QEPČĀQ

QEPČĀQ, the name of a Turkic nomadic confederation (Turkic Qïpčaq), which, in ca. 1030-1237, dominated the Dašt-e Qepčāq—the steppe zone stretching from the Pontic region to Khwarazm (Ḵʷārazm; see CHORASMIA) and western Siberia—until its conquest by the Mongols. The Qepčāqs played a vital role in the history of Rus’ (Russia), Khwarazm, Transcaucasia, Byzantium, Hungary, the Islamic world, and Chinghizid/Yüan China. Today, the bulk of the Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia, the Volga-Ural zone, and the North Caucasus derive from elements of this tribal union. Fully integrated into the affairs of the states surrounding them (especially Rus’, Georgia, and Khwarazm), the acephalous Qepčāq union never created a state in the steppe, in the absence of external catalysts to do so.

Origins. The ethnogenesis of the Qepčāq remains a complex question. In the sources they appear under a variety of names (see Pritsak, 1982, pp. 321-31; Györffy, pp. 200-19; Golden, 2005, pp. 248-50): 1) Qïpčaq, first attested in the Uighur Šine-Usu/Selenga Stone inscription of El-etmiš Bilge Qaḡan (r. 747-59), as Türk-Qïbčaq (Aĭdarov, p. 344; Malov, p. 34; Klyashtornyĭ, 1986, pp. 153-64; although the reading of the name and the significance of the passage are disputed); Ar.-Pers. Ḵefjāq, Qefjāq, Georg. Qivč’aqi, Arm. Ḵbšax, Mong. Kibčaḡ, pl. Kibča’ut or Kimčaḡ, pl. Kimča’ud, Yüan-era Chin. Ch’in-ch’a (< Mong. Kimčaḡ); 2) Quman; Lat. Comani, Cumani, Gk. Komanoi, Koumanoi (Moravcsik, II, pp. 167-68) > Arab. Qomāniya (Edrisi, pp. 905, 909, 913, 914, 916, 920, 957, 958), Old-Rus. Kumani (PSRL, I, p. 234), Georg. Komani, Syriac Qoman; 3) Qun, Hung. Kun; 4) as loan translations (probably of Quman) denoting ‘pale, light-yellow, grey’: Rus. polovtsi, Polish-Latin plauci, Czech-Latin Plawci (> Hung. Palócz), Lat. Pallidi, German/Germano-Latin Falones, Phalagi, Valvi, Valwen, Arm. (Matt’eos Urhayec’i) Ḵartêšk’n > Mod. Arm. ḵarteaš/ḵartyaš ‘blonde, fair, light, flaxen, fallow, pale’ (Marquart, pp. 27-29, 55; Rasovskiĭ, pp. 252-53; Németh, 1940, pp. 99-107; Menges, pp. 70-73; Pritsak, 1982, pp. 328-31).

The etymology of Qepčāq is unclear. Rašid-al-Din (1994, I, p. 53; repeated by Abu’l-Ḡāzi, pp. 18-19/43) records a folk etymology deriving the name Qïbčaq from Turkic qobuq/qovuq meaning ‘hollow, empty’ (Clauson, p. 583)—a word denoting a ‘tree (the center of which) is rotted out, hollowed.’ While the ethnonym Qepčāq occurs as a tribal and/or clan name among the modern Bashkirs, Uzbeks, Qara-Qalpaqs, Qazaqs, Kirghizs, Altay Turks, Noghays, and Crimean Tatars, the name Quman is unknown among the present-day Turkic peoples.

Central Asian, or eastern, Qepčāqs were also known as Qanglï (Arab. and Pers. QNKLY/QNGLY, Lat. Cangle), which is an ethnonym of uncertain origin, perhaps connected with the Kengeres/Kangar people and with the toponym Qang (Iran. Kangha, Chin. Kangju, Šāniyazov, 1990, pp. 5-91). Maḥmud Kāšḡari (writing in 1077) records it as a Qepčāq anthroponym, and as a term for “a wagon for carrying loads” (Kāšḡari, II, p. 343). Turkic tradition also associated the ethnonym with the latter meaning (Rašid-al-Din, 1969, p. 20; Bang and Rachmati, pp. 700-1; Abu’l-Ḡāzi, pp. 17-18/43). Contemporary Georgian and Latin sources make it clear that the Qumans, Qepčāqs, and Qanglï are identical or “related” (Biró, pp. 161-64; van der Wyngaert, pp. 194, 218).

