<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<head>
   <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode">
   <meta name="Author" content="Vassil Karloukovski">
   <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
   <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
   <title>Hudud al-'Alam - 21 - Commentary of V. Minorsky</title>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Palatino Linotype">
<b><font size=+1>Hudud al-'Alam,
The Regions of the World</font></b>
<br><b>V. Minorsky</b>
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><b>§ 21. The Khifchākh (Q<i>ı</i></b></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̊</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype"><b>pchaq)</b>
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Marquart's <i>Komanen</i> is a special study on the origin and destinies
of the Komans-Q<i>ı</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̊</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">pchaqs;
though containing a prodigious mass of rare materials and many valuable
suggestions it remains in the author's own words, p. 206, only spade-work
("Pionierarbeit"); cf. important critical remarks by Pelliot in <i>Jour.
As.</i>, avril 1920, pp. 125-86, and by Barthold, <i>Russ. istor. zhurnal</i>,
vii, 1921, pp. 131-56. See also Barthold, <i>Kipčak</i>
in <i>EI</i>, A. Bruce Boswell, <i>The Kipchak Turks</i>, in <i>The Slavonic
Review</i>, vi, 1927, pp. 68-85 (popular article), and D. Rasovsky, <i>Polovtsı</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̊</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">,
in <i>Seminarium Kondakovianum</i>, vii, 1935, pp. 1-18 (to be continued)
with a very good European bibliography [part ii, ibid., viii, 1936, pp.
19-40]. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">The name <i>Khifshākh</i>
&lt; <i>Khifchākh</i>,
<i>Qı</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̊</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>pchaq</i>
is already attested in I.Kh., 31. The Russians called the Qipchaq <i>Polovtsı</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̊</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">
(from&nbsp;<img SRC="315_0.jpg" height=17 width=78 align=ABSBOTTOM> "yellowish,
sallow") to which name in western languages correspond the terms: <i>Pallidi</i>,
<i>Falones</i>,
<i>Valani</i>, <i>Valwen</i>, &amp;c. This group of names has no correspondence
in Muslim literature. <a href="#315 2.">[2]</a> Another name under which
the Qipchaq were known in the Byzantine empire and Western Europe is&nbsp;<img SRC="315_1.jpg" height=22 width=70 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
<i>Comani</i>,
<i>Commani</i>, which is also found in Idrīsī,
who (perhaps quoting from a European source) <a href="#315 3.">[3]</a>
calls the Qipchaq&nbsp;<img SRC="315_2.jpg" height=22 width=49 align=ABSBOTTOM>
and their land&nbsp;<img SRC="315_3.jpg" height=22 width=36 align=ABSBOTTOM>
(Jaubert's translation, ii, 395, 399, &amp;c.). The identity of all these
appellations is clear from Rubruquis (Paris, 1839, p. 247): "Commani qui
dicuntur Capthat </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="315 2."></a><font size=-1><b>2.</b> But <i>v.i.</i>, p. 317,
Barthold's interpretation of Sārī.</font>
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="315 3."></a><font size=-1><b>3.</b> One must, however, keep
in mind the still insufficiently explained names&nbsp;<img SRC="315_4.jpg" height=25 width=48 align=ABSBOTTOM>
(or&nbsp;<img SRC="315_5.jpg" height=25 width=50 align=ABSBOTTOM>) which
Gardīzī 
quotes on the road to the Kimäk (see note to § 18) and&nbsp;<img SRC="315_6.jpg" height=25 width=64 align=ABSBOTTOM>
(variants&nbsp;<img SRC="315_7.jpg" height=26 width=51 align=ABSBOTTOM>
and&nbsp;<img SRC="315_8.jpg" height=26 width=91 align=ABSBOTTOM>) given
by Rashid al-dīn, ed. 
Bérézine, <i>Trud<img SRC="i_k.jpg" height=17 width=8 align=ABSBOTTOM>
V.O.</i>, vii, 162, as the name of the tenth tribe of the Uyghurs, cf.
