начали создавать данническую империю в лесостепи и лесной зоне…” В конце концов, это привлекло и викингов, и так было основано государство Руси135. В другом своем исследовании Нунан продемонстрировал, что русские купцы прибывали в Хазарию уже в 820-х гг.136 Еще в одном исследовании он проследил изменения в притоке диргемов (870 – 900 гг. ) и в торговых путях в годы, когда стали уже заметны признаки упадка Хазарии, а печенеги стали грозной силой 133

T. S. Noonan. Russia, the Near East and the Steppe in the Early Medieval Period: An Examination of the Sasanian and Byzantine Finds from the Kama-Urals Area // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, II, 1982, c. 269-302. 134 T. S. Noonan. What Does Historical Numismatics Suggest About the History of Khazaria in the Ninth Century? // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, III, 1983, c. 265281. 135 T. S. Noonan. Why Dirhams Reached Russia: The Role of Arab-Khazar Relations in the Development of the Earliest Islamic Trade with Eastern Europe // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, IV, 1984, c. 151 – 282. 136 T. S. Noonan. When Did Rus/Rus’ Merchants First Visit Khazaria and Baghdad? // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, VII, 1987-1991, c. 213-219.

207

PETER B. GOLDEN

в Понтийских степях 137 . В своем важном и провокативном исследовании об отношениях между Хазарией и Византией, Нунан доказывает, что попытки Византии использовать религию или торговлю в качестве инструмента политического влияния на степных кочевников были в значительной степени безуспешны. Скорее, с точки зрения Константинополя, наиболее эффективным оказался известный принцип “разделяй и властвуй”. Византийская торговля с Хазарией была, согласно Нунану, “незначительной”. Он полагает, что хазары считали византийцев “ второстепенным народом, иногда периферийного значения”. Несколько известных нам примеров тесного контакта между ними (то есть брачный союз 733 г. или строительство Саркела в 833 г. ) были важны исключительно символически, и – в случае с Саркелом – приносили совершенно незначительную пользу. К X в. отношения стали откровенно враждебными 138 . Анализ нумизматических и письменных источников, предпринятый в 1992 г., показал, что влияние раданитов над северным путем через Хазарию было вероятнее всего в конце VIII – начале IX вв. прервано, “и даже, возможно, замещено” русско-хазарско-исламской осью мировой торговли. К началу X в. происходит, по всей вероятности, изменение караванных путей, и первостепенную роль приобретает торговля между Волжской Булгарией и саманидской Центральной Азией. Теперь Волжская Булгария становится “потенциальным конкурентом хазар”. Нунан считает, что к 940 г. волжские булгары стали независимы от хазар, что может быть связано с их новыми успехами в торговле139. Это, определенно, необходимо принимать во внимание при любом обсуждении вопроса об исламизации волжских булгар и непосредственных причинах падения Хазарского государства. Совсем недавно (в 1997 г. ) Нунан издал важную обобщающую статью, в которой свел воедино весь материал, касающийся хазарской экономики, и проанализировал сферы сельского хозяйства, виноградарства и садоводства, скотоводства, охоты, рыболовства, ремесленного производства, гончарного дела, работ 137

T. S. Noonan. Khazaria as an Intermediary Between Islam and Eastern Europe in the Second Half of the Ninth Century // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, V, 1985, c. 179-204. 138 T. S. Noonan. Byzantium and the Khazars: A Special Relationship? // J. Shepard, S. Franklin (ed.). Byzantine Diplomacy. Aldershot, 1992, c. 109-132. 139 T. S. Noonan. Fluctuations in Islamic Trade Into Eastern Europe During the Viking Age // Harvard Ukrainian Studies, XVI/3-4, 1992, c. 237-259.

208

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

по металлу, ювелирного дела, обработки кож и т. д. Письменные источники, отмечает он, относительно мало сообщают нам о кочевом образе жизни хазар (который, возможно, сохранялся в основном среди элиты), и гораздо больше – о сельском хозяйстве. Интересно отметить, что археологические данные об этом последнем аспекте отнюдь не так многочисленны, как можно было бы ожидать. Тем не менее, Нунан заключает, что при обобщении всех материалов в целом, не остается сомнений в том, что сельское хозяйство, виноградарство и связанные с ними занятия были хорошо развиты в Хазарии. Весьма значителен объем данных по ремеслам; керамической продукцией для ежедневного использования Хазария полностью обеспечивала себя сама; производилось также и оружие. Хазария была главным центром торговли ювелирными изделиями и предметами роскоши, часть из которых ввозились в каганат из других стран, а многое производилось на месте; большая часть поступала из мастерских в Салтове. Нунан считает, что именно сильная, централизованная власть в Хазарии позволяла ей расширяться и присоединять нестепные зоны. Так был заложен фундамент “экономического разнообразия”, обеспечившего Хазарии относительно продолжительное, для степного государства, существование. Нунан отмечает, что остается нерешенным вопрос о том, сложились ли эти развитое сельское хозяйство и ремесло в результате оседания кочевников на землю и перехода к этим видам занятий, или как следствие перемещений населения, что привело обладающие соответствующими навыками народы в такие места как район салтово-маяцкой культуры?140 В 1983 г. проблема происхождения хазар рассматривалась еще в одной диссертации, на этот раз дагестанского археолога М. Г. Магомедова. Основываясь на полевых археологических работах в Дагестане в конце 1960-х гг., которые показали наличие в этом районе интересной смеси кочевых и местных культур, автор предположил, что хазары берут свое начало от смешения пришедших на Северный Кавказ кочевых народов, в частности, от сабиро-огурских групп, и что Хазарское государство сформировалось под эгидой западных тюрок, с которыми они смешивались141. Он также объявил Хазарию “первым феодальным 140

T. S. Noonan. The Khazar Economy // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, IX, 19951997, c. 254-318. 141 М. Г. Магомедов. Образование хазарского каганата. Москва, 1983, с. 176-177.

209

PETER B. GOLDEN

государством Восточной Европы” и отметил, не входя в дальнейшие детали, что оно “оставило глубокий след на страницах мировой истории”. Магомедов критикует Артамонова за недостаточное использование археологического материала для восстановления более полной картины хазарской истории, и атакует Данлопа за “безосновательные попытки продемонстрировать еврейское происхождение хазар” 142 . Это абсурдное обвинение показывает полное непонимание автором того, чему собственно посвящена книга Данлопа. Точно так же и замечания о возвращении неких хазар в Дагестан после падения Хазарского царства основаны на неверном понимании текстов (напр. Плано Карпини)143. Каковы свидетельства того, что хазары не находились постоянно в этом регионе в течение всего этого периода? Более убедительны попытки автора связать хазарский городской центр в Баланджаре с Верхнечиръюртовским городищем на реке Сулак и то, что он вносит необходимые коррективы в волго-центристские теории Гумилева о Хазарии как “степной Атлантиде”. Дагестан также был важной территорией. Работой меньшего масштаба, но отчетливо сфокусированной, была вышедшая в 1985 г. книга В. К. Михеева, которая посвящена исследованию полуоседлого и оседлого аланского, угорского и булгарского население района Дона хазарского периода (VIII – X вв.). Автор дает подробный анализ материала, касающегося сельского хозяйства в этом районе, разновидности аридного земледелия, типичного для полукочевого населения. Михеев приводит доводы в пользу того, что кочевники все больше оседали на землю; государственность у кочевников он рассматривает как результат завоевания земель с оседлым населением, и оседания на землю самих кочевников – политики, которую, по его мнению, активно проводили власти. Этот процесс усилился, когда в сфере хазарского влияния оказался район Дона. Набеги печенегов в конце IX в. вынудили часть оседлого населения переместиться, в поисках относительной безопасности, в лесостепную зону. Оставшиеся вошли в печенежский союз и вновь стали 142 143

Магомедов. Образование, 8. См.: Магомедов. Образование, с. 174, где автор ложно истолковывает сообщения о загадочных брутаксах (буртасы русских летописей, Brutaxi) (которые, возможно, были в Волжском регионе). Единственной вероятной связью последних с хазарами может являться их иудаизм, что не подтверждается другими источниками.

210

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

кочевниками; потеря этих сельскохозяйственных земель способствовала упадку Хазарии144. Михеев привлек внимание к некоторым очень интересным проблемам, которые можно интерпретировать по-разному. Переход к оседлости не всегда окончателен. Бывшие кочевые народы могут возвращаться и часто возвращаются к кочевому образу жизни. Кочевая государственность часто связана с контролем над определенными оседлыми территориями, и чем теснее эта связь, чем сильнее стремление властей посадить на землю иначе трудно управляемое население. Применительно к этой теме есть много не принятого автором во внимание богатого сравнительного материала по другим степным обществам. Тем не менее, перед нами ценное и содержательное исследование. Последняя из главных общих работ по хазарам принадлежит А. П. Новосельцеву (1990 г.)145. Это большой и написанный с учетом тонких нюансов и широким использованием существующей литературы обобщающий труд, основанный на непосредственной работе с источниками, а не с переводами. Эта работа также открывает новые перспективы исследований. После основательного историографического обзора и анализа источников, Новосельцев переходит к еще нерешенным вопросам о происхождении хазар, формировании государственности, границах, экономике, городской жизни, государственной структуре, религии, и только в последней главе он затрагивает вопрос об отношениях хазар с Восточной Европой и Русским государством. Автор считает, что этнические группы, от которых произошли хазары, – это сплав древних иранских элементов, угров и тюрок, среди которых самую важную роль играли сабиры. Он полагает, что сабиры были финно-угорским народом, который подвергся тюркизации и постепенно попал под власть западных тюрок. По его мнению, независимое Хазарское царство существовало уже в первой четверти VII в., еще до распада государства западных тюрок, а хазарский правитель получил титул кагана около 630 – 650 гг.146. Новосельцев склоняется к мнению, что Святослав совершил два похода против Хазарии: первый – в 965 г., во время которого был захвачен Саркел (Белая Вежа), и, вероятно, второй в 968 – 969 гг., в промежутке между дунайскими 144

В. К. Михеев. Подонье в составе хазарского каганата. Харьков, 1985. Новосельцев. Хазарское государство, см. прим. 60. 146 Новосельцев. Хазарское государство, с. 83-91. 145

211

PETER B. GOLDEN

походами. Оба этих похода (во время первого из них к нему присоединились огузы, атаковавшие хазар с востока, тогда как русы атаковали с запада) были направлены, как он считает, на обеспечение безопасности на волжских и дунайских торговых путях. Уцелевшие фрагменты хазарского государства были позже сметены кыпчаками147. По мнению Новосельцева, хазары говорили на некой из разновидностей булгарского языка. Во всей своей работе Новосельцев придерживается умереннокритического тона. Он опровергает часто встречающееся утверждение о том, что хазары “спасли Восточную Европу от ислама”, подчеркивая, что хазары не разбили арабов, а сами были разбиты ими в 737 г., и каган был вынужден принять ислам; следовательно, хазар нельзя сравнивать с франками. Кроме того, пишет он, у арабов не было намерения продвигаться так глубоко за Кавказ148. Новосельцев совершенно прав, когда он утверждает, что хазары были разбиты в 737 г., но торжество омейядов было преходящим. В 737 г. Марвану сопутствовала удача, и арабы не захотели снова испытывать судьбу. Война в Закавказье, в опасных степях, была дорогой и рискованной, и важной составляющей риска была военная мощь хазар. Хазары, действительно, не нанесли решительного удара, но их сопротивление и разорительные набеги во владения омейядов в Закавказье, в сочетании с революцией, совершенной аббасидами в 750 г., привели к появлению новых ориентиров, и положили конец арабскому наступлению в этом регионе. Фактически, хазары сыграли роль, весьма похожую на роль франков. В работе Новосельцева красиво суммировано и подытожено все, что мы можем сказать о хазарской проблеме на основе известных сейчас письменных источников. Авторы ряда современных исследований неизбежно обратились к археологии. В 1989 г. венгерский археолог Чанад Балинт, ранее издавший некоторые археологические дополнения к “Хазарским исследованиям” Голдена 149 , выпустил очень полезный обзор археологического материала из западно-евразийских степей,

147

Новосельцев. Хазарское государство, с. 219-231. Новосельцев. Хазарское государство, с. 187. 149 Cs. Bálint. Some Archaeological Addenda to Golden’s Khazar Studies // Acta Orientalia Hungarica, 35, 1981, c. 397-412. 148

212

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

который может многое рассказать о подконтрольных Хазарии районах150. В 1990 г. С. А. Плетнёва, старейшина хазарской археологии и, на самом деле, археологии всей западно-евразийской степи, издала важную и непредвзятую статью о состоянии археологических исследований Хазарии в бывшем Советском Союзе, на которую мы уже ссылались. В ней она суммировала все трудности и достижения (весьма значительные) ее коллег и учеников, а также результаты ее собственной работы, со времен ранних исследований Артамонова, в частности, результаты обширных исследований салтово-маяцкого культурного комплекса. В работе подытожены и проанализированы все недавние работы на Днепре, Среднем Донце, Нижнем Дону, в Крыму, в районе Каспия-Волги, Азова и в Дагестане. Плетнева говорит о том, что много материала из всех этих районов остается неопубликованным; археологические работы публикуются со значительными задержками, и далеко не всегда издатели встречают их с энтузиазмом. Хотя уже несколько поколений ученых работает над объектами хазарской эпохи, в их работе сказывается научная разобщенность, чрезмерное увлечение вопросами методологии у одних, боязнь принятия новых методик – у других, боязнь обобщающих выводов и тенденция к простым, описательным, а не широко аналитическим работам. Мы можем отметить, что подобной же критике могут быть подвергнуты и другие научные дисциплины, и что эти тенденции характерны не только для России. В обзоре Плетневой есть несколько интересных находок. Среди прочего она отмечает, что, как теперь выясняется, хазары были наиболее кочевой частью населения Хазарии. Они также были богаче других и, весьма вероятно, стояли выше в социальнополитической иерархии. Плетнёва осторожно предполагает, что на месте исчезнувшего Итиля может стоять сейчас какой-нибудь большой современный город (возможно, Волгоград/Царицин). Итиль еще предстоит отыскать. Среди работ самых последних лет мы можем отметить мастерски сделанное Плетневой обобщение материалов по Саркелу, которые показывают, что в годы после завершения его строительства, он был не только крепостью, но стал также важным связующим звеном хазарской торговли: Саркел был частью знаменитого “Шелкового пути”. После того, как в 965 г. Саркел 150

Cs. Bálint. Die Archäologie der Steppe. Wien-Köln, 1989.

213

PETER B. GOLDEN

был завоеван Русью, он постепенно восстановил свою роль торгового города151. В 1999 г. Плетнева издала книгу, которую можно считать ее opus magnum в области хазарских исследований” Очерки по хазарской археологии”152 – это подробный обзор работы русских и советских археологов над хазарскими находками. Много внимания в работе уделено материалам, происходящим из районов, бывших под контролем Хазарии, но только одна глава отведена собственно хазарским территориям (северокавказские – волго-каспийские степи). Во введении, Плетнева предупреждает, что “эта работа не собственно о хазарах и не о культуре, ими созданной”153, и отмечает, что идентификация хазарских объектов все еще проблематична и открыта для обсуждения. В заключении она пишет, что попыталась “представить иногда очень немногочисленные, и потому спорные данные археологии, подтверждающие факт существования Хазарского каганата”. На нынешней стадии возможно лишь исследование культурных особенностей различных этнических групп (в основном, аланов и булгаро-огурских тюрок), входивших в состав Хазарии. Следовательно, основной доминантой исследований остается изучение салтово-маяцкой культуры и ее распространения на землях, подконтрольных хазарам. Однако, разнообразие культур, ассоциирующихся с этими различными объединениями “дает некоторые основания сомневаться в существовании единой государственной культуры, а, следовательно, и в существовании самого государства, под патронажем которого она будто бы развилась”. Здесь Плетнева практически отрицает что хазарская общность может быть названа государством. Но в заключении своей работы она утверждает, что “можно считать доказанным единство повседневного культурного бытования на всей территории каганата как в ранний период, так и в эпоху расцвета”. Предпосылкой этого единства, добавляет она, было политическое единство, достигнутое Хазарским государством. Также доказанной, по ее мнению, является преимущественно оседлая природа населения Хазарского государства, чья экономика держалась главным образом на сельском хозяйстве, хотя в некоторых районах все еще практиковалось сезонное кочевание154. 151

С. А. Плетнева. Саркел и «шёлковый путь». Воронеж, 1996. См. прим. 80. 153 Плетнева. Очерки, с. 3-5, 207. 154 Плетнева. Очерки, с. 207. 152

214

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

Относительно духовной жизни хазар Плетнева отмечает, что погребальные ритуалы на всем пространстве Хазарии демонстрируют “совершенно языческие представления, которые проникли во все хазарское общество, несмотря на этническую принадлежность или место обитания населения, совершавшего обряд, вне зависимости от того, происходило ли это в центральных районах огромной страны или на самых дальних ее окраинах”. “Очерки” Плетневой богаты описательными деталями, которые дают полную картину различных археологических комплексов, но обобщения, которые могли бы непосредственно использоваться историками, появляются только в заключительной части работы. Эта предосторожность вызвана, в значительной мере, тем, что археологические исследования по хазарам продолжаются и сегодня. Многие археологические памятники, включая те, что находятся в центре территории Хазарии, еще целиком не обследованы; и не все отчеты по исследованным памятникам опубликованы 155 . Конечно, очень печально, что это так, ибо в центре хазарских земель, возможно, кроются ответы на некоторые фундаментальные вопросы хазарских исследований. Интересны перспективы работ, проводимых в дельте Нижней Волги, возле деревни Самосделка Астраханской области. Но условия, в которых проводятся исследования, трудны, и, как отмечает Плетнёва, Итиль все еще неуловим156. На самой ранней своей стадии находится и изучение духовной жизни народов Хазарии, о котором мы кратко упоминали выше. В 1995 г. Ричард Масон опубликовал статью, в которой попытался, в основном на основании письменных источников, реконструировать религиозную систему Хазарии 157. Хотя он не особенно продвинулся вперед по сравнению с ранее опубликованными работами, но в них эта тема была представлена бессистемно, по ходу обсуждения других вопросов. Масон же обратился исключительно к этой важной теме, и попытался поместить ее в тюркский, и более широкий евразийский контекст. Во многом следуя за Прицаком, он приводит параллели с индоевропейскими обычаями и верованиями. Далее, он предполагает, что смешение народов в Хазарии внесло свой вклад 155

Плетнева. Очерки, с. 205, 209-210. Плетнева. Очерки, с. 191-194. 157 R. A. E. Mason. The Religious Beliefs of the Khazars // Ukrainian Quarterly, LX/4, Winter, 1995, c. 383-415. 156

215

PETER B. GOLDEN

в “расцвет и материальной, и духовной культуры хазар. Это смешение также стало основой для замечательного симбиоза различных систем религиозных верований и обрядов, который, оформившись, и сделал Хазарское государство столь уникальным…” 158 У нас нет ясного представления о том, действительно ли можно говорить о расцвете “духовной культуры” в Хазарии, однако кажется весьма вероятным существование различных типов религиозного симбиоза и синкретизма. Тем не менее, в этой сфере по-прежнему необходимы новые данные. Новая область исследования была открыта книгой В. Е. Флёровой, специалиста по граффити и другим выцарапанным знакам, рисункам и резьбе на предметах, происходящих из Хазарии и булгарских земель. Эти знаки весьма трудны для анализа: это не алфавитное письмо; некоторые почти определенно являются тамгами разного типа, другие, возможно, имели религиозно-магический смысл. Флерова считает, что по ним можно реконструировать духовный мир салтово-маяцкой культуры159. Основываясь на этом, а также на следах духовной культуры народов Хазарии (описания мужчин, танцующих обнаженными, в масках и с копьями; использование различных талисманов, поклонение дубам, тотемизм и т. д.), Плетнева указывает на доминирующую роль язычества в каганате160. К той же области исследований, что и работа Флеровой, относится исследование И. Л. Кызласова о рунических письменностях евразийских степей. При освещении этого очень сложного материала он уделил некоторое внимание и руническим шрифтам, найденным на территории Хазарии. Ранее мы уже отмечали его взгляды на руническую надпись на Киевском письме. Он также указывает на то, что виды письменности конца VIII – X вв. из районов Дона и Кубани имеют много общего с надписями с южного Енисея и приходит к выводу о возможности вычленения особой донско-кубанско-южноенисейской письменности, отличия которой от орхон-енисейско-таласской письменности слишком велики, чтобы объяснять их орфографическими изменениями при передаче письменности от одной группы к другой 161 . Это, 158

Ibid., c. 387. В. Е. Флёрова. Граффити Хазарии. Москва,1997. 160 Плетнева. Очерки, с. 211-214. 161 Кызласов. Рунические письменности, с. 42, 65-78. 159

216

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

действительно, новая область в хазарских исследованиях. Плетнева, которая затрагивает эту тему в своих “Очерках”, без колебаний идентифицирует донскую письменность с хазарской, а кубанскую – с булгаро-огурской162. Мы можем также отметить здесь одну работу, которая должна быть издана вскоре. Это книга по исторической географии Хазарского каганата С. А. Ромашова, основанная на его кандидатской диссертации 1992 г. 163 Эта работа, с большим запозданием, сводит воедино разрозненные, зачастую противоречивые свидетельства письменных источников (которые автор читал на языке оригинала), касающиеся физических границ Хазарского государства, его регионов и городских центров. Итак, чего мы достигли? Каковы наши знания, основанные на фактах, а не на домыслах и догадках? Многие важные вопросы остаются нерешенными. Первым и главным еще не до конца решенным вопросом является вопрос о происхождении хазар.

Вопрос о происхождении хазар Относительно происхождения хазар было выдвинуто несколько гипотез: 1. Они происходят от ’Ακάτζιροι или ’Ακάτιροι/Acatzri/Agaziri – гуннского народа V в., который упоминают Приск, Иордан и Равеннский Аноним 164 , что, вероятно, является искажением названия *Aq Qazar (здесь имеются значительные филологические проблемы). 2. Они ведут свое начало от племенного союза, сформированного огурами, сабирами и тюрками, правящая группа которых

162

Плетнева. Очерки, с. 218. См. С. А. Ромашов, Историческая география хазарского каганата (V-XIII вв.) // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 11 (2000-2001), c. 219-338; 12 (2002-2003) c. 81221; 13 (2004), c. 185-264; 14 (2005), c. 107-193. См. также автореферат: Историческая география хазарского каганата в период формирования и расцвета (V-IX вв.). Москва, 1992. 164 См.: W. B. Henning. A Farewell to the Khagan of the Aq-Aqataran // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XIV, 1952, c. 501-522; Гадло. Этническая история Северного Кавказа IV-X вв., с. 59-66; Pritsak. The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion // Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 2, 1978, c. 261-263, допускающие также тюркский компонент. По поводу языковых форм названий см.: Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica2, c. 58-59. 163

217

PETER B. GOLDEN

происходит из Западно-Тюркского государства 165 , как чингизиды были правящим элементом в Золотой Орде. 3. Они сабирского происхождения и были тюркизированными уграми166. 4. Они имеют уйгурское происхождение (Qasar)167. 5. Они происходят от эфталитов, мигрировавших на Кавказ (конец V – начало VI вв. ), и создавших там союз с сабирами и другими кочевниками168. Я сам, более всего, склоняюсь к огуро-сабиро-тюркской теории, которая, по моему мнению, наиболее соответствует этническим данным, которыми мы располагаем. Тем не менее, все версии остаются весьма гипотетическими, и у нас слишком мало твердо установленных данных, чтобы полностью их подтвердить. Время первого появления хазар, которое является важным элементом этого вопроса, также остается весьма проблематичным. Как это часто случается в средневековых исторических сочинениях, имена могущественных народов переносились на подчиненные им, или даже на враждебные им формирования, сходные с ними по жизненному укладу и т. д. Так, византийские историки постоянно называют евразийских кочевников “скифами”. Существует некоторое количество источников, которые помещают хазар в район их проживания еще до середины VI в., но они, весьма вероятно, анахроничны. И Данлоп, и Артамонов пришли к заключению, что хазары определенно “вышли на сцену” ко времени правления Хосрова Ануширвана (531 – 579)169. Однако, Цегледи достаточно уверенно утверждал, что “казары и барсилы” пришли в каспийско-понтийские степные районы вместе с другими огурскими народами около 463 г. (Псевдо-Захария Ритор упоминает касиров [Kas(i)r] около 555 г., хотя это также может быть искажением названия акациров, и т. д.170), а потом вместе с огурскими группами и сабирами (которые 165

Németh. A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása, c. 204, A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása2, c. 162-163; Czeglédy. Age of Migrations // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, III, 1983, c. 104-106; Golden. Khazar Studies, I, c. 53. 166 Артамонов. История хазар, с. 43,68, 76, 115, 127, за ним пошли Новосельцев и другие. 167 Dunlop. History, c. 34-40. 168 Ludwig. Struktur und Gesellschaft des Chazaren-Reiches, c. 24 ff. 169 Dunlop. History, c. 20-22; Артамонов. История хазар, сс. 116-117. 170 Marquart, Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge, c. 355-356; Dunlop. History, c. 7.