9th- and 10th-century Muslim sources note the Qepčāqs among the Turkic tribes (cf. Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 31; Ebn al-Faqih, p. 329; Ḥodud al-ʿālam, 1959, pp. 59, 87; Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam, 1971, pp. 83, 101), in particular within the orbit of the Kimek union (centered in western Siberia), but shifting westward towards the Volga River. The Qun were further to the east, near the Mongolic Qay (cf. Biruni, p. 145; Yāqut, I, p. 31). Around 1017, Bar Hebraeus (I, p. 186; see EBN AL-ʿEBRI), Ebn al-Aṯir (IX, pp. 297-98), and Maḥmud Kāšḡari (II, pp. 120, 330; tr. Dankoff, p. 157) report large-scale attacks on the Qara-khanids (see ILAK-KHANIDS) by nomads coming from “Ḵaṭā/Ḵaṭāy.” Another massive nomadic incursion in 1046 advanced as far as Kāšḡar (Bar Hebraeus, I, p. 205). Marwazi (pp. 18/29-30), writing in ca. 1120 (repeated by Moḥammad ʿAwfi, see Marquart, p. 40; Pelliot, 1920, p. 135), reports a chain of migrations in which the Turkic Qun, fleeing the “Qitāy” and pursued by the Qāy, entered the territory of the “Šāri.” The latter attacked the “Turkmen” (Qarluq/Qara-khanids) who pressed the Oghuz (see ḠOZZ) who displaced the Pechenegs. Matthew of Edessa (Marquart, pp. 54-55; Matthieu d’Edesse, p. 89), who wrote in 1050-51, provides details of a similar cascade of peoples precipitated by the “nation of the Snakes” whose attack on the “Pale Ones” (zḵartêšk’n) pushed the latter into the “Uz” (Oghuz) who, in turn, expelled the Pechenegs to the Byzantine frontier. By ca. 1020-30, but not later than 1050, the Qun and perhaps other migrations had re-shaped the Kimek union. It was reconstituted under the leadership of the Qepčāq (ca. 1040-50), absorbing the Qun and others (Czeglédy, pp. 47-48, 50; Klyashtornyĭ, 2005, pp. 243-48, Golden, 2005, pp. 251-60), including the tribes that later fled after the collapse of the Qitan/Liao state in the 1120s.

By the early 1030s, the Qepčāqs were both raiding the state of the Khwarazmshahs and serving in its army (Bayhaqi, pp. 86, 682-84). The movement of Qepčāq groupings to the Caspian-Pontic steppes increased Pecheneg and Oghuz pressure on the Byzantine and Irano-Islamic borders. The Saljuqid Čaḡrï Beg (r. 1040-63) converted a Qepčāq “amir” to Islam in the region of Khwarazm in the 1040s (Ḥosayni, fol. 16b/p.43), which was apparently an isolated event.

The Qepčāq Tribes. The Qepčāq confederation, containing Turkic, Mongolic, and Iranian elements, comprised three large sub-confederations: the Quman union in the west, divided into Ural-Volga, North Caucasian, and Pontic-Danubian units; the Qepčāq-Qanglï in Central Asia and Kazakhstan; and the west-Siberian Qepčāqs (Rasovskiĭ, pp. 166-75; Pritsak, 1982, pp. 342-68; Golden, 1995-97, pp. 108-22). Regional groupings, e.g., the Ural-Volga-Don-centered Polovtsi Dikii (‘Wild Qumans’), were involved in Rus’ internecine strife (Golden, 1979-89, pp. 298-309; Pritsak, 1967, II, pp. 1615-23). Despite marital ties with the ruling houses of Rus’, Georgia, Khwarazm, and later Hungary, the Qepčāqs were often fickle allies.