Marquart, <i>Komanen</i>, 91 and 58.</font> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><img SRC="line_down.gif" height=18 width=596>
<br>316&nbsp;&nbsp; <i>Commentary</i>&nbsp;&nbsp; § 21 </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">[*Qipchaq]; a Teutonicis vero dicuntur Valani [read: <i>Falani</i>]
et provincia Valania [read: <i>Falania</i>]." The origin of the names <i>Coman-/Qoman</i> 
remains dark (cf. note to § 14, 1.). The name&nbsp;<img SRC="316_1.jpg" height=21 width=28 align=ABSBOTTOM>
(still suspect!) to which Marquart attaches such an exceptional importance
might explain the Magyar form <i>Kún</i> but it does not account
for <i>Qoman</i>. Even without taking&nbsp;<img SRC="316_2.jpg" height=21 width=23 align=ABSBOTTOM>
into consideration we can imagine the derivation of Magyar <i>Kún</i>
from <i>Qoman</i> but there is no explanation for the expansion of an earlier
*<i>Qūn</i> into
<i>Qoman</i>,
simultaneously with its supposed survival (?) as <i>Kún</i> in Magyar. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Like the Khirkhīz, 
Kimäk, and Rūs
the Khifchākh are
represented in our source as living in the immediate neighbourhood of the
Northern Uninhabited Lands. To their south <a href="#316 1.">[1]</a> are placed 
the Turkish Pechenegs. Our source (§ 6, 44.) adds that the Rūs river (Volga
above its junction with Kama?) skirted the Khifchākh
confines. <a href="#316 2.">[2]</a> Were then the Qipchaq imagined to live
down-stream from the Rūs
on the left bank of the upper course of the Volga? This, however, would
be an entirely imaginary construction due exclusively to our author, for
Gardīzī,
who uses much the same materials, distinctly says that the Khifchaq lived
to the east of the Pechenegs. Having substituted <i>north</i> for <i>east</i>
our author fitted in the peoples into his scheme without much care for
the actual situation. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Gardīzī, 
82, mentions the Khifchākh as one of the seven tribes of the Kimäk. Our author 
seems to refer to a later stage of the Khifchākh emancipation: he admits the 
vassal dependence of their king upon the Kimäk but considers the Khifchākh as a 
special tribe, maybe separated from the Kimäk by the territory called <i>Andar az Khifchākh</i>. 
To what an extent the form of association of the Qipchaq with the Kimäk was 
changed towards the end of the eleventh century is witnessed by the quotation 
from Kāshgharī
(iii, 22), <i>v.s.</i>, p. 305, which shows the Yimäk, <i>i.e.</i> presumably 
one of the two original clans of the Kimäk, as a kind of poor relatives of the 
Qipchaq. In a.d. 1318 al-Warraq quotes the Yimäk as a clan of the Qipchaq, cf. 
Marquart, <i>Komanen</i>, 157. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Marquart, <i>ibid.</i>, 100, must be right in assuming that the Qipchaq
first profited by the victory of the Ghūz
over the Pechenegs. To characterize the further succession of nomad tribes
in southern Russia suffice it to mention <a href="#316 3.">[3]</a> the
following facts: in 1036 Yaroslav of Kiev inflicted the final crushing
defeat on the Pechenegs. Under 1054 Russian chronicles for the first time
mention the appearance both of the Torks (= Ghūz)
and the Polovts<img SRC="i_k.jpg" height=17 width=8 align=ABSBOTTOM> (=
Qipchaq). The former were evidently fleeing under the pressure of the latter.
Henceforth for 170 years up to the Mongol invasion
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="316 1."></a><font size=-1><b>1.</b> Read: west (?), cf. Gardīzī
on the Pechenegs, <i>v.s.</i>, p. 314, line 20.</font> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="316 2."></a><font size=-1><b>2.</b> On the other hand the <i>northern</i>
boundary of the Turkish Pechenegs was the mysterious river Rūthā 
(§ 6, 45.) which is not mentioned in connexion with the Kh<img SRC="i_k.jpg" height=17 width=8 align=ABSBOTTOM>fchakh.