218

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

пришли около 506 г. ) попали в 567 г. под тюркское верховенство. Затем, по его мнению, распространилась и стала известна тюркская форма их названия – Хазары (Ḫazar)171. Я не столь уверен в верности этой теории. Можно возразить, что до того, как они упоминаются в качестве союзников Ираклия во время его походов в Закавказье против Сасанидов, о хазарах мало что можно сказать. И даже в этом контексте византийские и армянские источники, возможно, используют их название анахронично. Может быть, имя Qazar вошло в употребление во время их отделения от Западно-Тюркской империи где-то между 630 – 650 гг. ? Не было ли оно первоначально описательным или социальным термином, как термин Qazaq, который позже стал этнонимом? Какую роль в развитии хазарской государственности в районе, где отсутствие государственности у кочевников было нормой, играла борьба с Арабским Халифатом? Обнаружение текстов, которые недвусмысленно могли бы быть отнесены к хазарам, помогло бы решить вопрос о происхождении хазар. Как мы уже видели, хазарские слова (имена, титулы и топонимы), разбросанные в наших источниках, в значительной мере нейтральны, и только указывают на их несомненный тюркский характер, но не говорят нам, к какой части тюркского мира они принадлежали. Несколько недавно вышедших статей, касающихся этой темы и в которых содержится анализ некоторых их этих терминов 172, – полезны и важны, но основной вопрос остается открытым. Важной и много обсуждаемой темой является вопрос о влиянии хазар на развитие Руси, в частности, вопрос о Русском Каганате и о происхождении системы наследования на Руси. У нас нет возможности детально обсудить здесь этот важный вопрос, хотя это показательный и, вероятно, очень важный пример вклада Хазарии в политическое развитие Руси173. Прицак, в частности, 171

Czeglédy, Age of Migrations // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, III, 1983, c. 103106. 172 M. Erdal. Ein unbemerkter chasarischer Eigenname // Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları, 1991, c. 31-36; S. G. Klyashtorny. About One Khazar Title in Ibn Fadlan // Manuscripta Orientalia 3/3, Nov., 1997, c. 22-23. 173 На эту тему см.: А. П. Новосельцев. К вопросу об одном из древнейших титулов русского князя // История СССР, No. 4, 1982, с. 150-159 и P. B. Golden. The Question of the Rus’ Qağanate // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, II, 1982, c. 77-97; O. Pritsak. The Origin of Rus’. I, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, c. 26-28, 182, 583, а также Golb and Pritsak. Khazarian Hebrew Documents, c. 64-65.

219

PETER B. GOLDEN

выдвинул теорию о хазарском происхождении многих аспектов политической структуры Руси 174 . Недавно он сделал попытку показать хазарские корни в некоторых элементах системы мер и весов на Руси, придя также к заключению о том, что хазары действительно чеканили свою собственную монету 175 . Но, как всегда, свидетельства слабы и по этим вопросам нет согласия. Вопрос о роли хазар в формировании восточноевропейского еврейства вызывает полемику по каждому своему аспекту. В 1962 г. Бернард Вайнриб довольно легко развенчал “большинство теорий и гипотез, касавшихся происхождения восточноевропейского еврейства, которые есть не более чем фантазии”176. Научно-популярные работы, такие как “Тринадцатое колено” Артура Кестлера, только добавили противоречий. Сало Барон, который ошибочно считал хазар финно-уграми, полагал, что хазары “пустили много корней в неподчиненные им славянские земли, помогая в конечном итоге построить великие центры еврейства в Восточной Европе”, и что “этот замечательный эксперимент по созданию еврейского государства, несомненно, оказал большее влияние на еврейскую историю, чем нам пока кажется” 177 . Спорные работы Пола Векслера об ашкеназских евреях объявляют их народом хазарского и западнославянского происхождения 178 . В области методологии, Векслер открыл несколько новых областей исследования, обратив внимание на элементы народной культуры, однако его выводы отстоят очень далеко от исторических свидетельств. Тем не менее, эти темы должны быть разработаны в дальнейшем. 174

Pritsak. The System of Government under Volodimir the Great // Harvard Ukrainian Studies, XIX, 1995, c. 572-593. 175 O. Pritsak. The Origins of the Old Rus’ Weights and Monetary Systems. Cambridge, Mass., 1998, c. 22-32. 176 B. Weinryb. The Beginnings of East European Jewry in Legend and Historiography // M. Ben-Horin et al. (eds.). Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman. Leiden, 1962, c. 445-502. Новейшая литература и современные научные дискуссии отчасти освещены в: O. Pritsak. The Pre-Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe // Aster, Potichnyj (eds.). Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in Historical Perspective, c. 3-21; L. S. Chekin. The Role of Jews in Early Russian Civilization in the Light of a New Discovery and New Controversies // Russian History/Histoire Russe, 17, No. 4, Winter, 1990, c. 379-394. 177 S. W. Baron. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. New York, 1937-1983, III, c. 204-206. 178 P. Wexler. The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity. Columbus, Ohio, 1993.

220

ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ХАЗАРСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ

Неясным остается и время обращения хазар в иудаизм. В зависимости от того, на какой текст опирается исследователь, даты могут колебаться от 740 до 860 г.179. Хотя меня самого работы Цви Анкори и Нормана Голба убедили в том, что хазары были приверженцами раввинистического иудаизма, но вопрос о караимизме, столь часто приписываемом хазарам, требует дальнейшего изучения. Караимы Восточной Европы являются примером интересного симбиоза еврейского народа и тюркского мира, точнее кумано-кыпчакского населения средневекового Крыма. Мы мало знаем о внутренней жизни хазар, и располагаем только отрывочными намеками на их клановую и племенную систему, классовые отношения, отношения между полами и т. д. До сих пор ведутся споры о соотношении кочевого и оседлого населения внутри Хазарии. Остаются трудности в археологической идентификации различных групп, населявших каганат. При отсутствии письменных материалов мы не можем точно определить один из самых важных факторов идентификации – их язык. Тем не менее, многое уже достигнуто. Части рассыпавшейся мозаики, очевидно, складываются вместе. Что еще остается сделать? Среди самого необходимого – издание полного корпуса текстов, касающихся хазар. Полезным будет переиздание ключевых текстов, например, “Дербенд–Намэ” и других северокавказских хроник, на языках оригинала с переводом180. До сих пор почти не исследованы китайские источники, содержащие разрозненные ссылки на хазар, в частности, в связи с Хорезмом, который имел прямые контакты с Танской империей, а также упоминания о хазарской еде и питье. Очевидно, одной из важнейших задач является публикация данных археологических исследований, наряду с новыми экспедициями на хазарские 179

На эту тему см. одну из новейших работ: C. Zuckerman. On the Date of the Khazars’ Convertion to Judaism and the Chronology of the Rus’ Oleg and Igor // Revue des Études Byzantines, 53, 1995, c. 237-270. 180 Работа А. Р. Шихсаидова является важной важным шагом в этом направлении. См. его Дагестанская историческая хроника ‘Тарих Дагестан’ Мухаммада Рафи (к вопросу об изучении) // Письменные памятники Востока, Москва, 1972; Дагестанские исторические сочинения // Источниковедение и текстология средневекового Ближнего и Среднего Востока. Москва, 1984; и вышедшая недавно: А. Р. Шихсаидов, Т. М. Айтберов, Г. М. -Р. Оразаев. Дагестанские исторические сочинения. Москва, 1993.

221

PETER B. GOLDEN

объекты. С хазарами все еще связано немало загадок; и хотя исследования продолжаются уже более ста лет, но многое еще предстоит сделать. Пepeвод c aнглийского Д. Васютинской и М. Эзера

222

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

This paper gives a brief overview of the question of the language(s) of the Khazar Qağanate (ca. 650 – ca. 965-969), one of the most important Turkic states of the western Eurasian steppe zone. The language is known only through transcriptions of isolated words scattered in a variety of contemporary or near contemporary sources. This study focuses on certain sound changes that appear to be characteristic of one of the principal Turkic languages of the Khazars, a language that shows a closer affinity to the Oğuro-Bulğaric languages rather than Common Turkic. In 1991, Marcel Erdal, who has contributed so much to our knowledge of Old Turkic and whose many accomplishments we honor in this issue, published an important article on the name of a Khazar ghulâm, Îtâkh/Itaq, in the service of the ‘Abbasid caliphs of the first half of the ninth century (Erdal 1991). His work prompted me to review these anthroponyms (Golden 2002-2003, 2004), which l had not included in my earlier Khazar word list (Golden 1980). Erdal’s masterly overview of the current problems in the study of the sparse remnants of the Khazar language given at the First International Colloquium on the Khazars Jerusalem, 1999,1 has now served as the inspiration for this brief essay. Many basic questions regarding the Khazar language (or more likely languages) remain unresolved. Largely, this is due to the lack of texts that can with certainty be identified as Khazar. It may well turn out that some of the runiform 1

In press at the time this article first appeared, see now Marcel Erdal, “The Khazar Language” in P. B. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai and A. Róna-Tas (eds.), The World of the Khazars. New Perspectives. Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium hosted by the Ben Zvi Institute (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007), pp. 75-108.

223

PETER B. GOLDEN

materials found in the Don-Kuban’ regions (see Kljaštornyj 1979, Kljaštornyj & Vasary 1987, Kyzlasov 1994) and other parts of the Western Eurasian steppelands and Eastern Europe will prove to be Khazar and hence will provide the substantial texts we need to resolve some of these questions. We must await their full publication. One of the many problems we encounter is rather basic: one cannot be sure what “Khazar” really denotes beyond its obvious political dimensions. References to the Khazars before the mid-seventh century are probably anachronistic (Golden 1980 I: 50-51, 58-59; Zuckerman 2001: 313-325). The Khazar realm was an offshoot of the Western Türk Empire and very likely ruled by a dynasty of Türk origin. Hence, the gentilics “Turk” and “Khazar” are frequently used interchangeably in the sources. The Khazar Qağans dominated a complex union of Turkic tribal groupings (including, probably, an inner core of Türk tribes that accompanied the dynasty) speaking, one may assume, a number of Turkic languages. Was there an actual “Khazar” tribe or pre-650 AD tribal union bearing this name? Did it form in the Daghistanian-Caspian steppes, the “Berzilia” connection, prior to the sixth century as has been claimed on the basis of ethnogenetic legends recorded by Byzantine and Syriac sources (Pletnëva 1976: 15)? Did it have a pre-“Berzilian” history? Indeed, is “Khazar’ (Qazar) actually a tribal name? Róna-Tas (1982b, 1982c) connects them with the Uyğur Qasar tribe and the same name (or anthroponym?) noted in Uyğur runic inscriptions of the mideighth century, with Khazar/Qazar as its Bulğaric form. Was it originally a political term, denoting, perhaps, a group that broke away from the Western Türk core (cf. the later Qazaqs with which term Qazar might conceivably be related)? The ‘Abbâsid caliphs, when they created their ġulâm army and then settled them in Samarrâ’, gave their Khazar servitors, their own land allotments, next to those they termed “Turks” (a1-Ya‘qûbî 1892: 258-259, 262). As the latter were settled near the Farâġina ‘men of Farghâna’, who were presumably Iranians (Soġdians), but may have included some Turkic elements, these distinctions (Turk, Farghanian, Khazar) were, perhaps, geographical in origin rather than ethno-linguistic – although the latter possibility cannot be excluded. There is no doubt that the ‘Abbâsids ranked the Khazars among the “Turks” (used as a generic) and the sources often interchange the nisbas “at-Turkî” and “al-Xazarî” to describe ġilmân who were Khazars or perhaps came from Khazaria. The classical Muslim geographers, however, did not quite know where to place Khazar linguistically. Although some scholars (e. g.

224

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

Gadžieva & Serebrennikov 1977: 3, following Baskakov 1969: 237, 231, among others) have declared the Khazars, on the basis of the statements of the Islamic geographers, as “ethnically close to the Bulğars” whose language, they aver, “had much in common with Khazar”, the actual reports are far more ambiguous. Al-Iṣṭaxrî, writing in the mid-tenth century (although the first variants of his Kitâb Masâlik al-Mamâlik, part of the geographical school of al-Balxî, 850934, may date to the 930s, see Kračkovskij 1957, IV: 197-198) and probably basing himself on materials from the early part of the tenth century, at the latest (Dunlop 1954: 102-104), if not considerably earlier (Zaxoder I: 49-51) reports two conflicting notices (al-Iṣṭaxrî 1927: 222, 225): “the language of the Khazars is different than the language of the Turks and the Persians, nor does a tongue of (any) group of humanity have anything in common with it” and “the language of the Bulğar is like the language of the Khazars, but the Burṭâṣ have another language”. The Burṭâṣ were located between the right bank of the Middle Volga and the Middle Don, east of the Iranian Alans, south of the Finnic Mordva and southwest of the Volga Bulğars. Their ethnolinguistic affiliations have long been the subject of debate. Finno-Ugric, Iranian (Alano-As) and Turkic connections have been suggested. They may well have been a mixed grouping (see discussion in Romašov 2002-2003: 168-179). Ibn Ḥawqal (1992: 332, 335), who was in the region after 968-9 not long after Khazaria had been overrun by the Rus’ acting in alliance with the Oğuz Turks, see Golden (1980, I: 81-83), and Konovalova (2003:171-90), basically repeats al- Iṣṭaxrî’s remarks: “the language of the Khazars is different than the language of the Turks and the language of the Persians. None of the languages of humankind has anything in common with them”. Al-Mas‘ûdî (1894: 83), writing in the mid-tenth century, lists the Khazars among the “types of the Turks” (ajnâs at-Turk) and adds that “they are called Sabîr in Turkic and Xazar in Persian”. This is most probably a garbled reflection of the importance of Sabir elements, see Golden (1992: 104-106, 236), Byzantine: Σάβιροι etc. [Sabır/Savır/Säbir etc. ?], Armen. Սա վիրք [Savir-k’, pl. ], Khazaro-Hebrew: ‫[סאױר‬Sâvîr], see Golden (1980, I: 256), among the tribes brought into the Khazar union. The Sabırs also constituted one of the tribal conglomerations of Volga Bulğaria, the ‫ ��ا�ر‬Sawâr (sometimes written: ‫��ا�ر‬ ُ [Suwâr]), with changes typical of Bulğar, Sabır > Sawâr (e. g. Common Turkic il-teber ~ Volga Bulğar Yıl-ṭawâr, see Ibn Faḍlân, Togan (1939): Arabic, 1 / Germ. Transl. 1). The Khazar and Volga Bulğar forms of this ethnonym (and shared

225

PETER B. GOLDEN

ethnic component) appear to differ here (but, cf. the Khazar ġulâm, Waṣif b. Ṣawârtakîn [Sawâr Tegin] al-Xazarî, Golden 2002-2003: 25). Al-Birûnî (1923: 41-2), the Khwârazmian polymath (d. ca. 1050), in discussing the (Volga) Bulğars and Sawârs, who lived in the “most remote region of the habitable lands, near the end of the Seventh Clime”, remarks that their language was “compounded (mumtazija) of Turkic and Khazar”. Understandably, al-Muqaddasî (1987: 283, writing ca. 985) termed the Khazar language “very incomprehensible” (šadîd al-inġilâq). We do not know whether one or several languages were denoted under the term Xazar in the sources. We do not know the extent to which an “official” Khazar tongue was used in this polyglot state. AlIṣṭaxrî (1927: 191-2) does mention that “Khazar” was spoken by the populace of Bâb al-Abwâb (Darband) along with other “language(s) of their mountains”. Hence, something that outside observers, however confused, recognized as “Khazar” must have existed, but the picture remains unclear at best. Whether traces of Khazar can be discerned in some of the northern dialects of Azeri Turkic or present day Qıpčaq languages of the North Caucasus (see Gadžieva & Serebrennikov 1977: 6-12) remains an open subject. What we can say with some assurance is that a number of Turkic languages were spoken in Khazaria, one (or more) of which probably had affiliations with Oğuro-Bulğaric. I prefer the term “Oğuro-Bulğaric” rather than “Bulğaric” as the former encompasses speakers of kindred tongues that were not, strictly speaking, “Bulğars”. Róna-Tas (1982a: 119) noted that what he termed “Old Bulgarian” comprised “more dialects, and perhaps even languages” than is apparent to us today. It is important to bear this in mind. Indeed, it is not impossible that other branches of Archaic Turkic (for want of a better term), perhaps quite distinct from “OğuroBulğaric” and “Common Turkic” were present, but have simply disappeared, absorbed by other Turkic groups. One should also take into account that very little of Danubo-Balkan Bulğaric, a contemporary of Khazar, has survived (Pritsak 1955, Tekin 1987; Parzymies 1994). Similarly, the Volga Bulğar inscriptions, our other major, pre-modem source for Oğuro-Bulğaric, date to a considerably later period (the late thirteenth-mid-four-teenth century) and provide rather sparse material (Tekin 1988, Erdal 1993). The reconstruction of the history of Chuvash, the only surviving Oğuro-Bulğaric tongue, is hardly an uncontested field (see Róna-Tas 1982a, Fedotov 1996b, Tenišev 2002: 677ff). It is probable that even if “Khazar” (or one of

226

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

Khazaria’s principal languages) did belong to some branch of OğuroBulğaric, it was sufficiently different that people distinguished between the two. This is very different from the relative uniformity of Common Turkic of which al-Iṣṭaxrî remarks (1927: 9) “as for the Turks, all of them, from the Toquz Oğuz, Qırğız, Kimek, Oğuz, Qarluq, their language is one. They understand one another”. The language which the Islamic geographers called “Khazar”, at best then, may have had some similarities with Bulğar, which was known to the Muslim world through trade and the Islamization of the Volga Bulğars in the early tenth century. Otherwise, Khazar seems to have been rather alien. The remnants of the Khazar language, largely titles, names and a few toponyms, are recognizably Turkic, but complexities of interpretation abound. Thus, even the personal name discussed by Erdal (1991), Îtâx [*Itaq], while showing the -aq/-ak suffix found in many Oğuro-Bulğaric forms (e. g. Common Turk. ay ‘moon, month’ > Oğuro-Bulğ. *ayaq > Chuv. uyǎx, Common Turk. qıl ‘thick hair’ > Oğuro-Bulğ. *qılıq > Chuv. xělěx ‘horse hair’ etc., see Tenišev et al. 2002: 700ff. ), lacks, at least in this anthroponym, the i-/ı- > yi-/yı- shift that one finds in Oğuro-Bulğaric (cf. Common Turk. it/it ‘dog’ ~ Oğuro-Bulğ. *yıtaq > Chuv. yıtǎ) and is apparent in the Khazar title yilig/yélig (see below). We continually encounter a mixed or ambiguous picture. The name of the oft-debated Khazar fortress of Sarkel, built in ca. 840-41 (this dating has recently been demonstrated by Zuckerman 1997), is a case in point. Byzantine sources have Σάρκελ or variants of it. This can be read as Sarkel or Šarkel as Greek has no letter for š. The Khazar Hebrew correspondence (letter of Joseph) has ‫ שרכיל‬which can be read as Šarkîl (more likely given Medieval Hebrew traditions of transcribing foreign terms) or Sarkîl. Two epigraphs on Biblical Codex No. 51 of the Firkovič Collection in St. Petersburg, however, have ‫[ סרקל‬srql] *Sarqil = *Sarqıl (for these forms see Golden 1980, 1: 239-240, Kokovcov 1932, 105-6). In addition, a Western Circassian (Bžedux) tale has preserved the name as Sarqahλ of the Qazahrəә (Khazars, see Colarusso 1992-1993: 63-68). Constantine Porphyrogenitus (1967: 182) writing in the mid-tenth century, but using sources dating back to the building of Sarkel, ca. 840-41 (on this date, see Zuckerman, 1997) tells us that the term means ‘white house’ (ἄσπρον ὁσπίτιον’). Theophanes Continuatus (1838: 122, an anonymous collection of three or four authors covering the period 813961 the last part of which was probably written before 963, Prodolžatel’ Feofana 1992: 217-219) translates this toponym with the

227

PETER B. GOLDEN

more classical λευκὸν οἴκηνα - with the same meaning. This translation is confirmed by the Rus’ name of the town, Bela Veža “White Fort” and the Arabic al-Bayḍâ’ ‘white (town)’, although the latter was used, perhaps, for more than one town or fort in the region. Hence, an OğuroBulğaric *Šarı(ğ) kil ‘white house’ (Modern Chuvash Šurǎ kil “white house”), would appear to be the best match for at least one of the forms that has come down to us. Ligeti posits the Khazar word as šar/šarı ‘white” (Ligeti 1986: 18, 95, 475-457) presumably from an OğuroBulğaric *šarığ. However, its Common Turkic equivalent, sarığ (see Tenišev 1997: 681-682) as well as Hung. sárga (< Oğuro-Bulğaric, see Ligeti 1986: 18, 95) and Class. Mong. šira, Mod. šar, all denote ‘yellow’. The two Biblical Codex epigraphs coming through Firkovié may have been altered (on Firkovič and the much-debated question of his forgeries, see Vixnovič 1997), but what is one to make of the Circassian form? Colarusso (1992-1993:64), a leading specialist on the Nart Sagas and North Caucasian folklore remarks that as “Circassian lore shows very little influence, old or new, from Russian sources” the form with s “is unlikely to come from a European form of the name”. Thus, *Sarıkel is also not impossible. Kil/gil ‘house’ etc. may be an Iranian loanword in Turkic (Old Iran. *gṛda > gil in Southwestern Iranian [e. g. Persian] and *guli/gali in Northwestern Iranian [e. g. Kurdish]), but this too is not without problems (Golden 1980, I: 241242). Fedotov (1996a, I: 291-292) notes Chuvash kil/kel ‘žilišče (dvor), dom, podvor’e’ in a number of oeconyms, but says nothing of a possible Iranian origin. Indeed, he compares it with Evenki gulləә ‘žilišče, izba, xižina, zimnij dom’. Starostin et al. (2003, I: 570-571) does, indeed, derive it from Altaic *gūli ‘dwelling, cottage’ ProtoTung. *gūle ‘hut dwelling-place’, Proto-Turk. *güle ‘house, home, hut’, Proto-Jap. kura ‘shed’. Yakut külä is probably a borrowing from Tungusic. Clauson (2002: 148) notes the probably unrelated Turkic suffix -ğıl/-gil ‘apparently associated with colours’. Among the Modern Turkic languages, only Oğuz and Chuvash seem to know this word. There is no problem with a borrowing of Middle Persian gil etc. into Oğuz (Turkish, Azeri gil/gıl), as the latter had close relations with speakers of Persian. However, in Oğuz it denotes ‘the family of’ i. e. the household kinship unit rather than ‘house’ itself. Its Iranian origins have not really been demonstrated. A possibly better case might be made for Chuvash. Old and Middle Iranian loanwords are certainly present in a variety of languages (Turkic and Finno-Ugric) of the lower and Middle Volga region, the Ural and the Ponto-Caspian zones.

228

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

Southwestern Iranian (Persian) forms could have come from merchants from Iran. The Alano-As peoples (speakers of Northeastern Iranian) are another potential source (cf. Iranian loanwords in Hungarian, Ligeti 1986: 162-174; Harmatta 1997). Nonetheless, the sparse Alanic linguistic data preclude a detailed elaboration of the process. Another Khazar toponym of interest is ��‫[ ��ر‬sârġšn]: Sarığšın or *Sarığčın (Arabic ‫[ �ش‬š] is sometimes used to represent č). The mss. (see forms in Golden 1980 I: 237-238) are unanimous in having initial ‫[ �س‬s] not ‫�ش‬, hence it cannot be *Šarığšin. Sarığšın/Sarığčın appears to be Common Turkic. The suffixes -čın/-šın, -ğčın (Ligeti 1986: 478, Clauson 2002: 149) are used with colors in Turkic and Mongol = “Yellow” or “White City”. The well known title beg ‘clan or tribal chieftain’ is well-attested in Khazar. Clauson (1972: 322-3; Clauson 2002: 15) viewed beg as a borrowing from Chinese 百 bo ‘hundred, head of a hundred men’ (Early Middle Chin. [up to ca. 600] paɨjk/pɛ:jk, see Pulleyblank 1991: 42 = Karlgren 1996: 206, Archaic Chin. [pre-Han, i. e. pre-third century BC] *pǎk, Ancient Chin. [ca. 600] pɒk). This has been connected with Mong. begi and Manchu beile (Sevortjan 1978: 99-100). The former is undoubtedly a borrowing from Turkic beg, the latter perhaps from the Old Turkic title boyla (Cincius 1975 1: 120). Others, however, associate beg with Middle Iran. bag, baġ, baġa < Aryan bhaga ‘god, lord’ etc. (Sevortjan 1978: 100, on Iranian forms, see Rastorgueva & Edel’man 2000-03 2: 48-49). There are three variants of this title associated with the Khazars in the Arabic sources and two names containing it in Arabic and Armenian sources. The earliest attestation is in Łewond (latter part of the eighth century), whose History (Patmut’iwn) covers the period 632-788 (Łewond 1982: 25). He records a Khazar invasion of Armenia, s. a. 730, sent by the Xatun Փա րսբիթ P’arsbit’, the mother of the recently deceased Khazar Qağan (Łewond 1982: 107). In the name P’arsbit’, the final թ [t’]͑ could ͑ be a corruption of ք k’ or perhaps reflect a pronunciation of ť ‘, i. e. Parsbik’/Parsbiť ‘. The name consists of pars/bars ‘tiger, leopard, panther’ (Sevortjan 1978: 68-70; Clauson 1972: 368) + bik’ < beg (on the ms. variants and texts, see Golden 1980 1: 205-06). During this same period, the Islamic sources note a very similar name, in this instance “the son of the Qağan” who leads the Khazar armies against the Arabs: Ibn A‘ṯam al-Kûfî (d. 926) has ��‫ ·��ر‬bârsbîk (Barsbik/Barsbeg) or corruptions of it (for manuscript forms, see Golden, 1980, 1: 158). Bal‘amî (tenth century Persian translator of