In the period 1061-1120, the Qepčāqs secured their new habitat and probed the weaknesses of their neighbors. They raided Rus’, Byzantium, and Hungary. Vladimir II Monomakh (Grand Prince of Kiev, r. 1113-25) launched a series of campaigns into their lands in 1103, 1109, 1111, 1113, and 1116, causing the Qepčāq horde under *Ötrök/Äträk (Rus. Otrok, Georg. At’rak’a) to take refuge in Georgia, whose ruler, David Aḡmašenebeli (r. 1089-1125), was Ötrök’s son-in-law. Here, the Qepčāqs became one of the mainstays of the dynasty against the Saljuqs and the turbulent Transcaucasian nobility. Even though Ötrök returned to the steppes after Monomakh’s death, Qepčāqs continued to serve the Georgian crown, playing an important role in establishing Georgia as a major regional power. The Qepčāqs who settled in Georgia, converted to Orthodox Christianity and ultimately Georgianized (Golden, 1984, pp. 45-87). This Georgian connection is an oft-neglected source of Christianity among the Qepčāqs.

In 1185, the Qepčāq chieftain Könček enlisted a “Muslim” (Rus. Besurmenin, probably from Khwarazm) specialist in “Greek fire” (PSRL, II, pp. 634-35) in his unsuccessful attack on Kiev. Overall, however, the Qepčāqs never really attempted to conquer Rus’. Their raids were primarily for food, goods, and captives to be ransomed. The Rus’ reciprocated with devastating campaigns, seizing Qepčāq herds.

We know little of Qepčāq culture in the pre-Chinghizid period. Overwhelmingly shamanists, they were also touched by Islam in Central Asia and by Christianity in Eastern Europe and Transcaucasia (Golden, 1998). The Qepčāq/Quman language became the lingua franca of the region, and as such it passed to non-Turkic communities such as the Crimean Armenians and Jewish Qaraim. We have no evidence that the Qepčāqs used the Turkic runic script. Middle Qepčāq texts and glossaries have come down us from the later Mongol and Mamluk spheres.

Qepčāqs in the Chinghizid Era. The Mongol conquest of the Qepčāqs in 1217-37 (Allsen, 1983, pp. 5-22) ended the latter’s union as a cohesive polity. Some western Qepčāqs, under Köten (Hung. Kötöny), fled to Hungary, where they ultimately settled in the regions that still bear their name: Nagy Kunság and Kis Kunság (Greater and Lesser Cumania). Subsequently, the Qepčāqs that remained in the steppe largely assimilated the incoming ethnic Mongols (ʿOmari, p. 73), forming the mass of tribes that constituted the Chinghizid ulus of Joči. The latter’s son, Berke Khan (r. 1257-67), a convert to Islam, began an entente with the Mamluk realm, also based on Qepčāq Turkic soldiery, which was directed against his kinsmen, the Il-khanids of Iran. The conversion of the Jochid Özbeg Khan (r. 1312-42) secured the paramountcy of Islam, which then spread among his Tataro-Qepčāq subjects. The wars between Tamerlane (Timur, r. 1371-1405) and his onetime protégé, Toqtamïš (r. 1377-97), in the mid-1380s and 1390s devastated the Volga region and reshuffled the Qepčāq tribes. Qepčāqs and Qepčāqized Mongols formed the manpower base for the Noghgay Horde of Edigü (d. 1420), and the Özbeg/Uzbek horde of the Jochid Abu’l-Ḵayr (d. 1468), from which the Qazaqs/Kazakhs broke away in the mid-15th century (Pishchulina, pp. 233-34; Akhmedov, pp. 11, 13-15, 38). The subsequent Uzbek conquerors of Transoxiana were led by Abu’l-Ḵayr’s grandson, Moḥammad Šibāni/Shaybani (r. 1500-10).

Between 1420 and 1466, Jochid-led Tataro-Qepčāqs formed the khanates of Crimea, Kazan, Astrakhan, Qasim (the ‘Kasymov’ khanate, a client state of Moscow), and Siberia (Grekov and Yakubovskiĭ, pp. 418, 421-22; Safargaliev, pp. 244-51).