We may imagine then that, on our author's Map, the Rūthā
divided the Rūs and
Pechenegs only on the right bank of the Volga. [Or should we read eastern,
instead of northern, boundary, cf. supra note 1.]</font> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="316 3."></a><font size=-1><b>3.</b> Here we cannot discuss
the migrations farther south and west. See now Rasovsky, <i>o.c.</i> [The
first attack of the Pechenegs on Kiev is recorded in the Russian Chronicle
under A.D. 968.]</font> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><img SRC="line_down.gif" height=18 width=596>
<br>§§ 21-2&nbsp;&nbsp; <i>The Khifchakh (Qipchaq)</i>&nbsp;&nbsp;
317 </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">(a.d. 1224) the Qipchaq remained masters of the steppes down to the
Caucasus. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Explaining the process of formation of the Qipchaq tribe Marquart assumes
three gradual stages of its mongolization (?). According to Gardīzī 
the original Kimäk separated from the Tatār (following Marquart, <i>o.c.</i>, 95, in the seventh century); for a second
time the Qūn, a clan
of the Mongolian Marqa mentioned in 'Aufī 
(see note to § 20) put into movement the original tribes in the beginning of the 
11th century, <i>o.c.</i>, 55, 57; for a third time the foundation
of the Qipchaq (in the <i>Yüan-shih</i>: *<i>Kin ch'a</i>) state is
explained by the arrival towards A.D. 1120 of some princes whose original
habitat was near Jehol in Northern China, <i>o.c.</i>, 115, 117, 137. Many
of these facts still need confirmation and their interpretation by Marquart
is subject to considerable caution (see the reviews of Marquart's book
by Pelliot and Barthold and the latter's <i>Vorlesungen</i>, p. 114). </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">It remains to mention here that in 'Aufī's
much discussed passage the chain of moves among the nomadic tribes is opened
by the invasion of the Qūn
(<i>Q.rī</i>) into
the Sārī
land (<i>zamīn-i Sārī</i>).
The inhabitants of Sārī
(<i>ahl-i Sārī</i>)
<a href="#317 1.">[1]</a>
press the Ghūz-Türkmäns 
and the latter move into the southern seats of the Pechenegs (§ 47). Barthold in 
his review of Marquart&#39;s <i>Komanen</i> thinks that by <i>Sārī</i>
the Qipchaq are meant, and this hypothesis is certainly supported by the
fact that the Qipchaq were the people who drove before them the Ghūz
(<img SRC="317_1.jpg" height=20 width=94 align=ABSBOTTOM>) and gave their
own name (<i>Dasht-i Khifchākh</i>)
to the steppes formerly associated with the name of the Ghūzz.
Barthold even suggests that <i>sārī</i>&lt;<i>
sarı</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̊</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">, in Turkish
"yellow", is not an unsuitable name for the people known in the west under
the names: <i>Polovtsi</i>, <i>Pallidi</i>, &amp;c. [One wonders whether the 
original group of the Qipchaq had something to do with the &quot;Yellow&quot; clans of the 
western T&#39;u-chüeh, v.s., § 17.] </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Against Barthold's hypothesis is the fact that in 'Aufī's
text <i>ahl-i Sārī</i>can
only be interpreted as "people of [the territory called] Sārī".
However, the name of the <i>Sarı</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̊</font><font face="Palatino Linotype">-su</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">
could form a connecting link with some "Yellow" tribe (<i>v.s.</i>, p.
284, n. 5). Moreover, on the road supposed to lead to the Sar<i>ı</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̊</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">-su 
(notes to § 18) lay the sands called by the Turks&nbsp;<img SRC="317_2.jpg" height=23 width=51 align=ABSBOTTOM>
(<i>v.s.</i>, p. 315, n. 3). Had this latter name anything to do with the
Qomans it would pave the way to the demonstration that the "people of Sārī"
were not different from the "Qomans" (= Qipchaq).
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="317 1."></a><font size=-1><b>1.</b> The text as it stands does
not suggest any leadership of the Qūn
over the people of Sārī.</font>
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">[<a href="hud_21.html">Previous</a>] [<a href="hud_22.html">Next</a>]
<br>[<a href="index.html">Back to Index</a>] </font>
</body>
</html>