229

PETER B. GOLDEN

Ṭabarî’s history, with additions) has: ��‫ ��ر��ك ��ر�� ر�� ر‬Bârxik, Bârḥik, Bârjîk, Bârjank etc. (ms. variants in Golden 1980 1: 157-158, see there for later variants from the Turkish translation of Ṭabarî and the Darbandnâma). Whether the two people bearing this name are actually one and the same, but confused by our sources is also not impossible. In any event, there is clearly a form with the title beg/big/bik’ in it. The Armenian form hints at a change in the pronunciation of Turkic beg. Al-Iṣṭaxrî and Ibn Ḥawqal (using a form that had already become fixed in Muslim sources) note ��[bk] = beg and ‫(·��ك‬bâk, recte: �� [ylk]) = yilig/yélig (see below and Golden 1980 I: 164 for ms. variants). Well before their time, however, this form had changed. Thus, their contemporaries Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Theophanes Continuatus, in connection with Sarkel, note both “the then Qağan and Beg of Khazaria”: ὁ γὰρ χαγάνος ἐκεινος καὶ ὁ πὲχ Χαζαρίας (Constantine Porphyrogenitus 1967: 182, Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 122, Prodolžatel ‘ Feofana 1992: 56 and ms. variants in Golden 1980 I: 163). Clearly, in πὲχ [pex = bex] we have evidence, by 840-41, of a shift beg/bek’ [bik’] > *beg > bex. By the early tenth century, further changes had occurred. Ibn Faḍlân who journeyed to Volga Bulğaria in 921-22 notes that the deputy of the Khazar Qağan bore the title of �� [xâqân bäh] Qağan Beh. Bex had now become beh. The Hungarian historical-etymological dictionary views Hung. bő ‘full, rich’ as probably deriving from the Turkic beg via beğ (MNyTESz 1967-76 1: 356-7, see also Németh 1991: 284). Ligeti (1986), however, omits it from his analysis of the Turkic elements in Hungarian. Its development in Hungarian is usually explained as: beġ > *beü̯ ̯ , böü̯ ̯ > bő. If bő does, indeed, derive from beg, Khazar beh could have been its source. We see a similar development with the Khazar title yilig/yélig [yéllig?] ‘(junior) king, prince’ (cf Turk. éllig, élig ‘having a realm, king, ruler, master’ < él ‘realm’, Clauson 1972: 141-142, Erdal 2004: 51) with the prothetic y- common to Oğuro-Bulğaric (but not unknown in Common Turkic). It is unlikely that �� represents Old Turk. yeläk ‘banner, flag’ also found as a personal name (Tenišev 1997: 565-6) as this probably would have been *ǰeläg. In addition to al-Iṣṭaxrî and Ibn Ḥawqal, as we have seen, this title is found in Yâqût (d. 1229) and in later authors, e. g. Zakariya al-Qazwînî (‘Ajâ’ib al-Buldân wa Axbâr al‘Ibâd, composed ca. 1273, see Qazwînî 1969: 585) and al-Bakûwî (fifteenth century) in forms that are clearly �� [ylk]: yilig/yélig/yeleg (see ms. variants in Golden 1980 I: 184-185 and discussion in Golden

230

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

1975). It also appears as the name of the second son of the Hungarian ruler Árpád (late ninth century), noted by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (1967: 175): ‘Ιέλεχ (Yelex) with the shift -g > -ğ > -x in evidence. The early Hungarian form probably reflects its Khazar source. The Hungarian place-name Üllő (in Pest County) derives from ellig/ilig/ iläg not yelex (Golden 1975; Ligeti 1986: 42, 94). Hung. Jelő, however, is from “Khazar-Qabar” yelex (Ligeti 1986: 486). In the Long Redaction of Joseph’s letter we encounter a country north of the Black Sea (yam Qûsṭandînah) called ‫[ בצרה‬bṣrh] undoubtedly a corruption of ‫( בצנה‬bṣnh, Kokovcov, 1932, 31-2/102, 1l0n. 32) = Bacnah = Bačanah or Bäčänäh. This is the Khazar name for the Pečenegs/Bečenegs with the -q or -k/-g > -ğ > -x >-h and ultimately > -0 shift. In point of fact, we have several distinct forms of this name in our sources. Arabic-script accounts have ‫[ ��ك‬bjnâk] and ‫[ ��ك‬bjânâk]: Bäčänǟk and Bečǟnǟk = Bečenäk/Bečenäg or Pečeneg (e. g. see Ibn Xurdâδbih 1889: 31, Kâšġarî 1982-1985 I: 101-102 followed by Rašîd al-Dîn and Abu’l-Ġâzî, all noting a Pečeneg grouping that had been taken into the Oğuz union after the latter briefly, ca. 1036 - ca. 1050, became the dominant element in the Pontic steppes, see Golden 1992: 207-298, 264). In the Islamic sources we find another variant of this name: �� [bjny] Bačanâ/Bäčänǟ (or Pačana /Pečene) noted by al-Mas‘ûdî in both the Murûj (1966-79 I: 235-236) and his Tanbîh (1894: 180-181) among the four Turkic tribes associated with a town or place called Wulundur (a later form of the ethnonyms Onoğundur): Bečenäk, Baǰġird, Bečenä and Nogurda [‫ ]��د�ة‬and Bečenäk, Bečenä, Baǰġird and Nogurda. Ibn al-Aṯîr (1965-1967 I: 339) has a truncated version of the event and notes Bečenäk, Bečenä “and two others” who had formed a union, s. a. 322/933-934 and attacked Byzantium (Knjaz’kij 2003: 15-16). As I suggested sometime ago (Golden 1975, see Arabic texts there as well), our authors may have been reporting two different traditions, each reflecting the same two groups of peoples, the Pečenegs (the Bečenäk / Bečenä) and the Hungarian tribal union (Baǰġird and Nogurda < *Onogurda, the Nogurda are not the Novgorodians as Knjaz’kij, 2003: 16 and others have claimed). Rašîd al-Dîn (1373/1994 I: 60, cf. also Rašîd al-Dîn 1969: 46) has preserved �� [bîčnah] Bäčänä, one of the sons of Kök Xan of the Uč Oq subdivision of the Oğuz. Abu’l- Ġâzî (1603-1664) the Khivan khan and historian, in his Šaǰara-yi Tarâkima (1958: Turkmen text 31) repeats Rašîd al-Dîn and later adds (1958: 41) that the �� [bǰnh] Bäǰänä/Bäčänä clan of the Türkmen was called İt-

231

PETER B. GOLDEN

Bäǰänä (‘Dog-Bäčänä’) by the Salor clan, their enemies. The forms in Arabic script, as we have seen, can be read as rendering a Turkic *Bečänäk/Pečänäk etc. A similar ambiguity can be seen in the Greek forms Πατζινακῑται, Πατζινάκοι, Πατζανάγοι etc. (Moravcsik 1958 II: 247-248) where π can render p or b producing Bačınaq, Pečenek etc. Forms with initial p are also found in Rus’ (Печенѣгъ), Armenian Պա ծինա կ [Pacinak in Matthew of Edessa], Georgian Pačanikni and Pačaniket’i = ‘Pechenegia’ K’art’lis C’xovreba 1955-1973, I: 45, 156,157]. Latin sources, depending on local tongues, have Pizenaci, Bisseni etc. (see Golden 1992: 264, for these forms). Attempts to connect them with the Beiru 北褥 (Early Middle Chinese pǝk ɲuawk, Late Middle Chinese puǝ̆ k rywk, Pulleyblank 1991: 31, 269, previously read as pǝk ńźi̯ ok), noted by the Suishu (composed 627-36) in its listing of Tiele tribes (a tribal union arcing across Eurasia), “east of Fulin” (Rome, i. e. Constantinople) near the Enqu 恩屈 (Liu 1958 I: 127-128, II: 569 n. 663 = Early Middle Chinese: ʔǝn khut, Late Middle Chinese: ʔǝn khyt = *Ongur, *On[o]gur, Pulleyblank 1991: 87, 266) and Alans (presumably in the Ponto-Caspian steppes), seem unlikely. The Hungarian term confirms a form with initial b-: * Bäčänäğ > Bäšänäğ > Besenyő (Ligeti 1986: 268, Németh 1991: 85, 90, 172) as do Tibetan (Be-ča-nag), Khazar (Bačana/Bäčänä) and some Latin sources. We also appear to have both velar and palatal forms. As this ethnonym is generally viewed as deriving from baǰa(naq) /baǰı-naq ‘brother-in-law’ (Sevortjan 1978: 24-25, Németh 1991: 85, 90, 172, Ligeti 1986: 268), the Danubian Bulğaric form of which, Пашеногъ’brother-in-law’ (cf. Chuvash puśana, Fedotov 1996a I: 453) was preserved in Church Slavonic (D’jačenko 1993: 412, cf. also Serbo-Croatian pašanac); the velar form was probably the original. It has long been accepted that Bačana/Bäčänä was a parallel form of Bäčänäk/Pečeneg (Marquart 1961: 61, 63, 67, 78). I would suggest the presence of both velar and palatal forms in our sources and forms without the final -k/-g point to what was most probably a linguistically mixed group, including both Common Turkic and Oğuro-Bulğaric speakers each producing appropriate forms of their ethnonyms (the ‘InLaw Tribe’) recorded by different informants: Baǰınak/Baǰanaq/Bačana/Beǰänäk ~ Pačınaq/ Pečeneg etc. Pritsak (1975: 211ff. ) suggested that the Pečenegs originally had a Tokharian (Yuezhi) base as well. It would be difficult to prove this on the basis of the surviving linguistic material (see Ligeti 1986: 506-511, Györffy 1990: 170ff). What has come down to us appears to be Common

232

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

Turkic. Some terms, however, e. g. (Constantine Porphyrogenitus 1967: 166) Γεήχ (= Yäyıq or even Yeyäx, the Ural River, see below) show a shift a > ä explaining, perhaps the Baǰınak/Pečeneg et al. variants. The early history of the Pečenegs who are first encountered in the VolgaUral Mesopotamia and are not noted in the Orxon or other Old Turkic inscriptions, remains obscure (see overview in Golden 1992: 264-265). Another title used by the Khazar Qağan’s deputy ruler, who by the late ninth and certainly early tenth century ran the actual affairs of state as the Qağan became largely sacralized and tabooed, a situation clearly depicted in the Islamic sources, is: ��‫(�ا‬Ibn Rusta, writing by 903): ’yšâ and ‫( �ا��د‬Gardizi, middle eleventh century, but using earlier sources): ’yšâd (see ms. variants in Golden 1980 I, 207). This is a variant of the Old Türk title Šad (recorded in Movsês Dasxuranc’i as Շա թ Šat’, ms. variants in Golden 1980 I: 207) which in the Ashina Türk state was invariably given to high officials of Ashina origin. In Chinese sources (Chavannes 1941, Index: 320) it is noted as 設 she (EMC ɕiat), 殺 sha (EMC ʂɘɨt/ʂɛ:t) and 察 cha (EMC tʂhɘɨt/tʂhɛ:t, Pulleyblank 1991: 279, 273, 47). The origin of this high title among the early Turkic peoples is clearly Iranian, going back to Old Iran. xsâyaθiya > Middle Pers. šâh or Old Pers. xšâita Avest. xšâêta > Sogd. ’xšêδ (see Bombaci 1974). This term is usually Arabized as Îxšîd/Îxšîδ (cf Ibn Xurdâδbih, mid-lateninth century, for îxšēδ). How xsâyaθiya produced Turk Šad remains unexplained (Clauson 1975: 45). Aṭ-Ṭabarî (VI: 473, 476), however, notes the Soğdian form ‫‘[ �ا��ذ‬xšâδ]. This is clearly the source of the Khazar forms corrupted in the texts of Ibn Rusta and better preserved in Gardîzî: ixšâδ > ihšad > îšad. Soğdian or Khwârazmian, another East Iranian tongue is the likely source. Khwârazmians were an important component of the Khazar court and personal guard (Ors) of the Qağans in Atil. The Muslim geographers give a number of names of Khazar cities (or parts of the Khazar capital). One tradition, found in Ibn Xurdâδbih, the Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam (372/982), al-Muqaddasî and Yâqût has variants (see ms. variants in Golden I: 230-232) of the form *�� [xmlîx] = *Xam-malıx or perhaps even �� [xmblîx] (< *Xam Balıq < Qam Balıq < Qan Balıq ‘City of the Khan’—‘City of the Shaman’ [qam] seems unlikely). Alongside of that, the al-Jaihânî tradition (early tenth century, see Göckenjan & Zimonyi 2001: 3-10) found in Ibn Rusta, Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam, Gardîzî, al-Bakrî (1992 I: 446, writing in 1086) and al-Marwazî (late eleventh, early twelfth century), notes another city, *Sarığšın (noted above) mentioned along with the city of *Xutluğ

233

PETER B. GOLDEN

(Qutluğ). Our sources clearly distinguish the two, except for Ibn Rusta (1892, 139) who says that within Sariğšın is “another city; it is called �� ‫[ ��ھ‬hb nlʻ] or �� [*Xnblġ]”. The ms. variants (see Golden 1980 I: 232) are undotted and hence open to a variety of interpretations (including Xutluğ, noted above). I think we have two variants of the toponym *Qan Baliğ �� [Xanbaliġ] and Han Baliġ �� ‫[ ��ھ‬Han Baliğ < Qan Balıq]. The latter, at least in part, reflects the shift q- > x- > h-. Mixed data, such as the preceding, which may reflect two dialects, distinct Khazar languages or materials recorded by different sources at different times, make the Khazar language question so complex. The name/title of the Khazar general noted by Łewond, ca. 758-64, Xat’irlit’ber (Խա թիրլիթբեր, see Łewond 1982: 125, ms. variants in Golden 1980 I: 197-8): Xatır il-teber < Qaδır él-teber, may point to a q> x-change already by the eighth century (although Turkic q, it should be noted, is often rendered by x in Arabic, Armenian, Georgian and other sources). Khazar il-teber/ él-teber is Common Turkic rather than Oğuro-Bulğaric (cf Volga Bulğaric Yıl-ṭawâr noted by Ibn Faḍlân, Togan, 1939: Arab. 1, Ligeti 1986: 457-8). The Khazar title reported by Ibn Faḍlân as just below that of the Qağan Beg in the Khazar tetrarchy is Kündü Qağan ([kndw] ‫��و‬, the mss. of Yâqût’s Mujam al-Buldân which has preserved this section of Ibn Faḍlân’s Risâla, universally have [kndr]‫ ��ر‬see Golden 1980 I: 200). The evidence, largely circumstantial, points to [kndw] ‫ ��و‬as the original form. Hungarian scholarly tradition has long connected this title with Hung. *Kündä (Modern Hung. Kende), the title of the sacral ruler of the ninth century Magyar-led tribal union, while the Gyula (< Turk. ǰula/yula) ran the actual affairs of state - a situation analogous to that of the Khazar Qağan and Qağan Beg (Ligeti 1986: 253-4, 368, 482, 484-5; Németh 1991: 83, 226, 236-7; Róna-Tas 1999: 342-4). Variants such as kündü ~ kündä are not unknown (cf ordu ~ orda, Tenisev 1997: 495). It also appears in the name of the Khazar ġulâm, Isḥaq b. Kundâj [‫ ]��ا�ج‬and Kundâjîq ��‫( ]��ا‬see forms in Golden 1980 I: 202-203) probably representing *Kündäčik. The etymology of kündü is problematic in Turkic where it is found only as a Mongol loanword in Siberian Turkic (Radloff II/2: 1444-5) denoting ‘die Ehrfurcht, Höflichkeit, Ehrfurchtbezeugung, das Gastmahl’, and ‘das zweite wichtigste Amt nach dem Jaisang’. Ligeti (1986: 49) noted SinoKorean kuntai ‘minister of war’, but this seems unlikely. The root may be (Starostin et al. 2003 I: 820): Altaic *k’i̯ une ‘heavy load’: Tung. *(x)ünī-, Mong. *kündü, PTung. *(x)üni- ‘to carry on the back’ PMong

234

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

kundu, kunule ‘to respect’ W. Mong. kündü etc. > Manchu kundu ‘respect, honor’ (see also Cincius 1975 I: 432 kundulê- ‘ugoščat’’ etc. Manchu kundu ‘čest’, dostoinstvo, počët, uvaženie’, etc,). Mongolic appears to be the source of this word in both Turkic and ManchuTungusic. Since we have no indications that Khazar was Mongolic, one can only presume that Khazar kündü is either an ancient loanword in Khazar (or its ancestor tongue) from Mongolic (perhaps from the ancestor tongue of Khazar to Mongolic?) or part of a much debated Altaic legacy (now under assault again, see Beckwith 2004: 184-194; Vovin 2005: 71-132). In any event, it was undoubtedly one of the Khazar terms that made their language seem “strange”. The title ��‫��و‬ [jâwšîġr], the deputy of the kündü, remains unexplained as well. Perhaps, it is a garbling of ��‫* ��و‬J̌ awašġır < *ǰavaš, Common Turk. yavaš ‘gentle, mild’ + -ğır/ğur ‘the one who makes peace’ (cf. Uyğ. Buddh. yavaš qıl ‘to make peace’ (Clauson 1972: 880). Another obscure Khazar term is noted by Theophanes (ca. 812) who recounts the attempt by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I1 (reg. 68595, 705-11) in 710/711 to punish his recalcitrant subjects in Xerson. In the course of the ensuing political maneuvers, the Khazar tudun/tuδun (a Türk title given to administrative and fiscal officials not of royal blood, see Golden 1980 I: 215-216) died. According to Theophanes (1980: 377-379, Theophanes 1997: 527-528) εἰς δοχὴν αὐτοῦ the Khazars sacrificed the Byzantine Turmarxos and 300 soldiers. Mango translates this phrase as ‘in his honor’ (Theophanes/Mango 1997: 528), understanding δοχὴ in the Classical Greek sense of ‘reception, entertainment’. While possible, this seems unlikely. Dieter Ludwig (Ludwig 1982: 356-357) first properly identified this with δογὴ (mss. variants of Theophanes have: δογὴν, δογην, δουγὴν). This term, in the form δόγια, is noted in Menander’s account (Menander/Blockley 1985: 178) of the funeral rites carried out in 576 for Σιλζιβούλος (*Sir Jabğu < Śri Yabğu, i. e. İštemi Qağan, see Dobrovits 2004: 112-113), the Western Türk Qağan. The term, δoğ, possibly δox in Khazar, should be compared with Old and Middle Turkic yoğ ‘funeral feast, wake’ (Clauson 1972: 895, cf. Qazaq žoqta-, Qara Qalpaq žoqla- ‘oplakivat’ umeršego’ < yoğla-, Sevortjan 1989: 207). Its relationship with Chuvash śǎva ‘kladbišče’ is less certain (Fedotov 1996a, II: 89). As for the initial δ-, Menander (Blockley 1985: 125) also notes the Δαΐχ River (= Common Turk. Yayıq ‘Ural River’ < yay- ‘to spread’) in his account of the sixth century Turko-Byzantine embassies, which should be compared with the Δαΐξ; of Ptolemy (2nd century AD, see Pritsak 1955:

235

PETER B. GOLDEN

43; Moravcsik 1958 ΙΙ: 116). Early Turkic-speaking populations pushed into the Kazakhstanian steppes by various movements of the Xiongnu might, possibly, be the source for this hydronym (despite the objections of Clauson 2002: 124 that this is too early for Turkic-speakers to be here). Clauson (2002: 125) further contends that there is no Turkic verb *ḏay-. Yay- < yâḏ- ‘to spread out’ (Clauson 1972: 883-884, 980) yay‘to shake’ could not, in his view, have been the source for this word. He concludes that *Yaḏuq= Yayıq “is a local pre-Turkish name”. Nonetheless, he fully accepts that Menander’s *ḏoğ is an earlier form of yoğ (Clauson 2002: 124). By this time, in Medieval Greek, the pronunciation of δ as ð [dh] was long established (by the second century AD, Browning 1983: 26-27), although it was also used to render d (in Modem Greek ντ). Ibn Faḍlân 1939; Arab. 18) notes this river as �� [ǰyx] = J̌ ayıx. Ligeti (1986: 460) considers J̌ ayıx either the Bulğar or Khazar form. Hence, it is unclear if δ of our earlier sources represents d, ð or even Bulğaric ǰ as Németh (1991: 110-111 n. b) initially viewed it. The usual sequence is to posit an original Turkic ycoming from an earlier Altaic d, ǰ and y. It remained y- in Common Turkic (later changing to ǰ-, ž- in some languages) but early on in Oğuro-Bulğaric became ǰ- and subsequently č > š’- and ultimately ś in Chuvash. Another explanation is: y-> ǰ- ž’- > ź- > ś (Tenisev 1984: 277278). Perhaps, we should posit a δ [ð] in Proto-Turkic which became y > ǰ in Oğuro-Bulğaric? The question of initial d- is complicated by several Oğuro-Bulğaric loanwords in Hungarian which have d-, although these may be explained as a secondary development in Hungarian as Ligeti indicates (cf disznó ‘swine’ < gyisznó, Ligeti 1986: 21, 24-25, 45, 194, 284). On the other hand, Danubo-Balkan Bulğar may provide evidence of an initial d’- which became ǰ in some OğuroBulğar dialects, but appears to have remained d- in others, cf. диломь [dilom’ = *δilåm, in Pritsak 1955: 73] ‘snake’ (Chuv. śilen < *ǰılan, Common Turk. yılan). The д has also been viewed as a Slavicism (see discussion in Ligeti 1986: 474, cf. also the Bulğar clan name Доуло = J̌ ula?). The oft-cited дохъторь. [doxŭtor’, δoxtår in Pritsak 1955: 73 with -xd- > -xt-] ‘pillow’ < * doxtår < doğtar < *doğdar (Chuv. śîtar/śătăr < *ǰohtar, according to Pritsak 1955: 43-4, Tekin 1987: 14, 67 with slightly different reconstruction) is more problematic. Pritsak (1955, 43), Räsänen (1969: 127, 204-205) and Tekin (1987: 14, 67) compared it with Mong. ǰoġdur ‘long hair on the throat of a camel’ (Lessing 1982: 1067) and Turkic yoğdu ‘the long hair under a camel’s chin’ (Clauson 1972: 899), presumably the material from which a

236

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

‘pillow’ might be made. Fedotov (1996a, II: 158), however connects it with Common Turk. yatır- ‘to cause to lie down’). These all seem something of a stretch. Perhaps, this term derives from Turk. toqu- ‘to weave’ (cf. Middle Oğuz doqı- see Tenišev 1997: 395-396): OğuroBulğaric *doqutur > daxŭtor? In Chuvash, this verb has been replaced by těrt- < Tat. tört-. Thus, the initial δ of these forms (and hence our Khazar term) has yet to be explained fully. At best one may suggest an Altaic > Proto-Turkic d- > δ- > y- / ǰ- with some more archaic Turkic tongues perhaps retaining d-. If Khazar δουγη is not simply a rendering of ǰoğ, it could point to some very archaic features. The Khazar ruler Joseph’s response (ca. 960) to Ḥasday b. Šaprûṭ, the Jewish courtier of the Iberian Umayyads, contains a series of ethnonyms, hydronyms and toponyms which, notwithstanding Kokovcov’s (1932) thorough analysis more than seventy years ago, merit a new and separate study. I will note only one ethnonym here. Joseph mentions the ‫[ וננתר‬wnntr], the major opponents of the Khazars in the struggle for dominion in the Ponto-Caspian steppes (Kokovcov 1932: 28). Wnntr denoted the Onoğundur-Bulğar or Onoğundur Empire (see Zimonyi 1990: 40-42), founded ca. 635 by the Onoğundur leader Qubrat/Kuvrat. The Onoğundur-Bulğars were defeated by the Khazars which led to their partial subjugation in the 670s. Some remained in the Pontic steppes, others eventually (early-mid eighth century) went up the Volga and founded Volga Bulğaria (Zimonyi 19903), a vassal state of the Khazars. Another grouping entered Byzantine Moesia, in 679, imposed itself on the local Slavic population giving rise to the Balkan Bulğar state with kinsmen in Pannonia. It is likely that the form of this ethnonym in Joseph’s letter is Khazar of the mid-tenth century, reflecting, ultimately, the Onoğundur self-designation (see also discussions in Róna-Tas 1996: 101, 179, 219, 259). Onoğundur is a variant of Onoğur (‘Ten Oğur [tribes]’). The latter form is first attested by Priskos (d. after 472) who noted, ca. 463, the chain of migrations in the steppe initiated by the Avars who pushed the Sabirs westward. The latter, then, precipitated the movement of the Šara Oğurs (Σαράγουροι), Oğurs (text: Οὔρωγοι for *’Ογούροἰ) and Onoğurs (‘Ονόγουροι) into the Pontic steppes and contact with Constantinople (Priskos/ Blockley1983 II: 344). The Syriac epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias of Mytilene (d. after 536), “Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor” 3

The founding of Volga Bulgaria (as Zimonyi, 1990) has shown was a process that began in the early-mid eighth century and extended into the ninth century and perhaps the beginning of the tenth century.