The Qepčāqs figure prominently in the ethnogenesis of many of the Central Asian and North-Caucasian Turkic peoples: 1) the Qaračay-Balqars and Qumuqs of the North Caucasus; 2) Crimean-Volga-Ural-Siberian Tatars and Bashkirs; 3) the Noghays, Qazaqs, Qara-Qalpaqs, Kirghizs, and some of the Altay Turks. The Qepčāqs also played an important role in the ethnogenesis of the Özbegs/Uzbeks, whose name was given to the land they conquered in the beginning of the 16th century.

Bibliography:

Collections of Sources.

S. E. Malov, Pamyatniki drevnetyurkskoĭ pis’mennosti Mongolii iKirgizii (Monuments of Ancient Turkic Literature of Mongolia and Kirghizia), Leningrad, 1959.

J. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 2 vols., 2nd ed., Berlin, 1958.

PSRL: Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopiseĭ (Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles), 43 vols., St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad and Moscow, 1841-2004.

V. G. Tizengauzen, Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoĭ Ordy (Anthology of Materials Related to the History of the Golden Horde), 2 vols., St. Petersburg/Leningrad, 1884-1941.

Sources.

Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l-Faraj 1225-1286, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus, tr. E. A. W. Budge, London, 1936.

Abu’l-Ḡāzi Bahādur Ḵān, Šajara-yi Tarākima/Rodoslovnaya Turkmen, ed. and tr. A. N. Kononov, Moscow and Leningrad, 1958.

Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqi, Tāriḵ-e Masʿudi, ed. ʿA.-A. Fayyāż and Q. Ḡani, Tehran, 1945.

Abu Reyḥān Biruni, Ketāb al-Tafhim, ed. and tr. R. Wright, London, 1934.

Ebn al-Aṯir, Al-Kāmel fi’l-Taʾriḵ: Chronicon quod perfectissimuminscribitur, ed. C. J. Tornberg, 12 vols., Leiden, 1851-76; 2nd ed., 13 vols., Beirut, 1965-67.

Abu Bakr Aḥmad Ebn al-Faqih, Ketāb al-Boldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1885.

Ebn Ḵaldun, Taʾriḵ ebn Ḵaldun al-mosammā be Ketāb al-ʿebar wa diwān al-mobtadāʾ wa’l-ḵabar fi ayām al-ʿarab wa’l-ʿajam wa’l-barbar wa man ʿāṣara-hom men ḏawi al-solṭān al-akbar, 7 vols., Cairo, 1867-68, repr. Beirut, 1971.

ʿObeyd-Allāh Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, Ketāb al-masālek wa’l-mamālek, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1889.

Abu ʿAbd-Allāh Moḥammad Edrisi, Nozhat al-moštāq fi eḵterāq al-āfāq, ed. A. Bombaci et al. as Opus Geographicum, 6 vols., Leiden, Naples, and Rome, 1970-84.

Ḥodud al-ʿĀlam, ed. M. Sotuda, Tehran, 1962.

Ṣadr-al-Din ʿAli b. Nāṣir Ḥosayni, Aḵbār al-dawla al-Saljuqiya: Zubdat al-tawāriḵ fi aḵbāral-omarāʾ wa’l-moluk al-Saljuqiya, ed. and tr. Z. M. Buniyatov as Soobshcheniya o sel’dzhukskom gosudarstve: “Slivki letopiseĭ, soobshchayushchikh o Sel’dzhukskikh èmirakh i gosudaryakh” Sadr ad-Dina ʿAli al-Khusaĭni, Moscow, 1980.

Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam: ‘The Regions of the World,’ A Persian Geography 372 A.H.—982 A.D., tr. V. Minorsky, pref. V. V. Barthold, ed. C. E. Bosworth, 2nd ed., London, 1970.

Maḥmud al-Kāšḡari, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Diwān Luγāt at-Turk), ed. and tr. R. Dankoff in collaboration with J. Kelly, 3 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1982-85.

Šarāf-al-Zamān Marwazi, Sharāf al-Zamān Tahir Marvazi on China, the Turks and India, ed. and tr. V. F. Minorsky, London, 1950.

Matt’êos Urhayets’i (Matthieu d’Edesse), Chronique de Matthieu d’Edesse, tr. E. DuLaurier, Paris, 1959.

Oḡuz Ḵān Tale: see W. Bang and G. R. Rachmati, “Die Legende von Oγuz Qaγan,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie derWissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 25, 1932, pp. 1-44.

ʿOmari, in K. Lech, Das mongolische Weltreich. Al-‘Umari’sDarstellung der mongolischen Reiche in seinem Werk Masālik al-Abṣār fi Mamālik al-Amṣār, Wiesbaden, 1968.

Fażl-Allāh Rašid ad-Din, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ (Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz), Istanbul, Topkapı Saray Library, MS Bağdat Köşkü 282; facsim. ed. in Die Geschichte der Oḡuzen des Rašid ad-Din, ed. and tr. K. Jahn, Vienna and Köln, 1969.

Idem, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, 5 vols., ed. M. Rowšan and M. Musawi, Tehran, 1994.

A. van der Wyngaert, ed., SinicaFranciscana, vol. I, Itinera et relationes fratrum minorum saculi XIII et XIV, Quaracchi and Florence, 1929.

Šehāb-al-Din Yāqut al-Ḥamawi, Moʿjam al-boldān, 5 vols., Beirut, 1955-57.

Studies.

G. Aĭdarov, Yazyk orkhonskikh pamyatnikov drevnetyurkskoĭ pis’mennosti VIII veka (The Language of the Orkhon Monuments of Old-Turkic Literature of the 8th Century), Alma-Ata, 1971.

S. M. Akhinzhanov, Kypchaki v istorii srednevekovogo Kazakhstana (Qipchaqs in the History of Medieval Kazakhstan), Alma-Ata, 1989.

Idem, “Ob ètnicheskom sostave kipchakov srednevekovogo Kazakhstana” (On the Ethnic Structure of the Qipchaqs of Medieval Kazakhstan), in Proshloe Kazakhstana po arkheologicheskim istochnikam (Kazakhstan’s Past According to Archeological Sources), ed. K. A. Akishev, Alma-Ata, 1976, pp. 81-92.

B. A. Akhmedov, Gosudarstvokochevykh uzbekov (The State of the Nomadic Uzbeks), Moscow, 1965.

Th. T. Allsen, “Prelude to the Western Campaigns: Mongol Military Operations in the Volga-Ural Region, 1217-1237,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4, 1984, pp. 5-24.

Idem, “The Princes of the Left Hand: An Introduction to the History of the Ulus of Orda in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 5, 1985, pp. 5-40.

W. Bang and G. R. Rachmati, “Die Legende von Oγuz Qaγan,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie derWissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 15, 1932, pp. 683-724.

V. V. Bartol’d, “Novyĭ trud o polovtsakh” (A New Work On the Polovtsians), Russkiĭ Istoricheskiĭ Zhurnal 7, 1921, pp. 138-56; repr. in his Sochineniya, 9 vols., Moscow, 1963-77, vol. V, pp. 392-408.

M. Biró, “The ‘Kipchaks’ in the Georgian Martyrdom of David and Constantine,” Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös nominata, sectio linguistica 4, 1973, pp. 161-68.

G. Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, Oxford, 1972.

K. Czeglédy, “A Kunok eredetéröl” (On the Origins of the Kun), Magyar Nyelv 45, 1949, pp. 43-50.

R. Dankoff, “Three Turkic Verse Cycles Relating to Inner Asian Warfare,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3-4, 1979-80, pp. 152-59.

P. B. Golden, “The Polovci Dikii,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3-4, 1979-80, pp. 296-309.

Idem, “Cumanica II: The Ölberli (Ölperli). The Fortunes and Misfortunes of an Inner Asian Nomadic Clan,” ArchivumEurasiae Medii Aevi 5, 1985, pp. 5-29.

Idem, “Cumanica IV: The Cumano-Qıpčaq Clans and Tribes,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 9, 1995-97, pp. 99-122.

Idem, “The Religions of the Qıpčaqs,” Central Asiatic Journal 42/2, 1998, pp. 180-237.