237

PETER B. GOLDEN

(probably compiled ca. 569, see Pigulëvskaja 2000: 185-190), in its excursus on the northern peoples dated to 555 (Kmoskó 2004, 47-48), notes’wngwr (Marquart 1961: 356; Pigulëvskaja 2000: 568, Kmoskó 2004: 99) among the nomadic peoples beyond the “Caspian Gates in the land of the Huns”. The Suishu (composed 627-636) in its listing of Tiele tribes (a tribal union arcing across Eurasia), “east of Fulin” (Rome, i. e. Constantinople) mentions the Enqu (Liu 1958 I: 127-128, II: 569 n. 663 = *On[o]gur, see above). The nearly contemporary Armenian Geography (Ašxarhac’oyc’) compiled by Ananias Širakec’i (ca. 610-685, written prior to 636 with later additions and interpolations, Hewsen 1992: 15, 33-34) notes among the various Bulğaric peoples in the Ponto-Caspian steppes, the Ողխոնտոր Բլկար Ołxontor Blkar [Bulgar] (Hewsen 1992: 55). Agathon (early eighth century) records: ἔθνους των Οὐννογούρων Βουλγάρων (Moravcsik 1930: 67). Movsés Xorenac’i (ostensibly fifth century, probably 770s with perhaps later interpolations, see Khorenatsi/Thomson 1980 I: 51, 60) notes a Bulgar: Վղնդուր/Վղընդուր Vłndur/Vłǝndur (Xorenac’i/Malxasyan 1961: 153, Xorenac’i/Ulubabyan 2003: 132, Khorenatsi/ Thomson 1980: 135). Theophanes calls Qubrat/Kuvrat, the ‘lord of the Οὐνογουνδουροι’ (Theophanes 1883 I: 356) and his contemporary, Nicephorus (who completed his Short History ca. 828) calls him the ‘lord’ of the Οὐννογουνδούρον Βουλγάροων (Nikephorus/Mango 1990: 70). More than a century later, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (1952: 85) says that the Bulgars previously called themselves ‘Ονουγουνδούροι. Ibn Kalbî (ca. 820, Marquart 1924: 275) notes the ‫‘[ �ا��ر‬lġndr =*Uluġundur?]. Al-Mas‘ûdî (Tanbîh 1894: 180) mentions, ca. 320/932, “tribes of nomadic Turks who are called ��‫[ �ا��ر‬alwlndryh: *wulunduriyya] associated with a city called [wlndr: *Wulundur, see Ḥudûd/Minorsky 1970: 469-70, perhaps modern Burgas, see Knjaz’kij 2003: 15] at the eastern extremities of Rûm. He has a similar notice in his Murûj aδ-Δahab (1966-1979 I: 236, see above). The Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam (Ḥudûd/Minorsky 1970: 160, 161) mentions the “V. n. d. r mountains” in the country of Mirvât (Great Moravia, see Göckenjan & Zimonyi 2001: 214 n. 188) and the N. nd. r (V. n. nd. r) a people north of the Khazar land on the Volga, alongside the *Burdâs (Burṭas, probably confused here with the Volga Bulğars, see Göckenjan & Zimonyi 2001: 219). The V. n. nd. r (Vunundur), it is generally agreed, are the Danubian Bulğars (see Ḥudûd/Minorsky 1970: 440-1, 465-8; Göckenjan & Zimonyi 2001: 219). The Khazaro-Hebrew

238

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

form noted above, thus, should also be read as Wοnuntur/Wununtur (Wanuntur? or Vonuntur etc. ), Gardîzî (1984: 587, writing in the mideleventh century, has: ‫[ ��ر‬nndr = Nandur] and ‫[ ��ر��ن‬nndryan = Nanduriyân] - perhaps a corruption of ‫[ �و��ر‬wnndr] or the reflection of a later form. Nándor was the Hungarian name of the Danubian-Balkan Bulğars, surviving in Hungarian place-names and as Nándorfehérvár ‘Nandor White City’ = Belgrad (Kiss 1978: 397, 455, Ligeti 1986: 2689; Róna-Tas 1996: 219, 259). Thus, we have several variants of this ethnonym. By the early seventh century, Onoğundur had, apparently, for reasons still unexplained, developed another form *Ol[u]x/ğundur recorded in Armenian and Muslim sources. Although in Arabic mss., the confusion of medial nûn and lam is not unknown, the Armenian form clearly indicates the presence of an -l-. This form, perhaps from *Uluğ Onoğundur (‘the Great Onoğundurs’) > *Ulux Onowundur (with medial ğ > w) > *Uluh Onowundur and was then conflated into Wulunundur > Wulundur, The Khazar form *Wonuntur/ Wununtur/ Wanuntur ( wo- (or u- *wu-, later in Chuv. wă-/vă-, cf. Common Turk. uzun ‘long’ ~ Chuv. vărăm), occurred in Khazar cannot be determined as the Khazar form of this name may simply reflect the Wonundur/Onoğundur self-designation. The shift -q/ -ğ > -x > -h > 0, typical of Oğuro-Bulğaric (Tenišev 2002: 693-698), seems to be a feature of Khazar as well. Clearly, an Oğuro-Bulğaric tongue, or something close to it, was one of the languages identified with the Khazars and elements of it were refracted in the royal Khazar Hebrew correspondence.

239

PETER B. GOLDEN

Bibliography Abu’l-Ġâzî Bahâdur Khan 1958. Šaǰara-yi Tarâkima. Rodoslovnaja Turkmen. Moskva-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. The Armenian geography. Transl. by R. H. Hewsen 1992. The geography of Ananias of Širak (Ašxarhac’oyc’). Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. (Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften Nr. 77. ) Wiesbaden: Reichert. Al-Bakrî, 1992. Kitâb al-Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik 1-2. Edited by A. P. van Leewen & A. Ferre. Tunis: Dâr al-Ġarb al-lslâmî. Baskakov, N. A. 1969. Vvedenie v izučenie tjurkskix jazykov. Moskva: Vysšaja Škola. Beckwith, C. 1. 2004. Koguryo. The language of Japan‘s continental relatives. Leiden: Brill. Al-Birûnî 1923. Kitâb al-Âṯâr al-Bâqzyya ‘an al-Qurûn al-Xâliyya. Edited by C. E. Sachau. 1878. Reprint: Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Bombaci, A. 1974. On the ancient Turkish title Şad. In: Gururājamaňjarikā. Studi in onore di G. Tucci. Napoli. 176-193. Browning, R. 1983. Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chavannes, E. 1941. Documents sur les Tou-kiue (turcs) occidentaux. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. Cincius, V. I. et al. 1975. Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ tunguso-man’čžurskix jazykov. Leningrad: Nauka. 2 vols. Clauson, Sir Gerard 1972. An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clauson, Sir Gerard 1975. The foreign elements in early Turkish. In: L. Ligeti (ed. ) Researches in Altaic languages. Fourteenth PIAC Meeting, Szeged, August 22-28, 1971. (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 20. ) Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 43-49. Clauson, Sir Gerard 2002. Studies in Turkic and Mongolic linguistics. Royal Asiatic Society 1962. Reprint: London: Routledge Curzon. Colarusso, J. 1992-1993. Two Circassian tales of Huns and Khazars. The Annual of the Society for the Study of Caucasia 4-5: 63-75. Constantine Porphyrogenitus 1952. De thematibus. Edited by A. Pertusi. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana. Constantine Porphyrogenitus 1967. De administrando imperio. Edited by G. Moravcsik, transl. by R. J. H. Jenkins. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. D’jačenko, G. 1993. Polnyy cerkovno-slavjansky slovar’. 1900. Reprint: Moskva: Izdatel’skij otdel moskovskogo patriarxata.

240

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

Dobrovits, M. 2004. A nyugati türkök első uralkodójáról. Antik Tanulmányok 48: 111-114. DTS: Nadeljaev, V. M. et al. 1969. Drevnetjurkskij slovar’. Leningrad: Nauka. Dunlop, D. M. 1954. The History of the Jewish Khazars. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Erdal, M. 1991. Ein unbemerkter chasarischer Eigenname. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 1991: 31-36. Erdal, M. 1993. Die Sprache der wolgabolgarischen Inschriften. (Turcologica 13. ) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Erdal, M. 2004. A grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill. Erdal, M. in press. The Khazar language. In: Ben-Shammai, H. & Golden, P. B. & Róna-Tas, A. (eds. ) The Khazars. Leiden: Brill. Fedotov, M. R. 1996a. Étimologičeskij slovar’ čuvašskogo jazyka 1-2. Čeboksary: Čuvašskij Gosudarstvennyj Institut Gumanitarnyx Nauk. Fedotov, M. R. 1996b. Čuvašskij jazyk. Čeboksary: Izdatel’stvo Čuvašskogo Universiteta. Gadžieva, N. Z. & Serebrennikov, B. A. 1977. Areal’naja lingvistika i problema vosstanovlenija nekotoryx čert isčeznuvšix jazykov. Sovetskaja Tjurkologija 3: 3-12. Gardîzî 1363/1984. Ta’rîx-i Gardîzî. Edited by ‘A. Ḥabîbî. Tehran: Dunyâ-yi Kitâb. Göckenjan, H. & Zimonyi, I. 2001. Orientalische Berichte über die Völker Osteuropas und Zentralasiens im Mittelalter. Die ĞaihânîTradition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Golden, P. B. 1975. The Q’azaro-Hungarian title/personal name �� – ‘Ιέλεχ. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 1: 37-43. Golden, P. B. 1980. Khazar studies 1-2. (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 25/1-2. ) Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Golden, P. B. 1992. An introduction to the history of the Τurkic peoples. (Turcologica 9. ) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Golden P. B. 2002-2003. Khazar Ghulâms in caliphal service: Onomastic notes. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 12: 15-27 Golden P. B. 2004. Khazar Ghulâms in Caliphal service. Journal Asiatique 292/ 1-2: 279-309. Gyorffy, Gy. 1990. A magyarság keleti elemei. Budapest: Gondolat. Harmatta, J. 1997. Iráni nyelvek hatása az ősmagyar nyelvre. In: Kovács, L. & Veszprémy, L. (eds. ) Honfoglalás és nyelvészet. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. Hewsen 1992. See The Armenian Geography. Ḥudûd al-‘Ālam. 1970. Transl. by V. Minorsky. (Gibb Memorial Series, n. s. 11) London. 1937, Rev. ed. London: Luzac.

241

PETER B. GOLDEN

Ibn al-Aṯîr 1965-1967. Al-Kâmil fi’l-Ta’rîx. Chronicon quod perfectissimum inscribitur. Edited by C. J. Tomberg. Leiden: Brill 1851-1876. Reprint: Beirut: Dâr Ṣâdir Ibn Faḍlân 1939. Ibn Faḍlâns Reisebericht. Edited and German transl. by A. Z. V. Togan. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 24/3. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft. Ibn Faḍlân 1956. Kniga Axmeda ibn Fadlana o ego putešestvii na Volgu v 921922 gg. Edited and translated by A. P. Kovalevskij. Xar’kov: Gosudarstvennyj Universitet imeni Gor’kogo. [This contains a facsimile of the Mashad ms. ] Ibn Ḥawqal 1992. Kitâb Ṣûrat al-Arḍ. Beirut: Ḥayât. Ibn Xurdâδbih 1889. Kitâb Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik. Edited by M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill. al-Iṣṭaxrî, 19272. Kitâb Masâlik al-Mamâlik. Edited by M. J. de Goeje, Leiden: Brill Karlgren, B. 1996. Grammata Serica recensa. Stockholm, 1957. Reprint: Taipei: SMC Publishing. K’art’lis C’xovreba 1955-1973. K’art’lis C’xovreba. Edited by S. Qauxč’išvili. T’bilisi: Saxelgami-Sabčot’a Sak’art’velo. 4 vols. Kâšġarî 1982-1985. Maḥmûd al-Kasγarî Compendium of the Turkic dialects (Dîwân Luγât al-Turk). Edited and transl. by. R. Dankoff in collaboration with J. Kelly (Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 7). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 3 vols. Khorenatsi/Thomson: Moses Khorenats’ I 1978. See under Xorenac’i, Movsês. Kiss, L. 1978. Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Kljaštornyj, S. G. 1979. Xazarskaja nadpis’ na amfore s gorodišča Majaki. Sovetskaja Arxeologija XIX: 270-275. Klyashtorny, S. G. 1997. About one Khazar title in Ibn Faḍlân. Manuscripta Orientalia 3/3: 22-23. Kljaštornyj, S. G. & Vasary, I. 1987. A Runic inscription on a bull-skull from the Volga region. In Kara, Gy. (ed. ) Between the Danube and the Caucasus. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó: 171-179. Kmoskó, M. 2004. Szír írók a steppe népeiről. Edited by Sz. Felföldi. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. Knjaz’kij, I. O. 2003. Vizantija i kočevniki južnorusskix stepej. Moskva: Aletejja. Kokovcov, P. K. 1932. Evrejsko-xazarskaja perepiska v X veke. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR. Konovalova, I. G. 2003. Padenie Xazarii v istoričeskoj pamjati raznyx narodov. In: Drevnejšie gosudarstva Vostočnoj Evropy 2001. Moskva: 171-190.

242

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

Kračkovskij,

I. Ju. 1957. Arabskaja geografičeskaja literatura. In: Kračkovskij, I. Ju. 1957. Izbrannye sočinenija. MoskvaLeningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Vol. 4. Kyzlasov, I. L. 1994. Runičeskie pis’mennosti evrazijskix stepej. Moskva: Vostočnaja Literatura. Lessing, F. et al. 1982. Mongolian-English dictionary. Bloomington: The Mongolia Society. Corrected reprint of Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1960. Łewond 1982. History of Łewond. The eminent vardapet of the Armenians. Transl. by Z. Arzoumanian. Philadelphia: St. Sahag & St. Mesrob Armenian Church. Ligeti, L. 1986. A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Liu Mau-tsai 1958. Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der OstTürken (T’u-Kue). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2 vols. Ludwig, D. 1982. Struktur und Gesellschaft des Chazaren-Reiches im Licht der schriftlichen Quellen (PhD dissertation) Münster: Philosophische Fakultät der Westfälischen WilhelmsUniversität. Marquart, J. 1924. Ein arabischer Bericht über die arktischen (uralischen) Länder aus dem 10. Jahrhundert. Ungarische Jahrbücher 4: 261238. Marquart, J. 1961. Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge. Leipzig. 1903. Reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Al-Mas‘ûdi 1894. Kitâb at-Tanbîh wa’l-Išrâf. Edited by M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill. Al-Mas‘ûdi 1966-79. Murûj aḏ-Ḏahab wa Ma‘âdin al-Jawhar. Edited by C. Pellat. Beirut: Manšûrât al-Jâmi‘at al-Lubnâniyya. 7 vols. Menander 1985. The History of Menander the Guardsman. Edited and transl. by R. C. Blockley. Liverpool: F. Cairns. Al-Muqaddasî 1408/1987. Aḥsan at-Taqâsim fî Ma‘rîfat al-Aqâlim. Edited by M. Maxzûm. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ at-Turaṯ al-‘Arabî. MNyTESz: A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára. Benko, L. et al. (eds. ). 1967-1976. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 3 vols. Moravcsik, G. 1930. Zur Geschichte der Onoguren. Ungarische Jahrbücher 10: 53-90. Moravcsik, G. (ed. ) 19582. Byzantinoturcica. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 2 vols. Németh, Gy. 1991. A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása. Budapest 1930. Rev. ed. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople 1990. Short history. Edited and. transl. by C. Mango. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Parzymies, A. 1994. Język protobulgarski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Universytetu Warszawskiego.

243

PETER B. GOLDEN

Pigulëvskaja, N. V. 2000. Sirijskaja srednevekovaja istorija. St. Petersburg: Dmitrij Bulanin. Pletnëva, S. A. 1976. Xazary. Moskva: Nauka. Priskos 1981. 1983. The fragmentary classicizing historians of the later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus. Edited and transl. by R. C. Blockley. Liverpool: F. Cairns. 2 vols. Pritsak, O. 1955. Die bulgarische Fürstenliste und die Sprache der Protobulgaren. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pritsak, O. 1975. The Pečenegs: A case of social and economic transformation. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 1; 211-235. Prodolžatel’ Feofana 1992. Edited by Ja. I. Ljubarskij. St. Petersburg: Nauka. [See also Theophanus Continuatus. ] Pulleyblank, E. 1991. Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in early Middle Chinese, late Middle Chinese, and early Mandarin. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. al-Qazwînî 1389/1969. ‘Ajâ’ib al-Buldân wa Axbâr al-‘Ibâd. Beirut: Dâr Ṣâdir. Radloff (Radlov), W. (V. ) 1963. Opyt slovarja tjurkskix narečij. St. Petersburg 1893-1911. Reprint: Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Vostočnoj Literatury. 4 vols. in 8 parts. Räsänen, M. 1969. Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Rastorgueva, V. S. & Edel’man, D. I. 2000, 2003. Étimologiceskij slovar’ iranskix jazykov, Moscow: Vostočnaja Literatura. [2 vols. published thus far]. Rašîd al-Dîn 1969. Die Geschichte der Oğuzen des Rašîd al-Dîn. Edited and transl. K. Jahn. (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften 100. ) Wien: Hermann Bohlaus Nachi Rašîd al-Dîn. 1373/1994. Jâmi‘al-Tawârix, Edited by M. Rawšan & M. Mûsawî. Tehran: Alburz. Romasov, K. 2000-2003. Istoričeskaja geografija Xazarskogo Kaganata (VXIII vv. ) [Parts I and II]. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 11 (2000-2001), 219-338; [Part III], 12 (2002-2003), 81-221, [Parts IV and V] 13 (2004), 185-264. Róna-Tas, A. 1982a. The periodization and sources of Chuvash linguistic history. In: Róna-Tas, A. (ed. ) Chuvash studies. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 113-169. Róna-Tas, A. 1982b. A kazar népnévről. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 84: 349-379. Róna-Tas, A. 1982c. Ujabb adatok a kazár népnév történetehez. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 85: 126-133.

244

KHAZARICA: NOTES ON SOME KHAZAR TERMS

Róna-Tas, A. 1996. A honfoglaló magyar nép. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. English transl.: Róna-Tas, A. 1999. Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Budapest, 1999. Central European University Press. Revised English translation of Róna-Tas, A. 1996. Sevortjan, E. V. 1978. Étimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov. Obščetjurkskie i mežtjurkskie osnovy na bukvu “B”. Moskva: Nauka. Sevortjan, E. V. et al. 1974 (ongoing). Étimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov. Moskva: Nauka, 7 vols. [Volumes are noted by year of publication. ] Starostin, S. & Dybo, A. & Mudrak, O. 2003. Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages, Leiden: Brill. 3 vols. aṭ-Ṭabarî 1967-1969. Ta’rîx aṭ-Ṭabarî. Ta’rîx ar-rasûl wa’l-mulûk. Edited by Abu’l-Faḍl Ibrâhîm. Cairo: Dâr al-Ma‘ârif. 10 vols. Tekin, T. 1987. Tuna Bulgarları ve dillerı. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu. Tekin, T. 1988. Volga Bulgar kitabeleri ve Volga Bulgarcası. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu. Tenišev, É. R. et al. 1984. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov. Fonetika. Moskva: Nauka. Tenišev, E. R. et al. 1997. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov. Leksika. Moskva: Nauka. Tenišev, E. R. et al. 2002. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov. Regional’nye rekonstrukcii. Moskva: Nauka. Theophanes 1980. Theophanis chronographia. Edited by C. de Boor, Leipzig. 1883. Reprint: Hildesheim: Georg Olms. 2 vols. Theophanes 1997. The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Edited and transl. by C. Mango & R. Scott with the assistance of G. Greatrex. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Theophanes Continuatus 1838. Historiae. Edited by l. Bekker. Bonn: Weber. [See also the Russian transl. Prodolžatel’ Feofana. 1992. ] Vixnovič, V. L. 1997. Karaim Avraam Firkovič evrejskie rukopisi, istorija, puteštvija. St. Peterburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie. Vovin, A. 2005. The end of the Altaic controversy. Central Asiatic Journal 49: 71-132. Xorenac’i, Movsês 1961. Patmut’iwn Hayoc’. Edited by St. Malxasyan. Yerevan: Haypethrat. Xorenac’i, Movsês 2003. Patmut’iwn Hayoc’. Edited by B. Ulubabyan. Yerevan: Gasprint. Xorenac’i, Movsês: Moses Khorenats’i 1978. History of the Armenians. Transl. by R. W. Thomson. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Al-Ya‘qûbî 1892. Kitâb al-Buldân. Edited by M. J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill.

245

PETER B. GOLDEN

Zaxoder, B. N. 1962, 1967. Kaspijskij svod svedenij o Vostočnoj Evrope. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Vostočnoj Literatury. Zimonyi, I. 1990. The origins of the Volga Bulghars. (Studia Uralo-Altaica 32. ) Szeged: Universitas Szegediensis de Attila József Nominata. Zuckerman, C. [K. ] 1997. Two notes on the early history of the thema of Cherson. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 21: 210-222. Zuckerman, K. 2001. Xazary i Vizantija: pervye kontakty. Materialy po arxeologii, istorii i étnografii Tavrii 8: 312-333.

246

GEORGIO-TURCICA: SOME MARGINAL NOTES ON PRE-OTTOMAN/ SAFAVID OĞUZ AND NON-OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

Tibor Halasi-Kun, whose memory we honour in this volume, was deeply interested in the interaction of Turkic and non-Turkic societies as reflected in loanwords from one to the other. He made many contributions to our understanding of the complex nature of the TurkoHungarian question1 and produced an exemplary study of the Ottoman imprint on the Syrian Arab dialects.2 It seems appropriate that in this memorial volume to my teacher, I return to the complementary question of Turco-Georgian linguistic relations, a problem I first touched on in a conference in which Professor Halasi-Kun and I participated.3 There is no need to repeat my earlier comments on Georgian ties with the Turkic world.4 We may briefly note that these relations may be broken down, chronologically, into four periods: i) Hunno-Khazar (4th – 10th centuries), ii) Seljuk/Early Oğuz-Qıpčaq (mid-11th – 13th century) in which there were both Oğuz and Qıpčaq elements present on Georgian 1

See his “Kipchak Philology and the Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, I (1975), pp. 155-210; “Some Thoughts on Hungaro-Turkic Affinity” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, VI (1986[1988]), pp. 31-39. 2 See his “The Ottoman elements in the Syrian Dialects” Archivum Ottomanicum, I (1969), pp. 14-91, V (1973), pp. 17-95, VII (1982), pp. 117-267. 3 See P. B. Golden, “The Oğuz Turkic (Ottoman/Safavid) Elements in Georgian: Background and Patterns”, in A. Ascher et al. (eds.), The Mutual Effects of the Islamic and Judeo-Christian Worlds the East European Pattern (New York, 1979), pp. 183-208. 4 In addition to the article noted above, see my “The Turkic Peoples and Caucasia”, in R. G. Suny (ed.), Transcaucasia. Nationalism and Social Change (Ann Arbor, 1983), pp. 45-67 and “Cumanica I: The Qıpčaqs in Georgia”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, IV (1984), pp. 45-87.

247

PETER B. GOLDEN

soil, iii) Činggisid, in which Eastern Turkic (Türkî) elements may be discerned, iv) Later Oğuz (Qara Qoyunlu-Aq Qoyunlu, OttomanSafavid, 14th -18th century). Eloquent testimony to this interaction is to be found in the Lek’sikoni K’art’uli (“Georgian Lexicon”) or Sitqvis Kona K’art’ulis (“Bouquet of the Georgian Word”) by Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani (1658-1726), 5 a comprehensive lexicon of Ancient and Modern Georgian, which contains Turkic (as well as Italian and Armenian) equivalents for many of the entries. 6 The overwhelming majority of Turkic loanwords in Georgian (not to mention a substantial number of Arabic and Persian terms, which entered Georgian via Turkic) stem from the fourth period and are clearly borrowings from Ottoman or Safavid Turkic. Persian itself, long a linguistic influence on Georgian (and Armenian), should also not be excluded as a source of transmission of Turkic loanwords, particularly in the latter period. These various layers, once introduced into Georgian, are not easily distinguished. Moreover, as the same Oğuz Turkic tribal groupings served as the ethnic or military (in the case of the Safavids) underpinning of both of these states, it is virtually impossible to distinguish linguistically between the two as reflected in their Georgian garb. In this paper, I shall deal only with elements from the Non-Oğuz or Early-Oğuz, i. e., largely Pre-Ottoman/Safavid era sources. A number of these terms are of Mongol origin (although even here not a few are ultimately of Turkic derivation). Although the Georgians had some measure of direct contact with Mongols as subjects of the Činggisid states and acquired some knowledge of Mongol language and culture,7 much of this was most probably transmitted via the Turkic 5

A scion of the famous Orbeliani house, he was not only one of the greatest literary figures of Georgia, but an advisor and tutor to his nephew, the king, Vaxtang VI (1703-1724), who sent him on a diplomatic mission to Europe and the court of Louis XIV, see D. M. Lang, The Last Years of the Georgian Monarchy 1658-1832 (New York, 1957), pp. 105-109, 124-126. 6 See C’. Abuladze, Sulxan-saba Orbelianis lek’sikoni sitqvanis t’urk’uli t’argmanebi (T’bi1isi, 1968), p. 11. 7 The Anonymous Chronicler of the Mongol era, the Žamt’aaġmcereli records the Mongol names for the 12-year animal cycle calendar (see P. B. Golden, “The Twelve-Year Animal Cycle Calendar in Georgian Sources” Acta Orientalia Hungarica, XXXVI, (1983), pp. 197-206) as well their word for “God” (t’engri = Mong. tenggeri, tegri - Turk. tengri, Oğuz Turkic tanğrı) and the ideological formula mangu t’engri k’uč’undur = mengü (actually Turk., the Mong. is möngke) tengri küčündür “by the power of the etemal God”. He also provides a somewhat garbled listing of “Tatar” tribes: Saqir, Hind, Qat’ (Qitai?), Jalir (Jalayir), Oird (Oirad), Suldus (Suldus), Nihim (Naiman?), Qonġard (Qonġirad), Manġut’

248

GEORGIO-TURCICA

subjects of the İlxanids. The Mongol impact on Georgian is barely evident and virtually all of these terms can be found in the same forms in the neighbouring Oğuz Turkic languages. The Mongol linguistic impact on neighbouring Persian, however, appears to have been much greater.8 In addition to the relevant sources, I have made use of the following dictionaries for the Georgian entries: Old Georgian I. Abuladze, Dzveli k’art’uli enis lek’sikoni (T’bilisi, 1973), abbreviated as: Ab. Modern Georgian E. Cherkezi, Georgian-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1950), abbreviated as: Cher. N. Č’ubinašvili, K’art’uli-rusuli lek’sikoni (SPb., 1887, reprinted, 2nd ed. T’bilisi, 1984), abbreviated as: Č’ub. M. Tschenkéli, Georgisch-Deutsches Worterbuch (Zürich, 19601974), abbreviated as: Tsch. A listing of the reference dictionaries of Turkic and other languages from which citations are drawn (noted in the text in abbreviated form) is given at the end of the paper. 1. at’abagi9 (Ab., 3) “mt’avari (chief, head, prince), didi mama (great father), mep’is mama (father of the king)”, (Č’ub., p. 13) “vel’moža, vospityvavšij carskix detej, Atabag, vladetel’ny knjaz’ Axalcyxa [Axalc’ixe, PBG]; at’abagoba “zvanie, dostoinstvo atabago, knjaženie” < Turk atabeg. This Seljuk institution is noted in the biography of Queen T’amar (1184-1212) found in the Chronicler of the time of King Giorgi Laša, T’amar’s successor.10 The Turk. title atabeg (lit” father-prince”) was bestowed on the tutors of the Seljuk princes, usually experienced men of affairs, who were given the task of educating and rearing their royal charges. Often, they were later

(Mangġud), T’anġut’ (Tangut), Qiat’ (Qiyad) and Uġur (Uyğur) see K’art’lis C ‘xovreba, ed., S. Qauxč’išvili (T’bilisi, 1955-73), II, pp. 159-160. 8 See A. P. Martinez, “Changes in Chancellery Languages and Language Changes in General in the Middle East, with Particular Reference to Iran in the Arab and Mongol Periods”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, VII (1987-91), pp. 103-152. 9 See V. Gabašvili, “Sak’art’velo da t’urk’uli samqaro XI-XII saukuneebši” Aġmosavluri P’ilologia, III (1973), p. 92, who notes this Oğuz term among the 12th century Georgian historical sources. 10 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed., Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 368, 370.

249

PETER B. GOLDEN

married to the prince’s mother11 This title also entered Pers” atâbäk (Doerfer, TME, II, 7-8) “Prinzenerzieher” and Byzantine Greek: ἀταπάκας (Moravcsik, BT, II, 77) from Seljuk Turkic. It is also found in Armenian (at’abak, at’abek), Arabic (atâbak), Syriac (atâbak) and Chinese (a-t’a-bei) sources (Doerfer, TME, II, 8). 2. auli (Tsch., 40) “Dorf Kaukasischer Bergbewohner” < Qıpčaq Turk. aul (< ağıl, according to Clauson, ED, 83 and Doerfer, TME, II, 8284) “originally an enclosure for livestock” and then later “a settlement or group of tents”.12 As this is noted only in Tsch., it is perhaps a borrowing, as a technical term, from Russian. In the latter it is a loanword from Qıpčaq Turkic, perhaps from Cumano-Qıpčaq tongues of the North Caucasus (cf. Bammatov, Kumyksko-russ. slov., 26, awul “ulica, kvartal, aul, selo, selenie”, Tenišev et al., Karačaevo-balkarsko-russ. Slov., 95, awul “aul, selo”). The form ağıl was the source for a variety of forms found in Iranian, Mongol, Tungusic, Kettic etc. (Doerfer, TME, II, 83). 3. baġat’ari, baqat’ari (Cher., 16), “giant” (Č’ub., 99) “hero, giant,13 bogatyr’”. In the “Life of Vaxtang Gorgasal” (reg. 450-503) by Juanšer (11th century) found in the compendium of Georgian historical chronicles, the K’art’lis C’xovreba, it appears as the name/title of the champion (ruler) of the Ovsi, i. e. Alano-As, with whom the semi-legendary Georgian king engaged in single combat.14 The Tale is, of course, anachronistic, but it does point to Khazaro-Alan ties of alliance and has preserved genuine titles of the northern foes of the Georgian kingdom. < Turk. bağatur. In the Modern Turkic languages, forms based on batur, an ancient form 11

C. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, trans. J. Jones-Williams (New York, 1968), p. 37. I. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanli Devleti Teşkilâtına Medhal (Ankara, 3rd ed., 1984), pp. 7879 notes that the Anatolian Seljuks also used the term lala. A variant of this institution of tutorship or preceptorship may be seen in the Ottoman lala, see H. A. R. Gibb, H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West (Oxford, 1950), I/1, p. 139. 12 See also Sevortjan, Ètim. slov., I, pp. 65-66, 83-85 and Šipova, Slovar’, pp. 41-42. 13 In Č’ub. the definitions are given both in Georgian (which I have translated only when there are important distinctions in nuance) and Russian. 14 K’art’lis C ‘xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 154-155, II, p. 65 (where an allusion is made to “Baqat’ar and T`arxan” the As and Khazar giants). It is also noted in an Old Ossetian inscription of the 10th-11th century in the Krasnodar region: πακαθαρ (bœqatœr, see Abaev, I, pp. 245-246). Ibn Rusta, Kitâb al-Aˁlâq an-Nafisa, ed., M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1892, p. 148 remarks that the “king of the Alans (malik al-Lân) is called bġâyr” (recte bġatr: *baġâtir (see also comments of V. Minorsky, A History of Sharvân and Darband (Cambridge, 1958), p. 169). Sevortjan, Ètim. slov., II, pp. 83-84, sees Hunnic as the possible source for this Alanic borrowing.

250

GEORGIO-TURCICA

attested in Runic inscriptions from Tuva (Nadeljaev, DTS, 89), are most prevalent. These, however, may also be explained as coming from Mong. ba’atur. In the medieval Turkic texts, bağatur or variants on it are more common. The situation is further complicated by borrowings from Pers. bahâdur (see discussion in Doerfer, TME, II, 366-377; Sevortjan, II, 82-85). This title is also found among the Danubian Bulğars (Moravcsik, BT, II, 83: βαγατουρ). The word also appears in Old Rus’: Russ. bogatyr’ “hero” esp. in Russ. byliny, Ukr. bohatyr (and thence Polish bohater, bohatyr), 15 in Old Beloruss. bogatyr’ “strongman, hero”. 16 It is also a loanword in Hungarian (MNytesz, I, 258): bátor. The pair batur - bağatur is problematic (see discussion in Doerfer who gives extensive data on this much-travelled term and Sevortjan noted above). It is considered, by some, to be an Iranian loanword in Turkic, by others a title of Mongolic origin.17 Clauson (ED, 313), however, suggests that it goes back to the name of the Hsiung-nu Shan-yü, whose name is rendered in Chinese as Mao-tun [ < Moġ-tun] (209-174 B. C. ). The linguistic affiliations of the Hsiung-nu are still considered unclear by most scholars. Bailey, however, who views the Hsiungnu as Iranian, suggests an Iranian etymology *baka-tura “truly strong”.18 It is probably to be connected with the title Mo-ho-tu of chiefs of the Shih-wei,19 a Proto-Mongolic people closely associated with the Qitañ and Hsi/Qay peoples and later incorporated into the Qitañ/Liao state. Bağatur, then, should be reckoned among the political terms of ancient Inner Asian origin that were part of the imperial vocabulary inherited by nomadic steppe peoples up to and including the Činggisid era. The linguistic origins of so many of these terms (e. g. qağan, see below) remain unresolved. 4. busurmani (Tsch., 123) “Mohammedaner, Anders-, Un-gläubiger”, < Turk. Qıpčaq busurman, cf. Qumuq, Qaračay-Balqar busurman 15

See Fasmer (Vasmer), I, p. 183. A. I. Žurawski, Histaryčny slownik belaruskaj movy (Minsk, 1982), 2, p. 92. In Modern Belorus. bahatyr means “rich man” < bahaty “rich”. 17 See Šipova, p. 83; Sevortjan, Ètim. slov., II, pp. 82-85. 18 See discussion in Sir Harold Bailey, Indo-Scythian Studies, Khotanese Texts, VII (Cambridge, 1985), p. 26. 19 From the Hsin T’ang-shu, see V. S. Taskin (ed., trans.), Materialy po istorii drevnix kočevyx narodov gruppy dunxu (Moskva, 1984), pp. 139, 412n. 45: mo-ho-du [mâk-γa-tuat] = baġatur (Doerfer, TME, II, p. 369). But, there are problems with this form in other texts, cf., the Sui-shu which has yü mo-fu-men-tu as the title of the chiefs (Taskin, Materialy, p. 136). 16

251

PETER B. GOLDEN

(Bammatov, Kumyksko-russ., 87; Tenišev, Karačaevo-balkarskoruss., 171); but Noğay (Baskakov, Nogajsko-russ., 229), and Qazaq (Oraltay, 202) have musılman and Tatar (Tat. -russ., sl., 390) has möselman < Pers. musulmân. 20 This form shows the m-b and occasional r-l alternation found in Turkic. It was from (most probably Qıpčaq Turkic) *busurman that the word was borrowed into Medieval Rus’ (Sreznevskij, I, 71, 79) besermen, besermenin, besurmanin “musul’manin”, 21 Med. Belorus. (Žurawski, II, 259) busurmjanin. A similar Qıpčaq source may be postulated for the Hung. (MNytesz, I, pp. 365-66 suggests Khazar or Pečeneg provenance) böszörmény. The term survives, as an ethnic designation, in the form besermyan, designating an Udmurtspeaking ethnic grouping who derive from some amalgam of Turkic and Udmurt elements.22 Not surprisingly, the term is found in North Caucasian, e. g. Adyge bysl’ymen, busl’ymen, musl’lymen, Kabard. musl’ymen, busl’men, Ubyx. byrsmyn, byslman etc.23 5. čalaš and dasnačtda noted in K’art’lis C’xovreba as Qıpčaq terms for “brave warriors who fight in the front ranks”.24 The first term clearly comes from Turk. čalıš- “to fight one another, to strive, make efforts, be industrious” (Clauson, ED, 421). The second term is too garbled to permit a resolution. 6. č’amč’a found in the 14th century Xelmcip’is karis garigeba (“Ordering of the Royal Court”) where it is defined as “a large, deep spoon for taking liquid out of a pot”.25 Orbeliani cites it as the equivalent of Georg. c’ic’xvi (“large, wooden spoon”).26 It is also used in Mod. Georg. (Cher., 243) “ladle”, (Č’ub., 1554) “kovš, razlivatel’naja ložka”, (Tsch., 1890), “Schöpfkelle”. < Turk. čömče, čemče etc. (Clauson, ED, 422). The term is widely known in Turkic (both forms attested in Med. Qıpčaq and Osm. ) “ladle, scoop”, where it is very likely a loanword from Persian (Steingass, 399)

Räsänen, Versuch, p. 90. See also Fasmer, I, 160 and Šipova, pp. 103-104. 22 See P. Hajdu, Finno-Ugrian Languages and Peoples, trans., G. F. Cushing (London, 1975), p. 156. 23 Šagirov, Zaimstvovannaja leksika abxasko-adygskix jazykov (Moskva, 1989), p. 78. 24 ed., Qauxč’išvili, II, p. 70. 25 I. Surguladze (ed.), K’art’uli samart’lis dzeglebi (T’bilisi, 1970), p. 48 and (lexicon) 196. 26 Abuladze, Sulxan-Saba Orbelianis lek’sikonis sitqvanis t’urk’uli t’argmanebi, p. 152. 21

252

GEORGIO-TURCICA

čamča “a spoon, ladle, skimmer”. It cannot be determined if this term was borrowed directly from Persian or via Turkic. 7. iaraġi, dating from the Mongol era, in which it replaced the Old Georgian word čurčeli27 which denoted both “arms” and “utensils, crockery” (see Ab., 559). This interesting pairing of meanings (crockery and military wares) is found also in the Cumano-Qıpčaq languages, Qazan Tatar and Čağatay (e. g. Qumuq sawut “posuda, sosud, žban; oružie”). 28 It is noted in these meanings in the K’art’lis C’xovreba. 29 In Mod. Georg” (Cher., 94-95) “tool, implement, instrument; weapon, arms”, iaraġiani “armed”; (Č’ub., 578) “instrument, oružie, pribor, ubor”; (Tsch., 520) “Werkzeug, Instrument, Gerät, Waffe”, ganiaraġeba “entwaffnen, abrüsten”, gadairaġeba “mit neuen Waffen bewaffnen, neu ausrüsten”, seiaraġeba “bewaffnen, aufrüsten” etc. iaraġaqrili “bewaffnet” etc. < Turk” arms, military equipment”, cf. Čağ. “imp1ements, instruments, tools”, Qıpčaq yarov “equipment”,30 Osm. (Redhouse, 2181) yarağ/yaraq “anything that specially serves a purpose, a tool, or a set of tools, implements or instruments, an apparatus, arms, armour, provisions, necessaries”. As yarâq “voll ausgerüstet, durchtrainiert, feldzugsbereit (besonders vom Pferd)”, the term was also borrowed into Pers. Doerfer, TME, IV, 143-147, who also notes its presence in the Daġistanian languages (Lak, Avar and Agul).31 8. jari recorded in the first history of Queen T’amar (the Istoriani da azmani šaravandedt’ani) and the anonymous chronicle of the Mongol era (Žamt’aaġmcereli) in the sense of “(military) unit, a great mass of people”.32 Mod. Georg. (Cher., 274) “army, host”; (Č’ub., 1766) “vojsko, svita, tolpa, sonm”; (Tsch., 2432) “Heer, Armee, Volksversammlung”, jarianoba “Heeres-, Feld-zug, Belustigung des Volkes (bei e-m Kirchenfest u. ä. ) festl. 27

Gabašvili, AP’, III (1973), p. 98. See Bammatov, Kumyksko-russ., 273; Tenišev, Karačaevo-balkarsko-russ., 546 sawut; Baskakov, Zajączkowski, Szapszal, Karaimsko-russko-pol’sk., 456 sawut; Tatarsko-russ., 460, sawıt; Radloff, IV/ 1, 237. 29 ed. Qauxč’išvili, II, pp. 441, 500. 30 Clauson, ED, 962, who suggests that its ultimate source is Uyğ. yarıq “body armour”. Doerfer, TME, IV, 144, suggests Turk. yara- “passend, geeignet sein”. See there for full argumentation. 31 See also discussion in N. S. Džidalaev, Tjurkizmy v dagestanskix jazykax (Moskva, 1990), pp. 166-167. 32 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, II, pp. 88, 317 and (lexicon) 628. 28

253

PETER B. GOLDEN

Veranstaltung”. It is also found in kindred Svan (Gudjedjiani, Palmaitis, 313) jär “army” < *jeri. Gabašvili considers it a 12th century borrowing from Seljuk Oğuz33 = čeri < čerig (according to Clauson, ED, 428-29) originally “troops drawn up in battle order” and later “army”. (Osm. Redhouse, 719) has čeri “a soldier, a military force, troops, an army”. The form čeri is also found in Qıpčaq (Clauson, ED, 429). Either Seljuk Oğuz or Qıpčaq may be the source for this borrowing. As čerik it was borrowed into Pers. (Doerfer, TME, III, 65-70) probably from Čağatay. 9. jibġu34 This is a reference to the Yabğu Qağan, ruler of the Western Türk Qaganate. It is recorded in the “Life of Vaxtang Gorgasal” by Juanšer as the name/title of the commander of the Western TürkKhazar forces who, s. a. 627-628, raided Georgia as part of a joint Byzantine-Türk attack on the Sasanids. 35 This title appears in a variety of forms: Arm. Jebu Xak’an, Arab. Sinjibû, Middle Pers. Jêpîk, Jabbû, Sinjêpûk, Byz. Σπαρζευγοῦν, Σιλζίβουλος, Ζιέβηλ. Yabğu/jabğu has an ancient history in Eurasia, dating back, perhaps, to the Hsiung-nu era if not earlier. It is not a Turkic word, but borrowed, perhaps, from Iranian or Tokharian. Bailey opted for an Iranian provenance, citing *yâvuka, found on Kušan coins. He also identified it with the Hsiung-nu title noted in Chinese sources as shan-yü (*źian-jiu). Yabğu and similar titles were part of the ancient Inner Asian imperial apparatus that the Turks inherited when they took over the Jou-jan state in 552.36 10. k’ešiki (Cher., 218; Č’ub., 1333; Tsch., 1550) “bodyguard”, “teloxranitel’”, “Leibwächter, (ethn. ) Einnehmer v. Abgaben in Form v. Vieh”. It is recorded in Beri Egnatašvili’s Axali K’art’lis

Gabašvili, AP’, III (1973), p. 92. On the title yabğu, ancient in Inner Asia and perhaps ultimately of Chinese origin, see now N. Sims-Williams, “Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders: Linguistic evidence from the Bactrian documents and inscriptions” in N. Sims-Williams (ed.), Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, Proceedings of the British Academy, 116 (Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, reprinted 2003), pp. 229-230, 233, 235. 35 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, I, p. 225. 36 See Clauson, ED, 873; Bailey, Indo-Scythian Studies, pp. 32, 130 and P. B. Golden, Khazar Studies (Budapest, 1980), I, pp. 187-190. For an overview of the still unresolved question of Hsiung-nu origins, see P. B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 57-59. 34

254

GEORGIO-TURCICA

C’xovreba37 and in the administrative legal work, the Dasturlamali38 (< Pers. dastûr [Steingass, 525] “model, exemplar, rule, basis”39 + Turk. denominal suffix -lama). These are, of course, late works, written during the Safavid era and under the considerable influence of the latter. The term derives from Mong. kešig the personal bodyguard formed by Činggis. This was an elite military unit from which individuals were also selected for important administrative posts.40 Mong. kešig itself derives from Turk. kezig/kezik “a turn”, cf. Cag. kezik “Reihenfolge”, Osm. gezek, gezik “patrol”.41 The term is known to Osm. (Redhouse, 1554, kešik “a guard or patrol”, kešikči “ a guard or watchman, a life-guard”), but is viewed as a borrowing from Persian. It is unclear if the word entered Georgian during the İlxanid era or subsequently and whether it was borrowed directly from Mongol or via Turkic. 11. k’oč’: koč’ad svla (Cher., 220) “to wander”, k’oč’ad mavali “nomad”, (Č’ub., 1346) k’oč’i “kočevoj, kočujusčij narod” < Turc. köč (Clauson, ED, 693; Sevortjan, III, 88-91) “migration”. Osm. (Redhouse, 1583) has göč “the act or condition of changing one’s place, a move, a migration, göčebe “a nomad” etc. The term is found in Persian (Doerfer, TME, III, 621-625) and was borrowed into Medieval Russian, very likely from the same Qıpčaq source; cf. kočevati (Sreznevskij, I, 1305); cf. Mod. Russ. kočevat’, Ukr. kočuvaty > Polish koczować.42

K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, II, p. 407. This was a work of the early 18th century, part of the cultural activities of Vaxtang VI as was also the Dasturlamali. 38 K’art’uli samart’lis dzeglebi, ed. I. Surguladze (T’bilisi, 1970), pp. 480, 490, 596, 682, 716. 39 Cf., Osm. (Redhouse, 903) destûr “a collection of laws; a code of laws”. 40 T. Allsen, Mongol Imperialism. The Policies of the Grand Qan Möngke in China, Russia, and the Islamic Lands, 1251-1259 (Berkeley, 1987), pp. 60, 99-100; B. Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran (4th, rev. ed., Leiden, 1985), p. 228. 41 < Turk. kez- “to travel, walk about, traverse”, Clauson, ED, pp. 757, 758-59; Doerfer, TME, I, pp. 467-470 (for Mong. kešik “Wache beim Herrscher”, kešikči “der eine solche Wache ausiibt”, kešiktän “Wachmannschaft”, kešiktü “Angehöriger der Wachmannschaft”; Radloff, II/2, 1174-1175, 1182. 42 See also Fasmer, II, p. 357; Šipova, pp. 198-199. The Hypatian Chronicle, s. a. 1252 uses the expression koč’polovčin for which the Slovar’ drevnerusskogo jazyka (XIXIV vv., ed. ., R. I. Avanesov, Moskva, 1988-, IV, p. 278, suggests the meaning “udaloj naezdnik” (polovčin “Cuman”). The recent Ukrainian trans. of the Chronicle (Leonid Maznovec’, Litopys rus’kyj, Kyiv, 1989, p. 410), however, renders this as “koščavyj” “boney, rawboned” .

255

PETER B. GOLDEN

12. k’olga (Cher., 219) “umbrella”, (Č’ub., 1343) “mackintosh or parasol, zontik”, (Tsch., 1570) “Regen-, Sonnen-schirm”, k’olgisebri “schirmfönnig”, k’olgosanni “Doldenblüt(l)er (Umbelliferae). Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani notes it as the equivalent of Georg. ač’rdili (“shadow, phantom”), bao (“shadow”), gavalaki (“canopy, baldachin”), suk’uri (“umbrella for shade”), č’rdili (“shade, shadow”)43 < Turk. köl[i]ge (Clauson, ED, 718) “shadow, shade” and points to a Qıpčaq, Čağatay or Early Oğuz source; cf. Mamlûk Qıpčaq kölgey,44 Čağ. kölge (Buxârî, 260, “saye, ẓill”); but Osm. (Redhouse, 1600) gölge “a shadow, shade, a shady place, a thing that gives shade, as a roof, awning”. Its appearance in Orbeliani’s Lek’sikoni, the Turkic vocabulary of which is overwhelmingly Later Oğuz (Ottoman-Safavid), may simply point to the author’s consciousness of k’olga as a foreign, Turkic term, easily mixed with the gölge form that was most certainly heard among his Ottoman and Safavid/Qızılbaš contemporaries. 13. ortaġi “partner of merchants” < Turk. (Clauson, ED, 205) ortaq < ortuq/ortoq “partner”. It is found in a letter of Kaxa T’oreli, an important Georgian political figure of the 1260s, dated to 1260.45 This term, not unexpectedly, entered Pers. ortâq (Doerfer, TME, II, 225-27) “Kaufmann, der in Kommission und mit Kredit des Chans seine Geschäfte abwickelt; auch: Kompagnon, Gefährte”. It is also found in the Daġistanian languages: Lak. urtaq “pajščik, kompan’on-remeslennik”, Lezgin urtax “obščij, součastnik, dol’ščik, kompan’on”.46 43

Abuladze, Sulxan-Saba Orbelianis lek’sikonis sitqvanis t’urk’uli t’argmanebi, pp. 73, 75, 79, 134, 151. 44 Abu Hayyân, Kitâb al-İdrâk li-Lisân al-Atrâk, ed., A. Caferoğlu (Istanbul, 1931), Arabic text, 84: “aẓ-ẓill wa’l-xayâl (shade and shadow)”;/Turk trans. 51, “kölge, hayal”; Bulġat al-Muštâq fî Luġat at-Turk wa’l-Qifžaq: A. Zajączkowski, Słownik arabsko-kipczacki z okresu Państwa Mameluckiego (Warszawa, 1954, 1958), I, p. 31 kölgey “cień/ombre”. The Tarjuman Turkî wa ‘Ajamî wa Muġalî wa Fârsî (M. Th. Houtsma, Ein türkisch-arabisches Glossar, Leiden, 1894, Arabic text, p. 7) has Qipčaq kölek “ẓill aš-šajara wa ġairihâ (shade of a tree etc.)” and Türkmen kölge (kölege?). 45 See T’. Enuk’idze et al. (eds.), K’art’uli istoriuli sabut’ebi IX-XIIIss. (T’bilisi, 1984), p. 146; Gabašvili, AP’, III (1973), p. 98. On the role of the ortaqs, see Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran, p. 357; T. Allsen, “Mongolian Princes and Their Merchants Partners, 1200-1260” Asia Major, 3rd series, 2/2 (1989), pp. 83-126 and E. Endicott-West, “Merchant Associations in Yüan China: the Ortoγ” in that same volume, pp. 127-154. 46 Džidalaev, Τjurkizmy, p. 112.

256

GEORGIO-TURCICA

14. qazaxoba (Tsch., 1664) “Räuberhandwerk, das Räuberhandwerk betreiben, qazaxi “Kasache, Kosak” (in the Gurian and Imeret’ian dialects “Bauer”), (Č’ub., 1371) “kozak, vol’nyj krest’janin, voin, razbojnik”, qazaxoba “razbojničan’e” < Turk. qazaq. Initially, in Turkic, this term denoted a young warrior who went off into the steppe to test himself, living outside the law and acquiring survival skills. Later, it took on the connotation of one who has left his overlord and thence “rebel”. 47 Barthold, who defines it as “razbojnik, mjatežnik, avantjurist”, comments that it is first attested in the 15th century. During the periods of Timurid internecine strife, qazaq denoted a pretender to the throne who did not want to submit, preferring, instead, to chieftain bands of steppe adventurers.48 It is recorded, however, in the 14th century Medieval Mamlûk-Qıpčaq glossaries, the Tarjumân: qazaq “freed, free (from) [al-mujarrad];49 the At-Tuḥfat: qazaq bašlı (lit” Qazaq-headed”) “bachelor” [câzib].50 Cf. Čağ. (Buxârî, 319) qazaqčı “hırsız, harâmi, ḳuttâ’-i tariḳ, kaltaban, oğrı, rahzen, çapul”. It is found in Pers. (Doerfer, TME, III, 462-468), qazâq “Partisan, herumstreifender Räuber, Landsknecht, der keinem Fürsten für dauernd untertan ist”. This term travelled further eastwards to Afghan qazzâq, qaẓẓâq. Urdu qazzâq and Punjabi kazzâk primarily in the meaning of “robber, freebooter”. It entered ESlav. as kazak with the initial meanings of “rabotnik, batrak”. Later, it came to be associated with the frontier Slavic agricultural-military population (often runaway serfs) which adopted the name, cf Russ. kazak, Ukr. kozak “Cossack” deriving from the Turkic qazaq (see Fasmer, II, 158; Radloff, II/1, 364) “čelovek vol’nyj, nezavisimyj, iskatel’ priključenij, brodjaga”. In North Caucasian Turkic it is found with meanings very similar to that of Old Russian: Qumuq (Bammatov, Kumyksko-russ., 178) qazaq “batrak, sluga”, Qaračay-Balqar (Tenišev, Karačaevobalkaro-russ., 375) qazaq “plennyj rab ne imevšij sem’i, služivšij v dome”. In Daġistanian languages it is present in Tabasaran ġazaġ 47

A. von Gabain, “Kazaklık”, Németh Armağanı, ed. J. Eckmann et al. (Ankara, 1962), pp. 167-170. 48 V. V. Bartol’d, “Kazak” in his Sočinenija (Moskva, 1963-1977), V, p. 535. 49 Houtsma, Ein türkisch-arabisches Glossar, pp. (Arabic) 25/86. He renders it as “Landstreichcr”. 50 At-Tuḥfat az-Zakiyya fi‘l-Luġat at-Turkiyya: B. Atalay (ed., trans.), Ettuhfet-üzZekiyye fil-Lûgat-it-Türkiyye (Istanbul, 1945), f. 24b/p. 189. Still found in that sense in Qazan Tat. (Radloff, H/1, 365) qazaq kiši “neženaty čelovek, xolostjak”.

257

PETER B. GOLDEN

“sluga, rabotnik, batrak”, and Avar x’azax’ “plennyj rab, batrak”, probably borrowed from Qumuq.51 15. tavarjuxi (Cher., 193) “scrip, satchel, (Č’ub., 1213) “pastušeskaja sumka, kotomka”, (Tsch., 1315) “Ranzen” < Turk. *tavarjuq, cf. Med. Qıpčaq tağarčıq, tağarčuq52 < tağar (see Clauson, ED, 471 “a large container, usually but not necessarily a sack”, see also Sevortjan, III, 120-122) of which this is a diminutive. It is presently found in Osm. Čağ., ETurk. tağar, dağar (Radloff, III/1, 796, Räsänen, Versuch, 454) “bol’šie meški dlja provizii, kotorye kladutsja na sedlo; mera dlja xleba, bljudoobraznyj glinjanyj sosud”. Initial t and the ğ > v (w) shift would seem to point to Qıpčaq. Although, it should be noted, Eastern Osm. dialects have the form davarjiq (davarcık).53 It is found in Pers. as taġâr “Schüssel, ein Mass, Proviant (an Getreide)” as well as in Mongol, Armenian, Arabic, Balkan Slavic, Russian and Modern Greek (see Doerfer, TME, II, 512-519). The form dağarčuq/dağarjuq was the source for the Medieval Greek form δαγαρτζουκι/ταγαρτζουκι (ms. râcrḥwky = *dâġarjûkî) found in the 14th century Rasûlid Hexaglot.54 16. t’alp’ak’i (Č’ub., 546), “kolpak”, (Tsch., 450) “Kopfbedeckung, Kappe, Mütze, Schützhülle, Deckel, Glocke”. < Turk. telpek, cf. Čağ. (Buxârî, 110) telpek “börk, külâh, koyun ve kuzu derisinden kavuk, Dağistan ve Türkmen ve Xvârezmîlerin bašlarına giydikleri kolpak”. Cf. (Radloff, III/1, 1090) telpäk KKir” mexovaja šapka”, Kir” tatarskaja tjubetejka”, Čağ. ETurk. tälpäk “tjubetejka”. Found in Pers. (probably from Uzb., see Doerfer, TME, II, 662) as têlpäk “tëplaja šapka (preimuščestvenno mexovaja”, Macrufov, II, 158, telpak “tepasi yumalâq, muyna jiyakli issiq bâš kiyimi”). It was borrowed into Russ., as well (Šipova, 316), tel’pek “rod papaxi”. 17. t’arxani In Juanšer’s “Life of Vaxtang Gorgasal”, t’arxan xazari (“the Khazar T’arxan”) is presented as a Goliath-like giant, the champion of the Alano-Khazar force faced by King Vaxtang. In this tale, the Georgian monarch slays his opponent (see also baqat’ar

Džidalaev, Tjurkizmy, p. 137. Et-Tuhfet, ed., 3. Atalay, pp. 11b/249; ṭâġârjuq/ṭâġârjiq. Kitâb al-İdrâk, ed., Caferoğlu, pp. (Arabic) 64/96 ṭaġarjuq; Ibn Muhannâ, Kitâb Ḥilyat al-Insân wa Ḥalbat al-Lisân, ed., Kilisli Rifcat (Istanbul, 1338-1340), p. 170 tġrjuq. 53 T. Gülensoy, Doğu Anadolu Osmanlıcası (Ankara, 1986), p. 132. 54 P. B. Golden, “The Byzantine Greek Elements in the Rasulid Hexaglot” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, V (1985 [1987]), p. 79. 52

258

GEORGIO-TURCICA

above).55 (Cher., 90) “free, emancipated”, (Č’ub., 554) “svobodnyj”, t’arxneba “davat’ svobodu”, t’arxnoba “svoboda”. (Tsch., 464) “(hist. ) frei (nicht hörig); in die Freiheit gesetzter Höriger”, t’arxneba (von der Hörigkeit) befreien” t’arxnoba “(hist. ) Freiheit (Ggs. Hörigkeit)” < Turk. tarqan/tarxan, a high-ranking Inner Asian title. Pulleyblank attempted to see it in the Chinese rendering of the Hsiung-nu ruler’s title, Shan-yü (*dân-hwâh = *darġa/darġwâ = tarxan).56 This was rejected by Doerfer, TME (II, 471) but supported by Clauson, (ED, 539-540). Bailey identifies this title with the Hsiung-nu (in Chinese transcription) ta-kan, ta-kuan (d’ât-kân, d’âtkuân = tarqan) and suggests an Indo-Iranian root, tark- < IndoEuropean *tolku “to speak, name” > “to command”.57 The term is widespread in the Eurasian nomadic world, attested among the Türks, Khazars, Bulğars, Hungarians, Qaraxanids and others.58 In Türk usage (6th – 8th century), it designated some high-ranking officials. A number of Islamic sources present it as the name of the Khazar Qağan ṭarxân malik al-xazar.59 By the time of Maḥmud alKâšġarî (ca. 1077), it was viewed as a “pagan word meaning emir.” and associated with the Arğu dialect. 60 In the Činggisid and 55

K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 151-154, II, p. 65 (where reference is made to “Baqat’ar and T’arxan”). 56 E. G. Pulleyblank, “The Consonantal System of Old Chinese” Asia Major, 9 (1962), pp. 91, (pt. H) 256-257. A very different interpretation of these characters is given by Bailey, see above under jibġu. [The title of the Xiongnu ruler 單于 , previously transcribed as Shan-yü is today rendered as Chányú = Later Han dźan wɑ, see A. Schuessler, Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese (Honolulu, 2009), pp. 255(#24-21az, a: OCM dan, LHan dźan, MC źjän and OCM tân, LHan tɑn, MC tân), 56 (#1-23) and EMC (Early Middle Chinese) *dȥian wua’. On this form, see E. Pulleyblank, Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Later Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin (Vancouver, 1991), pp. 48, 381. EMC corresponds to the period before the seventh century. LMC (Late Middle Chinese) corresponds to the seventh-eighth century. Attempts have been made to read into this and other reconstructions various titles (jabğu/yabğu, tarxan) that are later associated with Inner Asian polities, see V. S. Taskin, Materialy po istorii drevnix kočevyx narodov gruppy dunxu (Moskva, 1984), pp. 305-306. PBG 2011]. 57 Bailey, Indo-Scythian Studies, p. 33. 58 Golden, Khazar Studies, I, p. 212. 59 See sources in Golden, Khazar Studies, I, pp. 210-212. 60 Mahmûd al-Kâšγarî, Compendium of Turkic Dialects (Dîwân Luγât-at-Turk, ed., trans. R. Dankoff and James Kelly (Cambridge, Mass., 1982-1985), I, p. 241. The Arğu region extended from Ispîjâb to Balasağun. Kâšġarî, I, p. 83, numbers its populace among those Turkic-speaking groups “who have two languages and who mix with the populace of the cities”, producing “a certain slurring in their utterances.” Clearly, a population in the process of Turkicization is being described.

259

PETER B. GOLDEN

succeeding era it was largely associated with freedom from taxes, i. e. a noble status. It is in this sense that it was used in late MedievalEarly Modern Georgia and Iran. Thus, in Pers., tarxân (Doerfer, TME, II, pp. 460-477) denoted “Person, der folgende Privilegien verliehen worden sind: 1. Steuer— und Abgabenfreiheit, auch z. B. bei der Jagd— und Kriegsbeute, 2. freier Zutritt zum Herrscher ohne vorherige Amneldung (bei Empfängen links von Thron) 3. Straffreiheit in neun Fallen.” 18. t’ok’mač’i (Cher., 93) “smith”, (Č’ub., 568) “kuznec” (Tsch., 498), “(Kupfer-) Schmied < Turk. tökmeči, cf. Osm. (Redhouse, 925) dökmeci “a founder, especially a brass founder”. The form is not Osm. The verb tök- “to pour out (a liquid)” is found throughout Turkic, Ancient, Medieval and Modern (see Clauson, ED,, 477; Sevortjan, III, 273-274). Its source in Georgian is either Qıpčaq or Čağatay. 19. t’ungi (Cher., 93) “measure of capacity”, (Č’ub., 570) “tunga ili mera židkostej 5 1/3 butylok, kuvšin glinjanoj”, (Tsch., 504) “Wasserkrug aus Kupfer, (ehm. Mass für Wein, ca. 4,51)”, tungula “kleiner Krug < Čağ. Turk. tüng (Radloff, III/2, 1541) “posuda dlja vina”, tüng, tünek (Budagov, I, 408) “kamennaja posuda, vsjakaja posuda dlja vina. V Gruzii mera vina, soderžaščaja 5 butylok”. 20. t’unuk’i (Cher., 93) “tin” (Tsch., 504) “Blech”, (Č’ub., 570) t’unuk’a “žest’, bljaxa” < Čağ. Turk. tünüke (Radloff, III/2, 1553) “belaja žest”‘, tünükeči “žestjanyx del master”. The term is still found in the Türkî languages, Uzb. tunuka (Watson, 120) “sheet iron”, (Macrufov, II, 224) “tâm yâpiš wa bâšqa maqsadlar učun maxsus tayârlangan yupqa taxta-taxta temir”, Uyğ. (Jarring, 318) tunika “plate”, aq tunika “white iron”. 21. uji appears in a passage in the “The Life of T’amar, the Queen of Queens” (C’xovreba mep’et’-mep’isa t’amarisi) refering to the duplicitous activies of the Seljuk ruler of Rûm, Rukn ad-Dîn Süleyman II (1196-1204), son of ʻIzz ad-Dîn Qılıč Arslan (11561192), (“Č’araslan [Qılıč Arslan] dzesa, saxelit’ Nuk’ardins”): xolo t’vit’ amoiscrap’a da miicia ujad saxeldebult’a mat’ t’urk’t’a romel arian mxne brdzolasa šina.” “But, he himself hastened and came to

It might be recalled here that Trġwn/Ṭarxûn/Tarxûn was the name of an important Soġdian ruler of the early 8th century, see V. A. Livšic, Sogdijskie dokumenty s gory Mug, vyp. II, Juridičeskie dokumenty i pis’ma (Moskva, 1962), pp. 66-67. The relationship of this name to the title tarqan/tarxan, if any, is unclear.

260

GEORGIO-TURCICA

the Turks who are called uj, they are brave in battle.”61 This is a slightly garbled reference to the Oğuz uj (Osm., Redhouse, 238) “tip, point, extremity, end,” Turk. (Clauson, ED, 17-18, Sevortjan, I, 611-12) uč “extremity, end tip, the frontier”`. Cf., Med. Qıpčaq uj eri “man of the frontier”.62 It appears in Pers. (Doerfer, TME, II, 11135-136) as uč “äusserstes Ende, Grenzmark”. 22. ulusi (Cher.,) “(nomad) encampment” (Tsch., 1400), “(hist) mongol. oder türk. Stämmen gehöriges Territorium, (hist. ) Nomadenlager (der Mongolen od. Türken), Aul, administrative territoriale Einheit (bei den Kalmücken usw. in der UdSSR, Mongole, Mohammedaner” It is found in the modern sense in the Axali K’art’lis C’xovreba, 63 a late source. It was borrowed into Russ. with meanings very similar to those found in Georgian (e. g” stanovišče kočevnikov, tabor jurt, kibitok, aul.”) and was first recorded in Russian sources s. a. 1315. Here it designates a “selenie (u tatar), vladenie, podvlastnaja strana u tatar” (Šipova, 346). It appears in Pers. (Doerfer, TME, I, 175-177) as ûlûs “Inbegriff der Untertanen eines Herrschers”. According to Doerfer (TME, I, 177 and Clauson, ED, 152) it is a loanword in Mong. from Turk uluš “country”. In the Mongol era, it designated the Mongol imperium and then the four appanages of Činggis’s heirs. It may have entered Georgian directly from Mongol or via Turkic intermediaries. 23. xakani noted as the name/title of the Khazar ruler in the tale of Bluč’an. 64 < Turkic title qağan/xağan, first attested among the Proto-Mongolic Hsien-pi, which passed to the Türks with their conquest and takeover of the Jou-jan Empire in 552. It is the equivalent of “emperor”. It was taken into Mongol as qaġan > WestMong. qa’an and thence into Pers. qâ’ân (Clauson, ED, 611; Doerfer, TME, III, 141-180 has a lengthy discussion). It surfaces in Georgian of the Mongol era and thereafter as qaeni, qeeni, qeini65 (Cher., p. 223) “Khan, shah”; (Tsch., pp. 1664, 1665, 1671) “Khan”, “den Khan darstellende Hauptfigur beim qeenoba-Fest (= “Volksfest am ersten Montag der grossen Fasten”); (Č’ub., 1371) 61

K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed., Qauxč’išvili, II, p. 132. Houtsma, Ein türkisch-arabisches Glossar, Arabic text, p. 30/trans., 55, “Grenzbewohner”. 63 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, II, pp. 326, 327, 484, 485, 492. 64 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, I, p. 249. See also Tsch., 2292 “(hist.) Titel der Konigs bei den Chasaren u. and. Völkern”. 65 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, II, p. 160, 303. 62

261

PETER B. GOLDEN

“xagan, xan tatarskoj ordy; persidskij šah”. This latter form probably entered Georgian directly from Mongol. The Khazar era xakani resembles the contemporary Armenian xak’an and Arab xâqân.66 24. xan It is first noted in the Žamt’aaġmcereli’s account of the rise of Činggis Xan as the title of the Mongol rulers.67 In Mod. Georg. it is, as elsewhere, an historico-technical term: (Cher., 266) “khan”, (Č’ub., 1721) “xan, gosudar’, u tatar xan, pravitel’ provincii v Persii”, (Tsch., 2298) “Khan” < Turk. xan (Clauson, ED, p. 630, see there and Doerfer, TME, III, pp. 141-180 for its connection with qağan). 25. xat’uni Used in the Žamt’aaġmcereli to designate the “ladies” of the court or perhaps “concubines”.68 In Mod. Georg” (Cher., 265) “dame, lady”, (Č’ub., 1719) “dama”, (Tsch., 2292) “Gattin, Herrin, Frau” < Turk. qatun, xatun “lady, queen” < Soġd. xwat’yn; xwatên “wife of the lord, ru1er” (Clauson, ED, 602-603), cf., Osm. (Redhouse, 818), ḫatun “A lady, dame, woman, a man’s wife”, vulg. qadın (Redhouse, 1409) “a lady consort”. It entered Pers. as xâtûn “Gattin eines Chans, später (einfache) Edelfrau und sogar (schlichtweg) Frau” (see Doerfer, TME, III, 132-141 who rejects the Soġdian etymology).

Dictionaries, reference works cited in this paper Abaev, V. I., Istoriko-ètimologiceskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka (Moskva-Leningrad, 1958)

Bammatov, Z. Z. (ed. ), Kumyksko-russky slovar’ (Moskva, 1969) Baskakov, N. A. (ed. ), Nogajsko-russky slovar’ (Moskva, 1963) Baskakov, N. A., Zajączkowski, A., Szapszal, S. M., Karaimsko-russkopol’skij slovar’ (Moskva, 1974)

See Golden, Khazar Studies, I, pp. 192-196. K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, II, p. 160. 68 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, II, pp. 296, 626 (lexicon) suggests the latter meaning. 67

262

GEORGIO-TURCICA

Benkő, L. et al., A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára (Budapest, 1967-76) = MNytesz Buxârî, Šeyx Süleymân Efendi, Luğat-i Čağatay ve Türki-Osmanî (Istanbul, 1298) Clauson, Sir Gerard, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford, 1972) Doerfer, G., Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen (Wiesbaden, 1963-1975) = TME Fasmer (Vasmer), M., Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka, trans. O. N. Trubačёv (Moskva, 1986-87) Guedjedjiani, C., Palmaitis, L., (comp. ), Hewitt, B. G. (ed. ), Svan-English Dictionary (Delmar, New York, 1985) Jarring, G., An Eastern Turki-English Dialect Dictionary (Lund, 1964) Macrufov, Z. M., Üzbek tilining izâhli luğati (Moskva, 1981) Moravcsik, G., Byzantinoturcica (Berlin, 1958) abbreviated as BT Nadeljaev, V. M., et al., Drevnetjurkskij slovar’ (Leningrad, 1969), abbreviated as DTS Oraltay, H. et al., trans., Kazak Türkçesi Sözlüğü (Istanbul, 1984) Radloff (Radlov), V. V., Opyt slovarja tjurkskix narečij (SPb., 1888-1911) Redhouse, Sir James W., A Turkish and English Lexicon (Constantinople, 1890, reprint: Beirut, 1974) Räsänen, M., Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen (Helsinki, 1969) Sevortjan, É. V., Étimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov (Moskva, 1974) Sreznevskij, I. I., Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam (SPb., 1890-1912, reprint: Moskva, 1989) Steingass, F., A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary (1892, reprint: Beirut, 1970) Šipova, E. N., Slovar’ tjurkizmov v russkom jazyke (Alma-Ata, 1976) Tatarsko-russkij slovar’ (Moskva, 1966) Tenišev, É. R., et al., ed., Karačaevo-balkarsko-russkij slovar’ (Moskva, 1989) Vasmer, see Fasmer Watson, N., Uzbek-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1990) Žurawski, A. I., Histaryčny slownik belaruskaj movy (Minsk, 1982)

263

THE OĞUZ TURKIC (OTTOMAN/SAFAVID) ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN: BACKGROUND AND PATTERNS

Introduction The presence of Ottoman Turkish loanwords in the languages of the non-Turkish peoples once under the dominion of the Sublime Porte, one of the measures of the Ottoman impact in these areas, has long attracted the attention of philologists. The Ottoman elements in the languages of the Balkans and Central Europe, areas that were seats of Ottoman power and the focal points of prolonged contention between the Sultans and the European powers, have, in particular, been the objects of detailed investigations.1 The collation of the results of these studies (one of the principal desiderata of Ottoman Studies) with the data drawn from local sources, the accounts of European and Ottoman travellers and the extraordinarily rich material currently being extracted from the massive body of Ottoman socio-economic documents (defters, vakıfnames etc.) 2 and its setting into the context of the traditional

The literature is much too extensive to he fully cited here. Among the most recent works, mention should he made of S. Kakuk, Recherches sur l’histoire de la langue Osmanlie des XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Les éléments osmanlies de la langue hongroise (The Hague-Paris, 1973) which has a thorough bibliography of the question. The classic work still remains: F. Miklosich, Die türkischen Elemente in den südostund osteuropäischen Sprachen, I-II (Wien, 1884) and his Die türkischen Elemente in den südost- und osteuropäischen Sprachen. Nachtrag, I-II (Wien, 1888-1890). 2 For a bibliography of published Ottoman tax-registers, see C Bayerle, Ottoman Tributes In Hungary (The Hague - Paris, 1973), pp. 172-73. For the use and examples of other types of Ottoman socio-economic material cf. D. Kal’di-‘Nad’ (Káldy-Nagy), “Tureckie pravovye knigi mukata‘a kak istoričeskie istočniki,” Vostočnye istočniki po istorii narodov Iugo-Vostočnoi i Central’noi Evropy, ed. A. S. Tveritinova, I (Moskva, 190-1); M. T. Gökbilgin, XV-XVI asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa livası Vakıflar-

265

PETER B. GOLDEN

political narrative, will one day enable us to trace the impact of the Ottomans on these lands on a microcosmic scale. Such a study will not only reveal much about the interaction of the Ottomans, on every level, with the peoples of these territories, but ultimately should greatly enrich our knowledge of the nature of societies in confrontation and interaction. It is only recently that studies employing the sophisticated modes of philological analysis familiar to Ottoman-Balkan or OttomanHungarian researches have appeared which deal with areas of the Ottoman Empire in which the cultural, societal or religious backgrounds were similar to that of the Ottomans (e. g., the Arab lands).3 Still less explored is a third area, one which, in terms of the various cultural layers that may he delineated in it, is extremely complex: The Caucasus. With the exception of most of the Armenian lands and parts of Western Georgia, Ottoman rule here was not as stable as elsewhere nor of equal impact throughout the region. Societies here were at different stages of development, ranging from pagan and semi-pagan clan and tribal organizations to highly sophisticated and relatively urbanized Christian and Muslim political entities with ancient traditions and a sense of identity. This region, a traditional bone of contention between the empires to its East and West for more than a millennium before the advent of the Ottomans, was also a crossroads between the civilizations spawned by these empires as well as a gateway to or defense line against the “Peoples of the North”4 This was (and remains) an area of enormous ethnic complexity, a fact recognized by the medieval Islamic geographers who termed “Mount Qabx” the “Mountain of Tongues” (Jabal al-Alsun or Jabal al-Alsinah). 5 Thus, the tenth century Arab polyhistor, al-Masʻūdî, noted that some 72 different languages and

mülkler-mukataalar (Istanbul, 1952); M. E. Düzdağ, Şeyhülislâm Ebussuûd Efendi fetvaları ışığında 16. asır Türk hayatı (Istanbul, 1972). 3 See the pioneering work of T. Halasi-Kun, “The Ottoman Elements in the Syrian Dialects,” Archivum Ottomanicum 1 (1969), pp. 14-91, and 5 (1973), pp. 17-95. 4 C. Toumanoff, “Armenia and Georgia,” The Cambridge Medieval History, IV, part I: The Byzantine Empire: Byzantium and its Neighbours, ed. J. M. Hussey (Cambridge, 1966); D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth (London, 1971), pp. 33-31. M. F. D. Allen, A History of the Georgian People (reprint: New York, 1971), p. 70. 5 V. F. Minorsky, A History of Sharvân and Darband (Cambridge, 1958), p. 91; Ş. Erel, Dağıstan ve Dağıstanlılar (Istanbul, 1961), pp, 1-2.

266

THE OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

peoples flourished in the North Caucasus.6 In Transcaucasia, in contrast to the jumble of tongues in the North, three separate and distinct politico-cultural units took shape. In the South lay Christian Armenia, Indo-European in speech (but with a considerable Caucasian substratum) and receptive to the cultural winds blowing from East and West.7 In the East was situated a patchwork of entities, pre-Islamic Ağvan/Alvan (Albania), Adharbayjân of the Islamic geographers, fragments of whose early medieval history have been preserved in the account of Movsês Dasxuranc’i/Kałankatvac’i.8 This has always been an area with a complicated linguistic history (Caucasian, Iranian and now largely Oğuz Turkic) which became Islamicized and has at all times been profoundly influenced by Persian culture. Finally, in the West, lies Georgia, predominantly Orthodox Christian (as opposed to the Monophysitism of neighboring Armenia) and speaking a language belonging to the K’art’velian subgrouping of the rather loosely defined “Caucasian” language family.9 It is to Georgia, in particular, that I wish to turn. An assessment of the Ottoman linguistic impact here must first be prefaced by some important background points of orientation. This is made necessary by the fact that some of the axioms for determining an Ottoman loanword in Balkan Slavic, Greek, Albanian, Rumanian or Hungarian do not hold true for Georgian. Thus, leaving aside pure Turkic words, the overwhelming bulk of Islamic culture words (words of Arab or Persian origin) found, for example, in a Balkan Slavic language almost always point to Ottoman. Indeed, the Balkan and Central European association with the Islamic world was virtually exclusively Ottoman. Similarly, although all of these countries experienced considerable contact with the peoples of the Turkic-Eurasian steppes during the Middle Ages, it is only in Hungary (nomadic in origin, profoundly and continuously influenced by Turkic peoples from “pre-conquest” (honfoglálas előtti) 6

Al-Masʻûdi, Murûj adh-Dhahab wa Ma‘âdîn al-Jawhar, ed. C. Pellat (Beirut, 1966, I, p. 209; cf., also Ibn al-Faqîh, Kitâb al-Buldân, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1885), pp. 25-295; Υâqût, Muʻjam al-Buldân (Beirut, 1957), IV, pp. 300 etc. 7 In general, see S. Der Νersessian, The Armenians (New York-Washington, 1970) and N. Adonc, Armeniia v époxu Iustiniana (SPb., 1908), pp. 2-3; on Armenian origins see G. Kapancian, Istoriko-lingvističeskie raboty (Erevan, 1950); C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963), pp. 48 ff. 8 The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsês Dasxuranci, trans. C. Dowsett (London, 1961); cf. also Κ. V. Trever, Očerki po istorii i kul’ture kavkazskoi Albanii (Moskva - Leningrad, 1059). 9 G. A. Klimov, Kavkazskie iazyki (Moskva, 1965). esp. pp. 38-48.

267

PETER B. GOLDEN

times through the Middle Ages) that we find any significant strata of Turkic loanwords antedating the Ottoman period.10 In contrast, the Georgian experience with respect to exposure to and interaction with Turkic and Islamic societies may best be described as multi-tiered, reflecting Georgia’s ongoing interaction with various elements of the Turkic and Islamic worlds since the early Middle Ages. Hence, a given Turkic, Arabic or Persian term in Georgian may have a rich history antedating the Ottoman period. Moreover, even during the Ottoman period, the Ottomans were not the sole source of Islamic culture-words or even Turkic loan-words in Georgian. They had strong competition from their foremost rivals in the East: the Safavid State in Iran. The latter arose out of a Šiʻî sectarian movement which gained wide support amongst the Oğuz Turkic tribesmen of Iran and parts of Anatolia. These tribes are usually lumped together under the collective designation Qızılbaš (Kızılbaş). The Safavid dynasty, whatever its ultimate ethnic origins,11 employed Oğuz Turkic as an official language 10

The literature here is very extensive. For the “pre-conquest” and “conquest” periods, see Gy. Németh. A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (Budapest, 1930) and L. Ligeti (cd.) A magyarság őstörténete (Budapest, 1943). For the Pečengs and Qumans in Hungary, see bibliographies in Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica (Berlin, 19582), I, pp. 87-94, L. Rásonyi, Tarihte Türklük (Ankara, 1971), pp. 32733. On the Turkic loanwords in Hungarian, see G. Bárczi - L. Benkő - J. Berrár, A magyar nyelv története (Budapest, 1967). pp. 280-84; Z. Gombocz, Die BulgarischTürkischen Lehnwörter in der ungarischen Sprache in the Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 30 (1912) and the new data on post-Bulğaro/Oğuric loanwords in T. Halasi-Kun, “Kipchak Philology and the Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian,” Archivum Eurasiae Medie Aevi 1 (1975). It should be noted that the Slavicspeaking Bulgarians of today, although partly Turkic in origin, have preserved surprisingly little of their pre-Ottoman Turkic vocabulary. Bulğar Turkic (a form of Oğuric) appears to have been almost totally effaced with the advent of Christianity to Bulgaria in the mid 9th century and the subsequent slavicization of the Turkic ruling element. On Bulğar Turkic sec O. Pritsak, Die Bulgarische Fürstenliste (Wiesbaden, 1955). 11 See Minorsky’s comments in Tadhkirat al-Mulûk, ed. trans. V. F. Minorsky (London, 1943), pp. 12-18, 187-95. R. M. Savory, “Safavid Persia,” The Cambridge History of Islam (Cambridge, 1970), I, pp. 391-99; H. Laoust, Les Schismes dans I’lslam, (Paris, 1965), pp. 261, 263-65; P. M. Holt, Egypt and the Fertile Crescent 1516-1922 (London, 1966), pp. 33-36. On Ottoman-Safavid polemics see. J. R. Walsh “The Historiography of Ottoman-Safavid Relations in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Historians of the Middle East, eds. D. Lewis - P. M. Holt (London, 1962); E. Eberhard, Osmanische Polemik gegen die Safaviden im 16. Jahrhundert nach arabischen Handschriften (Freiburg, 1970). On the heterodox movements amongst the Anatolian Oğuz tribes, see Μ. F. Köprülü, Osmanlı imparatorluğunun kuruluşu (Ankara, 19722), esp. pp. 98 ff., 141 ff.; H. Inalcık, The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age 1300-1600 (London, 1973), pp. 191-97.

268

THE OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

(cf. several documents of Shâh Ismâʻil written in the early sixteenth century which are linguistically indistinguishable from Ottoman). 12 Finally, it should be noted that in terms of ethno-linguistic classification, the Oğuz Turkic tribal components of both the Ottoman and Safavid states were identical. The Oğuz tribes, as they entered the Near and Middle East in the eleventh century (under the Seljuq aegis), formed a solid belt extending from the westernmost, Anatolian “ğâzî line” to Central Asia. The tribes, however, did not always remain in compact groups. Rather, fragments splintered off as they progressed westward. Thus, tribal groupings bearing the same name can be traced, even today, in checkerboard fashion all across the region. This phenomenon is confirmed by toponyms. 13 As a consequence, the problems encountered in determining whether a given Turkic-word of clear Oğuz origin (as opposed to Qıpčaq and other Turkic elements also present in Georgian) is Ottoman or Safavid are considerable. All of these factors make it necessary to backtrack somewhat and briefly explore the implications for our study of Georgia’s complicated political history.

Contacts With the Turkic and Islamic World Prior to the Fifteenth Century The Georgian lands, like their neighbors in Transcaucasia, frequently found themselves the objects of unwanted attention from the neighboring “super-powers” Consequently, parts of the disunited Georgian realm were placed into the political and cultural orbit of the “super-powers” or their allies. In the early seventh century, for example, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, locked in a life and death struggle with Sâsânid Iran, formed an alliance with the Turkic Qazars whose raids into Transcaucasia and involvement in local politics became a permanent feature of the region’s history until the late eighth century. The Georgians had barely had time to recover from the Qazar siege and taking of Tbilisi in 628 when the Arabs, replacing the 12

L. Fekete, “Ilk Sefevî şahlarının Türkçe çikartılmış iki senedi,” Ağmosavluri P’ilologia, 3 (1973), pp. 290-93. 13 Köprülü, Osm. Imp. kur., pp. 85-92, 128; D. E. Eremeev, Étnogenez turok (Moskva, 1971), esp. pp. 83-89. For a detailed analysis of the Oğuz tribes see F. Sümer, Oğuzlar (Ankara, 1967), pp. 193-363. For Oğuz tribal names as toponyms in Transcaucasia, see R. A. Guseinov, “Tiurkskie étničeskie gruppy XI-XII vv. v Zakavkaz’e,” Tiurkologičeskii Sbornik 1972 (Moskva, 1973), p. 381.

269

PETER B. GOLDEN

Sâsânids, appeared on the scene and T’bilisi (Tiflîs in Arabic) was transformed into an amîrate in the Umayyad Caliphate.14 The western Georgian lands, Ap’xazet’i (with its Georgian-speaking ruling elite and mixed populace) and Imeret’i, however, found themselves in the QazarByzantine orbit. Leon II of Ap’xazet’i (whose maternal grandfather was the Qazar Qağan) was able to take advantage of temporary rifts in the otherwise stable Qazar-Byzantine alliance, to break out of the Byzantine orbit (with Qazar support) and become independent in the late eighth century.15 Turkic influences, via the Qazars, were felt in early medieval Georgian lands and a remembrance of this is reflected in anthroponymy (cf. the name Xazara).16 Turkic titles (qağan, tarqan, jabğu) are mentioned in Georgian historical sources for this period (cf. K’art’lis C’xovreba). Georgian-Arab relations (and hence Arab cultural influences) were far more complicated. The Georgian territories, at this time, were a patchwork of rival, native holdings and Muslim amîrates, both of whom periodically showed signs of rebelliousness against the Caliphate. By the early ninth century, the amîr of Tiflîs (Isḥâq b. Ismâʻîl, Sahak in Georgian) had established a de facto independence and remained in “revolt” against the central government (according to the Ta’rîx al-Bâb preserved in Münneccimbaşi) until ca. 853 when he was defeated and executed by Buğa the Turk (who was also not immune to the centrifugal forces rampant in the area).17 Subsequent attempts to keep the region under the authority of the central government (cf. the expedition of Abu’l-Qâṣim in 914) only slightly retarded the total collapse of Caliphal control.18 Thus, by the mid-late 14

Movsês Dasxuranc’i, trans. Dowsett, pp. 81-88; K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Quaxč’išvili (T’bilisi, 1955), I, pp. 225, 374-75. On the Arab conquests, see I. Javaxišvili, K’art’veli eris istoria (T’bilisi, 1965), II. pp. 73-75. For the treaty of the Arab commander Ḥabîb b. Maslamah with the inhabitants of Tiflîs, see alBalâdhurî, Futûḥ al-Buldân, ed. Riḍwân M. Raḍwân (Cairo, 1951), pp. 204-205. 15 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili, I, p. 251; Javaxišvili, K’art’veli eris ist., II, pp. 82, 92-93; Z. V. Ančabadze, Iz istorii srednevekovoi Abxazij (Suxumi 1959). pp. 101-105; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 256-401. 16 M. Jik’ia, “T’urkuli carmomavlobis ant’roponimebi K’art’ulši,” Ağmosavluri P’ilologia 3 (1973). p. 212. 17 Minorsky, Hist. Sharvân and Darband (Arabic text), p. 3. trans, p. 25, Buğa was recalled by the caliphal government when it was learned that he had been negotiating with the Qazars (K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 250-57) [his kinsmen]. 18 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 202-3; Javaxišvili, K’art’veli eris ist., II, pp. 101-105. N. A. Berdzenišvili - V. D. Dondua, et alii, Istoriia Gruzii (T’bilisi, 1962), I. p. 130.

270

THE OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

tenth century, direct Arab cultural influence from the Caliphal center was greatly reduced, but the Muslim amîrs in and around Georgia provided a source of constant contact and interaction.19 The struggle of rival Georgian dynasts, in the eleventh century, to achieve political unification of the country, was played out against a backdrop of Byzantine and local Muslim involvement. The process was almost completed (T’bilisi, however, remaining under a Muslim amîr and the Kaxet’ian principality unwilling to join the fold)20 when a new and very serious complication appeared on the scene: the Seljuq Turks. The first, major Seljuq assault came during the reign of Alp Arslan in 1064 and was followed by another attack in 1067-1068. 21 This, however, was only a prelude. Following the Byzantine collapse at Manzikert in 1071, the new Seljuq Sultan, Malikšâh ( 1072-1092), dispatched expeditions against Georgia in 1073-1074 and 1076. These marauding incursions soon became annual affairs and some of the invaders began to settle in abandoned lands. The culmination of these raids was the didi t’urk’oba (lit. “the Great Turkdom”), a massive series of Turkish invasions which ravaged the land ca. 1080. The Georgian king, Giorgi II, was forced to pay the xarâj and to join his army to the Seljuq bands operating in those areas not under his direct rule (this did not save his own lands from plunder). The result of this was the massive depopulation of some regions and the presence of Turkish tribesmen throughout the land. Giorgi’s ineffectiveness led to a coup d’état in 1089 in which he was toppled and replaced by his son Davit’.22 The latter, called Ağmašenebeli (the “Restorer/Rebuilder”), in the 19

Aside from title amîr of Tiflîs the most important of the local Muslim dynasts were the Šaddâdids who figure prominently in the history of Eastern and Western Transcaucasia, see V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History (London, 1953), chaps. I-II. 20 Berdzenišvili - Dondua, et alii, Ist. Gruzii I, pp. 134-45; Toumanoff, CHM, IV/1, pp. 618-9. 21 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 309-309; Ibn al-Athir Al-Kâmil fî’tTa’rix, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Beirut reprint, 1965-1966), X, pp. 38-40; N. Lûgal (Turk. trans.), Sadruddin ebu’l Hasan ‘Ali ibn Nâsir ibn ‘Ali al-Hüseyin, Ahbâr üdDevlet is-Selçukıyye (Ankara, 1943), pp. 21 ff.; M. H. Yınanç, Türkiye tarihi, Selçuklular devri (Istanbul, 1944), pp. 57-9; M. D. Lordkipanidze, Istoriia Gruzii XI-načala XIII veka (T’bilisi, 1974), pp. 81-82, gives 1065 as the dale for the first major Seljuk incursion into Georgia. The second attack (in 1068) was particularly devastating as the Kaxet’ian king, Ağsart’an, the Armenian king, Kvirike, and Jaʻfar, the amîr of Tiflîs, had all joined the Seljuks with the aim of revenging themselves on the Georgian Bagratids. 22 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 300-22; Lordkipanidze, Ist. Gruzij XInačala XIII veka, pp. 81-87; Javaxišvili, K’art’veli eris ist., II, pp. 100-3.

271

PETER B. GOLDEN

course of his long reign (1089-1125) was able to stem the Seljuq tide and give a new and more positive form to the Turkic influences in Georgia. The Georgian kingdom, able to benefit from the Crusades and the decline of both Byzantium and the Seljuq state, experienced a period of considerable territorial expansion, transforming itself in the process into a “Caucasian monarchy.”23 After conducting a series of military reforms, Davit’, who in 1097 had already ceased paying the xarâj, began in 1101 a series of campaigns aimed at driving the Seljuq tribesmen from his lands. The effort was exhausting and Davit’, feeling the need for extra forces (and a standing army) turned to his father-inlaw, Atrak (At’raka, Otrok, of the Rus’ chronicles), son of the famous Šaruqan (Šarağanisdze in Georgian) who with his horde of 40,000 Quman families was induced, in 1118, to enter Georgia in service to the crown. They were settled in depopulated Inner K’art’li, Heret’i, Northern Armenia and the border zones. Although some of the Qumans ultimately returned to the North Caucasian steppes, others became sedentarized, converted to Christianity and were assimilated. 24 This population movement, conducted on a grand scale (even allowing for the exaggeration typical of medieval sources) left, perforce, its imprint as we can judge from the Qıpčaq loanwords in Georgian (see below). Muslim influence (in either Arabo-Persian or Turkic garb) was also important during this period. Following his great victory over the Seljuqs at Didgori in 1121, Davit’, in 1122, at last took T’bilisi (which, after the long period of Muslim rule had, like other towns in Georgia, a strong Islamic character). Davit’s subsequent conquests in Armenian lands and the successful conclusion of his long campaign against the Muslim state of the Širvânšâhs (completed in 1124 25 ) transformed 23

Allen, Hist. of the Georgian People, pp. 95-96. Georgians also figure in the larger Turkic world of this period, as recent research on the Bešk’en dynasty of Northwestern Iran indicates, see P. T’op’uria, “Masalebi Bešk’eniant’a k’art’uli dinastiis istoriisat’vis” in V. Gabašvili et alii (eds.), Maxlobeli Ağmosavlet’is istoriis sakit’xebi (T’bilisi, 1903), pp. 113-31. 24 Lordkipanidze, Ist. Gruzii XI-načala XIII veka, pp. 96-97; K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili, I, pp. 335-7; Javaxišvili, K’art’veli eris ist., II, pp. 199-200, 214-6. 25 Javaxišvili, K’art’veli eris ist., II, pp. 201-10, 210-17; Lordkipanidze, Ist. Gruzii XInačala XIII veka, pp. 101-108, 112-15; Davit’ was especially well-known for his religious tolerance and beneficent treatment of the Muslim population of his realm. A reflection of the Muslim-Georgian symbiosis (one which underscores the importance of the Muslim urban, commercial population) may be seen in the Georgian coins of the period. Thus, a coin of Davit’s realm bears an Arabic inscription (the formula was: “King of kings / Davit’ son of Giorgi / Sword of the Messiah,” see Lordkipanidze, Ist. Gruzii XI-načala XIII veka, p. 121). This formula was continued by his successors, cf., the coin of Giorgi III from 1174: “Malik ul-

272

THE OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

Georgia into a truly Transcaucasian monarchy. The urban areas of this greatly expanded realm had large Muslim elements which exerted an influence on Georgian culture. Georgia, due to its imposing military strength, political, economic and matrimonial ties, remained intimately connected with the neighboring Muslim states and statelets. The decades following Davit’s death were taken up with the struggles of his successors to retain many of the non-Georgian lands, won in his wars of conquest. The medieval Georgian kingdom reached the zenith of its power under Queen T’amar (1184-1212) who, in many respects, brought to fruition the work of Davit’ Ağmašenebeli. Georgia had become one of the most formidable powers in the Near East. The state structure of the Georgian monarchy while retaining many of its native forms (i. e., the uxuc’esis etc. ) had also taken over institutions from the Seljuq state: the office of vazîr (in Georgia there were five vaziris, the highest offices of the state, who also formed a council, the savaziro); the Turkic atabeg office etc.26 T’amar’s successors, Giorgi Laša (1212-1223) and his sister Queen Rusudani (Rusudan mep’e, 1223-1217) were both more given to debauchery than affairs of state. Thus, when the Mongol tide swept through, punctuated by the ravagings of the fleeing Xwârazmšâh Jalâl ad-Dîn, Georgia collapsed as rapidly as its neighbors.27 As in the preceding period, Georgia, caught up in the web of panMongol and then Ilxanid politics, was open lo considerable TurkoMongolian influence some of which has remained in the vocabulary of Mulûk / Gîûrgî bin Dimitri / Husâm ul-Masiḥ,” see D. Μ. Lang, Studies in the Numismatic History of Georgia in Transcaucasia, New York, 1955, p. 21). 26 Javaxišvili, K’art’veli eris ist., II, pp. 220-95; Lordkipanidze, Ist. Gruzii XI-načala XIII veka, pp. 127-34, 152-63, 166-9; Allen, Hist. of the Georgian People, pp. 99108; O. Turan, Doğu Anadolu Türk devletleri tarihi (Istanbul, 1973), pp. 5-21. 93 ff. Warfare with the Seljuqids and their various splinter states was continuous. Major victories were achieved by Queen T’amar in 1195 at Šamxor against the atabeg of Azerbayjan, Abu Bakr Pahlivân (cf., Ahbâr üd-Devlet is-Selçukıyye, pp. 120 ff.) and against the Seljuqs of Rum at Basiani in either 1203 or 1204. M. Lordkipanidze (Epoxa Rustaveli, T’bilisi, 1965, p. 27) suggests that T’amar introduced the atabeg office to Georgia. 27 J. J. Saunders, The History of the Mongol Conquest (New York, 1971), pp. 59, 77-79; S. L. Tixvinskii (ed.), Tataro-mongoly v Azii i Evrope (Moskva, 1970), pp. 159 ff.; Javaxišvili, K’art’veli eris ist., III, pp. 14-28, 46ff., and 324-35. Georgian forces under the renowned Mxargrdzeli military family were in the Mongol army that defeated the Sultan of Rum, Ğiyâth ad-Dîn, in 1243. One of the Georgian princes bore the Turkic name Ağbuğa (see Aknerli Grigor, Moğol tarihi, Turk, trans. H. Andreasyan (Istanbul, 1954), pp. 15-16). Seljuq forces at that time also included an “Abxaz” commander, Dardin/Dardan Šarvašidze (K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili, II, p. 192).

273

PETER B. GOLDEN

Modern Georgian. Indeed, during certain periods, Turko-Mongol names, customs etc. became fashionable in Georgian high society.28 Ilxanid rule, however, also gave subtle (and sometimes overt) encouragement to the centrifugal forces that were always present in the aristocracy and for this Georgia would pay dearly. When Ilxanid rule collapsed in the course of the first half of the fourteenth century, it was followed by the double scourges of Timur Leng and the Black Death. Of somewhat longer duration (but decidedly reduced in scale) were the attacks of Türkmen tribes (the Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu) who constituted Georgia’s principal link with the Turkic world in the early fifteenth century.29 Royal authority had, meanwhile, undergone serious buffeting. A respite was granted by the relative peace of the fifteenth century and the fact that their dynamic, new neighbor, the Ottoman state, was still largely busy with Constantinople and European affairs and the Safavids were only just beginning to stir. Georgia, however, was unable lo overcome the feudal divisions that had so long plagued her despite the clear warnings signaled by the Ottoman moves on the Abxaz coast in 1451 and their subsequent taking of the ByzantinoGeorgian state of Trebizond.30

Ottomans and Safavids in Georgia In the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries, the now completely disunited Georgian lands found themselves alternately or simultaneously ravaged by the Ottomans and Safavids (the battle of empires here was, in many ways, similar to the Ottoman-Habsburg struggles in Hungary). To the complex tangle of Ottoman-Safavid relations in this region were added the expansionist policies of the burgeoning Russian state which established a foothold in the North Caucasus and periodically

This was particularly true of the reign of Demetre II (1269-1289), see Allen, Hist, of the Georgian People, p. 119. 29 Berdzenišvili - Dondua, et alii, Ist. Gruzii I, pp. 257-50; I. H. Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu Karakoyunlu devletleri (Ankara, 19692), pp. 183. and 19193; Allen, Hist, of the Georgian People, pp. 132-33. Important data can be found in Hasan Rûmlû’s Aḥsân at-Tavârix, cf., V. P’ut’uridze - H. Kiknadze, Hasan Rumlus c’nobebi Sak’art’velos šesaxeb (T’bilisi, 1900). 30 Berdzenišvili - Dondua, et alii, Ist. Gruzii I, pp. 260-8; Dukas, Bizans tarihi, Turk. trans., V. Kirmiroğlu (Istanbul, 1956), pp. 210-11; Α. E. Vacalopoulos, Origins of the Greek Nation 1204-1461, trans. I. Moles (New Brunswick, 1970), pp. 221-31.

274

THE OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

maintained contact with various Georgian dynasts. 31 The tribes of Dağistan, many of which had become Muslim, frequently raided the Georgian territories, often being summoned thither by the Muslim superpowers. Entire regions of Georgia were for relatively long periods under direct Ottoman or Safavid rule. Not infrequently, the local representatives of either the Ottoman or more particularly the Safavid administration were native Georgian dynasts nominally adhering to Islam. Indeed, the role of the Georgians and other peoples of the Caucasus (Armenians and “Circassians” Čerkes - the Georgians are also frequently called by this term) was quite extensive in the Safavid state.32 To a certain extent, it can be said that the Caucasian elements, the Georgians in particular, played a role in Safavid polities analogous to that of the Balkan peoples in the Ottoman state. The Georgians constituted one of the principal sources of the quls, the military slaves of the Safavid rulers, identical in this respect to the kuls of the Ottoman Janissary Corps and Palace Administration. The Safavid Qullarağası was usually a Georgian.33 Georgian quls, however, were not limited to the Safavid realm. Caucasian slaves were highly regarded in the Ottoman state and figured prominently in the affairs of the Porte. Indeed, Ottoman Iraq was dominated by the Georgian Mamlûks.34 As might be expected, given the geopolitics of the region, Ottoman influence tended to be stronger in the western Georgian lands and Safavid influences in the East. Ottoman documentation bears this out. The text of the sixteenth century Ottoman Defter-i mufassal-i vilâyet-i Gürcistân (published by S. Jik’ia 35 ) employs the term Gürcistân (“Georgia”) but deals only with the western regions: Borjomi, Axalc’ixe, Adigen, Aspiudza, Axalk’alak’i, Samc’xe, Javaxet’i and the Kars region, i. e. lands in the Samc’xe Saatabago.36 The OttomanSafavid Armistice of 1554 recognized the Ottoman spheres as being the Kingdom of Imeret’i and the principalities of Guret’i and Mingrelia. 31

On Russian moves into the North Caucasus see: Ε. N. Kuševa, Narody Severnogo Kavkaza i ix sviazi s Rossiei v XIV-XVII vv. (Moskva, 1903). 32 See K. Kuc’ia “K’avkasiuri elementi Sep’iant’a Iranis politikur sarbielze,” Gabašvili et al. (eds.), Maxlobeli Ağmosavlet’is istoriis sakit’xebi, pp. 65-75, based on the seventeenth-century Safavid source Ta’rix-i ‘Ālam ârâ-yi ‘Abbâsî by Iskandar Beg. 33 Ibidem, p. 66. 34 S. H. Longrigg, Four Centuries of Modern Iraq (Oxford, 1925), pp. 103 ff., and Silagadze’s study, K’art’veli mamluk’ebi Eraqši in D. Janelidze-B. Silagadze, K’art’veli mamluk’ebi Egvipteši da Eraqši (T’bilisi, 1967). 35 S. Jik’ia, Gurjistanis vilâiet’is didi davt’ari, I (T’bilisi, 1917). 36 Ibidem, pp. vii-viii.

275

PETER B. GOLDEN

Safavid spheres were the kingdoms of K’art’li and Kaxet’i and part of the Samc’xe Saatabago.37 Safavid documents for the region have also been published as well as local documents reflecting Safavid influences. 38 The latter can be measured, to a certain extent, by a comparison of the Georgian code of laws, the Dasturlamali, compiled by Vaxtang VI in the early eighteenth century with the Safavid Tadhkirat al-Mulûk stemming from the same period.39 The story of the Ottoman-Safavid rivalry as played out in the Caucasus, a rivalry that was soon enmeshed in local Georgian dynastic politics, is too long and complicated a narrative to be related here. From the earliest stages, however, certain patterns emerged: 1) as was noted above, Western and South-western Georgia tended to establish close ties with Istanbul and Turko-Georgian dynasts are found here. Eastern Georgia tended to be more in the Safavid sphere with the resultant dynastic ties and cultural influences; 2) continuing feudal and dynastic divisions prevented any really concerted effort against the invaders, Ottoman or Safavid; 3) the various dynasts, on occasion, attempted to use the neighboring Muslim superpowers against their domestic enemies; 4) when one of the super-powers was either temporarily weakened or distracted elsewhere, the other usually seized the opportunity to expand its authority in Georgia; 5) on the whole, the Safavids appear to have made a greater effort to incorporate their Georgian holdings into the main body of 37

V. Č’oč’ievi, “Iran-Osmalet’is 1553 clis droebit’i zavi,” Ağmosavluri P’ilologia, 3 (1973), pp. 311-20. The Ottomans periodically held T’bilisi, cf. the recently published firman of Sultan Ahmet III to Bak’ar Bagrationi (in Islam: Ibrâhîm) son of Vaxtang VI (“bundan akdam Tiflis hanı olam Vahtân oğlı Ibrâhîm. . .”) S. Jik’ia “Sult’an Ahmed III-is p’irmani Bak’ar Bagrations,” K’art’uli Cqarot’mc’odneoba 3 (1071), pp. 278-82. 38 Cf., V. Gabašvili, “Sparsul dokumentur cqarot’a publickac’iebi Sak’art’veloši da sparsuli diplomatikis sakit’xebi,” Ağmosavluri P’ilologia, 2 (1972), pp. 160-170; V. P’ut’uridze, K’art’uli-sparsuli istoriuli sabut’ebi (T’bilisi, 1955) and L. Fekete, “Arbeiten der grusinischen Orientalistik und die Frage der Formel sözümüz,” Acta Orientalia Hungarica, VII (1957). pp. 1-20. 39 See I. Surguladze, K’art’uli samart’lis dzeglebi, I (T’bilisi, 1970) for a critical edition of the Dasturlamali; Minorsky, Tadhkirat al-Mulûk (cited n. 11). On the information of the latter pertaining to Georgia, see K. Kuc’ia, “T’azk’irat’ alMuluk’is c’nobebi Sak’art’velos šesaxeb.” K’art’uli Cqarot’mc’odneoba 3 (1971), pp. 263-72.

276

THE OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

their realm. The Ottomans, for the most part, preferred a looser tributary relationship.40 Finally, we should note that, in addition to being an important source of slaves, the country was periodically subjected to devastating raids which led to the depopulation of many regions. This was a particular feature of Safavid policy. Thus, when Shâh ‘Abbâs I (15891629) decided to embark on his military reforms which would, he hoped, undercut the power of the Qızılbaš tribal chieftains, it was to the Caucasus that he turned for manpower. Ğulâms were obtained through fearful raids which saw thousands led off into captivity in Persia proper (where their descendants live to this day).41 The centuries-old Georgian administrative structure was not uninfluenced by these events. Thus, when Rostom Mep’e (King Rostomi), otherwise known as Xusru Mîrzâ, a Bagratid prince raised in Persia and a convert to Islam, became the Safavid viceroy of T’bilisi (ruling from 1632 to 1658), he carried out a reorganization of the administration which mixed Georgian and Safavid usages.42 Many of the Turkic and Arabo-Persian titles and offices given in the Dasturlamali undoubtedly derive from his reforms. Although the Ottoman-Safavid struggle for Transcaucasia ended with the collapse of the Safavids in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, the ethno-political patterns remained unaltered. The Afšars and Qajars who succeeded the Safavids in Iran were also Oğuz Turkic in origin and hence the Turkic influences emanating from both East and West in Georgia remained constant. With the Safavid collapse, the Ottomans moved in and briefly established themselves in Eastern Georgia. They were dislodged in 1735 when Nâdir Shâh, aided by rebellious Georgian dynasts (who soon turned on him as well) took 40

D. M. Lang, The Last Years of the Georgian Monarchy 1658-1832 (New York, 1957), pp. 11 ff.; Allen, Hist. of the Georgian People, pp. 143-64; I. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı tarihi, III/2 (Ankara, 1954), pp. 105-10. The notices of the Ottoman chronicler Ibrahim Peçevi regarding Ottoman-Georgian relations in the sixteenth century have been conveniently collected (with Georg. trans. and commentary) by S. Jik’ia, Ibrâhim P’eč’evis c’nobebi Sak’art’velosa da Kavkasiis šesaxeb (T’bilisi, 1964). Ottoman sources give some Georgian lands Turkic appellations: Ismeret’iBaşı açık / Açıkbaş hanlıgı (Jik’ia. Ibr. P’eč’evis c’nobebi, pp. 19-20 of Ottoman text). On the term Dâd eli, see K. Tabatadze, “Dad elis ganmartebisat’vis,” Ağmosavluri P’ilologia, 2 ( 1972), pp. 176-82. 41 See P. Oberling, “Georgians and the Circassians in Iran,” Studia Caucasica 1 (1963), pp. 127-43. 42 Lang, Last Days, pp. 12-13, and 17. For Rostom’s career, see: K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili, II, pp. 416ff.

277

PETER B. GOLDEN

T’bilisi from them. Unfortunately for the Georgians, the experiences of Shâh ‘Abbâs I’s reign were soon repeated and the country was again drained of manpower to fuel Nâdir’s wars. Georgia was saved from further exactions only by Nâdir’s death in 1747.43 The strength of both of the great Muslim powers of the Near East was now ebbing. Thus, it was not to them but to the Russian empire that the tattered remnants of the Georgian polity ultimately fell in the early nineteenth century.44 As has been sketched above, for some three centuries Georgia found itself in direct, intimate contact with two essentially Turkic imperial entities. Georgians served both Sultan and Shâh in the army, administration and harem. The Turkic impact was felt at every level of society. Thus, it is hardly accidental that many of the eighteenth century manuscripts of the Sitqvis kona (“Bouquet of Words”), the famous Georgian lexicon of Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani (1658-1726), the greatest figure in the development of Modern Georgian and Georgian lexicography, contain supplements with Turkic wordlists.45 To round out our preliminary remarks, we must now turn to a brief review of the patterns of borrowing in Georgian in the pre-Ottoman period.

Patterns of Borrowing: The Pre-Ottoman Period The eighth century Georgian chronicler, Leonti Mroveli, in his History of the Georgian Kings (C’xovreba k’art’velt’a mep’et’a), the earliest chronicle in the collection of medieval Georgian historical sources known as the K’art’lis C’xovreba, notes that in ancient times “six languages were spoken in Georgia: Armenian, Georgian, Qazar, Assyrian, Hebrew and Greek.”46 This statement (which is not to be taken absolutely literally) points to those patterns of cultural interaction already prevalent at that time and to a multi-lingualism and receptivity to surrounding cultures that is a feature of Georgian history. We can still discern in Modern Georgian the traces of the influences noted by Mroveli: Armenian, Semitic (largely Syriac in Pre-Islamic times and 43

Lang, Last Days, pp. 138-46; Berdzenišvili - Dondua, et alii, Ist. Gruzii, I, pp. 346-7. See Lang, Last Days, esp. chaps. 8-14; A. V. Fadeev, Rossiia i Kavkaz pervoi treti XIX v. (Moskva, 1961), esp. chap. II. 45 Lang, Last Days, pp. 124-20. 46 K’art’lis C’xovreba, ed. S. Qauxč’išvili, I, p. 16. 44

278

THE OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

Arabic subsequently), Turkic and Greek. To this listing Iranian must be added. Georgian shares a sizable vocabulary with Armenian (claimed as indigenous by both) as well as direct Armenian loanwords, 47 e. g.: Georg. t’argmani “to interpret, translate; translation” (clearly of Semitic origin, cf. Heb. Targum) ~ Arm. t’argmanel “to translate,” t’argamanut’iwn “translation”; Georg. vačari “merchant, trader;” vačroba “to trade, bargain” ~ Arm. vačarel “to sell” (< Pahlavi vâzâr, Mod. Pers. bâzâr, a culture-word which has ranged far and wide, cf. Hung, vásár “market, fair” in a form suspiciously close to the Georgian). 48 Direct Syriac loanwords may be seen in: k’ark’aši “scabbard, sheath, quiver” < Syr: karkâšâ; zet’i “oil” < Syr. zeitâ (cf. also Georg. zeit’uni with the same meaning from Arabic zaytun); zogi “some” < Syr. zaugá “pair” (≤ Grk. zeugos “yoke”).49 Byzantine Greek loanwords are quite common in Medieval Georgian literature and are helpful in resolving some of the problems of early Medieval Greek phonology.50 Some have survived in Modern Georgian, cf. martvili “martyr” : abrešumi “silk” 47

E. Sluszkicwicz, “Über weitere armenische Lehnwörter in Grusinischen” Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 37 (1974), pp. 61-78. 48 Cf. also Hung, híd ( ġ is another feature shared by both, as is t > d (Ph. TF, I, pp. 249-50). The occasional Georg. z for s, if it is not a native Georgian phenomenon, may point to Anatolian s > z (Ph. TF, I, p. 250). The changes of initial q > g (ġ) and t > d so typical of Modern Azeri are not in evidence in any of our Georgian loanwords beyond where this has occurred in Osm. as well. Many of the Georgian forms reflect the older Osm. (and probably Safavî Turk.) treatment of vowel harmony: č’ak’uč’i (< čäküč) ~ Mod. Turk. çekiç qut’i (< qutı) ~ Mod. Turk, kutu etc. Thus, the only criteria for distinguishing Osm. from Safavî Turk, are circumstantial (i. e. when it can be demonstrated that a given word is used in Georgian with semantic connotations known to one but lacking in the other). Such instances are very rare.

282

THE OĞUZ TURKIC ELEMENTS IN GEORGIAN

been modified in Ottoman or Safavid practice and appear in Georgia in this modified form). It would go far beyond the scope of this introductory paper to present all the Oğuz Turkic lexical material here (this I plan to do in a study which will appear in the Archivum Ottomanicum 9 (1977). What follows is a sketch, with representative illustrative material, of the semantic groupings of the Oğuz Turkic loanwords (including relevant words of Arab or Persian etymology) in Georgian and comparisons (by no means complete) with Ottoman loanwords in the other non-Turkic languages of the Ottoman Empire. What is most striking about this material is that it is not (as was largely true of the Pre-Ottoman Turkic elements in Georgian) limited to governmental and other institutional terminology, but touches on virtually every level of life. In short, we may speak of a symbiosis, on the linguistic level, which undoubtedly reflects a broader, societal symbiosis. A brief perusal of the material drawn from other regions of the Ottoman Empire indicates a similar pattern (and most often the same words are borrowed). One of the desiderata of Ottoman studies would be the collection and collation of all the Ottoman lexical elements in the languages of the non-Turkic peoples of the Empire. As was indicated in my introductory remarks, this data, used in conjunction with our other sources, would greatly facilitate an accurate assessment of the Ottoman impact. It is hoped that the following will give some indications of the richness of this material with respect to Georgian. The Oğuz Turkic elements in Georgian may be divided into eight broad categories: 1) government (incl. titles, offices, symbols of authority, areas of economic life under government control, e. g. weights, measures, coins and taxes); 2) the military/military technology; 3) social and economic life (incl. family, kinship, dwellings, the home and accessories, economic terms, occupations, tools, implements, utensils, clothing, comestibles, games, entertainment); 4) health, illness, medicines; 5) animals; 6) colors; 7) expressions and interjections; 8) miscellanea.

283

PETER B. GOLDEN

1. The Ottoman and Safavid impact is especially extensive in the area of government. A comparison of the fourteenth century Georgian law code, the Xelmcip’is karis garigeba (“Ordering of the Royal Court”) composed just prior to the period of Ottoman-Safavid domination of the land, with the eighteenth century Dasturlamali (< Arabo-Pers. Dastûr al-ʻAmal, all citations are from the Surguladze ed., see n. 39) written after more than two centuries of intensive contact, is very instructive. Although the Xelmcip’is karis garigeba is not lacking in “foreign elements” (cf. at’abagi < Selj. Turk, atabeg; alami “royal standard” < Ar. ‘alam; veziri < Ar. wazîr, ejibi “chamberlain” < Ar. ḥâjib; numerous titles with amîr- etc. ), the Dasturlamali contains a much greater number of Ottoman/Safavid terms which either replaced older Georgian terms or denoted new or slightly different institutions: garigeba “a setting in order” i. e> “a law code” has become Dasturlamali; the mandaturt’uxuc’esi (“Master of the mandaturis”; mandaturi “lower ranking police-palace official”) is now the ešikağasbaši; beglarbegi (“a provincial ruler” in Safavid usage, cf. also Osm. beğlerbeği/beylerbeyi, a title borne by Giorgi XI); memandarbaši “Receiver of Guests” at the court (< Pers. mehmândâr “a host, an officer appointed to receive and entertain an ambassador or foreign sovereign” + Turk. baš “head, chief”); qap’ič’ibaši (“Master of the qap’ičis”, qap’ič’i, cf. Osm. kapıcı “gatekeeper”); qorč’ibaši (“Master of the qorč’is,” < Turk, qorči “guard”) etc. Many of the taxes cited in the Dasturlamali are of Oğuz Turkic origin; kuluxi “a wine tax payable in kind” (< Osm. kulluk “slavery”); geč’anbaži/ var. geč’anbaši “a crossing tax” (< Turk, gečen “crossing + Georg. baži “duty, customduty” ~ cf. Osm. bac); qonaxluği “a hospitality tax imposed on the nomadic tribes” (cf. konak “halte, station; journée de chemin,” see Kakuk, pp. 245-10; also Iraqî Ar. 2 qonâğ); k’eč’abaši “a tax on sheep imposed on the nomadic tribal population” (< Osm. keçe “felt” + baži which by popular etymology and influenced by Turkic has become baši); odunaxč’a “a tax on the nomadic tribes at one abazi per household” (< Turk. lit. “wooden coin” odun + aqča) etc. Other terms that may be noted are: č’auši “courier, sheriff’s officer” (< Osm. çavuş, cf. Kakuk, pp. 100-102, Iraqî Ar. 2, Syr. Ar. ); elči “ambassador” (< Osm. elçi, Kakuk, p. 140, Syr. Ar. ); sanjaxi “district, a Sanjak” (< Osm. sancak, Kakuk, p. 348); uzbaši “commander of a hundred soldiers” (< Osm. yüzbaşi, Kakuk, p. 426; Iraqi Ar. 1 yôzbaši); jalat’i “hangman, executioner” (< Osm. cellât Turk. yasa- “to construct, arrange”) (Clauson 1972, p. 974; Lessing 1995, p. 1039). Pelliot correctly concluded that Tûšî/Dûšî was not a corruption of Joči, but a genuine Turkic form of the name (“une forme turque correspondant au Joči, Jučı, Čoji des Mongols”) (Pelliot 10

Jagchid – Hyer (1979, p. 76). Most of these names can be found in the Secret History. 11 Râšid ad-Dîn (1994, I, p. 709). Boyle (1971, p. 98), renders the passage thus: “Upon the way a son was suddenly born to her, and for that reason he was called Joči”. 12 Pelliot (1949, pp. 11-13, 20). Poppe (1958, p. 200), for example derives the term from Mong. jon, cf. Buryat zon “people”, Oirat dyon “people” > Xalxa čon “people” = “fellow countryman”.

415

PETER B. GOLDEN

1949, p. 19). Nonetheless, he still had doubts about it and subsequently noted that “. . . je fais remarquer dès à présent que, si Tuši (ou Tüši) semble avoir été la forme adoptée pour Joči dans le monde turc, on ne la rencontre qu’en fonction du fils aîné de Gengis-Khan” (PelliotHambis 1951, I, p. 95). Indeed, the word is not otherwise encountered in Turkic. It would be useful here to give some idea of the variants of the Turkic form of this name: Nasawî (the private secretary of the fugitive Khwârazmshâh Jalâl ad-Dîn, writing some ten years after the demise of the latter, i. e. in the 1240s): ��‫ �د�و‬dwšy (Dûšî, Dôšî, Düšî, Döšî).13 Plano Carpine (Franciscan monk sent on embassy to Mongolia in 1245-1247): Tossu nominee quem etiam Can appellabant = Tossucan14 (= Tošu Qan). Juvainî (d. 1283, Iranian official of the Činggisid regime in Iran, his “History of the World-Conqueror” was completed in 1260): �� twšy (Tûšî, Tôšî, Tüšî, Töšî).15 Juzjânî (from a family of bureaucrats in Ghûrid Afghanistan. He composed his history in the Delhi Sultanate of the Ölberli Qıpčaq Sultan, İl-Tutmıš, having fled thither from the Mongols. His work was completed in 1260): �� twšy (Tûšî, Tôšî, Tüšî, Töšî) (Juzjânî 1984, p. 310). Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286, a native of Malaṭiya in Eastern Anatolia and later Jacobite bishop and Maphrian of the East. His “Chronography” written in Syriac goes up to the year of his death): twšy (Tûšî, Tôšî, Tüšî, Töšî) (Bar Hebraeus 1932, I, pp. 368, 391). The Arabic abridgement of his “Chronography”, which adds that Tuši was in charge of the “hunt and the chase”, has the form: �� twšy (Tûšî, Tôšî, Tüšî, Töšî) (Bar Hebraeus 1958, pp. 227, 244, 248). The anonymous author, the Žamt’aaġmcereli (“recorder of the times”) of the Mongol era, writing in the 14th century and preserved in the Georgian national chronicle, the K‘art’lis C’xovreba has: თუბი (t’ubi), a corruption of *თუში t’ušı.16 Although Georgian t’ in the transcription of Turkic and Mongol terms often indicates palatal vocalization, this is not always the case. Thus, the name Batu is 13

Nasawî (1996), Arabic text, pp. 6, 1 1/Russ., pp. 43, 47. Plano Carpine (1995), Latin text, pp. 96, 98. 15 Juvainî (1912, 1916, 1937, I, p. 29); Eng. trans. in Boyle (1958, I, p. 40). 16 Kart’lis C’xovreba (1959, II, p. 163) which notes “t’ubi whom the Georgians call Joči. . .” (t’ubis, romelsa k’art’velni joč‘id ucoddes), 196. The mss give variant readings: t’ubisi, t’ubiši, t’ušiši). 14

416

TUŠI: THE TURKIC NAME OF JOČI

rendered in Georgian as Bat’o (K‘art’lis C’xovreba 1959, II, p. 197). Our form, thus, may reflect, like those in Arabic script: Tûšî or Tüšî. Ibn Xaldûn (d. 1406, the famous historian whose comments on these matters are largely based on earlier sources): ��‫ �د�و‬dwšy (Dûšî, Dôšî, Düšî, Döšî) (Ibn Xaldun 1983, X, pp. 295, 805, 805 et passim) and ��‫ �ط‬ṭwšy (Ṭûšî, Ṭôšî) (Ibn Xaldûn 1983, X, p. 1121). The form found in Ibn Xaldûn, ��‫ �ط‬ṭwšy, would appear to indicate a velar vocalization. This was the name given to Joči in Turkic world, most probably stemming from the Qıpčaq and Oğuz dialects of the recently subjugated Turkic peoples under his rule in the Western Eurasian steppelands. The form with initial d- (*Dušı, etc. ) most probably reflects an Oğuz dialect from the Khwârazmian region. This was a special designation for their new overlord. It is a term not otherwise attested in Turkic, but for which a Turkic explanation, completely in keeping with the Mongol sense of the name can be found. Before examining that, we must say a few words about Joči’s activities in the Qıpčaq zone and in the Turkic world in general. Juzjânî describes Joči/Tuši as “exceedingly energetic, intrepid, manly and warlike; and his greatness was to that degree that his father used to stand in awe of him” (Juzjânî 1984, II, p. 149; Raverty 1970, II, p. 1096). According to this same author, after subjugating the land of the Qıpčaqs, together with his brother Čaġadai, Tuši became much attached to the “Dašt-i Qıpčaq”, considering it the best land. It was then that “repugnance towards his father began to enter his mind”. He began to plot against Činggis to whom these activities were reported by Čaġadai. Činggis then sent his agents to Joči/Tuši and they, Juzjânî claims, poisoned him (Juzjânî 1984, II, p. 150; Raverty 1970, II, p. 1101). This version of Joči’s death is not reported elsewhere. There is, however, evidence of some bad feeling between Činggis and his oldest son (regarding whose parentage, Činggis may still have harboured lingering doubts). Joči had been operating in Central Asia in 1219 against the Khwârazmšâh state.17 Here, he attacked the Qanglı, a tribal confederation that was part of the larger Qıpčaq union.18 In accounts of his activities in this region, Joči is often referred to as Uluš İdi, a

Mongol military operations in Western Eurasia are thoroughly discussed in Allsen (1983, pp. 5-24 18 On the tribes of the Qıpčaq union, see Golden (1995- 1997, pp. 99-122).

417

PETER B. GOLDEN

posthumous title given especially to him.19 The term uluš “country” was borrowed into Mongol, becoming ulus where it denoted an appanage, political territory (e. g. the ulus of Joči, etc. ). In this form it was later borrowed back into Turkic where it came to mean “people, country, tribe” (Sevortjan 1984-2000, I, pp. 592-593). İdi is also Turkic < idi “master, owner, lord” (Clauson 1972, pp. 41, 152-153). Thus, Uluš İdi = “Master of the Country”. Clearly, Joči had some special standing in the Turkic world. Of his actual military activities we know that his campaign against the Qanglı broke off in the Spring of 1221, when he was forced to turn to a rebellion that had broken out in the upper Syr Darya region in Barjliġkent. Having suppressed the rebels, he was ordered by his father to join Čaġadai in the attack on Khwârazm. Here the brothers quarreled and Ögedei was dispatched to settle affairs between his older brothers and get the operation back on track. Rašîd ad-Dîn reports that Joči was ordered by a yarliġ from his father to conquer “all the northern countries, such as Îbîr-Sîbir, Bûlâr, the Qıpčaq steppe, and the lands of the Bašġurd, Rûs and Čerkes as far as Darband on the Caspian”. Joči, however, having taken parts of the Qıpčaq steppe, tarried there20 and did not undertake active measures to complete the conquest of the more westerly Qıpčaq, the Alans, the Volga Bulğars, and the Rus’ principalities. Attacking the Qanglı en route, he advanced on Saqsin, the Bulğars and the Rus’ lands, but did not pursue his military objectives with any vigour. His retreat to his ordo in Western Siberia greatly angered his father. The latter was prepared to have him killed, but he died in 1227 (several months before his father’s death) of an undetermined illness, aged somewhere around 40.21 It is hard to find in the accounts of Joči’s activities anything that would merit the exceptionally high stature that Juzjânî ascribes to him or the reasons for the special title Uluš İdi. True, he was largely 19

See discussion in Boyle (1956, pp. 148- 152). Râšid ad-Dîn (1994, I, p. 720), Boyle (1971, p. 107). My renderings of the place names are in keeping with the new edition and differ slightly from Boyle’s translation. I agree, however, with Boyle’s Bûlâr as opposed to the Pûlâr of the new edition. Bûlâr is Bülär, a place name and tribal name in Volga Bulğaria. In the 12th century, it became the political centre of the Volga Bulğar state, see Muxametšin – Xakimzjanov (1987, pp. 114-1 15); Fëdorov-Davydov (1987, pp. 18-19). In Russian this was called “Biljar” and “Velikij gorod” (“the Great City”). It appears to be the same as Bulğar, see F. Š. Xuzin (1997, pp. 47-60). 21 Râšid ad-Dîn (1994, I, pp. 731-733), Boyle (1970, p. 119); Allsen (1983, pp. 11-13); Boyle (1960-2000, II, pp. 571-572) dates him ca. 580-624/1184-1227, i. e. about 43 years of age at the time of his death. 20

418

TUŠI: THE TURKIC NAME OF JOČI

successful in his Central Asian campaigns, although his quarrels with Čaġadai at Khwârazm could hardly have gained him special merit. Perhaps, his successes, certainly not inconsiderable, his initiation of the conquest of the Qıpčaqs, and his founding of a powerful Činggisid dynasty were enough to earn him these signal, posthumous honours. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the Qıpčaqs were not fully conquered until 1236-1237, almost a decade after his death, and their resistance delayed the Mongol subjugation of Western Eurasia (Allsen 1983, pp. 18-22). According to Juzjânî, there was another area of Joči’s activities which might have subsequently earned him special consideration among the Muslim historians. Joči, we are told, had his son Berke raised by Muslims and instructed in that faith (Juzjânî 1984, II, p. 2130; Raverty 1970, II, pp. 1283-1284). Serious conversion to Islam among the Qıpčaqs did not occur, however, until the reign of Özbek (13121341).22 But, Joči, quite early on, appears to have been granted special wisdom in this regard by the Muslim sources. What, then, is one to make of this name and its historical context? Tuši/Duši, the name of the Great Qan’s oldest son is a carefully nuanced translation into Turkic of the Mongol Joči “guest”: Turk. *tušı is a deverbal nominal form from tuš- “to meet” found in Uyğur and Qarakhanid texts and surviving today in some Modern Turkic languages. From the Qarakhanid era, Maḥmûd al-Kâšğarî records: ol manga tušdı “he confronted me”, mäning barğım bolsa manga tušğıl “when the time comes for me to go, meet me”, män oğulnı atâsınga tušğurdum “I arranged a meeting between the son and the father”, ol mäni sanga tušurdı “he arranged a meeting between me and you” (Maḥmûd al-Kâšγarî 1982-1985, I, pp. 81, 394, 11, pp. 4, 51). In 14thcentury Khwârazmian Turkic, tuš- meant “to meet, to go to”.23 This is perhaps influenced by Qıpčaq where, in some dialects, tuš - had come to mean “to visit”.24 Tušı is formed in the same way that Turk tögi “cleansed and/or crushed cereal” < tög- “to pound, crush”, yapı “horse blanket” < yap- “to cover”, cf. also the adjectives köni “straight” < kön“to get or be straight”, bušı “bad-tempered, irritable” < buš- “to be irritated, annoyed” (Erdal 1991, I, pp. 340-344) are formed. In Middle 22

See discussion of the conversion narrative in De Weese (1994). Zajączkowski (1961, p. 187): tuš- “skierować się, wyść naprzeciw, spotkać się”, tušur·”spotykać, witać”. 24 Clauson (1972, p. 560); Abu Ḥayyân (1931), Arabic text, p. 63: tušdı “zâra”. 23

419

PETER B. GOLDEN

and Modern Turkic, tuš (Räsänen 1969, p. 501; Sevortjan 1984-2000, III, pp. 303-306) means “opposite, face to face, someone/something standing opposite to one” with a great many semantic evolutions from that. As a verb, it denotes the idea of coming face to face with someone, i. e. to meet or encounter, cf. Modern Turkic: Qazaq tus, Qırğız tuš “opposite place” (Shnitnikov 1966, p. 205; Judaxin 1965, p. 774), Osm. duš “face to face, side by side”, duš olmak “to be face to face or side by side with another”, duš gelmek “to meet face to face, to chance to meet” (Redhouse 1974, p. 992), Turkmen dûš bolmaq “popadat’ (v bedu)”, dûš gelmek “vstretit’sja s kem-čem-l”, dûš “okolo, primerno, priblizitel’no”, dûšuna as in öynüng dûšuna barmaq “priblizit’sja k domu”, dûšıšıq “vstreča, priëm”, dûšurmaq “dat’ vozmožnost’ vstrečat’sja” (Baskakov et al. 1968, pp. 287-288). The basic idea is “to come (unexpectedly) face to face with someone”. Tušı/Dušı, then, is a rather good Turkic translation of the Mongol Joči with an allusion to the circumstances of the latter’s birth: “an unexpected visitor”. Had the Mongol anthroponym in this instance merely meant “visitor”, it would have been rendered by Turk. qonaq/qonuq, the most common Turkic term for a “guest” (Poppe 1958, pp. 198-199). Although the name has an earlier history in Činggis Qan’s family (and we do not know the circumstances of Joči Qasar’s birth), it clearly fits the eldest Činggisid’s personal history. There are a number of Turkic or Turkic–derived terms which were used as personal names by the Mongols even in the pre-imperial period (cf. To’ori1, the Ong Qan < Turk. toğrıl “bird of prey” Clauson 1972, p. 472). Among the early Činggisids alone one may point to Temüjin/Temüčin, Činggis Qan’s name, taken from that of a Tatar slain by his father, literally denoting “blacksmith” < Turk. temür “iron” (Lessing et al. 1995, p. 800; Clauson 1972, pp. 508-509), Qasar (see above), Berke “difficult, hard, burdensome” < Turk. berk “firm, stable, solid” (Lessing et al. 1995, p. 99; Clauson 1972, pp. 361-362), Möngke “eternal” < bengü/mengü “eterna1” (Lessing et al. 1995, p. 547; Clauson 1972, pp. 350-351), Orda (cf Mong. ordu[n]) “residence of a ruler, palace, camp” < Turk. ordu “royal residence, palace, royal camp”, later “military camp”. In Middle Turkic (including Qıpčaq) we find orda “royal court” (Lessing et al. 1995, p. 617; Clauson 1972, p. 203). Such names were known among the royal women as well, e. g. Töregene (mother of Goyük, reigned: 1246-1248) and regent of the Empire (1241-1246) < Mong. törü- “to give birth”

Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)