Idem, “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, pp. 247-77.

B. D. Grekov and A. Yu. Yakubovskiĭ, Zolotaya Orda i eyo padenie (The Golden Horde and Its Fall), Moscow and Leningrad, 1950.

G. Györffy, “A kun és komán népnév eredetének kérdéséhez” (On the Question of the Origin of the Ethnonyms Kun and Cuman), in his A magyarsâg keleti elemei (The Eastern Elements of the Hungarians), Budapest, 1990, pp. 200-19.

S. G. Klyashtornyĭ, “Kypchaki v runicheskikh pamyatnikakh” (The Qipchaqs in the Runic Monuments), Turcologica 1986, Leningrad, 1986, pp. 153-64.

Idem, “The Polovcian Problem: The Central Asian Aspect (I),” in Historical and Linguistic Interaction between Inner Asia and Europe. Proceedings of the 39th PIAC. Szeged, Hungary, June 16-24, 1996, ed. A´. Bertha, Szeged, 1997, pp. 151-53.

Idem, “The Polovcian Problem (II),” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58/3, 2005, pp. 245-46.

M. F. Köprülü, “Kay kabilesi hakkında yeni notlar,” Belleten 8, 1944, pp. 421-52.

K. V. Kudryashov, Polovetskaya step’ (The Polovtsian Steppe), Moscow, 1948.

J. Marquart [Markwart], “Über das Volkstum der Komanen,” in W. Bang and J. Marquart, Osttürkische Dialektstudien, N.S. 13/1, Berlin, 1914, pp. 25-238.

K. H. Menges, Vostochnye èlementy v “Slove o polku Igoreve” (Oriental Elements in the ‘Slovo o Polku Igoreve’), rev. ed., Leningrad, 1979.

G. Németh, A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (The Formation of the Conquest-era Hungarians), Budapest, 1930; rev. ed., Budapest, 1991.

Idem, “Die Volksnamen quman und qun,” Körösi Csoma Archivum 3, 1940, pp. 95-109.

P. Pelliot, “A propos des Comans,” JA 15, 1920, pp. 125-85.

Idem, “Sur la légende d’Uγuz-khan en écriture Ouïgoure,” Toung Pao 27, 1930, pp. 247-358.

P. Pelliot and L. Hambis, ed. and tr., Histoire des campagnes de Gengis Khan, Leiden, 1951.

K. A. Pishchulina, Yugo-vostochnyĭ Kazakhstan v seredine XIV–nachale XVI vekov: voprosy politicheskoĭ i sotsial’no-èkonomicheskoĭ istorii (Southeastern Kazakhstan in the mid-14th to early 16th Centuries: Questions of Economical and Social-Political History), Alma-Ata, 1977.

A. K. Ponomarev, “Kumany-Polovtsy” (Cumanians-Polovtsians), VDI 1940, no. 3/4, pp. 366-70.

O. Pritsak, “Non-wild Polovtsians,” in To Honour Roman Jakobson, vol. 2, The Hague and Paris, 1967, pp. 1615-23.

Idem, “The Polovcians and Rus’,” Archivum Eurasiae MediiAevi 2, 1982, pp. 321-80.

D. A. Rasovskiĭ, “Polovtsy” (Polovtsians), SeminariumKondakovianum 7, 1935, pp. 245-62; 8, 1936, pp. 161-82; 10, 1938, pp. 155-77.

M. G. Safargaliev, Raspad Zolotoĭ Ordy (The Break-up of the Golden Horde), Saransk, 1960.

K. Šāniyazov, Qang dawlati wa qanglilar (The Qang State and the Qangli), Tashkent, 1990.

B. Spuler, Die Goldene Horde, 2nd ed., Wiesbaden, 1965.

V. V. Vel’yaminov-Zernov, “Issledovaniya o kasimovskikh tsaryakh i tsarevichakh” (Researches on the Kasimov Tsars and Princes), Trudy Vostochnogo Otdeleniya Imperatorskogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva 9-11 (4 vols.), St. Petersburg, 1863-87.

(Peter B. Golden)

Cite this article: