Qazaqlīq, Or Ambitious Brigandage, and the Formation of the Qazaqs

Qazaqlïq, or Ambitious Brigandage, and the Formation of the Qazaqs Studies in Persian Cultural History

Editors

Charles Melville (Cambridge University) Gabrielle van den Berg (Leiden University) Sunil Sharma (Boston University)

Volume 8

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/spch Qazaqlïq, or Ambitious Brigandage, and the Formation of the Qazaqs

State and Identity in Post-Mongol Central Eurasia

Joo-Yup Lee

LEIDEN | BOSTON Cover illustration: A Persian miniature painting. Portrait probably of a Qazaq khan. The inscription identifies him as a “Tatar Khan Padishah of the Qipchaq Steppe (Tātār Khān pādshāh-i Dasht-i Qīpchāq).” Calligraphy on verso. 1550 (circa). Painted in gouache on paper. © The Trustees of the British Museum.

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2210-3554 isbn 978-90-04-30648-6 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-30649-3 (e-book)

Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Dedicated to my wife, Hee-Jeung Lim

∵

Contents

Acknowledgements xi Note on Transliteration and Style xiii List of Figures xv

Introduction 1 The Sources 11 The Histories of the Moghuls 11 The Histories of the Uzbeks 12 Ilkhanid Histories 14 Timurid Histories 15 The Histories of the Crimean, Kasimov, and Volga Tatars 16 The Official Chinese Dynastic Histories 17 Mongolian Sources 18 Diplomatic and Ethnographic Materials 18

Part 1 The Socio-Political Phenomenon of Qazaqlïq

1 The Use and Meaning of the Term Qazaq in Post-Mongol Central Eurasia: An Examination of the Qazaqlïq Phenomenon and its Historical Significance 21 The Definitions of the Terms Qazaq and Qazaqlïq 21 The Use and Meaning of the Term Qazaq in Central Asian Histories 26 The Use and Meaning of the Term Qazaq in Oral Epics of the Qipchaq Steppe and Tatar Historical Texts 36 The Use and Meaning of the Term Qazaq in Muscovite and Polish Historical Literature 41 The Emergence of Qazaqlïq as a Unique Custom of Political Vagabondage in Post-Mongol Central Eurasia 45

2 The Quasi-Qazaqlïq Activities and Quasi-Qazaq Groups in Pre-Mongol and Mongol Central Eurasia 51 Quasi-Qazaqlïq Activities in Pre-Mongol Central Eurasia Described in the Chinese Dynastic Histories 51 Fugitive Tribal Leaders and Their Nomad Followers 51 Plundering as a Way of Life 55 viii contents

From Small Bands of Fugitives to New Nomadic States and Identities 59 The Quasi-Qazaq Bands that Appeared in the Frontier Regions of Central Eurasia during the Mongol Period 62 The Fragmentation of the Mongol States and the Political Vagabondage of Temür 66

3 The Qazaq, or Cossack, Groups of the Black Sea Steppes 74 The Emergence of the Qazaq, or Cossack, Bands in the Black Sea Steppes during the Post-Mongol Period 74 The Zaporozhian Cossacks or Rūs Ḳazaḳs and their Role in the Formation of the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate and the Modern Ukrainian Nation 81 Ukrainian Adventurers and Fugitives Venturing into the Steppe and the Cossack Phenomenon 81 The Cossack Way of Life in the “Wild Field” and the Black Sea 86 The Formation of the Cossack Hetmanate and Its Impact on Ukrainian Identity 88

part 2 Qazaqlïq and the Formation of the Qazaqs

4 The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans: The Formation of the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks 97 A Brief History of the Eastern Dasht-i Qipchāq from the Mid-Fourteenth Century to the Mid-Fifteenth Century: The Rise and Fall of Two Prominent Jochid Lineages 97 Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s Qazaqlïq 103 Separation from Abū al-Khair Khan’s Uzbek Ulus 103 Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s Qazaqlïq and the Rise of the Qazaq Uzbek Ulus 107 The Qazaqlïq Days of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān 109 Escape from Astrakhan 109 Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s Political Vagabondage and the Reunification of the Former Ulus of Abū al-Khair Khan 110 The Conquest of the Timurid States and the Revival of the Abū al-Khairid Dynasty 114 The Consolidation of the Two Neo-Uzbek States in the Oases and Steppes of Central Asia 116 Contents ix

5 The Formation of a Separate Qazaq Identity 121 The Origin and Meaning of the Designation Uzbek 121 The Qazaq Uzbeks (Uzbak-i qazāq) and the Shibanid Uzbeks (Uzbak-i Shībān) 124 The Differentiation of the Qazaqs from the Uzbeks 126 The Uniqueness of Qazaq Identity 128 The Designation Turk 129 The Designation Moghul 132 Ulūs-i Jūchī and Toqmaq 136

6 The Legend of Alash Khan and the Genealogy of the Uzbeks 140 The Legend of Alash Khan and the Origin of the Qazaqs 140 Different Versions of the Legend of Alash Khan 141 Who was Alash Khan? 146 A Tale of Qazaqlïq 152 The Genealogy of the Shibanid Uzbeks 154 The Ilkhanid Account of the Chinggisid and Mongol History 154 The Timurid Account of the Chinggisid and Timurid Genealogical History 157 The Uzbek Dynastic Genealogies 158

Conclusion 163

Appendix 1: The Use of the Terms Qazaq and Qazaqlïq in Written and Oral Sources 171 Appendix 2: The Characterization of Qazaq and Qazaqlïq by Modern Historians and Turkologists 183 Bibliography 186 Index 217

Acknowledgements

Writing a history of the early Qazaqs and other qazaq-related peoples has meant relying on the assistance of my kind friends and supporters. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my Doktorvater, Victor Ostapchuk. I feel truly blessed to have received his mentorship and friendship. I benefited greatly from his seminars and lectures on the steppe empires and Ottoman/Turkish languages. His vast knowledge and expertise were essential to the progress I made in my study. This book is a product of his decade-long support and guidance. I feel greatly privileged to have befriended Professor Stephen Dale, who has always extended a helping hand to me whenever I needed his advice and support. Without his scholarly contributions, including his biography of Babur, I would not have been able to embark on my research on qazaqlïq. I would also like to express my warmest gratitude to Professor Linda Northrup for her willingness to always help me. She also offered me insights from the perspective of her own field. I am to the highest degree indebted to Professor Maria Eva Subtelny. My book owes its origin to her thoughtful suggestion on the topic of my doctoral dissertation, on which the present study is based. I have relied on her academic guidance and scholarly contributions. This book is a continuation of her study of qazaqlïq as well as those of Professor Ostapchuk and Professor Dale. I would also like to express my greatest appreciation to my best Korean friend, Professor Sofia An at the Nazarbayev University, for making me a better historian. Her integrity, thoughtfulness, and outstanding intelligence made possible my trip to the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana, i.e., Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan both physically and intellectually. My sincere appreciation also goes to my colleagues and friends in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto. I am much appreciative of Anna Sousa for the indispensable adminis- trative support and friendship she offered. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Metin Bezikoğlu and Murat Yaşar, my old drinking buddies, who have helped me with difficult Ottoman texts and offered me intellectual compan- ionship, Maryna Kravets, who shared her in-depth knowledge of Ukrainian cossackdom with me and helped me with the bibliography, Parisa Emami, my Iranian friend and neighbor, who has carefully read my manuscript and corrected all my Persian transliteration errors, and finally Shuntu Kuang, my sworn brother and colleague, who has offered me tremendous support and most felicitous advice during my days of hardships and has become my children’s favorite uncle. Without Shuntu’s painstaking proofreading of my xii acknowledgements manuscript with an extremely observant eye, this book would have remained full of flaws. I owe special thanks to the editor of the series, Teddi Dols, for her remark- able leniency and professional advice, and to the two anonymous reviewers for giving me particularly helpful feedback and expressing their approbation of the publication of my book. I am also grateful to Josh Brann for granting me permission to use his masterpiece as an illustration in my book. I am also deeply obliged to my brother-in-law Raymond Young-Jin Cho and my sister, Ji-Yang Lee, for kindly supporting my decision to quit my job and become a historian and helping me adapt to my new academic life in North America about 10 years ago. I am immensely blessed to be a companion of Nasrin Askari, an Iranian Canadian Persianist, who has assisted me in various stages of preparation of this book. Without her kind heart, profound wisdom, thorough knowledge, and sincere friendship, I would not be who I am as a scholar. I have dedicated this volume to my wife, Hee-Jeung Lim, who has been a faithful companion during my own qazaqlïq days of book writing. Note on Transliteration and Style

This book uses several different systems of transliteration. For Persian and Modern and Ottoman Turkish words, it follows the English transliteration sys- following غwith the , ذStudies خMiddle Eastث tem of the International Journal of the exceptions for Ottoman Turkish: s̱ for �, ḫ for �, ẕ for �, and ġ for �. There is no widely accepted transliteration system for Chaghatay Turkic. I have therefore transliterated Chaghatay Turkic words according to the system shown in the transliteration table below. For transliterating Russian words, I have followed the United States Board on Geographic Names, avoiding diacritics and ligatures. For Kazakh, I have attempted to use the transliteration system provided by UNESCO. For Mongolian, I have generally used Igor de Rachewiltz’s transcription. The pinyin system for romanizing Chinese has been employed in this work. For Japanese romanization, the modified Hepburn system has been used. In the bibliography, the notes, and in general matters of style, this book conforms to the 16th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. All transla- tions are my own unless indicated otherwise in footnotes.

Arabic Alphabet Persian Chaghatay Turkic Ottoman Turkish

Consonants

ʾ ʾ ʾ ا/ء b b, p b ب� � p p p پت � t t t ث � s̱ s̱ s̱ j j, č c ج� ch č ç چ� ḥ ḥ ḥ خح � kh ḫ ḫ د d d d ذ � ẕ ẕ ẕ r r r زر z z z ژ� � zh ž j �� s s s شس �� sh š ş ṣ ṣ ṣ �ص xiv Note on Transliteration and Style

(cont.)

Arabic Alphabet Persian Chaghatay Turkic Ottoman Turkish

Consonants

ض �� ż ż ż ṭ ṭ ṭ ط ظ � ẓ ẓ ẓ ʿ ʿ ʿ غع gh ġ ġ ف� �� f f f ق � q q ḳ k, g k, g k, ñ, y ك گ � g g g l l l ل m m m �م ن � n n n h h h �ہ v, u v, w v و y y y �ى

Vowels Long آ or � ā ā ā ا ۇ � ū ū, ō ū ī ē, ī ī �ى

Diphthongs  au av, äv, ev ev ٯ ai ay, äy, ey ey �ى

Short َ a a, ä a, e ُ◌ ◌ u o, ö, u, ü o, ö, u, ü i e, ï, i ı, i ِ◌ List of Figures

1 The Three Stages of Qazaqlïq 49 2 Northern China and Mongolia, ca. 300–1100 56 3 The Black Sea Steppes, ca. 1500–1700 79 4 The Cossack Formations in the Black Sea Steppes 81 5 Transoxiana and the Qipchaq Steppe, ca. 1500 110 6 The Genealogical Tree of the Jochid Khans 119 7 The Multiple Layers of Identity of the Shibanid Uzbeks and Qazaqs 139 8 The Timurid and Shibanid Uzbek Genealogical Tree 162 9 Kazakh horseman riding through winter steppe of fire 168 10 Cossack Mamay, a legendary hero in Ukrainian folklore, by an anonymous artist 168 11 The mausoleum of Alash Khan, the legendary founder of the Qazaq people 169

Introduction

This book is concerned with the formation of new group identities in post- Mongol Central Eurasia resulting from the custom of political vagabondage that was widespread among the Turko-Mongolian peoples of Central Asia and the Qipchaq Steppe (Dasht-i Qipchāq).1 More specifically, my study focuses on the Qazaqs (Kazakhs), who emerged as a new nomadic people in the sixteenth century out of a group of fugitives, who underwent a period of vagabondage and brigandage at the eastern limits of the Qipchaq Steppe in the second half of the fifteenth century and became known to their contemporaries as qazaqs (meaning “vagabonds” or “freebooters” in Turkic). The formation of the Qazaqs began with the political vagabondage of two nomad leaders of Chinggisid descent, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, who in ca. 1459–60, along with their tribal followers, deserted the Ulus of Uzbek, a nomadic confederation that ruled over the eastern Qipchaq Steppe in the fifteenth century, in order to escape the oppressive rule of Abū al-Khair Khan (r. 1428–68). The Ulus of Uzbek was a successor state of the Ulus of Jochi, better known as the Golden Horde, which was a western Mongol state founded in the middle of the thirteenth century following the Mongol conquest of the Qipchaq Steppe and the Rus’ principalities, and which was so named because it was ruled by the heirs of Jochi, Chinggis Khan (d. 1227)’s eldest son. After the reign of Uzbek Khan (r. 1313–41), the Ulus of Jochi became also known to their contemporaries as the Ulus of Uzbek, whose eastern half was ruled by Abū al-Khair Khan in the middle of the fifteenth century.2 For quite a while, the fugitive Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan wandered around in the wilderness with no fixed pastureland, often resorting to plundering their neighboring tribes in order to secure provisions. However, thanks to the stable

1 The term Central Eurasia is used in this study to refer to the vast landlocked area stretching from the Danube in the west to Manchuria in the east. Importantly, it includes Central Asia, the interior region stretching from the Caspian Sea in the west to Xinjiang, China in the east and from Kazakhstan in the north to Afghanistan in the south. Inner Asia is also used broadly as a synonym for Central Eurasia with a focus on the steppe regions. 2 The Mongolian word ulus means “people (subject to a certain ruler)” or “state.” It was initially used to denote the appanages given to the sons of Chinggis Khan. Ulus was also applied to various Turko-Mongolian nomadic peoples and states in post-Mongol Central Eurasia. For the term ulus, see Erich Haenisch, Manghol un niuca tobca’an (Yüan-ch’ao pi-shi), Die Geheime Geschichte der Mongolen aus der chinesischen Transkription (Ausgabe Ye Teh-hui) im mongol- ischen Wortlaut wiederhergestellt, vol. 2, Worterbuch zu Manghol un niuca tobca’an (Yüan- ch’ao pi-shi) (Leipzig, 1937; repr., Wiesbaden: F. Steiner Verlag, 1962), p. 163.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi ��.��63/9789004306493_002 2 Introduction leadership provided by the two charismatic Chinggisid princes, this group of wandering plunderers succeeded in attracting new followers and, as a result, developed into a new nomadic state, the Qazaq Khanate, by the end of the fifteenth century. Jānībeg Khan’s descendants formed the royal clan of this Chinggisid nomadic state, which came to dominate much of the Qipchaq Steppe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The present-day Kazakhs thus have their genesis in the group of fugitives led by the two dissident leaders, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan.3 I was drawn to the study of the early Qazaqs because, unlike numerous other Inner Asian nomadic tribes and peoples that disappeared into the mists of history, the Qazaqs have been able to retain their group identity up to the present, currently forming the few remaining direct descendants, along with the modern Mongols, of the Inner Asian nomads who constituted the tribal population of the great nomadic empires, namely, the Xiongnu, Türk, and Mongol empires. In addition, the early Qazaqs were descended from the Turkic nomads of Qipchaq origin, who assumed leading roles in military and political affairs of the medieval Islamic world and founded several Turkic dynasties, including the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt. The current study seeks to explore the formation of the Qazaqs starting from the second half of the fifteenth century in relation to the custom of political vagabondage referred to as qazaqlïq (the qazaq way of life) in Turkic sources and ayyām-i qazāqī (the days of qazaqlïq) or rasm-i qazāqī (the qazaq manner) in Persian sources during the post-Mongol period. Qazaqlïq, a derivative of qazaq, denoted the form of political vagabondage that involved running away from one’s state or tribe and living the life of a freebooter in a frontier or other remote region.4 The importance of the qazaqlïq phenomenon in post- Mongol Central Eurasia can be seen in the fact that, for many political underdogs, the qazaq way of life, i.e., qazaqlïq served as a stepping stone toward founding their own polities or, to use Stephen Dale’s expression, as a means “to move from qazaqlïq status of ambitious brigandage to istiqlāl, or sovereignty.”5

3 In this study, the spelling Kazakh instead of Qazaq will only be used when referring to the ethnic Qazaqs of Kazakhstan after the creation of the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1925. 4 The word qazaqlïq is formed by adding -lïq/-lik, a suffix indicating occupation and length of time, among others, to the word qazaq. For the suffix -lïq/-lik, see János Eckmann, Chagatay Manual (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1966), p. 58. 5 For this expression applied to Babur by Stephen Dale, see Stephen F. Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises: Babur and the Culture of Empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan and India (1483–1530), Brill’s Inner Asian Library 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 99. Introduction 3

Like Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, such political figures of the Chinggisid and Timurid lineages as Temür (Tamerlane), Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, and Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur chose to live, at some point in their political careers before coming to power, the qazaq way of life, thanks to which they were able to muster a loyal band of warriors and found the Timurid Empire, Uzbek Khanate, and Mughal Empire, respectively. These prominent figures in Central Eurasian history as well as numerous other less well-known political vagabonds who fled their own states or tribes and became frontier freebooters are referred to as qazaqs in the various written and oral sources produced during the post-Mongol period that describe their qazaqlïq activities.6 In this study, I examine in detail the case of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s qazaqlïq and its historical and political consequences by adopting Stephen F. Dale and Maria Eva Subtelny’s characterization of qazaqlïq as “throneless, vagabond times” or “the period of brigandage,” during which a political vagabond, fleeing from a difficult social or political situation, had to wander in the political wilderness and fight for his own political foothold.7 As a matter of fact, the oldest written and oral sources that provide accounts of the origin of the Qazaqs describe the formative period of Qazaq history as a period of political vagabondage, i.e., qazaqlïq. The Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, a Persian- language history of the Moghul Khanate, which is the single most important source for the early Qazaqs, relates that the Qazaqs evolved from Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s Uzbeks who broke away from Abū al-Khair Khan and roamed on the eastern fringes of the Ulus of Uzbek. Similarly, the legend of Alash Khan, which is the Qazaq oral tradition that narrates the origin of the first Qazaq polity, depicts the early Qazaqs as a group of nomads who spent a period of exile and vagabondage in the steppe after becoming separated from their original nomadic polity. In accordance with these traditional descriptions of the early Qazaqs, Chokan Valikhanov (1835–65), the father of Qazaq ethnography and historiography, suggested that the Qazaqs grew out of a group of vagrant

6 Chapter 1 will be devoted to the examination of the historical usage of the term qazaq. 7 In my study, I have adopted Stephen F. Dale’s rendering of the term qazaq as “a political vagabond.” In his critical biography of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur (r. 1526–30), the founder of the Timurid Mughal Empire of India, Dale provides insights into the nature of Babur’s qazaq lïq or political vagabondage. For his discussion of qazaqlïq, see Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises, pp. 98–99. Maria E. Subtelny in her work that examines the transformation of the Timurid nomadic state into a sedentary polity based on the Perso-Islamic model discusses in detail the qazaqlïq days of the last Timurid ruler, Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara (r. 1469–1506). For her definition of the term qazaqlïq, see Maria E. Subtelny, Timurids in Transition: Turko- Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran, Brill’s Inner Asian Library 19 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), p. 29. 4 Introduction nomads who led the life of a qazaq (kazachestvovat) in the steppe north of the Syr Darya River after fleeing from famine and the cruelty of their ruler, named (in Cyrillic spelling) “Abdulla” or “Abdul-Azis Khan,” in the late fourteenth century.8 Similarly, the Bashkort historian, Turkologist, and political leader Zeki Velidi Togan (1890–1970) maintained that the Qazaqs descended from Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s Uzbeks who had separated themselves from the Ulus of Uzbek and had lived the qazaq way of life as political adventurers.9 In contrast, scholarship on early Qazaq history has been somewhat ham- pered by ideological constraints and nationalist paradigms in Soviet and post- Soviet Kazakhstan. During the Soviet era, Soviet historians emphasized the autochthonous development of the Central Asian nationalities.10 They thus asserted that the modern Qazaqs descended from all the nomadic peoples that had inhabited the steppes of Kazakhstan from the Bronze Age. For instance, the Istoriya Kazakhskoy SSR [The history of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic], published in Almaty in 1979, states that the ethnogenetic process of the Qazaqs began with the ancient Indo-European peoples such as the Saka (Scythians), Wusun, and Massagetae.11 After Kazakhstan declared independence in 1991, Kazakh historians basically reiterate the Soviet interpretations of Qazaq ethnogenesis. For instance, the Istoriya Kazakhstana s drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney [The history of Kazakhstan from ancient times to our days], published by the Kazakh Academy of Sciences in 1993, and other more recent works

8 Chokan Valikhanov, “Kirgizskoye rodosloviye,” in Izbrannye proizvedeniya, ed. S. Mazhitov et al. (Almaty: Izdatel’stvo Arys, 2009), pp. 122–27. 9 A. Zeki Velidi Togan, Bugünkü Türkili (Türkistan) ve yakın tarihi (Istanbul: Arkadaş, Ibrahim Horoz ve Güven Basımevleri, 1942), pp. 28–41. Modern Turkish historians have also demonstrated interest in the history of the Qazaqs, which they regard as part of the larger history of the Turks. Instead of paying attention to the role of qazaqlïq, they emphasize the “Turkishness” of the Qazaqs and equate the formation of the Qazaqs with the revival of the Turkic peoples. For instance, Mehmet Saray, author of Kazak Türkleri tarihi [The history of the Kazak Turks], argues that the Qazaqs were none other than the Turks who deserted their “Uzbek Turkish” leader Abū al-Khair Khan, who had failed to protect them from the “Oyirat Mongols.” See Mehmet Saray, Kazak Türkleri tarihi: Kazakların uyanışı, Yeni Türk cumhuriyetleri tarihi serisi 2 (Istanbul: Nesil Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık A. Ş., 1993), pp. 16–18. 10 For the Soviet approach to the ethnogenesis of the Uzbeks and Tajiks, see Maria Eva Subtelny, “The Symbiosis of Turk and Tajik,” in Central Asia in Historical Perspective, ed. Beatrice F. Manz (Boulder, Co: Westview, 1994), pp. 52–54. 11 A. N. Nusupbekov, ed., Istoryia Kazakhskoy SSR: S drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dney, vol. 2, Razvitie feodal′nykh otnosheniy: Obrazovaniye kazakhskoy narodnosti i Kazakhskogo khanstva (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1977–1981), pp. 240–41. Introduction 5 also maintain the view that the Qazaqs descend from all the nomadic peoples who have inhabited the steppes of Kazakhstan from the Bronze Age, such as the Saka (Scythians), Wusun, Xiongnu, Türks, and Qipchaqs.12 However, such explanations are built on conjecture and overlook the simple historical fact that a separate Qazaq identity did not exist prior to the fifteenth century. There has been a steady stream of publications on Qazaq history in China where the Qazaqs form an ethnic minority group. However, the Chinese interpretations of the origin of the Qazaqs are also somewhat influenced by their motivation to establish a close tie between the Han Chinese dynasties and the ancestors of the Qazaqs. Most Chinese historians regard the Wusun, a nomadic people that resided in present-day northwestern China and formed an alliance with the Han Dynasty against the Xiongnu in the first century BC, as the earliest ancestors of the Qazaqs.13 Jahef Mirzahan and Xu Xifa, for instance, trace a clear line of descent for the modern Qazaq tribe Uysyn from the Wusun.14

12 Manash Kabashevich Kozybaev and others, eds., Istoriya Kazakhstana s drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney (Almaty: Izdatel’stvo Dăuīr, 1993), p. 131; K. Ryspaev, Istoriya Respubliki Kazakhstan (Almaty: Bilim, 2002), pp. 13–15. 13 Modern Kazakh historians in general identify the ancient Wusun with the modern Kazakh tribe Uysyn. In several Ilkhanid and Central Asian sources, however, the Ushin or Hushin is recorded as a Mongol tribe. For instance, see Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, ed. Bahman Karīmī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Iqbāl, 1367/1988), pp. 27, 131–32. Chokan Valikhanov also regarded the Uysyn as an ancient Mongol tribe. See Chokan Valikhanov, “Predaniya i legendy bolshoy Kirgiz-Kaysatskoy ordy,” in Izbrannye proizvedeniya, ed. S. Mazhitov et al. (Almaty: Izdatel’stvo Arys, 2009), p. 455. Like Valikhanov, Beimbet Baktievich Irmukhanov, a modern Kazakh historian, argues that the modern Kazakh tribe Uysyn descends from the Mongol Hushin, not from the ancient Wusun. See Beimbet Baktievich Irmukhanov, Usun’ i etnogenez kazakhskogo naroda (Almaty: Nash Mir, 2006), pp. 95–101. Interestingly, the five-volume Mongol ulsyn tüükh [The history of Mongolia] published by the Mongolian Academy of Historical Sciences in 2003 identifies the modern Qazaq tribe Uysyn with the ancient Wusun, not with the Mongol Uushin tribe that can still be found among the Inner Mongolians. See D. Tseveendorj, ed., Mongol ulsyn tüükh [The history of Mongolia], 5 vols. (Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Shinjlekh Ukhaany Akademi Tüükhiin Khüreelen, 2003), 1: 202. In fact, most Mongolian historians also tend to reiterate the Soviet interpretations of Qazaq ethnogenesis. For instance, Kh. Nyambuu, in his Mongolin Ugsaatani Zuin Udirtgal [Introduction to Mongol ethnography], writes that the Qazaqs descend from all the nomadic peoples that inhabited Kazakhstan from the Bronze Age, such as the Scythians, Wusuns, Alans, and Qipchaqs. See Kh. Nyambuu, Mongolin Ugsaatani Zuin Udirtgal: Ugsaatani Bureldhuun Garval Zui (Surah Bichig Huuhdiin Nomin Hevleriin Gaar: Ulaanbaatar, 1992), pp. 127–28. 14 Jahef Mirzahan 贾合甫米尔扎汗, “Wusun yu hasakezu di yuanliu guanxi 乌孙与哈萨克族的源流关系 [The origin of the Wusuns and the Qazaqs],” Xiyu yanjiu 2 (2006): 99–102; Xu Xifa 续西发, “Hasakezu di zucheng, zuyuan he xipu 哈萨克族的族称, 族 6 Introduction

More recently, Geng Shimin, in an article dealing with the formation of the Qazaq Khanate and the origin of the Qazaqs, virtually repeats the traditional Soviet interpretation of Qazaq ethnogenesis by arguing that the Qazaqs were formed from the admixture of different nomadic peoples, such as the Scythians, Wusuns, Western Türks, Qipchaqs, and Mongols, while adding that the Qipchaq elements formed the nucleus of the Qazaqs.15 The Western contribution to the study of Qazaq history has not been substantial even though there has been an upsurge in the publication of works devoted to the politics of modern Kazakhstan in the last two decades. Among the works in Western languages, Jiger Janabel’s doctoral dissertation titled “From Mongol Empire to Qazaq Jüzder: Studies on the Steppe Political Cycle” is the most detailed study of the formation and development of the Qazaq Khanate. Janabel argues that the ethnic Qazaqs evolved from the Jochid Ulus as a result of the centuries-long nomadic cycle, which he divides into two phases: the unification of Inner Asian nomads into one political unit—the Mongol Empire; and the gradual disintegration of the Mongol Empire into smaller polities.16 However, Janabel does not attach particular significance

源和系谱 [The ethnonym, the origin, and the genealogy of the Qazaqs],” Journal of Ili Teachers College 1 (2005): 13–17. 15 Geng Shimin 耿世民, “Hasake lishi yanjiu (2)—Hasake hanguo yu Hasakezu 哈萨克历史研究(二)—哈萨克汗国与哈萨克族 [A study of the Qazaq history (2)—the Qazaq Khanate and the Qazaqs],” Journal of Ili Normal University 1 (2008): 1. 16 Jiger Janabel, “From Mongol Empire to Qazaq Jüzder: Studies on the Steppe Political Cycle (13th–18th Centuries)” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1997). The history of the Qazaqs is also receiving growing scholarly attention in Japan where a great deal of scholarship has focused on the Mongol Empire. Like Jiger Janabel, Japanese historians tend to view the early Qazaqs as the direct heirs of the Ulus of Jochi. For instance, Akasaka Tsuneaki describes the Qazaqs as the direct descendants of the left wing of the Jochid Ulus in his monograph on the successor states to the Jochid Ulus, which draws on Chaghatay and Persian sources. See Akasaka Tsuneaki 赤坂恒明, Juchi ei sho seiken shi no kenkyū ジュチ裔諸政権史の研究 [A study of the Jochid dynasties] (Tokyo: Kazama-Shobo, 2005), pp. 136–75; and Akasaka, “Jitsusi seiki chūyō-jitsu riku jūroku seiki shome ni okeru Uzubeku—isurāmu ka go no juchi urusu no sōshō 十四世紀中葉—十六世紀初めにおけるウズベク—イスラーム化後のジュチ・ウルスの総称 [The Uzbeks from the mid-fourteenth century to the early sixteenth century: A general term for Ulus-i Jochi after its Islamization],” Shigaku zasshi 109, no. 3 (2000): 325–63. Noda Jin 野田仁, who utilizes Manchurian documents in his study of the Qazaq jüzs, or hordes, and their relations with the Qing Dynasty, also maintains the view that the Qazaqs evolved from the left wing of the Jochid Ulus, whose first ruler was Urus Khan, the great grandfather of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan. See Noda Jin 野田仁, “Shinchō shiryō jō no Kazafu Sanbu 清朝史料上の哈薩克(カザフ)三部 [3 Qazaq Hordes in the Qing sources],” Manzokushi kenkyu 1 Introduction 7 to the period of qazaqlïq that the early Qazaqs underwent in the second half of the fifteenth century. Janabel’s work is also impaired by the limited range of the primary sources he utilized. The main argument of this book is that the formation of the Qazaqs in the sixteenth century was a product of qazaqlïq, the custom of political vagabondage that played an important role in state formation in post-Mongol Central Eurasia. I also give emphasis to the fact that the development of Qazaq identity in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe took place in line with the rise of the Shibanid Uzbeks in Transoxiana following Muḥammad Shībānī Khan (r. 1501–10)’s qazaq lïq activities and conquest of southern Central Asia at the turn of the sixteenth century.17 In other words, I argue that the formation of the Qazaqs should be understood as part of the larger historical process in which the nomads belonging to the former Ulus of Uzbek became divided into the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks as a result of the conflictual and interrelated qazaqlïq activities of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan on the one hand, and of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan on the other. This book thus proposes a new explanation for the formation of the Qazaqs, challenging both the contemporary Kazakh interpretations of Qazaq ethnogenesis, which mainly argue that the Qazaqs were formed by the amalgamation of all the nomadic peoples that inhabited the steppes of Kazakhstan from the Bronze Age down to the Mongol invasion, and the traditional explanation of the origin of the Qazaqs that basically equates the emergence of the Qazaqs as a separate people with the formation the Qazaq Khanate in the late fifteenth century.

(2002): 16–30; and Noda, “Kazafu hankoku to Torukisutan: yūbokumin no kunshu maisō to bobyō sūhai kara no kōsatsu カザフ・ハン国とトルキスタン—遊牧民の君主埋葬と墓廟崇拝からの考察 [The Qazaq Khanate and Turkistan (Yasi): from the khans’ burial and the Qazaq nomads’ worship of the shrine],” Isuramsekai 68 (2007): 3. More recently, Nagamine Hiroyuki also argues that the Qazaq Khanate should be regarded as a successor state to the left wing of the Jochid Ulus, which was ruled by the Urusid branch of the Jochid lineage. See Nagamine Hiroyuki 長峰博之, “Kazaku hankoku keiseishi no saikō: Jochi urusu sayoku kara Kazaku hankoku e カザク・ハン国」形成史の再考: ジョチ・ウルス左翼から「カザク・ハン国」へ [Rethinking the foundation of the ‘Qazaq Khanate’: from the left hand of the Ulus-i Jūchī to the ‘Qazaq Khanate’],” The Journal of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 90, no. 4 (2009): 452, 456. 17 “Shibanid Uzbek (Uzbak-i Shībān)” was the term used by some sixteenth-century Central Asian historians to refer to the Uzbeks who were led by the family of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan. The Shibanid Uzbeks are simply called Uzbeks in modern literature. However, in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Central Asia, Uzbek denoted all the nomads of the former Ulus of Uzbek including the Manghits (Noghays) and the early Qazaqs. Chapter 5 will examine the designations attached to the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks in detail. 8 Introduction

In this study of the formation of the Qazaqs in relation to the qazaqlïq phenomenon, I will address the following questions: what were the meaning, origins, and characteristics of qazaqlïq in post-Mongol Central Eurasia?; what were the quasi-qazaqlïq activities that occurred in Central Eurasia during the pre-Mongol and Mongol periods and their historical consequences?; what was the correlation between the Turkic qazaqlïq phenomenon in Central Asia and the Slavic cossack phenomenon in the Black Sea steppes?; what were the impacts of the qazaqlïq activities of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan and those of other political vagabonds on state formation in post-Mongol Central Eurasia?; how did Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s qazaqlïq lead to the emergence of a separate Qazaq identity?; and finally, how is the qazaqlïq phase of Qazaq history reflected in the foundation myth of the Qazaqs? The procedure of my investigation is reflected in the organization of the book, which is divided into two parts, each consisting of three chapters. Part 1 is devoted to a detailed examination of the qazaqlïq phenomenon. In the first chapter, I conduct a comprehensive study of the term qazaq and its derivative qazaqlïq in order to examine the qazaqlïq phenomenon and present its historical significance. I demonstrate that the term qazaq appears in various Timurid and post-Timurid Central Asian sources written in Persian or Chaghatay Turkic to denote “a vagabond/wanderer” and/or “a brigand/freebooter.” In the western Qipchaq Steppe and its adjacent regions, a variety of sources composed in Turkic, Slavic, and Latin used the term qazaq in a broader sense to denote “a political dissident,” “a fugitive/runaway,” as well as “a vagabond/wanderer” and/or “a brigand/freebooter.” The investigation of the numerous fugitive and freebooter activities, i.e., qazaqlïq activities described in various historical sources produced during the post-Mongol period demonstrates that qazaqlïq, or the qazaq way of life, was a widespread custom of political vagabondage in post-Mongol Central Eurasia, which often served, for lesser political contenders, as a means of rallying a band of faithful warriors and establishing their own polity. In order to delve further into the nature of the qazaqlïq phenomenon and bring in more historical context, in chapter 2, I look into the quasi-qazaqlïq activities and the quasi-qazaq groups that occurred in the frontier regions of Central Eurasia during the pre-Mongol and Mongol periods. I first look into the quasi-qazaqlïq activities, such as flight and plundering, that were performed by the founders of the Rou-ran, Tuyuhun, Gaoche, Kök Türk, Shatuo Türk, and Qara-Khitai tribes or states, who sought to secure power or survival in eastern Inner Asia during the pre-Mongol period. Their quasi-qazaqlïq activities can be found in the accounts of the “northern barbarians” (bei di) included in the official Chinese dynastic histories. I then investigate the quasi-qazaqlïq activities Introduction 9 that took place in the frontier regions of the Mongol Empire, namely, Khorasan and Anatolia, and led to the formation of a number of quasi-qazaq bands, such as the Qara’unas, the Negüderi, and the Yasa’urī. This chapter attempts to demonstrate that, over a long period of pre-modern Central Eurasian history, quasi- qazaqlïq activities not only served as an effective survival strategy for political underdogs, but also played an important role in the formation of new polities and identities. In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss in detail the qazaqlïq activities of Temür (r. 1370–1405) described in various sources. I suggest that Temür can be characterized as a quintessential qazaq, i.e., a political vagabond representative of the fractured Central Eurasian world in the mid-fourteenth century when a large number of political fugitives, produced by the internecine struggles within the Chinggisid polities, began to live the life of a freebooter in the frontier regions that had become political no-man’s lands. Chapter 3 examines the qazaq, or cossack (Russian kazak, Ukrainian kozak) groups that emerged in the frontier regions of western Central Eurasia during the post-Mongol period. I first investigate the Tatar and Slavic qazaq, or cossack, groups that appeared in the Black Sea steppes, which had turned into a broad frontier region (the so-called “Wild Field”) in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries after the disintegration of the Ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde) in the early fifteenth century. The first qazaq bands in the Black Sea region were made up of the Tatar fugitives who had detached themselves from the dissolving Jochid Ulus and became frontier freebooters. These Tatar qazaqs were then followed by East Slavic adventurers and fugitives from Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy, who formed the Zaporozhian Cossacks and the Don Cossacks, respectively. I then provide a detailed discussion of Ukrainian cossackdom, which was the most significant qazaq, or cossack, formation to emerge in the Black Sea steppes. Ukrainian cossackdom led to the formation of the Cossack Hetmanate, which in turn contributed to the consolidation of a separate Ukrainian identity. Part 2 is devoted to an examination of the formation of the Qazaqs in the larger context of the socio-political phenomenon of qazaqlïq discussed in Part 1. Chapter 4 examines the formation of the Qazaq ulus as well as that of the Shibanid Uzbek ulus in connection with the qazaqlïq activities of their Chinggisid leaders: Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, the great-grandsons of Urus Khan (r. ca. 1368–78), on the one hand, and Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, the grandsons of Abū al-Khair Khan (r. 1428–68), on the other. I first provide an overview of the history of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe, a vast region that roughly corresponds to modern-day Kazakhstan, from the mid-fourteenth century to the mid-fifteenth century, when the eastern Qipchaq Steppe was dominated initially by the family of Urus Khan and later 10 Introduction by that of Abū al-Khair Khan. I then discuss in detail the conflictual and interrelated qazaqlïq activities of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan (ca. 1450–70), and of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān (ca. 1470–1500), respectively. The rest of the chapter describes the process whereby the two qazaq bands headed by these rival Chinggisid sulṭāns were transformed into two separate khanates and uluses, which established themselves in the steppe regions and oases of Central Asia, respectively. Chapter 5 discusses the division of the nomadic population of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe into the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks with respect to their designations. I look into the formation of the Qazaqs as a separate nomadic people by examining the process whereby the designation of the qazaq, or renegade, Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan gradually changed from Uzbek to Qazaq. I first investigate the origin and meaning of the term Uzbek and then demonstrate how Qazaq replaced Uzbek as the designation of the qazaq Uzbeks, that is, how a separate Qazaq identity emerged. The remainder of this chapter examines the nature and meaning of the designations Turk, Moghul, ulūs-i Jūchī, and Toqmaq, all of which had been attached to the nomadic population of the Qipchaq Steppe prior to the sixteenth century, in order to show that the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks had belonged to one and the same entity prior to the emergence of the Qazaq identity. Since the qazaqlïq activities of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan were the original cause of the appearance of the qazaq Uzbeks and their designation Qazaq, I argue that the formation of the Qazaqs as a separate nomadic people was a product of the qazaqlïq phenomenon. In chapter 6, I examine how the qazaqlïq phase of the early Qazaqs influenced the formation of their historical consciousness. I investigate the legend of Alash Khan, the Qazaq oral tradition that narrates the origin of the first Qazaq polity, in relation to the early history of the Qazaqs, including the qazaqlïq phase that the Qazaqs underwent in the second half of the fifteenth century. I first introduce several different versions of the legend of Alash Khan that were collected in the course of the nineteenth century. According to most versions of the legend of Alash Khan, the Qazaqs evolved from a group of fugitives, who selected Alash, an outcast prince, as their first khan. I discuss in detail how the legend of Alash Khan reflects the qazaqlïq of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan as well as the political careers of the other Qazaq khans. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of the Perso-Islamic historiographical tradition that the Shibanid Uzbeks inherited from the Ilkhanids and the Timurids. The Shibanid Uzbeks related their early history in the context of the widespread Ilkhanid and Timurid accounts of Chinggisid history by tracing their ancestry to Japheth, son of Noah, and to such mythical figures as Introduction 11

Turk Khan, Mughūl Khan, Oghuz Khan, Qiyan, and Alan Qo’a. Importantly, the emergence of a unique foundation myth of the Qazaqs, that is, the legend of Alash Khan attests to the fact that the Qazaqs and Shibanid Uzbeks eventually became two separate uluses, or peoples, who differed not only in their self- designations, but also with respect to their foundation myths and collective historical consciousness.

The Sources

This book utilizes a wider range of original sources than have been used in previous discussions about the formative period of Qazaq history and the socio-political phenomenon of qazaqlïq. While the sources pertaining to the early Qazaqs and qazaqlïq are somewhat disparate and fragmentary, the extant source base for this study is large. The major primary sources used in this study can be categorized as Uzbek, Moghul, Timurid, Ilkhanid, Crimean and Volga Tatar, Muscovite, and Chinese histories based on the dynasties or polities under which they were composed. While Moghul and Uzbek histories written in Chaghatay Turkic or Persian provide the most detailed information on the early history of the Qazaqs, Ilkhanid, Timurid, Tatar, Muscovite, and Chinese histories also offer a substantial amount of information pertinent to the early Qazaqs, qazaqlïq and quasi-qazaqlïq activities, and the uluses of Jochi and Uzbek.

The Histories of the Moghuls The Tārīkh-i Rashīdī is a history of the khans and Dughlāt amīrs of the Moghul Khanate, the eastern branch of the Chaghatayid Khanate, written in Persian by Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt (d. 1551) in 1546. This history provides the single most detailed account of the early history of the Qazaqs, including the period of qazaqlïq that the Qazaqs underwent. It describes the historical event whereby the Uzbek fugitives headed by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan became known as Qazaqs, and depicts the activities of the Qazaq khans up to the thir- ties of the sixteenth century. The Tārīkh-i Rashīdī also provides a description of the qazaqlïq activities of the Moghul rulers, Vais Khan (r. 1418–21 and 1425–29) and Sulṭān Saʿīd Khan (r. 1514–33), enabling us to deepen our understanding of the nature of qazaqlïq. Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt’s Tārīkh-i Rashīdī was continued by Shāh Maḥmūd b. Mīrzā Fāżīl Churās, who wrote in Persian the Tārīkh, a history of the Moghul Khanate from 1428 to the late seventeenth century. The Tārīkh offers some information on the Qazaqs, who were in alliance with the Moghul 12 Introduction khans. The Tārīkh-i Kashgar, a late Moghul history written in Turkic by an anonymous author in the early eighteenth century, also contains information on the Qazaqs.

The Histories of the Uzbeks Another Persian source that offers indispensable information on the early Qazaqs is Fażlallāh b. Rūzbihān Khunjī’s Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, which provides a first-hand account of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s third campaign against the Qazaqs that took place in 1508–9. It contains a great deal of information on the Qazaqs and the Qipchaq Steppe of the early sixteenth century. The Qazaqs are described by the author as infidel brigands. The common origin of the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks, as well as their differentiation into two separate entities, is also noted in this work. The Badāyiʿ al-vaqāyiʿ written by Zain al-Dīn Maḥmūd Vāṣifī in the early sixteenth century also provides an account of ʿUbaidallāh Khan (r. 1533–40)’s campaign against the Qazaqs that is included in the section titled “the Book of Conquest of the Qazaqs” (Fatḥnāma-i qazāq). The Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma is a history of the Chinggisids down to the formation of the Shibanid Uzbek dynasty written in Chaghatay Turkic by or for Muḥammad Shībānī Khan. The Shībānī-nāma is a history of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan written in Persian by Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī (d. 1512). Another history of the Shibanid Uzbek dynasty also known as the Shībānī-nāma was written in Chaghatay Turkic by an anonymous author in Bukhārā in the first quarter of the sixteenth century.18 These Shibanid Uzbek histories provide great detail about the qazaqlïq days of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, who were forced to become political vagabonds after the death of their grandfather, Abū al-Khair Khan. In these sources, the Qazaqs headed by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan and later by their sons appear as the main enemy of the Shibanid Uzbeks. These Shibanid Uzbek histories also mention the qazaqlïq days of Abū al-Khair Khan and enumerate his qazaq companions. Therefore, they are valuable primary source materials for reconstructing the early history of the Qazaqs and conceptualizing the nature of qazaqlïq. The Zubdat al-ās̱ār is a general history up to 1525, written in Chaghatay Turkic by ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī.19 The Tārīkh-i Abū al-Khair Khānī

18 See I. Berezin, ed. and trans., Sheybaniada: istoriya mongolo-tyurkov na dzhagatayskom dialekte, Biblioteka vostochnykh istorikov, vol. 1 (Kazan, 1849), p. ix. 19 About this manuscript see DeWeese, Devin A. “A Note on Manuscripts of the Zubdat al-āthār: A Chaghatay Turkic History from Sixteenth-Century Mawarannahr,” Manuscripts of the Middle East 6 (1992): 96–100. Introduction 13 is another general history up to Abū al-Khair Khan and his immediate descendants, written in Persian by Masʾūd Kūhistānī. These two histories, written in the first half of the sixteenth century in the Shibanid Uzbek Khanate, include details about the constant warfare between the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks. The Zubdat al-ās̱ār, along with the Shībānī-nāma, contains brief information on the qazaqlïq days of the Timurid prince Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara (r. 1469–70 and 1470–1506). Some original information on the Qazaqs of the sixteenth century is also provided by the Sharaf-nāma-i shāhī, or ʿAbdallāh-nāma, which is a history of ʿAbdallāh Khan II from his birth to 1587–8, written in Persian by Ḥāfiẓ Tanīsh Mīr Muḥammad Bukhārī (d. ca. 1549). This history also contains the Uzbeks’ founding legend, which differed from that of the Qazaqs, as will be discussed in Chapter 6. The Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār is an encyclopedic work composed in Persian by Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, who was commissioned by Naẕr Muḥammad Khan (r. 1606–42 and 1648–51), a Toqay-Timurid Uzbek ruler of Balkh, to write a general history beginning with Creation and culminating with the Toqay-Timurids, also known as the Astrakhanids.20 The sixth volume is devoted to the history of Moghulistan, the Qipchaq Steppe, and Transoxiana, and includes a great deal of information on the Qazaqs and the Shibanid and Toqay-Timurid (Astrakhanid) Uzbeks. Importantly, it offers indispensable information on the qazaqlïq phase of Qazaq history that supplements the information provided in the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī by Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt. The fourth section (fols. 235a–277a) of the sixth volume of the India Office manuscript contains the description of the role of plunder in the nomadic societies of Central Asia and of the rules regarding the distribution of booty, and the account of the nomadic tribes of the Qipchaq Steppe during the post- Mongol period. The Uzbek histories written in Khorezm are also important for this study of the qazaqlïq phenomenon. The Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān, or Chingīz-nāma, is a history of the Jochid Ulus, written in Chaghatay Turkic by Ötämiš Ḥājī in Khiva in the mid-sixteenth century.21 It survives only as a fragment covering the period

20 About this work, see B. A. Akhmedov, Istoriko-geograficheskaya literatura Sredney Azii XV– XVIII vv. Pis’mennye pamyatniki (Tashkent: Fan, 1985), 65–71; and Makhmud ibn Vali, More tayn otnositel’no doblestey blagorodnykh (geografiya), trans. B. A. Akhmedov (Tashkent: Izdatel’stvo “Fan”, 1977), pp. 3–12. 21 A Japanese translation and a Turkish translation of Ötämiš Ḥājī’s Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān have been published. Ötämiš Ḥājī, Čingīz-Nāma: Introduction, Annotated Translation, Transcription and Critical Text, trans. and ed. Takushi Kawaguchi and Hiroyuki Nagamine, Studia Culturae Islamicae 94 (Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 2008); and Ötemiş Hacı, Çengiz-name, trans. and ed. İlyas Kamalov (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2009). 14 Introduction up to the late fourteenth century. Particularly useful is the description of the qazaqlïq activities of Toqtamïsh Khan and his struggle against Urus Khan, who was the great grandfather of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan. The history is based on the oral traditions of the Qipchaq Steppe and thus provides some information not contained in other written Uzbek sources that follow the Perso- Islamic historiographical tradition. Two other Chaghatay Turkic histories were compiled in Khorezm: the Šajara-i Türk, a history of the Chinggisids up to the ʿArabshāhid Uzbek dynasty, written by Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan (r. 1644–63) and completed by his son Abū al-Muẓaffar Anūsha Muḥammad (r. 1663–87) in 1665; the Firdaws al-Iqbāl, a history of the Qunghrat Uzbek Dynasty, written by Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs in 1804. They offer important information on the genealogy of the Qazaq khans and the Qazaqs who came into contact with the Khivan Uzbeks in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. The Tārīkh-i Shāhrukhī, a chronicle of the Khoqand Khanate, a non-Chinggisid Uzbek state that appeared in the Ferghana region in the early eighteenth century, composed in Chaghatay Turkic in 1871–72 for Khudāyār Khan (r. 1845–75, with interruptions) by Niyāz Muḥammad b. Mullā ʿAshūr, along with the two above-mentioned Khivan Uzbek histories, provides the account of the origin of the Uzbeks written in the context of the Perso-Islamic historiographical tradition. The aforementioned Šajara-i Türk, the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma, and the Sharaf-nāma-i shāhī are also important for their accounts of the origin of several Inner Asian nomadic tribes that belonged to the Qazaq ulus. In terms of the tribal history of Inner Asia, they update the information provided by Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh.

Ilkhanid Histories For the history of the progenitors of the Qazaqs, we can look to the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, the celebrated universal history written in Persian by Rashīd al-Dīn (d. 1318) in the early fourteenth century. Particularly useful is the section titled “On the history of the appearance of the tribes of the Turks and the account of their division into diverse tribes and a brief explanation about the state of the ancestors and forefathers of each tribe . . .,” which covers the origin of Inner Asian tribes, some of which became major Qazaq tribes. The Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh is also the single most important source for the history of the Ulus of Orda, the left wing of the Jochid Ulus, which later developed into the Qazaq Khanate. The Tārīkh-i guzīda, a Persian history written by Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī Qazvīnī and continued by his son Zain al-Dīn, also provides information on the Inner Asian tribes and the Ulus of Orda. Introduction 15

Timurid Histories A number of Timurid histories are valuable primary sources for reconstructing the history of the Qipchaq Steppe prior to the rise of the Qazaqs. They provide important information on Urus Khan (r. ca. 1368–78), the great grandfather of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan and progenitor of the Urusid lineage, and on the Uzbek nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe at the turn of the fifteenth century who were the direct ancestors of the Qazaqs. One of them is the Ẓafar-nāma, which is the earliest known history of Temür, written in Persian by Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī in 1404 at the order of Temür himself. Shāmī’s Ẓafar-nāma was supplemented by several other Timurid histories, including another Persian history of Temür, the Ẓafar-nāma by Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī (d. 1454), completed in 1425 and dedicated to Ibrāhīm Sulṭān (r. 1415–35), son of Shāhrukh and grandson of Temür.22 The two Ẓafar-nāmas also contain one of the earliest references to the term qazaq in the sense of a deserter or a renegade. The Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī by Muʿīn al-Dīn Naṭanzī is a general history from Creation to 1413–14, written in Persian in 1413–14 for Shāhrukh (r. 1405–47), son of Temür. It also provides a great deal of information on the nomads of the Qipchaq Steppe and the Jochid or Uzbek khans, including Urus Khan. Of particular importance for this study is its description of the qazaqlïq activities of Jabbār Berdi, a son of Toqtamïsh Khan, which is one of the earliest references to the qazaq way of life. The Bābur-nāma, an autobiographical memoir written in Chaghatay Turkic by Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur (r. 1526–30), the founder of the Timurid Mughal Empire, in the first quarter of the sixteenth century contains a contemporary account of the Qazaq khans and the Qazaqs. It is an especially rich source for understanding the nature of the qazaq way of life since it describes the qazaqlïq days of Babur in great detail as well as those of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara. The contemporary account of the qazaqlïq days of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara is also contained in the Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain va majmaʿ-i baḥrain, which is a Timurid history covering the years from 1304 to 1470, written in Persian by Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandī (d. 1482). The importance of this work in this study also rests in its description of a group of Uzbek soldiers who became qazaqs and plundered the Timurid territories, testifying to the presence of the qazaq freebooters in the Qipchaq Steppe by the mid-fifteenth century.

22 A Russian translation of the Ẓafar-nāma by Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī has been published in Uzbekistan. Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī, Zafar-name: Kniga pobed Amira Temura, trans. and ed. Ashraf Akhmedov (Tashkent: San’at, 2008). 16 Introduction

Additional information on the early Qazaqs can be obtained from the last Timurid histories, written by Mīr Khvānd (d. 1498) and his grandson Khvāndamīr (d. 1534–5). Mīr Khvānd’s Tārīkh-i Raużat al-ṣafā is a universal history of prophets, caliphs, and kings of Iran up to 1523 dedicated to his patron Mīr ʿAlīshīr Navāʾī (d. 1501), the Timurid poet and politician. The Ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār afrād-i bashar by Ghiyās̱ al-Dīn Khvāndamīr is also a universal history from the earliest times down to 1524, dedicated to the Safavid governor of Harāt, Ḥabīb Allāh Sāvajī. The seventh volume of the Tārīkh-i Raużat al-ṣafā and the third volume of the Ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār afrād-i bashar provide a great deal of information on the early Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks, the two branches of the Ulus of Uzbek.

The Histories of the Crimean, Kasimov, and Volga Tatars The Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh by Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī is important for this study of the early Qazaqs. This Chaghatay Turkic source, which is a continuation of Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, focuses on the history of the Jochid khans.23 It was written in 1602 in the Kasimov Khanate and dedicated to Boris Godunov (r. 1598–1605). It contains an abridged Chaghatay Turkic translation of Rashīd al-Dīn’s history of the Chinggisids, followed by several dāstāns, or tales, devoted to such Jochid khans as Toqtamïsh Khan, Abū al-Khair Khan, and Urus Khan. The dāstāns devoted to Urus Khan and to Uraz Muḥammad Khan (d. 1610), the khan of the Kasimov Khanate of Qazaq origin, provide valuable information on the Qazaq khans and the Qazaq tribes. As Qādir ʿAlī Bek was a member of the Jalayir, which formed one of the Qazaq tribes, this work can be considered the only extant near-contemporary source written by a Qazaq writer, providing us a Qazaq view of Qazaq history.24 The ʿUmdet al-aḫbār is a Crimean Tatar chronicle written by a Crimean nobleman, ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī, in Ottoman Turkish in 1744.25 ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī utilized Ötämiš Ḥājī’s Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān for the early history of the Crimean Khanate, i.e., the history of the Jochid Ulus. The ʿUmdet al-aḫbār pro-

23 For a study of this work see M. A. Usmanov, Tatarskie istoricheskie istochniki XVII–XVIII vv. (Kazan: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo Universiteta, 1972), pp. 33–96. 24 The Jalayir tribe belongs to the Ulu Jüz or Senior Horde, which is one of the three Qazaq tribal unions. 25 Scholarship on the life and work of ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī includes: Barbara Kellner- Heinkele, “Who was ʿAbdulghaffār El-Qirimī? Some Notes on an 18th Century Crimean Tatar Historian,” Journal of Asian History 32, no. 2 (1998): 147; and Uli Schamiloglu, “The Umdet ül-ahbar and the Turkic Narrative Sources for the Golden Horde and the Later Golden Horde,” in Central Asian Monuments, ed. Hasan B. Paksoy (Istanbul: Isis, 1992). Introduction 17 vides some information on Urus Khan, the great grandfather of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan. It also contains an account of the qazaqlïq activities of Edigü (d. 1419), the founder of the Manghit Ulus, and a certain Ḥasan Beg, a nobleman of the Sijivut tribe, offering us insights into the notion of qazaqlïq among the Crimean Tatars. The anonymous Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä is a history of the Chinggisids compiled in the late seventeenth century based on the oral traditions of the Volga Tatars.26 It contains descriptions of fictitious anecdotes about the qazaqlïq life of Chinggis Khan and Temür. It thus provides a Volga Tatar perspective on qazaqlïq.

The Official Chinese Dynastic Histories The official Chinese dynastic histories are also significant as a source for the study of the qazaqlïq phenomenon. The biographies (liezhuan) of the following official Chinese histories include sections on the “northern barbarians,” i.e., Turkic and Mongolic tribes, in which detailed descriptions of various quasi-qazaqlïq activities can be found: the Jinshu [Book of the Jin Dynasty], the Weishu [Book of the Wei Dynasty], the Beishi [History of the Northern Dynasties], the Suishu [Book of the Sui Dynasty], the Jiu Tangshu [Old book of the Tang Dynasty], the Xin Tangshu [New book of the Tang Dynasty], the Jiu Wudaishi [Old history of the Five Dynasties], the Xin Wudaishi [New history of the Five Dynasties], and the Liaoshi [History of the Liao Dynasty]. Such quasi-qazaqlïq activities as flight and plundering undertaken by Mugulü, the founder of the Rou-ran nomadic tribe, Tuyuhun, the eponymous founder of the Tuyuhun state, Afuzhiluo, the founder of the Gaoche state in present-day Xinjiang, Ashina, the legendary founder of the Kök Türks, Zhuye Jinzhong, the leader of the Shatuo Türks, and Yelü Dashi, the founder of the Qara-Khitai state, are recorded in these histories. The account of the Rou-rans, who grew out of a group of fugitives roaming the steppes like the early Qazaqs, provided in the Weishu; Tonyukuk’s explanation of the source of Kök Türk strength contained in the Jiu Tangshu; the account of the Türgesh leader Sulu with regard to his distribution of booty recorded in the Xin Tangshu; and the description of the Uighur remnants who fled to the forests and became brigands after their state was destroyed by the Qirghiz contained in the Jiu Tangshu are particularly relevant to this study, since they furnish a valuable source for investigating the quasi-qazaqlïq activities that occurred in pre-Mongol Central Eurasia and their consequences.

26 For this work see Usmanov, Tatarskie istoricheskie istochniki XVII–XVIII vv., pp. 97–133. 18 Introduction

The Ming Shilu, the imperial annals of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1664), contains information on the diplomatic mission sent by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan to the Ming emperor in 1452. This record is important as it indicates that Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, the first Qazaq khans, became politically active before the 1460s, a fact that is not mentioned in Central Asian sources.

Mongolian Sources Along with the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh by Rashīd al-Dīn, the Secret History of the Mongols, a thirteenth-century Mongol history of Chinggis Khan and his ancestors, is an important source of information on the origin of a number of Qazaq tribes such as the Jalayir and Qunghrat. The two seventeenth-century Mongolian chronicles, Erdeni-yin Tobči by Saghang Sechen and Altan Tobči by Lubsangdanjin, also provide some original information on the Jochid Ulus, the Uzbek Ulus, and the Qazaqs. These two Mongolian chronicles use the term Toγmaγ for all these polities, indicating that the nomads of the Qipchaq Steppe were regarded by the Mongols as belonging to the same stock during the post- Mongol period.

Diplomatic and Ethnographic Materials In addition to the written histories mentioned above, some diplomatic and ethnographic materials are also utilized in my research. These materials include invaluable Russian diplomatic documents covering the years between 1481 and 1697 that were published under the title Istoriya Kazakhstana v russkikh istochnikakh [The history of Kazakhstan in Russian sources], vol. 1, Posol’skiye materialy russkogo gosudarstva (XV–XVII vv.) [Diplomatic materials of the Russian state (15th–17th cc.)] in Almaty, Kazakhstan in 2005. The second volume of this work, Russkiye letopisi i ofitsial’nye materialy XVI—pervoy treti XVIII v. o naro- dakh Kazakhstana [Russian chronicles and official materials of the 16th-first third of the 18th c. concerning the peoples of Kazakhstan], comprises excerpts from the Russian chronicles that yield useful information on the Qazaqs of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. The oral traditions concerning Alash Khan, the legendary founder of the three Qazaq hordes (Qazaq jüzs), collected by Russian and Qazaq ethnographers such as G. N. Potanin, Ch. Valikhanov, A. Levshin, and N. I. Grodekov in the nineteenth century, are examined in this study. The legend of Alash Khan can be used to investigate the collective memory of the Qazaqs about their qazaqlïq phase. Other oral traditions of the Qipchaq Steppe, namely Chora Batir (Hero Chora), a Noghay or Crimean Tatar oral epic, Qambar Batir (Hero Qambar), a Qazaq oral epic, and The Epic of Edigü, a Noghay oral tradition, all enable us to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of the term qazaq and the nature of the qazaq way of life. Part 1 The Socio-Political Phenomenon of Qazaqlïq

∵

CHAPTER 1 The Use and Meaning of the Term Qazaq in Post- Mongol Central Eurasia: An Examination of the Qazaqlïq Phenomenon and its Historical Significance

The Definitions of the Terms Qazaq and Qazaqlïq

From the mid-fourteenth century onwards, the Chinggisid uluses of the former Mongol Empire began to dissolve simultaneously. The Yuan Dynasty was on the brink of collapse due to repeated internal strife and natural disasters. The Ilkhanate dissolved into several provincial dynasties, while the Chaghatayid Khanate became divided into eastern and western branches. The Jochid Ulus became engaged in an internecine struggle after the line of Batu came to an end in 1359. As a result, the absence of strong central authority and the ten- dency towards extreme political fragmentation became a common feature of Central Eurasia. This fragmented world produced a steady stream of political dissidents, as well as displaced rulers, who had to experience political vagabondage in their careers. In order to escape political adversity or wait for an opportune moment to return or rise to power, these political vagabonds, along with their followers, separated themselves from their tribe or state, and wandered in the remote regions of the state or in foreign lands, acquiring their means of living by plundering. Among the Turkic populations of post-Mongol Central Eurasia, the term qazaq was used to refer to these political refugees who ventured into the steppes or some remote places of refuge and resorted to brigandage, while the term qazaqlïq was used to describe the period of political vagabondage or the way of life such qazaqs experienced. The term qazaq in the sense of a political vagabond or a frontier freebooter gained wide currency in the fifteenth century and appears in various sources written in Persian, Chaghatay Turkic, Ottoman Turkish, Latin, Polish, Ruthenian (Middle Ukrainian), and Russian and in a number of Turkic oral traditions of the Qipchaq Steppe.1

1 In the sources written prior to the fifteenth century, the term qazaq did not denote a political vagabond or a frontier freebooter. In a mid-fourteenth-century Mamluk Turkic-Arabic

A number of modern Turkologists and historians have offered their own definitions of the terms qazaq and qazaqlïq.2 Wilhelm Barthold defines qazaq as “free and independent man, vagabond, adventurer” or “a man, separated from

glossary, the term qazaq (written as qāzāq) is translated into Arabic as al-mujarrad. In the context in which it is mentioned, qāzāq denotes an individual who was without family or attachments, hence “alone,” “unattached.” See M. Th. Houtsma, Ein türkisch-arabisches Glossar (Leiden: Brill, 1894), p. 25 (text), p. 86 (trans.). Houtsma inaccurately interpreted the term qāzāq as “Landstreicher,” i.e., vagabond. Houtsma also maintains that the glossary was written in 1245. Omeljan Pritsak argues that the term qazaq first occurred in this Turkic- Arabic glossary and follows Martin Houtsma in maintaining that this work was written in 1245. See Omeljan Pritsak, “The Turkic Etymology of the Word Qazaq ‘Cossack,’ ” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28, nos. 1–4 (2006): 238. However, as Barbara Flemming has demonstrated, the date of the glossary is much later, probably 1343 and not 1245. See Barbara Flemming, “Ein alter Irrtum bei der chronologischen Einordnung des Tarğumān turkī wa ʿağamī wa muġalī,” Der Islam 44 (1968): 226–29. According to Peter B. Golden, the term qazaq also appears in the mid-fourteenth-century Mamluk dictionaries with the meaning “freed, free” or “bachelor, single” (qazaq bašlı). See Peter B. Golden, “Migrations, Ethnogenesis,” in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 117n68. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the term qazaq is attested perhaps for the first time in the Codex Cumanicus. In this early fourteenth-century linguistic manual of Qipchaq Turkic, ghasal cosac is rendered as “guard” (guayta in Latin and naubat in Persian). See Codex Cumanicus, ed. Géza Kuun and Lajos Ligeti (Budapest: MTAK, 1981), p. 100. However, the ghasal cosac of the Codex Cumanicus is open to a variety of interpretations. Vladimir Drimba suggests that “ghasal Coʃac” should be read as ɣazal qošaq meaning “ ‘chanteur de ghazels (devant le palais du roi ou d’un prince)’, donc une sorte de garde du palais.” Hence, attempts to place qazaq in the Codex Cumanicus are speculative. See Vladimir Drimba, Codex Comanicus. Édition diplomatique avec fac-similés (Bucarest: Editura Enciclopedică, 2000), pp. 101, 221. 2 Concerning the etymology of the term qazaq, Gyula Nemeth associates it with the Oghuz Turkic gäz- “to walk about, stroll, and wander.” See Gyula Nemeth, A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (Budapest: V. Hornyánszky, 1930; repr., Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991), p. 94. Peter B. Golden argues that its palatal form kez-, gez- may go back to an Altaic form that has variants such as Altaic giăŕá (to walk, step) and proto-Mongolic gar- (to go out). See Peter B. Golden, “The Khazars and the Kazakhs: New Perspectives,” review of Khazary i Kazakhi: sviaz’ vremën i narodov by B. B. Irmukhanov, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14 (2005): 290. For the Altaic terms, see Sergei Starostin, Anna Dybo, and Oleg Mudrak, Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages, 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1: 550–51. For other studies dealing with the etymology of the term qazaq, see Annemarie von Gabain, “Kasakentum, eine soziologisch- philologische Studie,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11, nos. 1–3 (1960): 161–67; and Pritsak, “The Turkic Etymology of the Word Qazaq ‘Cossack,’ ” 237–43. For the history and meaning of the term qazaq, see V. P. Yudin, “K etimologii etnonima kazakh (qazaq) [On the etymology of the ethnonym Kazakh],” in V. P. Yudin, Tsentral’naya Aziya v XIV–XVIII THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 23 his state, tribe or race and forced to lead the life of an adventurer.”3 Barthold also notes that in Russian, the Turkic term qazaq acquired a wider range of meanings. It denotes “a person without his family and property, even when he did not lead the life of a vagabond or a brigand.”4 Similarly, Vasily Vasilievich Radlov defines qazaq as “free man, independent, adventurer, wanderer” and qazaqlïq as “adventure, wandering around.”5 Gerhard Doerfer, who investigated the term qazaq employed in Turkic and Persian sources, defines it as “partisan, wandering robber, vagrant, who is not subject to a ruler permanently.”6 The Turkologist Ahmed Zeki Velidi Togan provides a more detailed definition of the term qazaq in his Bugünkü Türkili (Türkistan) ve yakın tarihi [Today’s Turkistan and its recent history]. He defines qazaqs as the adventurers who withdrew to the mountains and wildernesses with a political aim as a result of a rebellion, leaving their society without a family (boydak) and sometimes together with their family, and wandered outside the control of the el and tribe (kabile) until they took control of governmental matters, taking advantage of an opportunity; the adolescent boys who became separated from their el in accordance with the practice of sending them out to the wilderness (ṣaḥrā) in order to accustom them to life; and those who became separated from their el with the intention of ordinary brigandage.7 The Turkish scholar Isenbike

vekakh glazami vostokoveda, ed. Yu. G. Baranova (Almaty: Dayk, 2001); and S. K. Ibragimov, “Eshche raz o termine ‘kazakh’ [Once again about the term ‘Kazakh’],” in Novye materialy po drevney i srednevekovoy istorii Kazakhstana, ed. V. Shakhmatov and S. K. Ibragimov, Trudy instituta istorii, arkheologii i etnografii, vol. 8 (Alma-Ata: Izd-o Akademii nauk Kazakhskoy SSR, 1960), pp. 66–71. 3 The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed., s.v. “Ḳazaḳ” (by Wilhelm Barthold and G. Hazai), p. 848; and Yudin, “K etimologii etnonima kazakh (qazaq),” p. 147. 4 V. V. Bartol’d, “Kazak,” in V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya, vol. 5, ed. S. G. Kliashtornyi (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), p. 535. 5 See Vasily Vasilievich Radlov, Opyt slovarya tyurkskikh narechiy [Experimental dictionary of Turkic dialects], vol. 2 (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk, 1899; repr., Moscow: Izd-vo vostochnoy lit-ry, 1963), pp. 363–64, 366–67. 6 Gerhard Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen-und Timuridenzeit, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1963–75), 3: 462. 7 Togan, Bugünkü Türkili, p. 37. El is a Turkic word meaning “people” or “tribe” or “country.” Gerard Clauson noted that el (ēl) had as its original meaning “a political unit organized and ruled by an independent ruler . . .” Later it came to mean the “people” of that realm, among others. Its extended meanings are as follows: “country, province, people, one’s own people as opposed to others, among others.” See Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre- Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 121–22. According to Doerfer, el denotes “tribal group.” See Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente, 2: 194. 24 CHAPTER 1

Togan defines qazaqlïq as a retinue institution that functioned as a necessary stage between clan-tribal societies and states such as the Timurids and the Ottomans.8 The term qazaq appears in some Tatar sources in the form of the compound verb ḳazaḳ çıḳmaḳ, or “to become a qazaq.” The definition of this expression has been provided by two Ottomanists, Halil İnalcık and Victor Ostapchuk, who emphasize the importance of this political action in Turkic nomadic societies. Halil İnalcık defines it as an action of “withdrawing to the steppes” in order to “wait for an opportune moment to overcome [one’s] rivals and regain power.”9 Victor Ostapchuk characterizes qazaqs as dissatisfied “individuals or groups who were outside the legitimate . . . authority” and ḳazaḳ çıḳmaḳ as their action of leaving their state and “go[ing] out into the steppe with their followers to make their fortune,” that is, to improve their lot in life either mate- rially and/or politically.10 The importance of the qazaqlïq phenomenon has also been acknowledged by some German scholars. In her article titled “Kasakentum, eine soziologisch-philologische Studie,” the German Turkologist Annemarie von Gabain, adopting Barthold and Zeki Velidi Togan’s definitions of qazaq, suggests that, from the fifteenth century, a qazaq denoted a royal figure who, with a political aim, separated from his state, and alone or together with the family, roamed the steppe without the customary protection of the tribe and sought to make conquests. It also denoted princes who could not assume power and therefore had to roam the land without a fixed destination and also the whole tribes or units that broke away from their ancestral polity to become qazaqs.11 She also notes that Jānībeg Khan, Girāy Khan, Temür, Babur, and Muḥammad Shībānī Khan were among the political figures who experienced qazaqlïq.12 Wolfgang Holzwarth, a specialist in the history of Central Asia, provides a detailed definition of the term qazaqlïq, drawing from some early sixteenth-century Turkic sources. He characterizes qazaqlïq as a

8 Isenbike Togan, “Political, Cultural and Economic Relation between Central Asia and Turkey in the Period of Temur,” (paper presented at the conference “Amir Timur and His Role in History,” Tashkent, October 24, 1996), p. 5. 9 Halil Inalcık, “The Khan and the Tribal Aristocracy: The Crimean Khanate under Sahib Giray I,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3–4 (1980): 452. 10 See Victor Ostapchuk, “The Publication of Documents on the Crimean Khanate in the Topkapi Sarayi: New Sources for the History of the Black Sea Basin” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 6 (1982): 509. 11 See von Gabain, “Kasakentum, eine soziologisch-philologische Studie,” p. 161. 12 See von Gabain, “Kasakentum, eine soziologisch-philologische Studie,” p. 162. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 25 mobile way of life, which involved plundering and warfare, and which was different from a cyclic change of pasture.13 More specifically, Holzwarth defines qazaqlïq as the life of an adventurer, with the following meanings: wandering (prowling); raiding, plundering, guerrilla warfare; the life outside of the established political order; and the period during which a non-reigning prince demonstrates his talent as a leader and gathers followers. Likewise, Holzwarth defines qazaq as a participant in a band of freebooters, plunderers, or robbers.14 In the most recent scholarly literature, qazaqlïq is defined as “political vagabondage.” Stephen Frederic Dale defines qazaq as “a political vagabond” and qazaqlïq as “throneless, vagabond times” that displaced rulers such as Babur had to undergo, “wandering in the political wilderness, fighting for fortresses and kingdoms, or . . . trying to recover those they had lost.”15 Maria Eva Subtelny similarly defines qazaq as “freebooter, brigand, vagabond, guerrilla warrior, and cossack” and qazaqlïq as “the period of brigandage that such an individual spent, usually as a young man, roaming about in some remote region on the fringes of the sedentary urban oases, usually after fleeing from a difficult social or political situation.”16 While the lexical definitions of the terms qazaq and qazaqlïq have been provided by a number of Turkologists and historians, there has been no study of these terms based on an exhaustive examination of historical sources. In this chapter, I thus conduct a comprehensive survey of the term qazaq and its derivative qazaqlïq found in the written sources and oral traditions produced during the post-Mongol period. I investigate the various contexts in which the term qazaq was used in the following sources: first, Timurid, Moghul, and Uzbek histories written in Persian or Chaghatay Turkic; second, Tatar sources, written in various Turkic languages, including Ottoman Turkish, and some Turkic oral epics; and third, Muscovite sources and Polish chronicles written in Russian, Polish, and Latin. Such an examination of the use and meaning of the term qazaq will provide the first truly integrated understanding of the socio- political phenomenon of qazaqlïq itself as well as its historical significance.

13 See Wolfgang Holzwarth, “Nomaden und Sesshafte in turkī-Quellen (narrative Quellen aus dem frühen 16. Jahrhundert) [Nomads and sedentary in Turkī sources (narrative sources from the early sixteenth century)],” Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 4 (2002): 148, 152. 14 Holzwarth, “Nomaden und Sesshafte in turkī-Quellen,” pp. 152–53. 15 See Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises, pp. 98–99. 16 See Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, p. 29. 26 CHAPTER 1

The Use and Meaning of the Term Qazaq in Central Asian Histories

One of the earliest references to the term qazaq in the Central Asian sources appears in Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī’s Ẓafar-nāma, the renowned history of Temür, completed in 1425. In the chapter that deals with Temür’s fourth invasion of Moghulistan, it is stated that an entire military unit deserted Temür’s son, ʿUmar-Shaikh, and joined the Moghuls led by Qamar al-Dīn. This unit is referred to as “hazāra-i qazāq,” probably meaning a renegade unit of 1,000 soldiers.17 However, apart from the fact that this military group denoted a renegade unit of soldiers, nothing much can be said as to who they were or what this term really meant in this passage. In general, the authors of Timurid and post-Timurid Central Asia used the term qazaq in the sense of “a brigand” or “a vagabond.” One of these authors was Ötämiš Ḥājī, who wrote the Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān or Chingīz-nāma, a history of the Jochid Ulus. This Chaghatay Turkic work was written in Khorezm in the 1550s. The Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān gives an account of the qazaqlïq activities of Toqtamïsh, the future khan (r. ca. 1378–95) of the Jochid Ulus. According to this account, which was based on oral traditions of the Qipchaq Steppe, Toqtamïsh sought refuge with Temür when his father, a local Jochid ruler, was executed by Urus Khan, the ruler of the Jochid Ulus. Ötämiš Ḥājī summarizes the action taken by Toqtamïsh the following summer as follows:

In short, Toqtamïsh Oghlan became a qazaq and chased away the herd of [Urus] Khan’s people and raided his people . . . This aforementioned prince turned qazaq and started to do things in this manner (al-qiṣṣa

17 Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. A. Urinboyev (Tashkent: Fan, 1972), fol. 155a. In Muḥammad ʿAbbāsī’s critical edition of the Ẓafar-nāma, “hazāra-i qazāq” is given as “hazāra-i qadāq.” Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma: Tārīkh-i ʿumūmī mufaṣṣil-i Irān dar daura-i Tīmūrīyān, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbbāsī (Tehran: shirkat-i sahāmī-i chāp-i rangīn, 1336/1957), 1: 197; In Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī’s Ẓafar-nāma, the same event is described as follows: “the qazāq Thousand was in the vanguard with the army” (hazār-i qadāq bā lashkarī dar pīsh būd). Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī, Histoire des conquêtes de Tamerlan intitulée Ẓafarnāma, par Niẓāmuddīn Šāmī, vol. 1, Texte persan du Ẓafarnāma, ed. F. Tauer (Prague: Oriental Institute, 1937), p. 72. In Muʿīn al-Dīn Naṭanzī’s Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, a more detailed description of this qazaq group is provided as follows: “The qazāq hazār, or Thousand, which formed three thousand horsemen, all at once rebelled and joined the enemy” (hazār-i qadāq ki sān-i īshān si hazār savār būd bi yik daf‘a mutakhallif shoda bā yāghī mulḥaq gashtand). Muʿīn al-Dīn Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, ed. Jean Aubin (Tehran: Khayyam, 1336/1957), p. 416. In the above Persian passages, the reading hazār-i qadāq without “-i” may also be possible. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 27

Toḫtamïš Oġlan qazaqlap yürüp Ḫānnïng elidin yïlqï sürär erdilär vä el čapar erdi . . . Bu oġlan-i mazkūr qazaqlap yürüp bu ṭarīqa išlär qïla bašladï ).18

Since in this account, Toqtamïsh’s next course of action after becoming a qazaq (qazaqlap yür-) was plundering and raiding Urus Khan’s nomads, it may be assumed that Ötämiš Ḥājī used the term qazaq to mean “a freebooter.”19 The Timurid historian Muʿīn al-Dīn Naṭanzī mentions the qazaq life of Jabbār Berdi, a son of Toqtamïsh, in his Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī. Muʿīn al-Dīn Naṭanzī relates that Jabbār Berdi “is wandering around like a qazaq in those border regions” (dar ān navāhī dar ṣūrat-i qāzāqī mī-gardad).20 He also states that Jabbār Berdi could increase his power by attracting new followers: “A group of people, ruffians and qazaqs have joined Jabbār Berdi, son of Toqtamïsh and he too has gained power” ( jamʿī az mardum va aubāsh va qāzāq bi Jabbār-Birdī bin Tūqtāmish payvasta-and va ū nīz quvvatī paydā karda-ast).21 Perhaps, the most renowned Timurid prince who lived the life of a qazaq before coming to power was Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara (r. 1469–70 and 1470–1506), effectively the last Timurid ruler of Khorasan.22 A number of references to his days of wandering are found in different Central Asian sources. The Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, which is a genealogy of the families of Temür and Chinggis Khan written in Persian in 1426–27 and continued down to the end of the Timurids, refers to it as ayyām-i qazāqī, or “days of qazaqlïq.”23 Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandī, the author of the Persian Matlaʿ-i saʿdain va majmaʿ-i bahrain, a Timurid history covering the period from 1304 to 1470, writes about Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara’s qazaqlïq as follows:

Mīrzā Sulṭān-Ḥusain who was a qazaq in the Qipchaq Steppe for a while, at that time, set out for Khorezm, and the amirs and the generals who were in this region could not withstand him even for one assault (Mīrzā

18 Ötämiš Ḥājī, Čingīz-Nāma, fols. 55b–56a. 19 “Qazaqlap yürüp” is translated as “wandered and plundered” in the Japanese translation, whereas it is merely translated as “wandered freely” or “wandered leaderless” (başı boş gezip or başıboş kalıp) in the Turkish translation. See Ötämiš Ḥājī, Čingīz-Nāma, pp. 47–48; and Ötemiş Hacı, Çengiz-name, pp. 65–66. 20 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 87. 21 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 102. 22 For a detailed study of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara’s qazaqlïq days, see Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, pp. 43–73. 23 Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, MS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ancien fonds persan 67, fol. 158b; and Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, p. 43n3. 28 CHAPTER 1

Sulṭān-Ḥusain ki dar ṭaraf-i Dasht-i Qipchāq muddatī qazāq būd darīn vilā bi-jānib-i khvārazm ʿazīmat nimūd va umarā va sardārān ki darīn ṭaraf būdand yik ḥamla tāb-i muqāvimat-i ū nayāvardand).24

The same event is also recorded in the Raużāt al-jannāt fī auṣāf-i madīnat-i Harāt:

Mīrzā Sulṭān-Ḥusain, who was wandering as a qazaq in the Qipchaq Steppe, came to Khorezm at that time, and the generals and rebels of these regions could not withstand the assaults of his party (Mīrzā Sulṭān- Ḥusain ki dar Dasht-i Qipchāq qatrāq mī-gasht, darīn furṣat bi-khvārazm āmada, sardārān va gardan-kishān-i īn navāḥi tāb-i ḥamla-i maukib-i ū nayāvardand).25

Two early Uzbek histories also mention the qazaqlïq days of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara. Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī, the author of the Persian Shībānī-nāma, also writes, “Sulṭān-Ḥusain Mīrzā, having become a qazaq, raided along the frontiers of his countries” (Sulṭān-Ḥusain Mīrzā qazāq shoda bar aṭrāf-i mamālik-i ū tākht mī-āvard).26 The Chaghatay Turkic Zubdat al-āsār, a general history up to 1525 written by ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī, also relates: “For some time he wandered around in the border regions for 12 years as a qazaq” (nečä muddatlar qazaq yosunluq on iki yïl ol navāhīda qazaq yürür).27 In two other Chaghatay Turkic sources, the period of qazaq activity of Sulṭān- Ḥusain Bayqara is referred to as qazaqlïq. ʿAlīshīr Navāʾī (1441–1501), who was in the service of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara in Harāt, mentions his overlord’s qazaq days in his Majalis al-nafa⁠ʾis, calling it “ol ḥażratnïng qazaqlïġïda28.” The dis-

24 Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain va majmaʿ-i baḥrain,” in Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy ordy, vol. 2, izvlecheniya iz persidskikh sochineniy, trans. and ed. V. G. Tizengauzen (Moscow and Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1941), p. 261 (text), p. 201 (trans.). 25 Muʿīn al-Dīn Muḥammad Zamchī Isfizārī, Raużāt al-jannāt fī auṣāf-i madīnat-i Harāt, ed. Sayyid Muḥammad Kāẓim Imām, 2 vols. (Tehran, 1338–39/1959–60), 2: 275. Read qazāq for qatrāq. Qatrāq is a typical Persian typographical error. 26 Kazuyuki Kubo, ed., “Shaybānī-nāma by Mullā Bināʾī, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī,” in A Synthetical Study on Central Asian Culture in the Turco-Islamic Period (Kyoto, 1997), p. 22. 27 ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī, Zubdat al-ās̱ār, MS, Tashkent, Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 5368, fol. 470b; and also see Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, p. 55n60. 28 Alisher Navoiĭ, Mazholisun nafois [Majālis al-nafāʾis], ed. Suĭima Ghaniyeva (Tashkent: Ŭzbekiston SSR Fanlar Akademiyasi nashriëti, 1961), p. 29. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 29 tant nephew of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara, Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur also refers to the qazaq days of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara as qazaqlïq in his autobiographical memoir. In the Bābur-nāma, Babur writes, “during his qazaqlïq, he once caused his horse to swim across the Gurgan River and soundly defeated a band of Uzbeks” (Qazaqlïqlarda bir martaba Gurgān suyïnï üzdürüp kečip bir pāra Özbägnï yaḫšï bastï ).29 Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur himself was another renowned Timurid sovereign who experienced days of qazaqlïq before coming to power and founding the Timurid state in India. In the Bābur-nāma, Babur uses the term qazaqlïq to refer to the throneless times he himself underwent. For instance, regarding his marriage that took place before capturing Samarqand in 1500–1, he writes “later during my qazaqlïq, she came to Khojent and I married her” (Songra qazaqlïqlarda Ḫujandqa keldi. Alïp edim).30 After taking Kābul in 1504–5, he relates, “villages and fiefs were given to some of the beys and young warriors who came and were with me when I myself was undergoing qazaq lïq days” (Özüm bilä qazaqlïqlarda bilä bolup kelgän beglärgä vä yigitlärgä baʿżïsïġa kent vä tuyul dek berildi).31 In his autobiography, Babur also uses the term qazaqlïq to mean “raids or guerrilla warfare.” For instance, he writes, “this same winter some of the soldiers, unable to go with us on our raids, requested permission to go to Andizhan” (Ušbu qïš sipāhīlardïn baʿżïsï bizing bilä qazaqlïqlarda yürüy almay Andijānġa barmaqqa ruḫṣat tilädilär).32 He also writes, “Some Moghuls separated from us

29 Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur, Bābur-nāma (Vaqāyiʿ), ed. Eiji Mano, 2 vols. (Kyoto: Syokado, 1995–96), 1: 255; and Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur Mirza, Baburnama, ed. and trans. W. M. Thackston, Jr., 3 pts. (Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1993), 2: 341. 30 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 29; and Babur, Baburnama, trans. Thackston, 1: 39. 31 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 223; and Babur, Baburnama, trans. Thackston, 2: 298. For a detailed study of Babur’s qazaqlïq days, see Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises, 98–106; and M. E. Subtelny, “Babur’s Rival Relations: A Study of Kinship and Conflict in 15th–16th Century Central Asia,” Der Islam 66, 1 (1989): 107–18. Babur’s daughter Gulbadan Begim (d.1603) uses the expression “ayyām-i qazāqīhā” when referring to her father’s days of qazaqlïq in her Humāyūn-nāma, a history of Humāyūn (1508–56), son of Babur: “And before that, when during the days of qazaqlïq, His Majesty had happened to pass through his [the local warlord Khusrau-Shāh’s] territory, he had to leave out of necessity” (va qabl az ān, ki ʿubūr-i ān ḥażrat dar ayyām-i qazāqīha bi-vilāyat-i ū uftāda būd, az żarūrat rafta būdand). Gulbadan Begim, “Humáyunnáma,” in Three Memoirs of Humáyun, vol. 1, Gulbadan Begim’s Humáyunnáma. Jawhar Áftábachi’s Tadhkirat’ul-wáqíát, ed. and trans. W. M. Thackston (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2009), p. 2 (text). 32 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 144; and Babur, Baburnama, trans. Thackston, 1: 195. 30 CHAPTER 1 at Osh and went to raid on the outskirts of Andizhan” (bir nečä Moġul Ošdïn bizdin ayrïlïp qazaqlïqqa Andijānnïng girdiġä kelgän egändürlär).33 Babur also uses the term qazaq in connection with brave young men. For instance, he describes Tolun Khvāja from the Moghul ulus, who was loyal to him, as being “a remarkably brave, qazaq young man” (ʿajab mardāna va qazaq yigit).34 Elsewhere, Tolun Khvāja’s soldiers are called “qazaq yigitlär.”35 The notion of qazaqlïq that Babur, Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara, and other Central Asian political vagabonds may have possessed is epitomized in the narration of Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, who claimed to have translated a Turkic manuscript written by Temür into the Persian work known as Malfuzāt-i Tīmūrī.36 In this sixteenth-century pseudepigraphical work, the narrator relates that Temür had three plans when he was attacked by the superior force of his former ally, Amīr Ḥusain, the leader of the Qara’unas. The first was to become a qazaq, the second was to carry out a surprise attack on Amīr Ḥusain’s camp, and the third was to leave the country. Then the author qualifies becoming a qazaq in the following manner: “I should turn Cossack, and never pass twenty-four hours in one place and plunder all that came to hand.”37 This remark demonstrates that the qazaqlïq activities differed from an ordinary military action or political emigration. More importantly, it reflects the typical Timurid experience of qazaqlïq, which often involved the life of a runaway, a vagabond, and a freebooter, a condition that resulted from social and/or political adversity.38

33 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 158; and Babur, Baburnama, trans. Thackston, 1: 213. 34 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 78; and Babur, Baburnama, trans. Thackston, 1: 106. 35 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 59; and Babur, Baburnama, trans. Thackston, 1: 79. Khvāndamīr, a later Timurid historian, refers to Babur’s troops that invaded Samarqand under Tolun Khvāja’s command in 1498 as “brave qazaq men” (mardum-i qazāq dil-āvar). Ghiyās al-Dīn b. Humām al-Dīn al-Ḥusainī Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār-i afrād-i bashar, ed. Jalāl al-Dīn Humāʾī, 4 vols. (Tehran: Kitābfurūshī-i Khayyām, 1333/1954–55; 3rd repr. ed., 1362/1984), 4: 231; and Khwandamir, Habibu’s-siyar: Tome Three, trans. W. M. Thackston, 2 pts. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 24 ([Cambridge, Mass.]: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1994), p. 468. 36 For a study of this work, see Gergely Csiky, “The Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī as a Source for Military History,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59, no. 4 (2006): 439–91. 37 I was unable to obtain the original Persian text of Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī’s work and thus have relied on the following English translation. Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, The Mulfuzāt Timūry, or, Autobiographical Memoirs of the Moghul Emperor Timūr, written in the Jagtay Turky Language, turned into Persian by Abu Talib Hussyny, and Translated into English by Charles Stewart, trans. Charles Stewart (London: The Oriental Translation Committee, 1830), p. 111. 38 For qazaqlïq, see Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, p. 29. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 31

On several occasions Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī also uses the expression “qazaq manner” in the sense of guerrilla warfare and plundering. When Temür and his ally Amīr Ḥusain faced the superior force of the Moghuls, Temür wanted to divide his army rather than make a general engagement. However, according to Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, Amīr Ḥusain opposed this, saying: “Do not let us separate, but let us advance in line, and attack the foe.” Temür once again per- suaded Amīr Ḥusain, although to no avail, saying: “It is not to our advantage to fight them thus; let us attack them in the Cossack manner.”39 Temür later received a request for help from the people of Samarqand, which was besieged by the Moghuls. To this, according to Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, Temür said:

I was, however, in two minds whether I should at once advance to the relief of Samerkund, and thereby preserve the property, the honor and lives of the Muselmāns, or whether I should make a night attack on the camp of the Jetes, and in the Cossack manner, lay waste the country around them.40

As it turned out, Temür entered Samarqand after learning that the Jetes, i.e., the Moghuls, had been severely weakened by plague. He thus did not have to resort to either alternative. In his later struggle against Amīr Ḥusain, Temür is said to have acted in “the qazaq manner”:

My brave generals approved of this opinion [of confronting the approach- ing army of Amīr Ḥusain]; but the governor and Aly Yusury being heart- less, advised that we fortify Bokharā, and that I should, with a light army, in the Cossack manner, annoy the enemy, and that no doubt we should prove successful . . . After this arrangement, I quitted Bokharā, with my three hundred Cossacks, and advanced towards the enemy; when we approached their encampment, we seized a number of their horses and camels that were grazing, and I gave them to my people . . .41

A Central Asian ruler who became a qazaq and lived the life of a runaway and vagabond before acquiring the throne was the Moghul ruler, Vais Khan (r. 1418– 21 and 1425–29), who was the maternal great grandfather of Babur. The Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, the history of the Moghul Khanate written by Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt in 1546, relates that the young Vais Khan decided to become

39 Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, The Mulfuzāt Timūry, p. 86. 40 Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, The Mulfuzāt Timūry, p. 90. 41 Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, The Mulfuzāt Timūry, p. 106. 32 CHAPTER 1 a qazaq because of his troublesome relationship with his paternal uncle Shīr- Muḥammad Khan, who was the ruler of the Moghul Khanate:42

When Sulṭān Vais Khan reached the age of discretion, he was near his uncle who was Shīr-Muḥammad Khan. He resented being [near his uncle]. He left him and went wandering around as a qazaq (Sulṭān Vais Khān . . . chūn bi ḥadd-i tamyīz resīd dar javār-i ʿamm ki Shīr-Muḥammad Khān bāshad, būd. ān būdan ū-rā girān āmad. az vay mufāriqat nimūd va bi-rasm-i qazāqī bar aṭrāf bar-āmad).43

Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt adds that “in the Moghul Ulus, every young man who was well-known and ambitious came to him” (dar ulūs-i mughūl har javānī ki mashhūr būd va dāʿīyamand, pīsh-i ū mī-raft).44 These qazaqs then “wandered around the frontier regions of Shīr-Muḥammad in the manner of qazaqs” (bi-rasm-i qazāqī dar ḥudūd va ḥavāshī-i Shīr-Muḥammad Khān mī-gasht).45 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt goes on to say, “Vais Khan kept raiding in this manner until Shīr-Muḥammad Khan died a natural death. The khanate was fixed to Vais Khan” (bi-al-jumla hamchunīn dāʾim dastburd mī-numūd tā Shīr-Muḥammad Khān bi-marg-i ṭabīʿī vafāt kard. khāniyat bā Vais Khān qarār yāft).46 It should be noted here that qazaqlïq activities could function as an effective means for a political underdog to survive in exile, attract new cohorts, and even topple his rival.

42 On the influence of the Timurid historiographical tradition upon the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, see Sholeh A. Quinn, “The Timurid Historiographical Legacy: A Comparative Study of Persianate Historical Writing,” in Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East: Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period, ed. A. J. Newman (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), pp. 22–23. 43 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt Mīrzā, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, ed. ʿAbbāsqulī Ghaffārī Fard (Tehran: Mīrās-i Maktūb, 2004), p. 87. 44 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 87. 45 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 91. 46 This passage is from the manuscript N° C–394 kept at the Asiatic Museum in St. Petersburg, which has been used in W. M. Thackston’s translation. See Mirza Haydar Dughlat, Tarikh-i-Rashidi: A History of the Khans of Moghulistan, trans. and ed. W. M. Thackston, 2 vols, Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures, pp. 37–38 (Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1996), fol. 22b; In ʿAbbāsqulī Ghaffārī Fard’s edition, the passage is written as follows: “At any rate, Vais Khan kept terrorizing in this manner until Shīr-Muḥammad Khan died a natural death. The khanate was fixed to Vais Khan” (bi-al-jumla hamchunīn dāʾim vaḥshat qāʾim būd tā Shīr-Muḥammad Khān bi-marg-i ṭabīʿī vafāt yāft, khāniyat bā Vais Khān qarār girift). See, Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 92. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 33

Sulṭān Saʿīd Khan (r. 1514–33) was another Moghul khan who may have become a qazaq like Vais Khan. According to Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Sulṭān Saʿīd Khan decided to become a qazaq in Moghulistan when he was defeated in battle by his brother Manṣūr: “When Sulṭān Saʿīd Khan emerged from the battlefield, he decided to spend his time as a qazaq in Moghulistan” (Sulṭān Saʿīd Khān chūn az jang-gāh bar-āmad va khvud-rā qarār dād ki dar Mughūlistān qazāqī karda bi-sar barad).47 However, Sulṭān Saʿīd Khan could not pursue this plan and instead joined his maternal cousin Babur in Kābul.48 Therefore, it may be assumed that Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt differentiates the qazaq way of life from a mere act of fleeing. In Central Asia, qazaqlïq usually involved the life of a freebooter or a vagrant in remote regions. Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, who was a liegeman of Sulṭān Saʿīd Khan, also mentions in his work that his master had a good knowledge of the qazaq way of warfare:

In the affairs of government and administration, the conduct of war, whatever pertains to being a qazaq and night-raiding . . . in all of this, he was my master and patron (dar umūr-i mulkī va muhim guzārī, kangāsh-i jang, az qazāqī va shab-ravī . . . dar īn hama ustād va murabbī-i man ū būd).49

Another Central Asian sovereign who went through a qazaqlïq phase was Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, who conquered Transoxiana and Khorasan from the Timurids in the first decade of the sixteenth century. Uzbek histories such as Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī’s Shībānī-nāma, a history of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, and the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma, a history of the Chinggisids down to the formation of the Shibanid Uzbek dynasty, provide a detailed account of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s qazaqlïq days, in which, for nearly thirty years, he and his followers wandered around in the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana, escaping from their enemies or seeking refuge with powerful rulers, and raiding other uluses in order to acquire provisions or their own fortresses. While the Persian Shībānī-nāma does not use the terms qazaq or qazāqī when describing Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s qazaqlïq days of wandering, the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma, written in Chaghatay Turkic for (or by) Muḥammad Shībānī Khan refers to them as qazaqlïq. According to this history,

47 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 167. 48 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 167. 49 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 9. 34 CHAPTER 1

Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and his cohorts “did not part company with each other in many wanderings or plundering expeditions during this qazaqlïq” (bu qazaqlïqda köp gardišlarda ayrïlmaġan turur).50 The Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat- nāma also calls Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and his followers qazaqs (qazaqlar), describing their migration during this period.51 The aforementioned Uzbek histories also mention the qazaqlïq days of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s grandfather, Abū al-Khair Khan (r. 1428–68), assigning a positive meaning and great importance to qazaqlïq. Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī starts the Shībānī-nāma by listing all the loyal bahadurs (heros, valiant warriors) and amīrs (commanders) who spent qazaq days with Abū al-Khair Khan, and to some of whom the position of dārūgah (governor) of Chimgi-Tura, the capital of Abū al-Khair Khan, was given.52 These old qazaq companions are listed separately from “another group of amīrs of the great khan, who have come from every direction, after the conquest of the countries” ( jamʿī dīgar az umarā-yi khān-i buzurg ki baʿd az fatḥ-i mamālik az aṭrāf āmada- and).53 More importantly, Bināʾī makes the qazaqlïq days an integral part of the Uzbek state (or dynastic) formation noting that “a group of amīrs who, at the time of [Abū al-Khair Khan’s] qazaqlïq sacrificed themselves and became the cause for the khan’s coming to power” ( jamāʿatī umarā ki dar zamān-i qazāqī ki jān sipārīhā karda-and va sabab-i daulat-i khānī shuda-and), and that “this group, which was mentioned before, showed loyalty at the time of qazaqlïq and conquered the states” (īn jamāʿat ki sābiqan zikr yāft, dar zamān-i qazāqī vafādārī nimūda-and va mamālik gushūda-and).54 The Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma also enumerates those who fought alongside Abū al-Khair Khan during his qazaqlïq days and those who later received the position of dārūgah (governor) of Chimgi-Tura before those who joined Abū al-Khair Khan when his power was already established. Like the Shībānī-nāma, it relates that the qazaq companions “who drew the sword (for Abū al-Khair Khan) during the qazaqlïq became the cause of the khan’s power” (qazaqlïqda qïlïč basïp . . . sabab-i bu ḫānlar bular turur taqï davlat bir qarār bolġanda).55 Abū al-Khair Khan’s qazaq companions are also depicted

50 Tavarikh-i guzīda-Nuṣrat-nāma [sic], facsimile ed. A. M. Akramov (Tashkent: Fan, 1967), p. 273. 51 Tavarikh-i guzīda-Nuṣrat-nāma, p. 322. 52 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 5. 53 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 6. 54 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 5. 55 Tavarikh-i guzīda-Nuṣrat-nāma, 266; and C. K. Ibragimov, H. H. Mingulov, K. A. Pishchlina, and V. P. Yudin, comp. and trans., Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv 15–18 vekov (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1969), p. 16. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 35 similarly in the anonymous Shībānī-nāma, another Chaghatay Turkic history of the Abū al-Khairid dynasty: “these are the ones who during the qazaqlïq days drew their swords and became the cause of his power” (qazaqlïqda qïlïč čapqan davlatqa sabab bolġan bular turur).56 As such, the early sixteenth-century Uzbek histories portray the qazaqlïq days experienced by Abū al-Khair Khan and his loyal followers as a stepping stone to the founding of the Uzbek state (or the Abū al-Khairid dynasty), bestowing a somewhat greater political significance to qazaqlïq, while the Timurid sources discussed above tend to describe qazaqlïq merely as a period of brigandage and vagabondage. In post-Mongol Central Asia, the socio-political phenomenon of qazaqlïq did not just involve the activities of individual qazaq leaders and their followers. According to Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandī, the Uzbek nomads of the Qipchaq Steppe at times became marauders and plundered Timurid territories: “Sometimes, a group of Uzbek soldiers would become qazāqs and come to the domain of Māzandarān and commit robbery everywhere and then return” (gāhī jamʿī az lashkar-i Uzbak qazāq shuda bi-vilāyat-i Māzandarān mī-āmadand va har jā dast-andāzī karda bāz-mīraftand).57 Samarqandī elsewhere refers to these Uzbek freebooters as “qazaq Uzbeks” (Uzbak-i qazāq).58 It is not clear whether or not the qazaq Uzbeks Samarqandī mentions in his work were made up of deserters from Abū al-Khair Khan’s Uzbek polity. However, in the fifties or sixties of the fifteenth century, a large group of Uzbek nomads fled from Abū al-Khair Khan’s oppressive rule and became qazaqs. The Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, and the Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār, written by Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī Balkhī in the mid-1630s, use the term qazaq in the sense of a vagabond and a brigand, respectively, and associate the designation Qazaq with the period of qazaqlïq that this group of Uzbek nomads underwent. Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt explains in the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī how the name Qazaq became attached to the Uzbek nomads that broke away from the main body of the Uzbek Ulus headed by Abū al-Khair Khan:

Because they escaped and separated from the mass of their people at first and for a while remained destitute wandering aimlessly, they were called qazaqs and this nickname was fixed to them (chūn īshān avval az ān

56 Berezin, Sheybaniada, p. 59. 57 Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain,” p. 258 (text), p. 199 (trans.). 58 According to Samarqandī, Shāhrukh ordered that every year some amīrs “should be on guard against the armies from the direction of the Qipchaq Steppe and the qazaq Uzbeks” (az lashkar-i ṭaraf-i Dasht-i Qibchāq va ūzbakān-i qazāq bar khabar bāshand). See Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain,” p. 259 (text). 36 CHAPTER 1

mardum-i bisyār gurīkhta judā shudand va muddatī bī sāmān va sargardān mī-būdand īshān-rā qazāq guftand īn laqab bidīshān muqarrar shud).59

On the other hand, regarding this same event, Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī Balkhī pos- its another reason as to why the dissident Uzbeks acquired the name qazaq. He explains that the group of Uzbek nomads led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, two Jochid leaders belonging to the Toqay-Timurid lineage, came to be called qazaqs because they escaped from their ruler, Abū al-Khair Khan, to a foreign land and engaged in brigandage in the frontier regions:

Because, at the beginning of their arrival in Moghulistan, they spent their time plundering the Qalmaq and Qirghiz tribes and in the border regions engaged in stealing like wolves, the name qazaq was applied to that group (chūn dar ibtidā-yi vuṣūl bi-Mughūlistān rūzgār bi-tākht va tārāj-i aqvām-i Qalīmāq va Qirghīz mīguzarānīdand va dar ḥavāshī-i mamālik bi-gurg- rubāyī mashghūl būdand ism-i qazāq bar ān ṭāyifa iṭlāq yāft).60

In sum, before founding their own polity, the Qazaq Khanate, in the late fifteenth century, the qazaq Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan also experienced the life of a political runaway, vagabond, and brigand, which is reminiscent of the archetypical characterization of qazaqlïq provided in Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī’s pseudepigraphical work Malfuzāt-i Tīmūrī.

The Use and Meaning of the Term Qazaq in Oral Epics of the Qipchaq Steppe and Tatar Historical Texts

The term qazaq also appears in the oral traditions produced by the nomadic peoples of the Qipchaq Steppe. In the Noghay or Crimean Tatar oral epic of “Chora Batir (Hero Chora),” it is used in the sense of “a political runaway.” In the version collected by V. V. Radlov, Chora Batir, a young Tatar warrior of great valor, decides to become a qazaq after he becomes involved in a dispute with a khan and kills the khan’s liegeman, ʿAlī Bey. Realizing that he can no longer stay in Crimea, he decides to leave for Kazan to fight the Muscovites who were then attacking the city, saying:

59 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 404. 60 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār, MS, Tashkent, Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 1375, fol. 132a. For the term gurg-rubāyī, see Lughat-nāma-i Dihkhudā, s.v. “gurg-rubāyī.” THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 37

I killed ʿAlī Bey . . . one who has killed a commoner cannot remain, one who has killed a nobleman cannot endure. A young man cannot remain here. I will become a qazaq and go to seven khans (?) and Kazan . . . (ʿAlī Beyni öltürdüm . . . qara öltürgän tur’almay, törä öltürgän toz’almay, yigit munda kal’amay, Yädi ḫanġa Kazanġa qazaq čïkïp kätäyim . . .).61

As shown in this oral epic, among the Crimean Tatars, a qazaq may have denoted a person who had to leave his own society due to some political reason. Another oral epic of the Qipchaq Steppe named “Qambar Batir (Hero Qambar)” uses the term qazaqlïq to describe the activity of its protagonist. This Qazaq oral epic, first recorded in Kazan in the mid-eighteenth century, narrates that Qambar Batir was, because of his poverty, discouraged from mar- rying Nazym, the beautiful daughter of bay ʿAzīmbay. However, when the khan of the Junghars, Maktum Khan, tries to marry Nazym forcibly, Qambar Batir decides to fight the Junghars, saying, “We will go to qazaqlïq, we will destroy the Qalmaqs [i.e., the Junghars]” (qazaqlïqqa baramïz, Qalmaqqa oyran salamïz . . .).62 According to the Russian commentary on this oral epic, qazaq lïq is translated as “difficult way” (trudnyy uzel).63 It should also be noted that both “Qambar Batir” and “Chora Batir” show that commoners with no aristocratic background, i.e., nomads not belonging to the Chinggisid or Timurid lines, also became qazaqs on their own initiative. The term qazaq was also used to describe the qazaqlïq activities of Edigü (d. 1419), the renowned Manghit amīr, and Ḥasan Beg, a nobleman of the Sijivut tribe in the ʿUmdet al-aḫbār, a mid-eighteenth-century Crimean chronicle written in Ottoman Turkish by ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī, a Crimean Tatar nobleman from the Shirin tribe.64 According to ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī,

61 V. V. Radlov, Obraztsy narodnoy literatury severnykh tyurkskikh plemen, part 7, Narechiya Krymskago poluostrova. Proben der Volksliteratur der Nördlichen Türkischen Stämme. VII. Threil. Die Mundarten der Krym (St. Petersburg: Tipografiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk, 1896; repr., Berlin: Zentral-Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1965), p. 178. For a detailed study of the Epic of Chora Batir, see István Seres, “A Crimean Tatar Variant of the Čora Batir Epic,” Acta Orientalia 63, no. 2 (2010): 133–66. 62 M. O. Auezov and N. S. Smirnova, ed., Kambar Batyr (Alma-Ata: Izd-vo Akademii nauk Kazakhskoy SSR, 1959), p. 28. This passage included in an earlier version of Qambar Batir relates that “I will go to qazaqlïq. I will destroy the infidels” (qazaqlïqa baramïn Kafirġa vayran salamïn). See Z. V. Togan, “La littérature kazakh,” in Philologiae Turcicae fundamenta, vol. 2, ed. Pertev N. Boratav (Wiesbaden: Francis Steiner, 1964), p. 742. 63 Auezov and Smirnova, ed., Kambar Batyr, p. 28n57. 64 ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī himself lists the Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān Ūzbekī among the sources he utilized. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī, ʿUmdet-üt-tevārīḫ, ed. Najīb ʿĀsim, supplement to 38 CHAPTER 1

Ḥasan Beg became a qazaq when his father ʿAlī Beg, who was an amīr of the Sijivut tribe, was killed by the ruler of the Jochid Ulus for disobedience. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī writes that Ḥasan Beg “became a qazaq and went to the side of the governor of Khorezm, Aq Ḥusain, son of his uncle Qānagadāy the Qunghrat” (dayısı olan ḳūňrāt Ḳanagaday oġlu Aḳ Ḥuseyn Bey ki Ḫvārizm vālisi idi anıñ yanına ḳazāḳ çıḳub gitti).65 In this account, ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī uses the expression ḳazaḳ çıḳ- to describe Ḥasan Beg’s flight to his cousin for protection, attaching the meaning of “a fugitive” to the term qazaq. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī also writes about Edigü, who claimed descent from the caliph Abū Bakr, as follows:

[Edigü] became a qazaq because he was ashamed of being in the service of the khan as a page. He drove his horses and left the land of the khan (ġulām mesābesinde ḫidmetkārlıḳdan ʿār eder olub ḳazāḳ çıḳdı ve ḫan civārından yılḳı sürdi gitti).66

In this reference, the term qazaq is used to describe Edigü’s separating himself from his ruler in order to gain political autonomy. The “Epic of Edigü,” a Noghay oral tradition widespread among the nomadic peoples of the Qipchaq Steppe, also makes mention of the term qazaq in connection with Edigü. In this epic, Nūr al-Dīn, a son of Edigü, urges his father to become a qazaq saying:

Make yourself khan or raise me to the throne or take my life or I myself will kill you. Go away from my control. Go, become a qazaq (ili khanom sebya utverdi, il menya na prestol vozvedi! Ili zhizn otnimi ty moyu, ili sam ya tebya ub’yu. Ukhodi ot moey ruki, ukhodi, ukhodi v kazaki).

To this, Edigü replies: “Do not drive me to become a qazaq” (Ne goni menya v kazaki).67 The term qazaq in this epic is thus used in the sense of “an outcast” or “a vagabond.”

Türk Tarih Encümeni Mecmuası (Istanbul: AH 1343), p. 7. For the importance of this work as a source for the history of the Jochid Ulus, see Schamiloglu, “The Umdet ül-ahbar,” pp. 81–93. 65 ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī, ʿUmdet-üt-tevārīḫ, p. 44. 66 ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī, ʿUmdet-üt-tevārīḫ, p. 57. 67 I was unable to obtain the original Turkic text and thus have relied on the following Russian translation. Idegey: tatarskiy narodnyy epos, trans. Semen Lipkin (Kazan: THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 39

A Crimean Tatar chronicle, the Tārīḫ-i Ṣāḥib Girāy Ḫān, employed the term qazaq to denote some groups of wandering nomads that did not recognize the authority of the Crimean khan. In this mid-sixteenth-century chronicle written in Ottoman Turkish, Ḳāysūnī-zāde Meḥmed Nidāʾī, better known as Remmāl Ḫoca, describes the followers of Bāḳī Bey, a Manghit amīr who revolted against Ṣāḥib Girāy (r. 1532–51), the reigning khan of the Crimean Khanate, as qazaqs.68 He writes, “Because all the Azaq qazaqs were subject to him, they moved around together” (zīrā Azaḳ ḳazaġı cümle aña tābiʿ olub, bile yortarlardı).69 Similarly, an undated letter (ca. 1521) sent by Meḥmed Girāy Khan (r. 1514–23) to the Ottoman sultan Süleyman (r. 1520–66) refers to a splinter group that was not under the authority of the Crimean khan as qazaqs.70 The term qazaq in the sense of “an outcast” or “a runaway” also appears in the accounts of Chinggis Khan and Temür’s fictitious qazaq life contained in the anonymous late-seventeenth-century Chinggisid history Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä, which drew on the oral traditions of the Volga Tatars. Although these accounts are not based on historical facts, they allow us to understand the contemporary notion of the qazaq way of life. In the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä, Chinggis appears as a son of Alan Qo’a, who was impregnated by her deceased husband Duyin Bayan, who had returned in the form of a beam of light. Chinggis decides to become a qazaq and leaves his family and tribe with a couple of young followers after his elder brother Bodonchar attempts to eliminate him. This account runs as follows:

He said, “My brothers have become my enemies and will pursue me and kill me.” Fearing for his life, he decided to become a qazaq and chose one or two or three young men and came to his mother Alanġo (bu aġalarïm

Tatarskoye knizhnoye izdatel’stvo, 1990), pp. 207–9. The translator renders the term qazaq as “a wandering warrior” (stranstvuyushchiye voiny). 68 On the value of the Tārīḫ-i Ṣāḥib Girāy Ḫān as a historical source, see Victor Ostapchuk, “Long-Range Campaigns of the Crimean Khanate in the Mid-Sixteenth Century,” Journal of Turkish Studies 29 (2004): 272–73. 69 Remmal Khoja, Tarih Sahib Giray Han: Histoire de Sahib Giray, Khan de Crimée de 1532 à 1551, trans. and ed. Özalp Gökbilgin (Ankara: Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1973), p. 53. 70 Alexandre Bennigsen et al., ed., Le Khanat de Crimee dans les Archives du Musee de Palais de Topkapi (Paris and The Hague: Mouton, I978), pp. 110–16. Although the commentary states that qazaq denotes the Don Cossacks, Victor Ostapchuk explains that qazaq was most likely a reference to the Tatar qazaqs. See Victor Ostapchuk, “The Publication of Documents on the Crimean Khanate in the Topkapi Sarayi: New Sources for the History of the Black Sea Basin,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 6 (1982): 509. 40 CHAPTER 1

mengä düšmān boldï mäni andïb öltürürlär deb bašïndïn qorqub qazaq čïqïb ketäyin teb kengäš etib bir eki üč yigit özinä ayartïb anasï Alanġoġa käldi).71

Chinggis then lived in the wilderness before being invited and elected khan by the beys who were dissatisfied with the oppressive rule of Bodonchar.72 As a matter of fact, the career of Chinggis described in the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä is reminiscent of that of Bodonchar, the forefather of the Borjigin, the imperial clan of the Mongol Empire, described in the Secret History of the Mongols. In this thirteenth-century Mongol history, Bodonchar appears as a son of Alan Qo’a, while the latter is presented as the ancestress, not mother, of Chinggis Khan. After the death of her husband, according to the Secret History of the Mongols, Alan Qo’a was impregnated by a radiant being and gave birth to three sons, including Bodonchar, from whom Chinggis Khan himself descended. After the death of Alan Qo’a, the elder brothers of Bodonchar divided the livestock among themselves, leaving nothing to Bodonchar. Realizing that he was not accepted as an equal family member, Bodonchar left his brothers and went to live in the wilderness alone. He returned home after making a fortune by pillaging a band of nomads he had befriended.73 At any rate, the account of Chinggis included in the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä shows that, among the Volga Tatars, the expression “to become a qazaq” (qazaq čïq-) was used to describe a socio-political action that involved leaving one’s own abode and becoming a vagrant. Concerning Temür, the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä relates that his father Taragay was brought to the court of Chaghatay Khan because some soothsayers had told the khan that Taragay would bring danger to the kingdom. Temür was born a while later but soon became an orphan as both of his parents died. The Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä goes on to say:

After he became a man, he became a qazaq and went to the region or city of Shimaqi alone . . . In Shimaqi, he went to the pasture to look after goats (er yetkändin ṣong qazaq čïqïb yalġuz Šïmaqï šährigä bardï . . . Šïmaqï-da buzaẇ kütmägä yalġa indi).74

71 Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä), ed. A. Mirkasym Usmanov and Mária Ivanics, Studia Uralo-Altaica 44 (Szeged: University of Szeged, 2002), p. 47. 72 Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä, pp. 48–49. 73 See Igor de Rachewiltz, trans., The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century, 2 vols., Brill’s Inner Asian Library 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1: 2–8. 74 Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä, p. 64. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 41

Interestingly, in this account, Temür’s life as a qazaq involves his migration to a region or city (šähr), as opposed to the wilderness, and his life as a herder rather than as a freebooter, thus giving a more complex meaning to the term qazaq. Although the expression qazaq čïq- is employed in a slightly different sense in the case of Temür, it should be noted that both Temür and Chinggis Khan’s qazaq activities depicted in the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä involve the separation from one’s society and life as an independent person.

The Use and Meaning of the Term Qazaq in Muscovite and Polish Historical Literature

Starting from the mid-fifteenth century, the word kazak and the word kozak began appearing in Muscovite sources and in Polish and Ukrainian (Ruthenian) sources, respectively, to denote qazaq.75 The Nikon Chronicle refers to a group of border guards based in Ryazan, who were probably of fugitive origin and who in 1444 fought on the Muscovite side against the Tatar invaders, as “the Ryazan cossacks” (kazaki ryazan’skia).76 The Tatar freebooters from Azov and Bilhorod (Aq Kirmān), among others, who engaged in pillaging and kidnapping Muscovite envoys and merchants at the turn of the sixteenth century, are also referred to as cossacks (kazaki) in Muscovite sources.77 Importantly, the term qazaq became the designation for several communities of freebooters and adventurers, including the Don Cossacks and the Zaporozhian Cossacks, that developed in the Black Sea steppes throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Furthermore, the military retinues of some Jochid émigré princes are designated as cossacks (kazaki) in Muscovite texts probably because of their freebooter or fugitive origin. For instance, in a letter sent to Mengli Girāy Khan, Ivan III calls the retinues of Mengli Girāy Khan’s brother Nūr Devlet Khan,

75 I will use the term “cossack” instead of qazaq when designating the kazak or kozak individuals and communities of the Black Sea steppes. The term cossack comes via the French term cosaque, which originated from the Ukrainian kozak. “Cossack” will be used with a lowercase c when used as a synonym for freebooters, vagabonds, and fugitives. For the cossack polities such as the Zaporozhian Cossacks or the Don Cossacks, an uppercase c will be used. 76 See Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey, vol. 12, Letopisnyy sbornik, imenuyemyy Patriarshey ili Nikonovskoy letopis’yu (Prodolzheniye) (St. Petersburg: 1901; repr., Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul’tury, 2000), p. 62. 77 See Sbornik Imperatorskogo russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, vol. 95, Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh snosheniy Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Krymom, Nagayami i Turtsiyeyu, vol. 2, 1505–1521 gg., ed. G. F. Karpov and G. F. Shtendman (St. Petersburg: 1895; repr., Nendeln: Kraus Reprint, 1971), pp. 128, 231–34, 613. 42 CHAPTER 1 who had come to him, cossacks (kazaki), and talking about their alliance against their common enemy, the Great Horde, he writes:

Whatever happens to you, I would like to send your brother Nūr Devlet Khan and the oghlans, princes, and cossacks all of them against the Horde (a kakimi dely poydut na tobya, i mne by brata tvoyego Nurdovlata tsarya i ulanov i knyazey i kazakov vsekh otpustiti pod Ordu).78

Similarly, according to Muscovite sources, the step-son of Mengli Girāy Khan, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, who also immigrated to Muscovy, calls his own retinue cossacks (kazaki). He states:

I, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Khan, to you my brother, Grand Prince Vasily Ivanovich of all Russia . . . together with my oghlans and princes and all of our cossacks, we firmly swear an oath (Yaz Abdy-letif tsar tebe bratu svoyemu, velikomu knyazyu Vasil’yu Ivanovichyu vsea Rusii . . . s svoimi ulany i s knyazmi i vsemi s nashimi kazaki krepko shert dali esmya).79

Although it is not clear why the retinues of these Jochid émigré princes were referred to as cossacks (kazaki) in these Muscovite sources, it may be that, as has been pointed out by Craig Gayen Kennedy, these cossacks (kazaki) denoted “the young men who had broken with their families to serve the dynasts.”80 The Muscovite writers also employed the term kazak to refer to individual political dissidents or runaways. For instance, Islām Girāy, who escaped to the Qipchaq Steppe after being ousted from the Crimean throne by his uncle Ṣāḥib Girāy Khan, was referred to as kazak in Muscovite sources.81 Kuchum, the last ruler of the Sibir Khanate, who refused to recognize the suzerainty of Muscovy, was also called kazak in the Muscovite documents. Tsar Fedor himself wrote to Kuchum in 1597 mentioning that “you are nomadizing as a cossack in the steppe with not many of your own men” (kazakom kochyuesh na pole ne so

78 Sbornik Imperatorskogo russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, vol. 41, Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh snosheniy moskovskago Gosudarstva s Krymskoyu i Nagayskoyu ordami i s Turtsyey, vol. 1, S 1474 do 1505 god, epokha sverzheniya mongol’skogo iga v Rossii, ed. G. F. Karpov (St. Petersburg: 1884; repr., Nendeln: Kraus Reprint, 1971), p. 46. 79 Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh, 2: 51. 80 Craig Gayen Kennedy, “The Juchids of Muscovy: A Study of Personal Ties Between Émigré Tatar Dynasts and the Muscovite Grand Princes in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1994), pp. 173–74. 81 Kennedy, “The Juchids of Muscovy,” p. 221. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 43 mn . . . svoimi lyudmi).82 Tsar Fedor also remarked in his letter that “our people having come to Sibir drove you away from the khanship and took the Sibir land and you became a cossack nomadizing . . .” (nashi lyudi prished v Sibir tebya s tsarstva sognali i sibirskuyu zemlyu vzyali a ty poshel v kazakikh kochevati . . . ).83 From the second half of the fifteenth century onwards, Polish-Lithuanian chroniclers also began using the Ukrainian word kozak in a variety of senses, which probably reflected the contemporary Tatar usage of the term. Jan Dlugosz, writing about the Tatar raid into Poland in 1469 remarked that the Tatar army had been “collected from fugitives, expellees, and robbers, whom they call in their language kozaks” ( . . . exercitus ex fugitivis, predonibus et exulibus, quos sua lingua Kozakos appellant).84 This suggests that among the Tatars, kozak signified “a fugitive” or “an outcast” or “a brigand.” When, in 1504, a group of cossacks from Kyiv and Cherkasy in Lithuanian service pillaged a group of Crimean merchants and envoys, the Grand Duke Alexander called them “propertyless people, cossacks” (bezimenyie ludy kozaki).85 Such a depiction of the cossacks is reminiscent of Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt’s remark that the Uzbek fugitives led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan came to be called qazaqs because they had been wandering “in poverty” (bī sāmān). In 1516, Przeclaw Lanckoronski, the Polish military commander of Khmilnyk, raided the vicinity of Bilhorod with his cossack units. The Polish chronicler Marcin Bielski (1495–1575) used the term kozactwo (qazaqlïq) in the sense of “raiding” or “guerrilla warfare” when describing this event:

[The hired soldiers] gathered at about that time, several hundred strong, and rode with Przeclaw Lanckoronski to practice cossack ways in the vicinity of Bilhorod. They captured Turkish and Tatar livestock and drove it home; The Tatars and Turks caught up with them by Lake Vydove, defeated them, and returned with booty. It was only then that

82 Sobraniye gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov, khraniashchikhsia v Gosudarstvennoi kollegii inostrannykh del, vol. 2 (Moscow: V Tip. N. S. Vsevolozhskogo, 1819), p. 134. 83 Sobraniye gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov, 2: 133. 84 [Jan Długosz] Joannis Dlugossii, Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, vol. 12, 1462–1480, ed. G. Wyrozumski et al. (Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2005), pp. 243–44; and Mykhailo Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, vol. 7, The Cossack Age to 1625, ed., Serhii Plokhy and Frank E. Sysyn, trans. Bohdan Strumiński and Marta Daria Olynyk (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1999–2002), p. 61. 85 Stosunki z Mendli-Girejem, chanem Tatarów Perekopskich (1469–1515). Akta i listy, ed. Kazimierz Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną od połowy XV. wieku 1 (Cracow and Warsaw: G. Gebethner i spółka, 1881), p. 273; and Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 66. 44 CHAPTER 1

the cossackdom began in our country ( . . . się zebrawszy tego czasu kilka set z Przeclawem Lanckorońskim jechali w kozactwo pod Bilagród, zajęli dobytek turecki i tatarski, pędzili do domu; Tatarowie i Turcy pogoniwszy je u Widowego jeziora bili się z nimi, przemogli je naszy i z korzyścią się wró- cili. A natenczas się dopiero Kozacy u nas wszczęli).86

Another Polish chronicler, Maciej z Miechowa, used the term kazak in the sense of “a slave,” “a vagrant,” or “a freebooter” in his Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis [A treatise on the two Sarmatias] written in 1517:

The field of Alania is widespread. It is a desert, in which there are no owners or residents, no laws, no stranger, no visitors. Sometimes only the kazaks pass by, searching for, in accordance to their way of life, someone to devour. Kazak is a Tatar word, but kozak in Ruthenian, meaning in Latin a slave, a hired man, a vagabond or a horseman: They live by booty and are not subordinate to anyone and they roam through the wide and empty steppes in detachments of three, six, ten, twenty, and sixty persons and more (Stant campi Alaniae late profusi, tam Alanis, quam advenis pos- sessoribus orbati ac deserti. Dumtaxat interdum Kazaci eam pertranseunt, quaerentes, ut moris eorum est, quem devorent. Kazak Thartaricum nomen est, kozak vero Rutenicum, valens in lingua latina servilem, stipendiarium, grassatorem seu reytteronem: spoliis enim vivunt, nulli subiecti gregatim latissimos et vacuos campos tres, sex, decem, viginti, sexaginta etc numero percurrentes).87

In sum, the term kazak/kozak began to be used in Muscovite and Polish historical literature from the mid-fifteenth century onwards to refer to the vagabonds, fugitives, expellees, brigands, and various cossack communities (both Turkic and Slavic) of the Black Sea steppes.

86 Marcin Bielski and Joachim Bielski, Kronika polska Marcina Bielskiego nowo przez Joachima Bielskiego syná jego wydána, ed. K. J. Turowski (Sanok, 1856), 990–91; Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 67n.65. 87 Matvey Mekhovskiy [Maciej z Miechowa], Traktat o dvukh Sarmatiyakh; Sokrovennoye skazaniye mongolov, trans. S. A. Kozin and A. I. Tsepkov (Ryazan: Aleksandriya, 2009), p. 151. The term qazaq with the meaning “a male slave” was used among the Karachay- Malkar Turks of the Caucasus region. See V. N. Kudashev, Istoricheskie svedeniya o kabardinskom narode (Kiev: Tipo-Lit. S. V. Kul′zhenko, 1913; repr., Nal’chik: El’brus, 1991), p. 160. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 45

The Emergence of Qazaqlïq as a Unique Custom of Political Vagabondage in Post-Mongol Central Eurasia

The custom of political vagabondage became a widespread phenomenon in post-Mongol Central Eurasia. This is attested to by the numerous fugitive and freebooter activities, i.e., qazaqlïq activities described in various historical sources produced during the post-Mongol period that used the term qazaq in a variety of senses. The term qazaq was generally used in the Timurid and post- Timurid Central Asian sources in the sense of “a vagabond/wanderer” and/or “a brigand/freebooter.” In the western Qipchaq Steppe and Eastern Europe, the sources composed in Turkic, Slavic, and Latin used the terms qazaq, kazak, and kozak in a broader sense to denote “a political dissident,” “a fugitive/runaway,” as well as “a vagabond/wanderer” and/or “a brigand/freebooter.” A thorough examination of numerous qazaqlïq activities described in the historical sources demonstrates that the term qazaq in the sense of a fugitive, freebooter, or vagabond gained wide currency in the fifteenth century for the following reasons: first, the widespread diffusion of the term qazaq did not occur in the fourteenth century. Although the term qazaq also appeared in the sources written prior to the fifteenth century, it carried different meanings. For instance, in the mid-fourteenth century Mamluk dictionaries, the term qazaq carried the meaning “freed, free” or “bachelor, single” (qazaq bašlı).88 Besides, the quasi-qazaq bands, such as the Negüderi that became active in Khorasan from the second half of the thirteenth century, were not referred to as qazaqs by their contemporaries, implying that the term qazaq was most likely not used in Central Eurasia to designate fugitives or frontier freebooters in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; second, the term qazaq in the sense of a fugitive, freebooter, or vagabond began to appear in the sources written in the fifteenth century. Importantly, whereas the Timurid histories written in Persian in the early fifteenth century did not refer to Temür as qazaq, the contemporary histories of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara (r. 1469–70 and 1470–1506) and Babur (r. 1526–30), i.e., the sources written in the second half of the fifteenth century and after, use the term qazaq to denote the qazaqlïq days of these two Timurid princes.89 The sources written in the sixteenth century and after, such as the

88 See Golden, “Migrations, Ethnogenesis,” p. 117n68. 89 As discussed above, the Persian sources such as the Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, the Matlaʿ-i saʿdain va majmaʿ-i bahrain, the Raużāt al-jannāt fī auṣāf-i madīnat-i Harāt, and the Shībānī-nāma employ the term qazāq, and the Chaghatay Turkic sources such as the Majalis al-nafa⁠ʾis, the Zubdat al-āsār, the anonymous Shībānī-nāma, and the 46 CHAPTER 1 sixteenth century Malfuzāt-i Tīmūrī and the late-seventeenth-century Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä, also employ the term qazaq to describe Temür’s career as a freebooter and an independent man, respectively. Furthermore, the Ẓafar-nāmas written in the early fifteenth century used the term qazaq to refer to a renegade military unit (hazāra) that deserted a son of Temür.90 Similarly, the Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain compiled in the second half of the fifteenth century refers to the group of Uzbek freebooters that raided the Timurid domains in 1440–41 as qazaqs;91 and third, the qazaq way of life itself was being perceived as a well-established custom of political vagabondage in the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana at the turn of the sixteenth century. Various histories written in the first half of the sixteenth century use the term qazaq to describe the qazaqlïq experiences of such state builders of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara, Jānībeg Khan, Girāy Khan, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, and Babur. The Tārīkh-i Rashīdī and the Malfuzāt-i Tīmūrī even provide an explanation of the characteristics of the qazaq way of life, suggesting that qazaqlïq had become a rather formalized practice at the turn of the sixteenth century.92 In sum, it may be inferred that the term qazaq became widespread in the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana in the fifteenth century. The reason why the term qazaq in the sense of a fugitive, freebooter, or vagabond, gained wide currency in the fifteenth century in Central Eurasia may well be that the qazaq way of life, or qazaqlïq, itself emerged as a unique custom of political vagabondage during this period. The most important factor that gave rise to the qazaqlïq phenomenon in the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana during the post-Mongol period was the intensification of internecine struggles within the Chinggisid states starting from the mid-fourteenth century. The fractured world of the post-Mongol period led both to the expansion of frontier regions over which states could exercise little control and to an increase in the number of political fugitives. It should be noted that when much of Central Eurasia was united under the Mongol Empire and when the regional Mongol states held undisputed authority over their domains, there was less opportunity and indeed less uncontrolled space (frontier and/or other places

Bābur-nāma use the term qazaqlïq or qazaq to refer to Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara’s days of wandering. Likewise, the Chaghatay Turkic Bābur-nāma and the Persian Ḥabīb al-siyar use the terms qazaqlïq and qazāq, respectively, to describe Babur’s qazaqlïq activities. 90 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma 1: 197; Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma 1: 72; and Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 416. 91 Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain,” p. 258 (text), p. 199 (trans.). 92 See Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, 404; and Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, The Mulfuzāt Timūry, p. 111. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 47 of refuge) for dissatisfied elements to choose the qazaq way of life. However, the dissolution of the Ulus of Jochi, the Chaghatayid Khanate, and later the Timurid states in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries not only increased the number of political fugitives, but also created a power vacuum in Khorasan, Transoxiana and at both ends of the Qipchaq Steppe, which in turn harbored the runaways from the fragmented polities.93 The Black Sea steppes, which roughly constitutes the western half of the Qipchaq Steppe, also became a political no-man’s land known as the Wild Field (Dikoye Pole) when the Jochid Ulus slowly disintegrated into smaller feud- ing polities throughout the fifteenth century. Then a steady flow of fugitives, various Tatar splinter groups followed by East Slavic adventurers and fugitives from Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy, took refuge in the Wild Field in search of freedom and booty and began to live the qazaq, or cossack, way of life. It would therefore be reasonable to assume that throughout the fifteenth century, the demand arose for a specific term to designate the widespread custom of political vagabondage. More specifically, those who became fugitives or frontier freebooters, such as the displaced rulers or the renegade nomads from Samarqand or Saray, and wandered into some remote regions, as well as the East Slavic peasants who ventured into the Wild Field, all would have needed a designation to refer to themselves. The demand for a name to refer to their antagonists must also have existed among the rulers, who were deserted and raided by various political fugitives and vagabonds, in the Jochid uluses in the Qipchaq Steppe, the Timurid states in Transoxiana and Khorasan, and the Muscovite and the Lithuanian states in Eastern Europe from the fifteenth century onwards. In addition, we may also assume that the Turkicization of the former Mongol ruling elites of the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana throughout the fourteenth century contributed to the spread of the term qazaq. Prior to their Turkicization, it is unlikely that the Mongol ruling elites of thirteenth-century Iran and Transoxiana used the Turkic term qazaq to designate the frontier freebooters in Khorasan, i.e., the Negüderi or the Qara’unas. It is probable,

93 In his discussion of the tribal-state relationship between the state and the tribe, Thomas Barfield has shown that the Turkmen tribes residing in the frontier zone between Iran and Uzbekistan in the late nineteenth century could maintain political autonomy by employing a strategy of fleeing to the other side of the border in order to evade state control. Thomas J. Barfield, The Nomadic Alternative (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1993), pp. 114–15. This typical example shows that frontier regions or political no-man’s lands could serve political fugitives (qazaqs) as a refuge where they could remain autonomous and wait for an opportunity to make a comeback. 48 CHAPTER 1 however, that the shared Turkic language used by the nomads of the Qipchaq Steppe and the Turkic ruling elites of Transoxiana facilitated both the adoption and diffusion of the Qipchaq Turkic term qazaq from the fourteenth century onwards. My argument that the diffusion of the term qazaq took place as a result of the emergence of qazaqlïq as an important socio-political phenomenon in post-Mongol Central Eurasia can be corroborated by the lack of attestation of the term qazaq in the sense of a political vagabond in the Mamluk Sultanate. Even though this term appears in the mid-fourteenth-century Mamluk Qipchaq dictionary in the meaning of “free (unattached)” or “bachelor, single” (qazaq bašlı), the term qazaq in the sense of a freebooter or a vagrant is not yet reported in Mamluk sources probably because the qazaqlïq phenomenon was uncommon in Mamluk Egypt. It is thus natural that the region where the term qazaq gained wide currency was the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana, where the qazaq way of life emerged as a widespread custom of political vagabondage. … The qazaq activities or the period of qazaqlïq were ideally made up of three phases: in the first stage, a political dissident chooses to desert his own state or tribe in order to pursue survival or with the aim of returning or coming to power, an action which is appropriately reflected in the use of the term qazaq/kazak by the Tatar and Muscovite writers in the sense of “a dissident” or “a fugitive”; second, this political runaway wanders around, with his qazaq companions, and engages in brigandage in a frontier or a remote region; and third, as a charismatic qazaq leader, this political vagabond succeeds in mustering new followers and rises or returns to power. The Timurid and Uzbek characterization of the term qazaq reflects these aspects of qazaqlïq. These three phases are shown in the Figure 1. One of the most important consequences of the qazaqlïq phenomenon in post-Mongol Central Eurasia was arguably the foundation of new states. In Central Eurasian nomadic societies, charismatic qazaq leaders who offered leadership that promised the prospect of booty during their qazaqlïq period could attract new followers or reunite former cohorts under their banner, thereby increasing the strength of their qazaq warrior bands.94 For instance,

94 Leniency was an important qualification for such leaders. On this point, see Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises, p. 100. On the importance of reward, see Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, pp. 31–32. THE TERM QAZAQ IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL EURASIA 49

Flight/separation from one’s own tribe or First polity stage

Vagabondage/brigandage on the frontier or Second remote regions/raising funds stage

Political alliances/state Third formation/coming to power stage

FIGURE 1 The Three Stages of Qazaqlïq according to Ötämiš Ḥājī, when Toqtamïsh Khan became a qazaq and successfully raided the nomads of Urus Khan, young men from the tribes that had belonged to his ancestors “came to him to become his nökörs (retainers, companions) and began to assist him” (yigitlär barïp anga nökär bolup madat berä bašladïlar).95 A cohesive qazaq warrior band united around such charismatic leaders could transform itself into a new state when its opponents were divided or fragmented during a period of political turmoil, such as a succession struggle.96 Toqtamïsh Khan and his qazaq followers united the nomads of the Jochid Ulus after the death of Urus Khan. Similarly, the qazaq Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, the two great grandsons of Urus Khan, also reunited the Qipchaq Steppe when the Uzbek Ulus disintegrated after the death of its ruler, Abū al-Khair Khan. A few decades later, the qazaq warrior band of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, the grandson of Abū al-Khair Khan, conquered

95 Ötämiš Ḥājī, Čingīz-Nāma, p. 56a. 96 The qazaq institution, i.e., the qazaq warrior band, should not be viewed as a “pre-state stage” organization. Pre-state formation may imply a “primitive” or “tribal” stage of development in a social-evolutionary progression. However, as demonstrated in this chapter, political opportunists in post-Mongol Central Eurasia utilized the qazaq institution as “an alternative” to the state or dynastic form of politics. Therefore, the qazaq institution and the state should be regarded not as successive stages of social evolution but as alternative models. Traditionally, due to the periodic disintegrations of the state and subsequent stateless periods, Central Eurasian nomadic society was generally viewed as lacking an orderly political system. However, during these periods, quasi-qazaq and qazaq organizations often served as alternative models to states, sometimes developing into new nomadic states. In a sense, one can say that alternative sides of one political system almost always existed in pre-modern Central Eurasian nomadic society. 50 CHAPTER 1

Transoxiana when the death of Sulṭān-Aḥmad Mīrzā, son of Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā, led to a succession struggle among the Timurid princes. Finally, the band of qazaq warriors led by Babur, after being ousted from Transoxiana by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, founded the Indian Timurid state and formed the original nucleus of the political elite. Therefore, the custom of political vagabondage known as qazaqlïq in Central Asian sources played an important role in state formation not only in Central Eurasia but also in South Asia. CHAPTER 2 The Quasi-Qazaqlïq Activities and Quasi-Qazaq Groups in Pre-Mongol and Mongol Central Eurasia

Quasi-Qazaqlïq Activities in Pre-Mongol Central Eurasia Described in the Chinese Dynastic Histories

In post-Mongol Central Eurasia, the political adventurers or underdogs who fled from their original abodes and went to some remote regions where they engaged in brigandage came to be designated as qazaq, meaning a fugitive, freebooter, or vagabond. As a matter of fact, the practices of flight and plundering had existed in Central Eurasia during the pre-Mongol period. Being highly mobile horsemen and natural warriors, Central Eurasian nomads, when confronted with adversity, would readily move to remote regions and acquire provisions through plunder if needed. In this study, I refer to the fleeing and plundering activities performed by the nomad fugitives who were seeking their survival as “quasi-qazaqlïq” activities. Quasi-qazaqs differed from mobile pastoralists in that they were fugitives who, sometimes forming an all-male war band, relied mainly on brigandage and not pastoralism. Through their quasi-qazaqlïq activities, lesser tribal leaders were able to secure their own territories, while the fugitive bands they led sometimes developed into a new polity or even acquired a new identity. The Standard Chinese Histories record quite a few instances of such quasi-qazaqlïq activities in the sections on the “northern barbarians.”1

Fugitive Tribal Leaders and Their Nomad Followers Mugulü (ca. r. 308–316), the progenitor of the Rou-ran nomadic tribe, perhaps best deserves the title quasi-qazaq among the fugitive tribal leaders recorded in the Chinese dynastic histories.2 According to the Weishu [Book of the Wei

1 The Standard Histories (zhengshi 正史), also known as the Twenty-Four Histories, are a col- lection of official Chinese annals covering the period from antiquity to the Ming Dynasty in the seventeenth century. 2 The Avars, who established a khaganate (ca. 567–ca. 805) centered in the Carpathian Basin, may have been the remnants of the Rou-ran Khaganate destroyed by the Kök Türks in the mid-sixth century. Although the Rou-ran origin of the European Avars will remain open to debate, the Avar Khaganate, like the Rou-ran nomadic state, was founded by fugitive nomads.

Dynasty], around the year 277, Mugulü, a cavalryman serving in the army of the Tabgach, a semi-nomadic people of probable Xianbei origin that would later found the Northern Wei Dynasty (386–538), escaped to the steppe in order to avoid capital punishment and became the leader of a band of fugitives. The account runs as follows:

The Ruan-ruans are the descendants of the Dong Hu (“Eastern Barbarians”). Their clan name is Yujiulü. At first, in the late years of Shenyuan, a plundering horseman captured a slave. His hair grew from the edge of his eyebrows. He had forgotten his name. His master named him Mugulü. Mugulü means bald headed. Mugulü and Yujiulü sound similar. Therefore, their descendants later adopted this as their clan name. When Mugulü became an adult, he was freed from slavery and became a cavalryman. During the reign of Mudi, he was going to be beheaded as punishment for tardiness. He escaped and hid himself between the desert and the valley. He gathered around him fugitives and when their number reached one hundred, he joined the Hetulin tribe.3

Tuyuhun, the eponymous founder of the Tuyuhun state, a nomadic polity that was centered in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau from the fourth century to the seventh century, was also the leader of an emigrant tribe like his near contemporary Mugulü. After quarreling over grazing land with his brother, who was the leader of the Murong Xianbei tribe, Tuyuhun left his abode in western Manchuria and migrated westward with his tribesmen in 285. This group of Xianbei vagrants reached northeastern Tibet and settled there in the early fourth century. The Jinshu [Book of the Jin Dynasty] records this event as follows:

Tuyuhun is the concubine-born older half-brother of Murong Wei. His father, Shegui, portioned out a tribe of one thousand seven hundred households to be subordinated [to Tuyuhun]. After Shegui’s death, Wei succeeded him. When the horses of the two tribes fought, Wei said in anger: “Our deceased father had divided the tribe and made it separate. Why did you not go far away, but allow the horses to fight each other?” Tuyuhun said: “The horses are just animals and it is their nature to fight. How can you blame people for it? Breaking up is very easy. I will leave you and go 10,000 li away” . . . He went west and lived in the Yin Mountain.

3 Wei Shou 魏收, Weishu 魏書 [Book of the Wei Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 103: 2289. Shenyuan was the founder of the Tabgach Dynasty. QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 53

During the Yongjia Rebellion, he at last crossed the land of the Long and migrated westward.4

Afuzhiluo, the founder of Turkic Gaoche state in Jungharia, the northern half of present-day Xinjiang, also meets the criteria for a quasi-qazaq, i.e., a fugitive or renegade. Afuzhiluo was a vassal of Dulun (r. 485–92), the ruler of the Rou- ran Khaganate. When, in 487, the latter launched a raid against the Northern Wei Dynasty, Afuzhiluo opposed this and fled from the Mongolian steppes to Jungharia with his Fufuluo tribe. Wei Shou, the author of the Weishu [Book of the Wei Dynasty], writes as follows:

In earlier days, the Fufuluo tribe was under Ruan-ruan suzerainty. When internal strife broke out among the Ruan-ruan during the reign of Dulun and the tribes became dispersed, Afuzhiluo of the Fufuluo tribe, together with his younger cousin Qiongqi, ruled a hundred thousand some yurts of the Gaoche. In the eleventh year of Taihuo, Dulun raided the frontier region. Afuzhiluo and others strongly advised against it but [Dulun] did not listen. He became angry and rebelled with his followers in the west. He became independent and proclaimed himself king after reaching the northwest of Qianbu.5

Like the Gaoche in Jungharia, the Ashina, the ruling clan of the Kök Türks, evolved from a runaway group. According to one version of the legends relating to the origin of the Kök Türks, Ashina was the leader of a group of fugitives of “mixed barbarian” origin residing in Pingliang in eastern Gansu Province.6 When the Northern Liang Dynasty of Xiongnu origin centered in Pingliang was destroyed by the Northern Wei Dynasty in 439, Ashina fled with 500 households to the Altai Mountains in present-day southeastern Mongolia, a region that was then under Rou-ran rule. The account of Ashina’s flight included in the Suishu [Book of the Sui Dynasty] runs as follows:

The ancestors of Tujue [Kök Türks] were the mixed barbarians (za hu) of Pingliang and their clan name was Ashina. When the Emperor Taiwu of

4 Fang Xuanling 房玄齡, Jinshu [Book of the Jin Dynasty] 晉書 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974), 97: 2537. 5 Weishu, 103: 2310. 6 According to another more mythical version of the Kök Türk founding legend, the Ashina were descended from a baby born to a she-wolf. Wei Zheng 魏徵, Suishu [Book of the Sui Dynasty] 隋書 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2008), 84: 1863. 54 CHAPTER 2

the Wei overthrew the Juqu clan, Ashina fled to the Ru-ru (Rou-ran) with 500 families. They lived in the Golden Mountain (Jinshan) for generations engaging in metalworking. The shape of the Golden Mountain resembled a helmet. As they called a helmet tujue in their tongue, they adopted this as their designation.7

Yelü Dashi, the founder of the Qara-Khitai state (1132–1218) in Central Asia, was the leader of a group of fugitives like Ashina, the progenitor of the Kök Türks. When the Liao Dynasty (916–1125), which ruled over northern China and Mongolia, was overthrown by the Jurchen or Manchurian Jin Dynasty (1115–1234), Yelü Dashi, who was a member of the Liao ruling family, rallied the remnants of the Khitan state and fled to the steppe. Then after ten years of vagrancy and westward migration, these Khitan fugitives settled down in the Zhetysu (Semirechye in Russian) region, seizing Balāsāgūn from the Qarakhanids.8 The author of the Qiu Chang Chun Xi You Ji [Travels to the West of Qiu Chang Chun] describes Yelü Dashi’s migration as follows:

The king of that state was a descendant of the Liao. As the armies of the Jin destroyed the Liao, Dashi Linya, leading several thousand men, fled northwestward. After wandering for ten years, he finally reached this land.9

The leader of the Shatuo Türks, Zhuye Jinzhong, was a renegade tribal leader like Afuzhiluo. The Shatuo Türks, who remained a stateless people from the time of the collapse of the Western Türk Khaganate (583–657), were serving the Tibetans in Gansu Province in the early eighth century. When the Tibetans wanted to resettle them in another region, Zhuye Jinzhong and his Shatuo Türks fled to China in 808. Since then the Shatuo Türks served the Tang Dynasty as border guards stationed in Shanxi Province, which constituted the north-

7 Suishu, 84: 1863. The Northern Liang Dynasty was one of the dynasties of non-Chinese origin that dominated northern China for centuries after Liu Yuan, a Xiongnu leader founded the Han (later Former Zhao) Dynasty in Shanxi Province in 304 AD. 8 For a detailed discussion of the westward migration of Yelü Dashi and his followers, see Michal Biran, The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 25–33, 35–39. 9 Li Zhichang 李志常, Changchunzhenren Xi You Ji Jiao Zhu 長春真人西遊記校注 [Travels to the West of Qiu Chang Chun with annotations], ed. Wang Guowei 王國維 (Beijing: Wen dian ge shu zhuang, 1940), p. 65. QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 55 ern frontier zone of China. The Xin Tangshu [New book of the Tang Dynasty] records this event as follows:

The Shatuo is a separate tribe of the Western Türk and a kind of Chuyue . . . because there was a great desert called Shatuo, the Chuyue was called Shatuo Türk . . . Tufan (Tibet) used the Shatuo as a vanguard whenever they raided the frontier. When the Uighur occupied Liangzhou, the Tibetans became suspicious of Jinzhong’s loyalty and conspired to relo- cate the Shatuo outside the Yellow River. The whole tribe became worried and fearful. . . . In the third year of Yuanhuo (808), the whole group, 30,000 yurts, migrated eastward along the Wudejian Mountain. The Tibetans pursued them. They marched repeatedly fighting towards the Shimen along the Tao River . . . As the Shatuo were by nature strong and skilled in battle, Xizhao wanted to use them for the defense against the enemy. Thus he enriched them by buying cows and sheep and expanding livestock farming.10

In sum, all these above accounts of the fugitive tribal leaders recorded in the official Chinese dynastic histories demonstrate that political underdogs could often secure their survival and their own territories by fleeing from their enemies and migrating to some remote regions (see Figure 2).

Plundering as a Way of Life In nomadic societies of the Central Eurasian steppes, plundering long served as an effective means for nomads to obtain provisions. The nomadic states of the eastern Inner Asian steppes commonly extracted supplies and wealth from China through plundering raids that they also used to obtain tributes and trade privileges, a policy which Thomas Barfield has termed “the outer frontier strategy.”11 The fact that the nomads were natural freebooters is well expressed in the observation of the Arabic prose writer of the ninth century al-Jāḥiẓ (b. ca. 776; d. 868–9) that for the Turks, plundering was not a means to an end but rather an end in itself:

10 Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 and Song Qi 宋祁, Xin Tangshu 新唐書 [New book of the Tang Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 218: 6153–55. Xizhao was a provincial governor of the Tang Dynasty. 11 See, Thomas J. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China (Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell, 1989), pp. 49–51. 56 CHAPTER 2

Lake Baikal

Semirechye (Zhetysu) Golden (Altai) Gobi Desert Mountain

Gansu Province Shanxi Province Pingliang

Yellow River

FIGURE 2 Northern China and Mongolia, ca. 300–1100

We noticed that when the Turks fight each other in their country, they do not fight for religion, nor for [religious] creed, nor for kingdom, nor for taxes, nor for group solidarity (ʿaṣabīya), nor for jealousy of their wives, nor for honor, nor for revenge, nor for sake of their motherland, nor for defense of their home, nor for wealth. They fight merely with the intention of obtaining their booty . . . The Turks prefer eating their fill by booty and seizure by violence over easily becoming a ruler. They do not enjoy any food other than those from hunting and plunder.12

12 Ramazan Şeşen, trans. and ed., El-Cahiz ve Türklerin faziletleri: tercümenin gözden geçirilmiş 2. Baskısı ve Arapça tenkidli metin (İstanbul: Yıldız Yayıncılık, Reklamcılık A.Ş., 2002), pp. 64, 72 (text), pp. 86, 92 (trans.); for an English translation, see C. T. Harley Walker, “Jahiz of Basra to al-Fath Ibn Khaqan on the ‘Exploits of the Turks and the Army of the Khalifate in General,’ ” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1915): 670, 675. QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 57

The routine nature of plundering activities among the Inner Asian nomads is also manifested in Tonyukuk’s explanation of the source of Kök Türk strength. Opposing his overlord’s plan to build a walled city, Tonyukuk, a commander and statesman in the second Türk Khaganate (682–745), remarked that the military superiority of the Kök Türks over the Chinese lay in their nomadic way of life, of which plundering activities were an integral part:

When Xiaosha wanted to build a rampart and construct Buddhist temples and Taoist monasteries, Tonyukuk said: “That is not right. The population of the Türks is small and is not even equal to one hundredth of the Tang’s. The reason why the Türks can always stand against the Tang is that we move about in search of grass and water, our abode always changes, we hunt for a living, and also we all learn how to fight. When we are strong, we send soldiers to plunder. When we are weak, we hide in mountains and forests. Even if the Tang soldiers are numerous, they are useless. If we build a fortress and reside in it, we are changing our old custom. We will lose our advantage all of a sudden. Then we will certainly become incorporated into the Tang in the future.”13

The significance of the plundering activities among the Central Eurasian nomads also lay in the fact that the generous allocation of booty constituted an important condition for maintaining the leadership and coherence of a nomadic polity. The account of Sulu (d. 738), the khagan of the Türgesh, a nomadic Turkic people that arose in the realm of the former Western Türk Khaganate, recorded in the Xin Tangshu [New book of the Tang Dynasty], shows how the distribution of booty could affect the loyalty of the nomadic subjects:

A figure named Sulu of the Chebishichuo, a separate tribe of the Tuqishi, became khagan after rallying the remaining subjects . . . At first, Sulu governed his subjects with love. He was diligent and frugal by nature. He gave all his booty from every battle to his subordinates. Therefore, many tribes gladly joined him and served him with all their strength . . . His expendi- ture increased day by day and what he had originally accumulated was all spent. He worried about the poverty of his later days and had nothing to rely on. Thus he gradually kept his booty for himself and stopped distrib- uting it. His subordinates became subversive for the first time.14

13 Liu Xu 劉昫, Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 [Old book of the Tang Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002), 194a: 5174. 14 Xin Tangshu, 215b: 6067–8. 58 CHAPTER 2

It was therefore natural that nomad fugitives, i.e., quasi-qazaqs resorted to plundering in order to obtain provisions when placed in a difficult condition during flight or migration. For instance, the Jiu Tangshu [Old book of the Tang Dynasty] records that some of the remnants of the Uighurs fled to the forests and became brigands after their nomadic state was destroyed by the Qirghiz:

There were still several yurts. They scattered and hid in the deep forests of several mountains. They pillaged other tribes. They all wanted to go westward and join Pangle in Anxi. Pangle had already proclaimed himself khagan, occupying several cities west of the desert.15

Likewise, the Qara-Khitai fugitives led by Yelü Dashi also accumulated wealth and power by plundering the peoples they encountered on their westward migration from northern China and present-day Mongolia to the Zhetysu region, an area corresponding to modern-day southeastern Kazakhstan. The Liaoshi [History of the Liao Dynasty] records as follows:

[Yelü Dashi’s army] advanced 10,000 li, submitting several countries, and capturing innumerable camels, horses, cattle, sheep, and goods. The power of the armies increased day by day, and so did their valor.16

On the other hand, Central Eurasian nomadic fugitives did not necessarily rely on plundering as a means of acquiring provisions. Like the émigré Tatars hired by Muscovy to fight off other Tatar invaders in the fifteenth century, the Shatuo Türks led by Zhuye Jinzhong’s family were employed by the Tang Dynasty as frontier guards. According to the Xin Tangshu, the Shatuo Türks were mobi- lized to repel the Uighurs, the Tibetans, and the Tanguts, who raided China on several occasions.17 The author of the Xin Tangshu praised their role as border guards in the following manner:

15 Jiu Tangshu, 195: 5215. 16 Tuotuo 脫脫, Liaoshi 遼史 [History of the Liao Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 30: 356; for an English translation, see E. Bretschneider, Mediaeval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources: Fragments towards the Knowledge of the Geography and History of Central and Western Asia from the 13th to the 17th Century, 2 vols. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1910), 1: 215. 17 Xin Tangshu, 218: 6156. QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 59

The Shatuo at first submitted to the Son of Heaven and served in the frontier region, shedding blood to assist the conquests for generations. They were always the best among the soldiers of the frontier.18

From Small Bands of Fugitives to New Nomadic States and Identities Throughout the history of Central Eurasia, a number of bands of fugitives that left their original abodes and sought to gain a foothold in remote regions eventually founded new nomadic states or developed into new tribes. One of the most notable examples was the transformation of Yelü Dashi’s fugitive band into the revived Khitan Empire, the Qara-Khitai (1132–1218), also known as the Western Liao, which dominated Central Asia for nearly a century. About two centuries earlier, the descendants of Zhuye family and the Shatuo mercenaries had founded a new state called the Later Tang (923–36) in northern China after the collapse of the Tang Dynasty. Similarly, the Fufuluo tribe led by Afuzhiluo and the Xianbei vagrants led by Tuyuhun also developed into new nomadic states that ruled over Jungharia in the fourth and fifth centuries and the northeastern Tibetan Plateau from the mid-fourth century to the seventh century, respectively. In addition, Mugulü’s fugitive band that merged with some Gaoche and Xiongnu tribes in the Mongolian steppes developed into a nomadic empire (c. 350s–555) with a new tribal designation Rou-ran. Likewise, the Ashina clan that fled to the Altai Mountains in southwestern Mongolia became transformed into a strong nomadic entity that would later form the core of the Türk Khaganates (550s–740s). It should be noted that, following their quasi-qazaqlïq activities, the two bands of fugitives led by Mugulü and Ashina, respectively, developed new identities that were distinct from the larger nomadic entities to which they had belonged. Although the ethnic origin of the Rou-ran remains an open question, it seems that they were of Tabgach origin just like the Northern Wei elites. According to the Weishu, Anagui (r. 520–52), the last khan of the Rou- ran Khanate, who once took refuge at the Northern Wei court, told the following story to the Wei emperor, who agreed on it: “My ancestors originate in the Great Wei . . . my ancestors nomadized in search of grass and in the end dwelt north of the desert.”19 However, the Rou-ran and the Northern Wei are

18 Xin Tangshu, 218: 6166. 19 Weishu, 103: 2299. The Weishu also states that the Rou-ran descended from the Dong Hu (“Eastern Barbarian”). Weishu, 103: 2289. The Tabgach or Tuoba were a branch of the Xianbei, a nomadic people that inhabited the eastern Mongolian steppes, who descended from the Dong Hu. This means that both the Rou-ran and the Tabgach were of Dong Hu origin. 60 CHAPTER 2 described as distinct entities in the Weishu, which criticizes the aggressiveness of the “northern barbarians”:

When it comes to the tribe like the Ruan-ruan, we cannot trace their roots even though they are the heirs of the Xiongnu. They are an ugly band of fugitives or convicts and developed from a small group into a large group. Like swirling winds and flying birds, they suddenly came and disappeared. Because of this, there were frequent disturbances in the capital and the soldiers were troubled.20

In the same way, the Kök Türks were differentiated from other nomadic Turkic groups, such as the Tiele, in the Chinese dynastic histories. For instance, the Jiu Tangshu [Old book of the Tang Dynasty] distinguishes the Türks from the Tiele, treating them in separate sections even after the latter had been conquered by the former.21 It also relates that “after the Türks became powerful, the Tiele gradually became dispersed and small in number.”22 Likewise, in the Chinese dynastic histories, the Türks are not associated with the Uighurs, a former member of the Tiele tribal union. Whereas the Shatuo tribe, which actually descends from the Chuyue tribe of the Western Türks, is referred to as “a separate tribe of the Western Türk” in the Xin Tangshu [New book of the Tang Dynasty], the Uighurs are on no occasion identified with the Türks.23 Furthermore, even though the Chinese dynastic histories, written in the pre-Mongol period, generally classify the nomadic peoples of the eastern Inner Asian steppes as being the heirs of the Xiongnu or the Dong Hu (“Eastern Barbarians”), they attribute a rather ambiguous origin to the Rou-ran and the Kök Türks, most probably because the two descended from fugitive bands of mixed or unknown origin.24 For instance, the Nan Qishu [Book of Southern

20 Weishu, 103: 2313–4. 21 For the Türk, see Suishu, 84: 1863–79; Jiu Tangshu, 194a–b; and Li Yangshou 李延壽, Beishi 北史 [History of the Northern Dynasties] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 99: 3285–302. For the Tiele, see Suishu, 84: 1879–80; Jiu Tangshu, 199b: 5343–49; and Beishi, 99: 3303–4. 22 Jiu Tangshu, 199b: 5343. 23 For the Western Kök Türk origin of the Chuyue tribe, see Jiu Tangshu, 194b: 5179; and Xin Tangshu, 215b: 6055; for origin of the Shatuo, see Xin Tangshu, 218: 6153; and for the origin of the Uighur, see Xin Tangshu, 217a: 6111. 24 The Tiele and the Uighur are generally described as being of Xiongnu origin in the Chinese dynastic histories. For the Xiongnu origin of the Tiele, see Yangshou Li, Beishi, 99: 3303. For the Uighur, see Jiu Tangshu, 195: 5195; and Xin Tangshu, 217a: 6111. The Khitan and the Qay, which were Para-Mongolic-speaking tribes, are usually described as being of Dong Hu (“Eastern Barbarian”) origin. For the Dong Hu origin of the Qay, see Zheng Wei, Suishu, QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 61

Qi Dynasty] states that the Rou-ran were “mixed barbarians outside the frontier region.”25 Both the Liangshu [Book of the Liang Dynasty] and the Songshu [Book of the Liu Song Dynasty] attribute a Xiongnu origin to the Rou-ran, unlike the Weishu, which associates them with the Dong Hu.26 Concerning the origin of the Kök Türks, the Chinese dynastic histories associate them with either the Xiongnu or the remnants of a people living near the Western Sea or the “mixed barbarians” of Pingliang city or the obscure Suo state located to the north of the Xiongnu.27 In sum, in the history of pre-Mongol Central Eurasia, a number of nomadic states and tribes emerged as a result of the quasi-qazaqlïq activities of their forebears. Whereas the Xiongnu, Türk, and Mongol empires first appeared on the historical scene as a result of the successful military conquests of their founders, the Tuyuhun state, the Rou-ran tribe, the Gaoche Khanate, the Ashina clan, the Shatuo state, and the Qara-Khitai state all came into being following the quasi-qazaqlïq experiences of their founders, that is, through flight from their original abodes and migration.28

84: 1881; and Xin Tangshu, 219: 6173. For the Dong Hu origin of the Khitan, see Xin Tangshu, 219: 6167. However, attributing the Xiongnu origin to certain tribes should not be understood as classifying them as a Turkic group. The Khitan and the Qay are also described as being of Xiongnu origin in other Chinese dynastic histories. For the Xiongnu origin of the Qay, see Jiu Tangshu, 199b: 5354; and Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修, Xin Wudaishi 新五代史 [New History of the Five Dynasties] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974), 74: 909. For the Xiongnu origin of the Khitan, see Xue Juzheng 薛居正, Jiu Wudaishi 舊五代史 [Old history of the Five Dynasties] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 137: 1827. Not surprisingly, the Xin Tangshu even associates the Shiwei, who were the progenitors of the Mongols, with the Turkic Tingling tribe. See Xin Tangshu, 219: 6176. 25 Xiao Zixian 蕭子顯, Nan Qishu 南齊書 [Book of Southern Qi Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973), 59: 1023. 26 Yao Cha 姚察 and Yao Silian 姚思廉, Liangshu 梁書 [Book of the Liang Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973), 54: 817; and Shen Yue 沈約, Songshu 宋書 [Book of the Liu Song Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974), 95: 2357. 27 For the Xiongnu origin of the Türk, see Beishi, 99: 3285, 3303. For their origin in the West Sea region, see Suishu, 84: 1863; and for their origin in the Suo state, see Linghu Defen 令狐德芬, Zhoushu 周書 [Book of the Zhou] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 50: 907–8. 28 The formation of new nomadic peoples in connection with migrations has been noted by Owen Lattimore. According to Lattimore, the Rou-rans, the Kök Türks, and the Tuyuhun all emerged as a result of the re-migration of the sedentarized nomads and frontiersmen into the steppe region. See Owen Lattimore, Inner Asian Frontiers of China (Boston: Beacon, 1962), pp. 527–28. 62 CHAPTER 2

The Quasi-Qazaq Bands that Appeared in the Frontier Regions of Central Eurasia during the Mongol Period

As a result of the hostilities that broke out between the Mongol states in the second half of the thirteenth century, a series of quasi-qazaqlïq activities began to take place in the frontier regions of the Mongol Empire. Like their historical antecedents, some of them led to the formation of new tribes or identities, such as the Qara’unas, the Negüderi, and the Yasa’urī. The Qara’unas were a band or bands of frontier freebooters that emerged in the second half of the thirteenth century in the region of Qunduz and Baghlan and in the Badghis area in Khorasan, which formed the frontier region between the Ilkhanate, the Chaghatayid Khanate, and India. This quasi-qazaq band evolved from both the Mongol military units that were garrisoned on the Indian border and the Jochid troops that escaped from the Ilkhanids to this frontier region. The latter had originally come to Iran to take part in Hulegü’s military campaign in the Middle East. When a civil war broke out between Hulegü, the founder of the Ilkhanate, and Berke, the ruler of the Jochid Ulus, in 1262, the troops led by Negüder, a Jochid commander, fled to Khorasan and the frontier of Hindustan (sar-ḥadd-i Hindūstān).29 The Jochid fugitives later formed a section of the Qara’unas, sometimes separately called Negüderi. Marco Polo, who passed through Iran on his way to the Mongol Yuan Empire, describes in his travelogue the Qara’unas as a group of brigands whose leader was called Negüder:

And in this plain are several cities and villages and towns which have the ramparts of earth high and thick and high towers to defend them from their enemies the people called Caraunas who are there in plenty; these are a most cruel and wicked race and robbers who go scouring the land and doing great harm. And why they are called Caraunas, which means to say as much as guasmul or mongrels in our tongue? Because long ago their mothers were Indian and their fathers Tartars. And these people when they wish to scour the whole land and to rob, they make the whole day become dark like a dark night . . . These have a king and their king is called Negodar, a man of very great spirit.30

29 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, 526; Rashiduddin Fazlullah, Jami‘u’t-tawarikh (Compen dium of Chronicles): A History of the Mongols, trans. W. M. Thackston, 3 pts. ([Cambridge, Mass.]: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1998–99), p. 362. 30 Marco Polo, The Description of the World, trans. and ed. A. C. Moule and Paul Pelliot (London: G. Routledge, 1938; repr., New York: AMS, 1976), 1: 121–22. QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 63

By the early fourteenth century, these frontier freebooters had developed into a new tribe. Khvāndamīr refers to the Qara’unas as “the most fearsome of the Mongol tribes” (lashkar-i Qarāūnās-rā ki bī-bāktarīn aqvām-i mughūl būdand), applying the term qaum, or tribe, to them.31 He also calls the Negüderi who raided the Muzaffarid land “an evil tribe” (qaum-i bad).32 The Negüderi remained active as a distinct tribe in Khorasan until the time of the founder of the Shibanid Uzbek Khanate, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan (r. 1501–10).33 The Qara’unas formed one of the major tribes of the Chaghatay Ulus on the eve of Temür’s rise to power in Transoxiana.34 Amīr Qazaghān, who defeated and killed the Chaghatayid khan Qazan in 1346, and the former’s grandson Amīr Ḥusain, who was the main political rival of Temür before the latter came to power, were the leaders of the Qara’unas. The designation Qara’unas was even used as the collective nickname for the western Chaghatays by the mid- fourteenth century. According to Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, the Moghuls, or the eastern Chaghatays, called their western counterpart by this name in a derogatory sense.35 Another tribe that constituted the Chaghatay Ulus in the mid-fourteenth century, along with the Barlas, the Sulduz, the Jalayir, among others, was the Yasa’urī.36 Like the Negüderi, the Yasa⁠ʾurī evolved from a group of fugitives that underwent a period of exile in Khorasan. Their leader was a Chaghatayid prince named Yasa’ur (1289–1320), who crossed the Amu Darya River and defected to the Ilkhanate in 1316 after quarrelling with his cousins Kebek (r. 1318–26) and the Chaghatayid ruler Esen Buqa Khan (r. 1309–18). Öljeitü Khan (r. 1304–16), who was then the ruler of the Ilkhanate, welcomed Yasa’ur and allowed him to

31 Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar, 3: 121; and Thackston, Habibu’s-siyar, 1: 68. 32 Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar, 3: 276; and Thackston, Habibu’s-siyar, 1: 160. 33 It was after his unsuccessful campaign against the Negüderi and the Hazāra in Khorasan that Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, having disbanded his main army, had to confront, with a small force, the large army of Shāh Ismāʿīl Safavī in 1510. Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al- siyar, 4: 392–93; and Thackston, Habibu’s-siyar, 2: 547. Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt mentions the Hazāra only in this campaign, indicating that the Hazāra and the Negüderi may have formed a single entity in the early sixteenth century. Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 362. 34 On the origin and early history of the Qara’unas and their place in the Chaghatay Ulus, see B. F. Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 25, 27–28, 159–61. For a detailed study of the Qara’unas, see Jean Aubin, “L’ethnogénèse des Qaraunas,” Turcica 1 (1969): 65–94; and Hirotoshi Shimo, “The Qarāūnās in the Historical Materials of the Īlkhanate,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 35 (1977): 131–81. 35 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 190. 36 Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma, 1: 15. 64 CHAPTER 2 take up residence in the Badghis region.37 In 1318, after Öljeitü Khan’s death, Yasa’ur rose in revolt against Öljeitü Khan’s son Abū Saʿīd Khan. However, this rebellion was unsuccessful and Yasa’ur met his death at the hands of his cousin Kebek, who in 1320 resettled Yasa’ur’s families to Transoxiana.38 Despite the defeat and death of Yasa’ur, his refugee band later developed into a new tribe, the Yasa’urī, which was probably made up of Yasa’ur’s original troops and the people of Transoxiana whom Yasa’ur had captured during his exile and settled in Khorasan.39 The leader of the Yasa’urī and son of Yasa’ur, Qazan Khan (r. 1343–46), became the last effective Chinggisid ruler of the Chaghatayid state in Transoxiana. Qazan Khan’s daughter Sarāy Malik (also known as Sarāy Mulk) became the principal wife of Temür. During the Mongol and post-Mongol periods, there is evidence of quasi- qazaqlïq activities among the Turkmen tribes of Anatolia, which at the time was the westernmost frontier province of the Ilkhanate. These Turkmen tribes, who had come to Anatolia during the Seljuk period or in the thirteenth century fleeing the Mongol invading armies, engaged in raiding the Byzantine settlements in western Anatolia. Among them were the progenitors of the Aq Qoyunlū, or White Sheep, polity. According to John Woods, the royal war band of the Aq Qoyunlū state evolved from the bands of nomadic qazaq freebooters.40 In other words, a group of Turkmen fugitives developed into the nucleus of a new Turkmen state as a result of their quasi-qazaqlïq activities on the Anatolian frontier.41 As a matter of fact, the Ottoman state also had a somewhat similar origin. According to Isenbike Togan, prior to the founding of the Ottoman state, the early Ottomans formed a qazaq band or a warrior society made up of a leader and his armed retinue.42 Colin Heywood even hypothesizes that the Ottoman

37 Ḥāfiẓ Abrū, Zayl-i Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh-i Rashīdī (Tehran: Shirkat-i taz̤āmunī-yi ʿilmī, 1939), pp. 62–65. 38 Ḥāfiẓ Abrū, Zayl-i jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh-i Rashīdī, pp. 111–13. 39 Ḥāfiẓ Abrū, Zayl-i jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 46. 40 John E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1976; repr., Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999), pp. 10, 13–14. M. E. Subtelny also follows John E. Woods and writes that the royal war band in the Aq Qoyunlū confederation had its origin in the “cossack” freebooters. Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, p. 30n77. 41 John E. Woods also states that “a close parallel can be drawn between the rise of the Turkmen confederations of eastern Anatolia and the formation of the Tatar cossacks in the steppe north of the Caucasus . . .” see, Woods, The Aqquyunlu, p. 35. 42 Togan, “Political, Cultural and Economic Relation,” p. 5. Perhaps the concept of qazaqlïq is over-extended here by Isenbike Togan since every established Central Eurasian dynasty QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 65 emirate evolved from a group of fugitives that had belonged to the ulus of the Jochid prince Noqai (d. 1299). Heywood speculates that this group of refugees came to Anatolia at the turn of the fourteenth century when Noqai’s ulus collapsed after he was defeated by the Jochid khan Toqta (r. 1291–1312) in 1299.43 At any rate, it is likely that the Ottomans were aware of their frontier freebooter roots since, according to the Papal nuncio Carolus Gamberini, the Ottomans feared the Ukrainian Cossack raiders for they themselves had a similar beginning.44 In sum, the transformation of fugitive bands into new tribes (qaum) like the Negüderi and the Yasa’urī demonstrates that a combination of nomad fugitives and frontier regions or buffer zones often created a geo-political condition that led to a quasi-qazaqlïq phenomenon. Such instances occurred at different times in different places throughout much of the history of pre- modern Central Eurasia. During the post-Mongol period, for instance, a group of fugitives developed into a new tribe in the frontier region between modern- day Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The Qūrama, which formed a distinct ethnic group in Uzbekistan until the 1930s, probably had its origin in a group of Uzbek fugitives who had fled from the Manghit Uzbek Dynasty (1753–1920) to the Syr Darya region. According to Timur Beisembiev, an amīr of the Uzbek Khitai tribe rebelled against the Manghit dynasty in 1745 but was defeated and fled with his followers to the valley of the Angren River, a tributary of the Syr Darya River, located to the south of Tashkent.45 Over the course of time, this

can likewise be described. What defines qazaqlïq is not a retinue institution but the custom of political vagabondage. 43 Colin Heywood, “Filling the Black Hole: The Emergence of the Bithynian Atamanates,” in The Great Ottoman Turkish Civilisation, vol. 1, Politics, ed. Kemal Çiçek, Nejat Göyünç, Ercüment Kuran, and Ilber Ortayli (Ankara: Yeni Turkiye, 2000), pp. 109–14. 44 Litterae nuntiorum apostolicorum historiam ucrainae illustrantes (1550–1850), ed. Athansius G. Welykyj, Vol. 1, 1550–1593 (Rome: PP. Basiliani, 1959), p. 24; and Erich Lassota von Steblau, Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks: The Diary of Erich Lassota von Steblau, 1594, ed. Lubomyr Roman Wynar, trans. Orest Subtelny (Littleton, Colo: Ukrainian Academic Press, 1975), p. 117. 45 Timur Beisembiev, “Migration in the Qoqand Khanate in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Migration in Central Asia: Its History and Current Problems, Japan Center for Area Studies (JCAS) Symposium Series no. 9, ed. Hisao Komatsu, Chika Obiya and John S. Shoeberlein (Osaka, Japan Center for Area Studies, 2000), pp. 36–37. Unlike Timur Beisembiev’s explanation, the Qūrama tribe probably emerged before the eighteenth century. For instance, the Qūrama appears in connection with some political events that took place in the Uzbek Khanate in the late seventeenth century in Muḥammad Yūsuf Munshī’s Tazkira-i Muqīm Khānī, fols. 304a, 305a. 66 CHAPTER 2 group of fugitives, along with other Uzbek and Qazaq tribes, formed a new tribe acquiring the name qūrama, meaning “sewn of (different) pieces.”46 The Qūrama remained a transitional group between the Qazaqs and the Uzbeks, both culturally and linguistically, until it became incorporated into the modern Uzbek nation in the 1930s.47 Yaʿqūb Beg (r. 1867–77), a former official of the Khanate of Khoqand (1709–1876), who led the Muslim rebellions against the Manchurian Qing Dynasty in 1867 and established a short-lived independent state in present-day Xinjiang, was by origin a Qūrama.48

The Fragmentation of the Mongol States and the Political Vagabondage of Temür

When the Chinggisid states in Central Eurasia began to dissolve simultaneously from the mid-fourteenth century onwards, the Chaghatayid Khanate ruling in Central Asia became divided into eastern and western branches. The Chinggisids maintained their supremacy in the eastern portion of the former Chaghatayid Khanate, which came to be known as Moghulistan, meaning “land of the Moghuls.” In the western portion, corresponding to Transoxiana, the Chinggisids were reduced to the status of puppet khans after Amīr Qazaghān, the leader of the Qara’unas, defeated and killed the Chaghatayid khan Qazan in 1346. At any rate, both eastern and western Chaghatayid realms were plagued by internecine struggles, which produced a steady flow of political fugitives, among whom was the young Temür, the future conqueror of the western half of Central Eurasia. Perhaps Temür was the most notable qazaq freebooter turned sovereign in the history of Central Eurasia. As a member of the Barlas tribe of the Chaghatayid Ulus, Temür began his political career as a subordinate of Tughlugh-Temür (r. 1351–63), the khan of Moghulistan, who invaded

46 Beisembiev, “Migration,” p. 37. For the meaning of the term qūrama and other theories on the origin of the Qūrama tribe, see Éva Dovos, “A Qïpčaq-Uzbek Tale from Qarabu,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 27, no. 2 (1973): 164–66. 47 Ronald Wixman, The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1984), p. 116. 48 Beisembiev, “Migration,” p. 39. For a detailed study of this Muslim rebellion, which led to the establishment of an independent Islamic state under Yaʿqūb Beg, see Hodong Kim, Holy War in China: The Muslim Rebellion and State in Chinese Central Asia, 1864–1877 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004). QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 67

Transoxiana in 1361.49 From then until his rise to power in 1369, Temür underwent at least two extended periods of qazaqlïq. Temür’s first period of qazaqlïq began when he fled from Ilyās Khvāja, son of Tughlugh-Temür and governor of Transoxiana. In alliance with Amīr Ḥusain, the leader of the Qara’unas, Temür spent about three years roving around the remote regions in Khorasan, including the Mākhān region near Marv, fighting against the Moghuls. This period of exile ended when Temür, having gathered other refugees fleeing the Moghuls behind him, succeeded in expelling the Moghul invaders from Transoxiana and in 1364 placed Kābulshāh on the throne as a puppet khan.50 Temür started his second period of qazaqlïq when he fled from his rival Amīr Ḥusain, the de facto ruler of Transoxiana. During this period of qazaqlïq, Temür roamed around in Khorasan and Transoxiana, struggling against the superior forces of Amīr Ḥusain. Temür later went to Tashkent and received military assistance from the Moghuls, facilitating the conclusion of a truce between him and Amīr Ḥusain in 1368.51 Temür then succeeded in drawing more supporters to his banner and a year later defeated his rival. Temür’s suzerainty was now recognized by the amīrs and the noyans of the Chaghatayid Ulus.52 Temür’s qazaqlïq activities are described in a variety of historical sources written during the post-Mongol period. One of the accounts of Temür’s career as a brigand, a fugitive, and an unsparing leader is provided in the travelogue written in Spanish by Clavijo, the Castillian envoy who visited the court of Temür in 1404:

Timur in his youth was wont to ride out with his four or five companions on foray, and one day they would lift a sheep and on another occasion a cow, taking these by stealth from the flocks of their neighbours. Then when home again Timur would make a feast of his booty, inviting his companions, and others would join for he was a man of heart and very hospitable, dividing what he had with friends. Others now came to join

49 The Barlas was a Mongol tribe that came to Transoxiana with Chaghatay Khan, the second son of Chinggis Khan in the thirteenth century. The term ulūs-i Chaghatāy, or Chaghatayid Ulus, was used as the designation for the Chaghatayid Khanate and later the Timurids. After the division of the Chaghatayid Khanate into the eastern and western sections in the mid-fourteenth century, the western Chaghatays continued to be called ulūs-i Chaghatāy whereas the eastern Chaghatays became known as the ulūs-i Moghūl, or Moghul Ulus. 50 Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma 1: 27; Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma 1: 73–74. 51 Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma 1: 46–51. 52 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma 1: 156–57. According to Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī, the amīrs and the noyans placed Soyurghatmish Khan, a Chinggisid puppet, on the throne. Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma 1: 58, 61. 68 CHAPTER 2

his following until at length he had some three hundred horsemen under his command, and with these he would ride forth through the country- side plundering and robbing all who came his way: but next dividing all he took among those who rode with him. Thus he beset all the highways taking toll of the merchants he came upon . . . Then while Timur was thus living at the court of Samarqand matters fell out to his discredit, such that the Sultan came to regard him evilly; when commands for the death of Timur were issued who however was warned in time by friends. Timur therefore fled, he and his followers again became highwaymen on the roads, where one day they compassed the plundering of an immense car- avan of merchants and were possessed of a large sum in booty.53 Timur then marched south coming to a province that is called Sistan where he plundered the people of their flocks of sheep and of their horse-herds, for this country is extremely rich in cattle.54

The fifteenth-century historian Ibn ʿArabshāh (1392–1450), who was a near- contemporary of Temür, also offers a description of Temür’s qazaq activities, which vaguely reflect the latter’s experience as a charismatic leader of freebooters before coming to power:

Others say that his father was a poor smith, but that he himself from his youth excelled in keenness of intellect and strength; but because of poverty began to commit acts of brigandage and in the course of these exploits was wounded and mutilated . . . The period of his complete dominion was therefore thirty-six years, and that without reckoning the time from his sedition and brigandage up to his gaining the throne. For after he had rebelled, he and his companions were ravaging the territories of Transoxiana with hostile and violent assaults on the people. Therefore all moved to drive them out and closed to them those habi- tations and places. Accordingly they crossed the Oxus, and when that tract was exhausted by brigandage, turned to the territory of Khorasan and particularly the borders of Seistan, nor could their raids in the huge deserts of Bavard and Makhan be counted . . . Then, they say, Timur fled to Transoxiana, and his forces were strengthened. For already his com-

53 About a century later, Temür’s descendant Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara also resorted to plundering caravans in order to support his qazaq band during his qazaqlïq days. See Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, p. 54. 54 Ruy González de Clavijo, Embassy to Tamerlane, 1403–1406, ed. G. Le Strange (London: Harper, 1928), pp. 210–12. QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 69

panions were joining him and his fellow-bandits and friends were again collecting round him.55

According to Ibn ʿArabshāh, Temür was called “Chaghatay robber” (Jaghatāī ḥarāmī) by the ruler of Seistan.56 Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that Temür gained fame as a freebooter turned sovereign in Russia as well. The Nikon Chronicle describes in detail the process whereby Temür evolved from an outcast and bandit chief to a relentless empire builder:

About this Temir Aksak it is known that originally he was not a tsar, nor a son of a tsar, nor of the family of a tsar, nor a princelord, nor the nobility, but was from ordinary, poor people, from the Trans-Yaik Tatars (Zayatskiye Tatary), from the Samarqand territories (Samarkhiyskaya zemlya), from the Blue Orda beyond the Iron Gate; by occupation he was an ironsmith; by his temperament and behaviour, he was merciless, crim- inal, predatory, a telltale (yabednik), and a robber. Previously, he was the servitor of his lord but because he was mean spirited, he was dismissed by his lord. He did not have anything, nor food, nor clothes, and was stealing and robbing. When he was young, he stole a sheep from someone and then this person with his people chased him, beat him and broke his leg and his hip and cast him out, believing him dead, to be eaten by dogs. After some time he recovered and mended his leg with iron, and became lame and because of that he was called Temir Aksak. Temir is in Tatar iron and Aksak means a lame person and his nickname was Temir Aksak, which means “Iron Lame” . . . He became a cruel and merciless robber. Some cruel and ruthless men and young people joined him always robbing and spilling blood. When their number became hundred they called him their chief robber (stareishii razboynik). When their number became thousand, they called him a prince. When their number increased more and many lands, many cities, many countries and realms were captured, then they called him tsar. And he started creating many armies, many battles, and much bloodshed . . .57

55 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn ʿArabshāh, ʿAjāʾib al-maqdūr fī nawāʾib Taimūr, ed. Aḥmad Fāʾiz al-Ḥimṣī (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1407/1986), pp. 42, 49–50; and J. H. Sanders, trans., Tamerlane, or Timur the Great Amir: From the Arabic Life by Ahmed Ibn Arabshah (London: Luzac, 1936), pp. 2, 6–7. 56 Ibn ʿArabshāh, ʿAjāʾib al-maqdūr, p. 50; and Sanders, Tamerlane, p. 6. 57 See Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey, vol. 11, Letopisnyy sbornik, imenuyemyy Patriarshey ili Nikonovskoy letopis’yu (Prodolzheniye) (St. Petersburg: 1897; repr., Moscow: Yazyki russkoy 70 CHAPTER 2

Similarly, the Russians told Sigismund von Herberstein, the envoy sent to Muscovy by Emperor Maximilian I in 1517, the following story about Temür’s qazaq activities and rise to power:

The Russians relate that this Themirassack was of obscure birth, and rose to this high degree of dignity by plunder; they say also that he was an extremely clever thief in his youth . . .58

Temür was also known as an empire builder of qazaq origin in the Ottoman Empire. According to the Papal nuncio in Warsaw, Carolus Gamberini, the Ottomans feared the Ukrainian Cossacks because Temür, like the Ottomans, had grown from a freebooter to an empire builder:

The Tatars’ frequent incursions into Poland made it necessary to gather many men (exiles or mercenaries) in certain islands formed by the Dnieper (Boristene) opposite the Black Sea (Mar Maggiore) near Tatar territory. They raided their villages and fought so that Sigismund the First supported them. Today the Cossacks (Cosacchi) are the terror not only to the Tatars but of all the surrounding peoples. All the Turks themselves fear them, often saying that the Ottoman Empire had a similar beginning, and likewise the great Tamerlane, much celebrated by the historians.59

After the death of Temür, the Timurid Empire underwent a period of decen- tralization and political turmoil throughout the fifteenth century. As a result, a number of Timurid princes, including Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara and Babur, had to experience their respective periods of qazaqlïq. After failing to take Marv from a relative of his in 1457, Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara was forced to wander around Mākhān near Marv, Khorezm, and the Qipchaq Steppe for nearly a decade as a throneless prince. His last period of qazaqlïq ended when he seized Harāt in 1469 after the death of his main rival, Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd (d. 1469),

kul’tury, 2000), p. 158; for an English translation, see The Nikonian Chronicle, ed. Serge A. Zenkovsky, trans. Serge A. and Betty Jean Zenkovsky, vol. 4, 1382–1425 (Princeton, N.J.: Kingston Press, 1984), pp. 94–95. 58 Sigmund Herberstein, Notes upon Russia: Being a Translation of the Earliest Account of that Country, Entitled Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii (New York: B. Franklin, 1963), 2: 52. 59 Litterae nuntiorum apostolicorum historiam ucrainae illustrantes (1550–1850), 1: 24; and Lassota von Steblau, Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks, p. 117. QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 71 the Timurid ruler of Samarqand and Transoxiana.60 Similarly, his nephew Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur had to live the life of a political vagabond after being ousted from Samarqand in 1501 by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan until his capture of Kābul in 1504. Babur’s periods of wandering and struggle against the Uzbeks, however, lasted until 1526 when he founded a Timurid state in northern India after successfully rallying the dispersed remnants of the Timurids and the Moghuls. The contemporary histories of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara and Babur, i.e., the sources written in the second half of the fifteenth century and after, use the term qazaq to denote the qazaqlïq days of these two Timurid princes. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Persian sources such as the Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, the Matlaʿ-i saʿdain va majmaʿ-i bahrain, the Raużāt al-jannāt fī auṣāf-i madīnat-i Harāt, and the Shībānī-nāma employ the term qazāq, and the Chaghatay Turkic sources such as the Majalis al-nafa⁠ʾis, the Zubdat al-āsār, the anonymous Shībānī-nāma, and the Bābur-nāma use the terms qazaqlïq and qazaq to refer to Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara’s days of wandering. Likewise, the Chaghatay Turkic Bābur-nāma and the Persian Ḥabīb al-siyar use the terms qazaqlïq and qazāq, respectively, to describe Babur’s qazaqlïq activities. Since the term qazaq in the sense of a vagabond or freebooter did not gain wide currency during Temür’s lifetime, neither the Timurid histories written in Persian in the early fifteenth century nor the above-mentioned non-Timurid sources explicitly refer to Temür as qazaq. It was the sources produced in the sixteenth century or after the use of the term qazaq became widespread that refer to Temür as qazaq. For instance, the sixteenth-century Malfuzāt-i Tīmūrī and the late-seventeenth-century Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä employ the term qazaq to describe Temür’s career as a freebooter and an independent man, respectively. At any rate, Temür’s career as a qazaq, like his heirs’, may be characterized as a classical model of qazaqlïq made up of three phases: first, the stage when Temür became a political runaway after fleeing his own state in order to pursue survival and build up his own power base; second, the period during which Temür, as a political vagabond, wandered around and engaged in brigandage in a frontier region; and third, the final state in which, as a charismatic qazaq leader, Temür succeeded in mustering a band of loyal followers and rose to power in Samarqand. …

60 For the discussion of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara’s periods of qazaqlïq, see Subtelny, Timurids in Transition, pp. 52–60. 72 CHAPTER 2

Quasi-qazaqlïq activities, made up of the time-honored steppe practices of flight and plundering, not only served as an effective means of securing survival for nomad fugitives, but also resulted in the formation of some new identities and states in pre-Mongol and Mongol Central Eurasia. It was thanks to their effective quasi-qazaqlïq activities that Tuyuhun and Yelü Dashi were able to found the Tuyuhun state and the Qara-Khitai state, respectively. The quasi- qazaqlïq activities of Mugulü and Ashina laid the foundation for the formation of new nomad groups—the Rou-rans and the Kök Türks. Similarly, the Qara’unas, the Negüderi, and Yasa’urī also came into existence as a result of the quasi-qazaqlïq activities of the Mongol garrisons, Jochid fugitive troops, and Chaghatayid renegades in Khorasan, which became a frontier region between the Mongol states in Iran and Central Asia ever since hostilities broke out between them in the mid-thirteenth century. In addition, the Aq Qoyunlū and early Ottoman states also evolved from the Turkmens who had been acting as frontier freebooters after coming to Anatolia fleeing the Mongol invaders in the thirteenth century. However, the quasi-qazaqlïq activities that occurred as intermittent and isolated undertakings during the pre-Mongol and Mongol periods were indis- tinguishable from ordinary acts of fleeing from the enemy and moving to some remote regions. In contrast, qazaqlïq, which was a custom of political vagabondage widespread in the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana during the post-Mongol period, differed from a mere flight or political emigration as illus- trated in Temür’s qazaqlïq described in the Malfuzāt-i Tīmūrī.61 A qazaq was a political vagabond who left his state or tribe, wandered in some remote areas that served as at place of refuge, and engaged in brigandage in order to return or rise to power, or at least to raid for booty. Temür’s career as an ambitious brigand or a frontier freebooter was the foremost illustration of this new phenomenon in the fourteenth century.62

61 Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī, The Mulfuzāt Timūry, p. 111. 62 I am not inclined to regard Chinggis Khan as a classic qazaq figure. Chinggis Khan did not live the qazaq way of life before coming to power. That is, Chinggis Khan did not take refuge in remote areas on the Mongolian Plateau and engage in brigandage in order to establish his own political foothold. It is true that Chinggis Khan had a group of loyal retainers or nökörs who followed him during his own days of political obscurity and some may view nökörs as qazaqs. However, I argue that while a leader’s qazaq companions could be labeled as nökörs, i.e., loyal companions or followers, nökörs cannot necessarily be defined as qazaqs, i.e., vagabond companions. Furthermore, I suggest that the qazaqlïq phenomenon did not occur in the Mongolian steppes in general because, unlike in Transoxiana and at both ends of the Qipchaq Steppe, in the eastern Eurasian steppes, there was no real place of refuge where a group of fugitives could effectively QUASI-QAZAQLÏQ ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS IN (pre-)mongol EURASIA 73

The custom of political vagabondage was not an exclusively post-Mongol Central Eurasian phenomenon. The practices of brigandage and vagabondage existed not only during the pre-Mongol period, but also outside Central Eurasia throughout history. However, it was in post-Mongol Central Eurasia that qazaqlïq activities became a political institution and, importantly, took on unprecedented significance for the formation of new identities and states/ polities as will be further discussed in the subsequent chapters.

engage in brigandage while maintaining its autonomy from nomadic states. In the eastern Eurasian steppes there was no Mongolian equivalent of the Mākhān, where Temür spent his qazaqlïq days, or the Zaporozhia (za porohamy, “beyond the rapids”), where Ukrainian adventurers sought to make their fortune. History proves that fugitive leaders and tribes in the Mongolian steppes had to flee the region, usually westward to the Kazakh Steppe or southward to China. CHAPTER 3 The Qazaq, or Cossack, Groups of the Black Sea Steppes

The Emergence of the Qazaq, or Cossack, Bands in the Black Sea Steppes during the Post-Mongol Period

Most of the well-known qazaqs of post-Mongol Central Eurasia were in fact members of the Chinggisid and Timurid lineages, whose political legitimacy was based on strong dynastic traditions. The members of these two clans virtually monopolized the leadership of the qazaq bands that appeared in Central Asia. As discussed earlier, defiant or displaced leaders of Chinggisid and Timurid descent such as Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara, Babur, Toqtamïsh Khan, and Muḥammad Shībānī Khan often found the qazaq way of life an accessible and appealing means of pursuing political power. However, among the numerous qazaqs who appeared on the historical scene during the post-Mongol period, there were also nameless and less well- known political fugitives whose qazaqlïq activities led to the emergence of some major qazaq formations in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The most notable of these groups were the cossacks of the Black Sea steppes, a region that had disintegrated into an anarchic and dangerous frontier known as Dikoye Pole, or the Wild Field, after the dissolution of the Jochid Ulus at the turn of the fifteenth century.1 The first Black Sea Steppe cossacks were made up of the renegade Tatars, who actively engaged in brigandage in the Wild Field.2 For instance, Jan Dlugosz speaks of their raid into Poland in 1469 as follows:

1 For the internecine struggles that began within the Ulus of Jochi following Berdibek Khan’s death in 1359, see A. P. Grigor’ev, “Zolotoordynskie khany 60–70-kh godov XIV v.: khronologiya pravleniy [The Golden Horde khans of the sixties-seventies of the fourteenth century: the chronology of the reign],” Istoriografiya i istochnikovedeniye istorii stran Azii i Afriki 7 (St. Petersburg: 1983): 9–54. 2 Tatar was another designation attached to the nomadic population of the Jochid Ulus and its successor states. Whereas the term Uzbek was commonly used in post-Mongol Central Asia to refer to the Turkic nomads of the Qipchaq Steppe, the term Tatar that had been applied to the early Mongols was favored by the Muscovites and Ottomans. In essence, Tatar and Uzbek denoted the same Turko-Mongolian nomads of the Jochid Ulus or the Qipchaq Steppe during the post-Mongol period. The term Uzbek will be examined in Chapter 5.

A large Tatar army collected from fugitives, expellees, and robbers, whom they call in their language kozaks, under the command of the trans- Volhynian king Manyak, attacked the lands of the kingdom of Poland in three detachments (Frequens Tartarorum exercitus ex fugitivis, predonibus et exulibus, quos sua lingua Kozakos appellant, collectus, sub ducatu Manyak cesaris ultra Wolhin, terras Regni Polonie trifariam partitus irrupit).3

Ironically, the Tatar cossacks also performed a conflicting role as mercenaries. From the first half of the fifteenth century onwards, the émigré Tatar cossacks were employed by Muscovy and Poland-Lithuania as border guards against Tatar raiders. For instance, a document in Ruthenian dated 1561 mentions the names of twenty four Tatar Bilhorod (i.e., Aq Kirmān) cossacks, who were in the service of the Polish-Lithuanian ruler, Sigismund August.4 The Nikon Chronicle also makes mention of the Ryazan cossacks (kazaki ryazan’skia), in all likelihood of Tatar origin, who fought against the Tatar invaders in 1444.5 Muscovy’s policy of favoring the Tatars as border guards was also noted by M. Ambrosio Contarini, a Venetian ambassador to the Aq Qoyunlū ruler Uzun Ḥasan who visited Muscovy in 1476–78. Contarini writes about the grand duke and his Tatar border guards, who were probably of cossack origin, as follows:

It is his custom to visit the various parts of his dominions every year. He especially looks after a Tartar, in his pay, who commands, it is said, five hundred horsemen, to guard the frontiers of his territory from the incursions of the Tartars.6

By the early sixteenth century, the Tatar freebooters formed various cossack bands such as the Azov Cossacks, the Aq Kirmān Cossacks, among others.7 Even Sigismund von Herberstein, the envoy of the Holy Roman Empire sent to

3 Dlugossii, Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, 243–44; and Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 61. 4 Akty, otnosiashchiesia k istorii Yuzhnoiy i Zapadnoi Rossii, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoyu kommissieyu, vol. 2, 1599–1637 (St. Petersburg: V tipografii Eduarda Pratsa, 1865), no. 143; and Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 64n49. 5 See Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey, 12: 62. 6 Giosofat Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini, Travels to Tana and Persia by Josafa Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini. Translated from the Italian by William Thomas and by S. A. Roy, trans. William Thomas and S. A. Roy (New York: B. Franklin, 1963), p. 159. 7 For their cossack activities such as pillaging and kidnapping the envoys, see Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh, 2: 128, 231–34, 613. 76 CHAPTER 3

Muscovy in 1517, mentions in his travelogue a group of Tatars called Cosatzskii, who dwelt between Viatka and Kazan.8 The process by which a group of poverty-stricken Manghit (Noghay) nomads turned into the Aq Kirmān Cossacks through plundering activities is well documented in the Ottoman Mühimme defterleri (Books of records of the Imperial Assembly of State) reporting the events between the years 1560 and 1574. According to the Ottoman documents, a group of Noghay nomads, accompanied by some Crimean Tatar nomads, came to the Budzhak (southern Bessarabia) in late 1559 and early 1560 due to severe poverty. The sanjaq beg reported to the sultan that they were poor people with no weapons or horses, and without commanders and princes (serdarları ve mirzaları).9 Later these propertyless nomads carried out a series of raids on the Polish and Ukrainian lands, including the Bar region, without the sultan’s permission.10 As a result, the Ottoman authorities began calling them qazaqs in the sense of bandits and irregular troops.11 From the late fourteenth century onwards, cossack troops affiliated with Muscovy, Poland, and Lithuania more actively participated in various military operations, including incursions into the Black Sea steppes sometimes on their own initiative. According to Muscovite chronicles, the cossacks in Muscovite service took part in a war against the Kazan Tatars in 1468 led by a Muscovite commander named Ivan Runo.12 In 1492, a group of cossacks from Kyiv and Cherkasy in Lithuanian service pillaged a group of Crimean merchants. The Grand Duke Alexander investigated this event and punished those involved after receiving complaints from the Crimean khan.13 In 1502–3, according to the letter sent by Mengli Girāy Khan to Muscovy, a group of Ukrainian Cossacks from the areas of Kyiv and Cherkasy (kievskie i cherkaskie kazaki; russkie kazaki) again raided the Crimean envoys using their boats.14 As mentioned earlier, in 1516, the Polish military commander of Khmilnyk, Przeclaw Lanckoronski, raided the vicinity of Aq Kirmān (Bilhorod) with his cossack

8 Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 2: 76. 9 See Mihnea Berindei, “Le problème des Cosaques dans la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle. A propos de la révolte de Ioan Vodâ, voïévode de Moldavie,” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 13, no. 3 (1973): 340–42. 10 Berindei, “Le problème des Cosaques,” pp. 341–2. 11 Berindei, “Le problème des Cosaques,” p. 343. 12 Günther Stökl, Die Entstehung des Kosakentums (Munich: Isar Verlag, 1953), p. 61. 13 Stosunki z Mendli-Girejem, no. 24; and Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, pp. 61–62. 14 Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh, 1: 476; and Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 65. The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 77 units, several hundred strong, which Bielski regarded as the beginning of cossackdom in Poland.15 In addition to these military activities, according to the 1499 charter of the city of Kyiv, the cossacks from the Kyiv and the Upper Dnieper regions traveled downstream to the Lower Dnieper region to engage in frontier economic activities.16 Similarly, by the early sixteenth century, the cossacks in Muscovite service also began to wander about the Lower Don region. For instance, in 1502, Ivan III sent to Agrippina, the Grand Princess of Ryazan, a letter forbidding the town Ryazan cossacks (gorodovykh ryazanskikh kazakakh) from going to the Don “for the purpose of displaying boldness” (v molodechestvo).17 An increased cossack presence in the Black Sea steppes throughout the first half of the sixteenth century is also attested in the letter sent by Muscovy to the Noghays in 1538. In response to the Noghay complaints about the cossack raids, Ivan IV claimed that they were also victims of those raids:

Many cossacks go to the steppe: people of Kazan, Azov, and Crimea, and other unruly (balovni) cossacks. And ours of the borderland (ukraina) move around mixing with them. And those people are thieves for you and also thieves and robbers for us (Na pole khodyat kazaki mnogiye, kazantsy, azovtsy, krymtsy i inye balovni kazaki. A i nashikh ukrain s nimizh smeshavsya khodyat, i te lyudi kak vam tati, tak nam tati i razboyniki).18

More importantly, in the course of the sixteenth century, two large cossack groups, largely recruited from fugitive peasants fleeing serfdom in Poland- Lithuania and Muscovy, emerged as autonomous socio-political entities along the lower Dnieper and the Don Rivers, respectively. Fugitives from Muscovy fled to the Don region, over which the Muscovite state could exercise no control, and developed into a separate cossack entity as shown in the letters

15 Bielski, Kronika polska, pp. 990–91; Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 67n.65. 16 The 1499 charter of the city of Kyiv states: “If some Cossacks from the upper reaches of the Dnipro and from our environs go downstream to Cherkasy and farther, and if they acquire something there, they should give the palatine one-tenth of all that . . .” Akty, otnosiashchiesia k istorii Iuzhnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii, vol. 1, no. 170, vol. 2, no. 1; and Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 63. 17 Kazin, V. Kh., comp., Kazach’i voyska: Khroniki gvardeyskikh kazach’ikh chastey; Pomeshcheny v knige Imperatorskaya gvardiya, ed. V. K. Shenk (St. Petersburg, 1912. Reprint, [Russia]: Dorval’, 1992), p. 5. 18 Prodolzheniye Drevney Rossiyskoy Vivliotiki, ed. Nikolay Ivanovich Novikov (St. Petersburg: Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1786; repr., The Hague: Mouton, 1970), 8: 74–75; and Shenk and Kazin, Kazach’i voyska, p. 5. 78 CHAPTER 3 exchanged between Ivan IV Vasilyevich and the Noghay Mīrzā Yūsuf in 1549. The latter wrote complaining about the cossacks on the Don:

Your servants [headed by] a certain Sary-Azman already built towns in three or four places on the Don . . . Also, they lay in wait for our people and envoys and rob them (kholopi tvoy, nikhto Sary-Azman slovet, na Donu v trekh i chetyrekh mestakh goroda podelali . . . Da nashikh lyudey i poslov steregut, da razbivayut).19

To such complaints, Ivan IV explained that the Don Cossacks were actually made up of insubordinate fugitives from Muscovy:

Nobody from our cossacks is on the Don, but on the Don reside fugitives from our country . . . On the Don reside robbers without our knowledge . . . We tried earlier to destroy them but our people cannot reach them (nashikh kazakov na Donu net nikogo, a zhivut na Donu iz nashikh gosudarstv beglye lyudi . . . Na Donu zhivut razboyniki, bez nashego vedoma . . . My i prezhde posylali istrebit ikh, da lyudi nashi dostat ikh ne mogut).20

The development of Ukrainian Cossackdom in the lower Dnieper region in the mid-sixteenth century was initiated not only by the migration of fugitive peasants fleeing oppression and serfdom in Poland-Lithuania, but also by the activities of some noble adventurers who were responsible for the defense of the Polish-Lithuanian border regions against Tatar and Ottoman threats. The most notable figure in this development was Prince Dmytro Vyshnevetsky (d. 1563), a starosta, or lower government official, of Cherkasy and Kaniv.21 With the Ukrainian Cossack units he organized, Dmytro Vyshnevetsky carried out military operations in the lower Dnieper region, which included the construction of a fort on the island of Mala Khortytsia in the Dnieper River in ca. 1552. This fort was destroyed by the Crimean Tatars in 1558, but the Ukrainian Cossacks subsequently constructed other strongholds beyond the Dnieper rapids. These Ukrainian Cossacks then developed into a major socio-political entity known as the Zaporozhian Cossacks, whose name Zaporozhia was derived from the

19 Sergey Grigorʹevich Svatikov, Rossiya i Don (1549–1917) Izsledovaniye po istorii gosudarstven- nago i administrativnago prava i politicheskikh dvizheniy na Donu (Vienna: Izd. Donskoy Istoricheskoy Komissii, 1924), p. 13. 20 Shenk and Kazin, Kazach’i voyska, p. 5. 21 Dmytro Vyshnevetsky is also known in the Ukrainian folk songs as Baida. The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 79

Kyiv

Dnieper River The Wild Field Zaporozhia Bilhorod Volga River (Aq Kirman) Don River Crimea Azaq Istanbul Ke fe Black Sea

Caspian Sea

FIGURE 3 The Black Sea Steppes, ca. 1500–1700

expression “beyond the rapids” (za porohamy), referring to the place where they built their fortresses.22 The Don Cossacks and the Zaporozhian Cossacks bore some similarities to the Central Asian qazaqs, such as the Qazaqs, and to quasi-qazaq groups, such as the Negüderi, who evolved from fugitive bands that engaged in brigandage in the frontier regions of Central Eurasia. However, the qazaqlïq phenomenon in the Black Sea steppes differed from that in Central Asia in that the main agents were East Slavs. In Central Asia, the participants in qazaqlïq or quasi-qazaqlïq activities were almost exclusively made up of Turkic elements. However, although the first cossacks who appeared in the Black Sea steppes were Tatars, East Slavic cossacks began to outnumber them from the

22 According to Orest Subtelny, the cossack strongholds probably existed in the 1550s and 1560s, but the first historical Zaporozhian Cossack fortress on the island of Tomakivka appears in the sources related to the years 1574 and 1583. See Orest Subtelny, introduction to Lassota von Steblau, Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks, p. 32. 80 CHAPTER 3 early sixteenth century. The process of this development is not well documented. According to the Cossack historian Andrey Andreevich Gordeev, the Slavic Cossacks simply descended from a pre-Mongol steppe people, i.e., non- Slavs, who acquired the name kazak after serving the Jochid khans as mes- sengers. However, Gordeev did not provide any supporting evidence for his explanation.23 We may also conjecture that the East Slavic frontiersmen, who adopted the steppe way of life just as the early American frontiersmen adopted the Native American Indian way of life in the American wilderness, ventured into the steppe in great numbers and became qazaqs, particularly in the case of the Ukrainian Cossacks.24 Another plausible explanation is that the East Slavic frontiersmen who adopted Tatar customs, including the steppe method of warfare, gradually became cossacks through joint activities and mingling with the Tatar cossacks. For instance, in 1493 Prince Bohdan Hlynsky raided the Crimean Tatars to retaliate against a Tatar attack together with a tsarevich, i.e., a Chinggisid Tatar named Öz Temir (Uzdemir).25 Besides, the Don Cossack commander mentioned in the 1549 letter sent by Noghay Mīrzā Yūsuf to Ivan IV was a Tatar cossack, judging from his name Sary-Azman. The acculturation of Turkic and Slavic frontiersmen made East Slavic cossacks more steppe- adapted, which, in turn, facilitated their penetration into the steppe frontier. On this acculturation, Günther Stökl remarks that:

No detailed statements can be made about the point in time at which contact and mutual influence of the Tatar and Slavic cossacks occurred . . . The coexistence and interaction of Slavic and Tatar cossacks that can be observed here explains the acquisition of the language and way of life of the Tatars by Slavs. Assimilation of Tatar groups undoubt- edly occurred but when measured against the steady influx of Slavic groups, it was not decisive.26

23 Andrey Andreevich Gordeev, Istoriya Kazakov, vol.1, Zolotaya Orda i zarozhdeniye kazachestva (Moscow: Parizh, 1968), pp. 64–65. 24 On the American frontiersmen, see Frederick Jackson Turner, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History (1893)” in Rereading Frederick Jackson Turner: “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” and Other Essays, ed. John Mack Faragher (New York, N.Y.: H. Holt, 1994), pp. 33–4. I am indebted to discussions with my Doktovater Victor Ostapchuk on the similarities between the American and East Slavic frontiersmen. 25 See Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh, 1: 194–96; and Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 70. 26 Stökl, Die Entstehung des Kosakentums, pp. 176–77. The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 81

Ukrainian military adventurers, Russian serfs, Tatar expellees, serfs, nobles, etc. military fugitives, adventurers, etc. brigands

Ukrainian Cossacks

Tatar Cossacks (Bilhorod, Azaq Don Cossacks Zaporozhian Cossacks, etc.) Cossacks

FIGURE 4 The Cossack Formations in the Black Sea Steppes

The acculturation of the East Slavic frontiersmen to nomadic lifeways meant that by the turn of sixteenth century, the pool of potential qazaqs had become greatly expanded and that the qazaqlïq phenomenon became more widespread in Central Eurasia.

The Zaporozhian Cossacks or Rūs Ḳazaḳs and their Role in the Formation of the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate and the Modern Ukrainian Nation

Besides the qazaqlïq activities of the two Uzbek clans, the Abū al-Khairids and the Urusids, in the second half of the fifteenth century, the most historically significant consequence of the qazaqlïq phenomenon in post-Mongol Central Eurasia was the career of the Ukrainian Cossacks in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Ukrainian Cossackdom played a significant role in the formation of a Ukrainian Cossack polity in the mid-seventeenth century that later contributed to the development of modern Ukrainian identity.

Ukrainian Adventurers and Fugitives Venturing into the Steppe and the Cossack Phenomenon The penetration of the Ukrainian Cossacks into the steppe during the fifties of the sixteenth century resulted in the establishment of the Zaporozhian Sich, the cossack fortresses on the Dnieper River that served as the centers of the Ukrainian Cossacks. According to Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Ukrainian 82 CHAPTER 3

Cossackdom developed into a social phenomenon from the mid-sixteenth century.27 One of the major driving forces behind this development was the flight of Ukrainian serfs to the steppe to live the qazaq, or cossack, way of life. The severity of Polish-Lithuanian serfdom is well described by Guillaume Le Vasseure de Beauplan, a French military engineer in Polish service:

The local peasants are in a very miserable state, being obliged to work, themselves and their horses, three days a week in the service of their lord, and having to pay him, in proportion to the land they hold, many bushels of grain, and plenty of capons, hens, goslings and chickens, specifically at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas. What is more, they must cart wood for their lord, and fulfill a thousand other manorial obligations to which they ought not to be subject; besides these, money is extracted from them, as well as a tithe on their sheep, pigs, honey, and fruit of all kinds, and every third year (they must give up every) third ox. In short, since they must give to their masters what the latter choose to ask, it is no wonder that these wretches never accumulate anything, being subjected, as they are, to such harsh circumstances. However, that is still not all, for the lords have absolute power over not only their possessions, but also their lives, so great is the liberty of the Polish nobles (who live as if they were in paradise, and the peasants in purgatory). Thus, if it happens that these wretched peasants fall into the bondage of evil lords, they are in a more deplorable state than convicts sentenced to the galleys.28

At the same time, Beauplan also emphasized the independent-minded nature of the Ukrainian Cossacks:

They greatly value their liberty, and would not want to live without it. That is why the Cossacks, when they consider themselves to be kept under too tight a rein, are so inclined to revolt and rebel against the lords

27 See Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 79. According to Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Ukrainian frontiersmen went into the steppes to engage in various activities from the end of the fifteenth century. However, cossackdom did not yet constitute a social stratum in the late fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth century. See Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, pp. 63–64. 28 Guillaume Le Vasseur Beauplan, A Description of Ukraine. Guillaume Le Vasseur, Sieur de Beauplan, trans. and ed. Andrew B. Pernal and Dennis F. Essar (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1993), pp. 14–15. The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 83

of their country. Thus, seven or eight years rarely pass without a mutiny or uprising.29

Obviously, such love of liberty of the Ukrainian Cossacks and the restraint of serfdom imposed by Poland-Lithuania were incompatible with each other. Ukrainian peasants, along with some dissatisfied townspeople, fled to the steppe in great numbers, as Beauplan describes:

It is this slavery which goads many of them to take flight, the most coura- geous of them fleeing to Zaporozhe, which is an area on the Borysthenes (Dnieper River) to which the Cossacks retreat. After having dwelt there for some time and having been at sea (i.e., on raids against the Ottomans), they are considered to be Zaporozhian Cossacks. Because of such flights, the numbers of the Cossack ranks swell enormously as is shown with sufficient evidence by the present revolt, in which the Cossacks, having defeated the Poles, rose some 200,000 strong and made themselves masters of an area more than 120 leagues and 60 wide.30

Whereas the development of Ukrainian Cossackdom in the second half of the sixteenth century was fueled by the flight of the freedom-seeking Ukrainian people, the appearance of the first cossacks in the frontier regions of Ukraine may have resulted from the importation of Tatar émigrés by the Lithuanian state.31 According to M. Liubavsky, the first cossacks of the region were the Tatar prisoners or migrants who were given land in this region and employed by the Lithuanian government since the reign of the Grand Prince Vitovt to guard the frontier. Over the course of time, Liubavsky argues, East Slavs joined the Tatar cossack contingents and adopted the name kazak/kozak.32 The presence of Tatar cossacks in fifteenth-century Ukraine may also be assumed from the fact that in 1445, Ulugh Muḥammad (Makhmet), who was one of the Jochid contenders for the throne of Saray and the future founder of the Kazan

29 Beauplan, A Description of Ukraine, p. 13. 30 Beauplan, A Description of Ukraine, p. 15. 31 On the debate over the serf origin of the Zaporozhian Cossacks among the Russian, Ukrainian and Soviet historians, see Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, “Un condottiere lithuanien du XVIe siècle: Le prince Dimitrij Višneveckij et l’origine de la Seč Zaporogue d’après les Archives ottomans,” Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 10 (1969): 262–65. 32 M. Liubavsky, Oblastnoye deleniye i mestnoye upravleniye Litovsko-Russkogo gosudarstva ko vremeni izdaniya pervogo Litovskogo statuta (Moscow, 1892), pp. 529–32. Hrushevsky disagreed with the notion of the existence of such a colony of Tatar cossacks in the Kyiv region. See Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus’, p. 56. 84 CHAPTER 3

Khanate, summoned cossacks from Cherkasy. A Muscovite chronicle relates that “the same spring, Tsar Makhmet and his son Mamutyak sent [someone] to Cherkasy [to summon] people and two thousand cossacks (kazaki) came to them.”33 The process whereby the Tatar cossacks were supplanted by the cossacks of Ukrainian origin is not well documented and thus remains open to speculation. J. Kočubej suggests that the first cossacks in Ukraine were of Turkic origin based on the fact that Ukrainian Cossacks resembled the neighboring Oriental peoples in many traits.34 He adds that their resemblance did not arise from their geographical proximity or contacts but from their common Turkic origin. Kočubej believes that Ukrainians probably joined Turkic nomads, who were living with no rules as irregular bands of individuals who had separated from their tribes and clans.35 The Ukrainians then adopted the name cossack as a self-designation along with many practices from diverse Turkic peoples.36 Kočubej also mentions lexical borrowings, military organization, garments, hairstyle (chub), the musical instrument kobza, and so forth as examples of Oriental influence.37 As a matter of fact, the Ukrainian Cossack hairstyle is reminiscent of that of the Yuwen Xiongnu, a tribe active during the Sixteen Kingdoms Period (304–439 AD) in China. According to the Weishu [Book of the Wei Dynasty], the Yuwen Xiongnu “all [had] a jianfa hairstyle. They cut their hair if it is more than several chi long only leaving the hair on the top of the head.”38

33 See Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey, vol. 23, Yermolinskaya letopis’ (St. Petersburg, 1910; repr., Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul’tury, 2004), p. 151. Ulugh Muḥammad had been ousted from Saray by Barāq Khan, the ruler of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe and father of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, the two co-founders of the Qazaq Khanate. The town of Cherkasy, located on the right bank of the Dnieper River, served under Lithuanian rule as a cossack defense outpost against Tatar raids. Since it was mainly populated by Ukrainian Cossacks, the Muscovites employed the term cherkasy to refer to the former in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 34 On the cultural influence of the Turkic nomads on the Ukrainian Cossacks, see J. Kočubej, “Les éléments orientaux dans la culture et dans la vie quotidienne des cosaques ukrainiens,” in Les Cosaques de l’Ukraine: Rôle historique, représentations littéraires et artistiques: Actes du 5e Colloque International Franco-Ukrainien, ed. Michel Cadot and Emile Kruba (Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 1995), pp. 117–24; and Omeljan Pritsak, “Das erste türkisch-ukrainische Bündniss (1648),” Oriens 6 (1953): 266–98. 35 Kočubej, “Les Éléments orientaux,” p. 118. 36 Kočubej, “Les Éléments orientaux,” p. 118. 37 Kočubej, “Les Éléments orientaux,” pp. 119–123. 38 Weishu, 103: 2304. One chi is about 0.296 cm. The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 85

Interestingly, according to recent Y-Chromosome DNA testing, which traces a person’s patrilineal ancestors, the Kuban Cossacks, who descend from the Zaporozhian Cossacks, do not possess the Y-Chromosome haplogroup C2 (formerly known as C3), which is commonly found among the Turkic and Mongolian populations of the Central Eurasian steppe zone. Other Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroups such as R1a1a and I, commonly found among the Ukrainians, appear in high frequency among the Kuban Cossacks. This indicates that Tatar elements may have played no significant role in the genetic formation of the Ukrainian Cossacks.39 Regardless of whether or not there were Turkic elements in the early com- position of the Ukrainian Cossacks, one of the most significant aspects of Ukrainian Cossackdom in the sixteenth century was its struggle against Turkic neighbors, i.e., the Tatars and the Ottomans. This characteristic of Ukrainian Cossackdom is well attested in the 1586 report of Carolus Gamberini, a Papal nuncio in Warsaw:

The Tatars’ frequent incursions into Poland made it necessary to gather many men (exiles or mercenaries) in certain islands formed by the Dnieper (Boristene) opposite the Black Sea (Mar Maggiore) near Tatar territory . . . Other Cossacks supported by the King are those remaining in those islands under the command of a captain, to guard the place and observe the movements of the Tatars; these number only 1,500. There are also adventurers, of noble birth for the most part, who assemble from the adjoining regions to battle the Turks and the Tatars, returning to their own homes when it seems best. Of these there are some fourteen or fifteen thousand—well-armed, distinguished men who fear no danger, more eager for glory than for gain . . . There are mercenaries from every nationality: Poles, Germans, French, Spanish, and Italian; desperate men who, having committed various excesses could not live securely any- where except in such a situation, where no human force could threaten them. Among them there is incredible loyalty.40

As this report demonstrates, the growth of Ukrainian Cossackdom was closely connected with the defense of the Ukrainian steppe frontier. In fact, the

39 Oleg Balanovsky et al., “Two Sources of the Russian Patrilineal Heritage in Their Eurasian Context,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 82 (2008): 242. Table 2 in this article shows the frequencies of the Y Chromosomal haplogroups in Russian populations. 40 Litterae nuntiorum apostolicorum historiam ucrainae illustrantes, 1: 23–30; and Lassota von Steblau, Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks, p. 117. 86 CHAPTER 3 banding together of Ukrainian and other fugitive groups in the Black Sea steppes into formidable warrior groups against nomad invaders had also occurred several centuries earlier. Guillaume de Rubrouck, the Franciscan envoy of King Louis IX of France, who traveled across the Black Sea steppes on his way to the Mongol capital Qara Qorum in 1253, offers a description of these quasi-cossacks in his report:

On the journey between Sartach and his father [Batu] we went in great trepidation. For their Russian [Ruthenian], Hungarian and Alan slaves, who are to be found among them in very large numbers, band together in groups of twenty or thirty and escape by night. They possess bows and arrows, and kill anyone they meet up with in the dark. During the day they lie in hiding, and when their mounts are exhausted they make by night for a herd of horses in a pasture and change their horses, taking with them one or two to eat when the need arises. So our guide was very much afraid of encountering any of them.41

The Cossack Way of Life in the “Wild Field” and the Black Sea The Zaporozhian Cossacks engaged in diverse economic activities. Beauplan relates that “in peacetime, hunting and fishing are the everyday occupations of the Cossacks.”42 The Polish chronicler Marcin Bielski gives a description of their fishing activities: “These people on the Nyz (a river which enters the Dnieper) live from their fishing. They dry the fish without salting it and then subsist from it during the summer. In the winter they disperse among the neighboring towns such as Kyiv, Cherkasy, and others.”43 However, the Zaporozhian Cossacks were no ordinary fishers or hunters. They claimed to be knights-errant wandering the steppe and the Black Sea region in search of adventure and booty. Like their counterparts in Central Asia, the Zaporozhian Cossacks engaged in brigandage. They raided the caravans and embassies passing through the Wild Field (Dikoye Pole). The Zaporozhian Cossacks were especially renowned as formidable sea-raiders. Writing in the

41 [Rubruck, William of], The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Möngke, 1253–1255, trans. by Peter Jackson; Introduction, notes and appendices by Peter Jackson with David Morgan, Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., no. 173 (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1990), pp. 127–28. 42 Beauplan, A Description of Ukraine, p. 15. 43 Lassota von Steblau, Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks, p. 112. Ukrainian nyz (“low- land”) refers to the land beneath the Dnieper cataracts. The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 87 second half of the sixteenth century, Marcin Bielski highly praises their sailing skills:

The Cossacks know these rapids so well that they can easily go through them on their leather boats which they call chaiky. They let them down the rapids by means of ropes or lines and pull them up in the same manner. It is exactly in this kind of boats that Rus’ once did such great harm to the Greek emperor. Sometimes, as the Greek historian Zonoras writes, Rus’ even came as far as Constantinople. It seems that even now the Cossacks would attempt to do the same if there were more of them. The Turks are anxious that these lands remain empty and that the population not increase so that they may be safe in Constantinople.44

The sea raids of the Zaporozhian Cossacks were indeed reminiscent of those carried out by the Rus’ against Byzantine possessions as remarked by Marcin Bielski. As a matter of fact, the Ottomans, who suffered much from Cossack sea raids, referred to the Zaporozhian Cossacks as rūs ḳazaḳs, or Rus’ Cossacks. For instance, the Mühimme Defterleri employs the term rūs ḳazaḳ for the Zaporozhian Cossacks and the term mosqof ḳazaḳ for the Muscovite Cossacks.45 The term rūs refers to the original Kievan Rus’ land, which is today’s Ukraine, as opposed to the term Mosqov, which refers to the northeast periphery of Kievan Rus’. The name “Rus’ Cossack,” therefore, also seems fitting for the Zaporozhian Cossacks. Cossack naval raids increased from the last decades of the sixteenth century. From the 1610s onwards, the Zaporozhian Cossacks were raiding all along the shores of the Black Sea using longboats called chaika.46 As Marcin Bielski predicted, the Zaporozhian Cossacks later sailed down to Constantinople and plundered the Ottoman coastal regions. Beauplan describes their sea raiding activities as follows:

44 Lassota von Steblau, Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks, p. 113. 45 See Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, “Une source inédite pour l’histoire de la Russie au XVIe siècle: les registres des Mühimme Defterleri des Archives du Baş-Vekâlet,” Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique 8, no. 2 (1967): 339. However, rūs was often used as a loose term denoting not only the inhabitants of Ukraine and the Zaporozhian Cossacks, but also the Don Cossacks and Muscovites. See Berindei, “Le problème des Cosaques,” p. 353. 46 For a detailed discussion of the Cossack onslaught on the Bosphorus in 1624–5, see Victor Ostapchuk, War and Diplomacy across Steppe and Sea: The Ottoman Black Sea Frontier in the Early Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs), (in press), pp. 122–30. 88 CHAPTER 3

It is these people who often, (indeed) almost every year, go raiding on the Black Sea, to the great detriment of the Turks. Many times they have plundered Crimea, which belongs to Tatary, ravaged Anatolia, sacked Trebizond, and even ventured as far as the mouth of the Black Sea, three leagues from Constantinople, where they have laid waste to everything with fire and sword, returning home with much booty and a number of slaves, usually young children, whom they keep for their own service or give as gifts to the lords of their homeland . . . They cross the sea in a miraculous fashion in wretched hand-built boats, whose form and construction I shall describe later.47

Although the Zaporozhian Cossacks were formidable sea raiders, according to Victor Ostapchuk, they can be characterized as “a highly organized military confraternity,” unlike the Don Cossacks who can be defined as more of a “bandit-type” entity.48 As a matter of fact, Erich Lassota von Steblau, the Habsburg diplomat who visited the Zaporozhian Cossacks in 1594, referred to them as “the entire knightly company of Zaporozhians.”49 In their letter to the Habsburg emperor, the Zaporozhian Cossacks also called themselves “every- man of knightly calling” or “the entire knightly order of the free Zaporozhian Host.”50

The Formation of the Cossack Hetmanate and Its Impact on Ukrainian Identity The struggle of the Ukrainian Cossacks against the oppression of the Polish state was another significant aspect of Ukrainian Cossackdom from the second half of the sixteenth century. In 1648, as a result of this struggle, the Ukrainian Cossacks, who had been living as a stateless people since the fall of Kievan Rus’ in the mid-thirteenth century, founded their own Cossack polity, referred to by historians as the Hetmanate. This political movement was brought into being by a registered cossack, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, who succeeded in bringing together the Zaporozhian Cossacks and the registered cossacks in a war against Poland.51 In 1654, after a series of victories over the Polish armies, the Ukrainian Cossacks, in order to solidify their breakaway from Poland, signed a

47 Beauplan, A Description of Ukraine, p. 11. 48 Victor Ostapchuk, The Ottoman Black Sea Frontier, p. 6. 49 Lassota von Steblau, Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks, p. 93. 50 Lassota von Steblau, Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks, pp. 94–95. 51 The registered cossacks were the Ukrainian Cossacks in the service of the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth. They were recruited from among the Ukrainian Cossacks The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 89 treaty with Muscovy. By this treaty, the Ukrainian Cossacks obtained Muscovy’s protection while acknowledging the authority of the Muscovite tsar. The Right Bank of the Dnieper River was later re-incorporated into Poland but the Left Bank remained as an autonomous polity until the second half of the eighteenth century. The formation of this Ukrainian Cossack polity in the mid-seventeenth century was a unique event in the history of cossackdom in the Black Sea steppes. It should be noted that the Russian cossackdom that evolved on the Don did not develop into a separate cossack state comparable to the Ukrainian Hetmanate. Besides, although the Don Cossacks played an important role in the Russian expansion into Siberia, they remained an insignificant frontier entity in the process of state building in Muscovy.52 The development of the Muscovite state itself was rather influenced by Muscovy’s former Mongol overlords. It has been suggested that the Muscovite state in the sixteenth century owes much to its former Mongol suzerain state, i.e., the Jochid Ulus (Golden Horde) for its rise to power and the numerous political, military, and social institutions that made it strong.53 Naturally, the Muscovite secular rulers in the sixteenth century even held the view that Muscovy was a successor to the Mongol state.54 Besides their respective roles in state formation, the Don Cossacks and the Ukrainian Cossacks also differed in their attitudes towards Muscovy and Ukraine, respectively. The Don Cossacks did not possess a Muscovite identity. According to Aleksandr Rigel’man, the Don Cossacks whom he interviewed in the late eighteenth century thought that they were not related to the people of Muscovy, although unable to explain their direct origin, and that they became Russianized only after living in proximity to them. A Cossack expressed his non-Muscovite identity in the following manner: “I am not a Muscovite but Russian and only according to law and Orthodox faith and not by origin” (Ya, de, ne Moskal’, no Russkoy, i to po zakonu i vere Pravoslavnoy, a ne po prirode).55 In contrast, the Ukrainian Cossacks possessed a Ukrainian-Ruthenian identity.

by King Sigismund II Augustus in 1572 to defend the southern borders against Tatar and Ottoman raids. 52 Serhii Plokhy, The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 31. 53 Charles J. Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History (London: Tauris, 1987), pp. 90, 95, 102–3. 54 Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde, pp. 100–1; Donald Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304–1589 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 187. 55 Aleksandr Rigel’man, Istoriya o Donskikh Kazakakh (Rostov-on-Don: Rostovskoye knizh. izd-vo, 1992), p. 17. 90 CHAPTER 3

For instance, they used “Rus’ ” and “Ukraine” as well as “Little Russia (Malorossiya),” “Zaporozhian Army,” and “Cossack” as the designations for the new Cossack state they founded and its people.56 The historical importance of the Ukrainian Cossack polity did not end with its abolition by the Russian Empire in 1783. The emergence of the Cossack Hetmanate, which had stopped the process of Polonization of the Ukrainian elite, also contributed to the development of a distinct Ukrainian identity, which would later inspire the Ukrainian national awakening in the middle of the nineteenth century.57 A separate Ukrainian identity was manifested in the Ukrainian Cossack chronicles, among which those composed in the eighteenth century by Hryhorii Hrabianka and Samuil Velychko were the most influential.58 Zenon Kohut explains that Hryhorii Hrabianka and Samuil Velychko’s Cossack chronicles, which focus on the Ukrainian Cossack uprising that was led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky, “distinguish Ukraine from Muscovy and Ukrainians from Russians,” employing designations such as Rus’, Mala Rossiya, and Ukraina to refer to Cossack Ukraine.59 The notion of Ukrainian separateness from the Russians is also expressed in the claim to Khazar ancestry by the Ukrainian Cossacks. Hrabianka’s chronicle connects the Ukrainian Cossacks to the Khazars, while Velychko’s chronicle compares the Ukrainian Cossacks to the Sarmatians.60 According to Frank E. Sysyn, the Ukrainian Cossacks claimed

56 Zenon Kohut, “The Development of a Little Russian Identity and Ukrainian Nationbuilding,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10, nos. 3–4, Concepts of Nationhood in Early Modern Eastern Europe (1986): 564–65. 57 The differentiation between the Belarusians and the Ukrainians was also accelerated by the formation of a separate Ukrainian Cossack state. Frank E. Sysyn, “The Khmelnytsky Uprising and Ukrainian Nation-Building,” Journal of Ukrainian Studies 17, nos. 1–2 (1992): 152. 58 Not all Cossack chronicles emphasized the distinctness of the Ukrainians from the Russians. The Synopsis, composed in 1674, stressed the closeness of the Ukrainians and the Russians, seeking political union with Russia. Zenon E. Kohut, “The Question of Russo- Ukrainian Unity and Ukrainian Distinctiveness in Early Modern Ukrainian Thought and Culture,” in Culture, Nation and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1600–1945), ed. Andreas Kappeler et al. (Edmonton; Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003), pp. 64–68. 59 Kohut, “The Question of Russo-Ukrainian Unity,” p. 71. For the meaning of the term Little Russian identity, see Kohut, “The Question of Russo-Ukrainian Unity,” pp. 69–70; and Kohut, “Ukrainian Nationbuilding,” pp. 562–64. 60 Kohut, “The Question of Russo-Ukrainian Unity,” p. 71; and Frank E. Sysyn, “The Cossack Chronicles and the Development of Modern Ukrainian Culture and National Identity,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 14, no. 3/4 (December, 1990): 603; According to Élie Borschak, Velychko also maintained that the Little Russians, i.e., the Ukrainians descend from the The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 91 an ancient lineage for the “Cossack-Ruthenian” people, i.e., the Ukrainians, and emphasized their distinctiveness from the Russians by claiming descent from the Khazars.61 In addition, according to Sysyn, these Ukrainian Cossack chronicles later influenced the Istoriya Rusov, written by an anonymous author in the second half of the eighteenth century. This history also states that the Ukrainian Cossacks descend from the Khazars, while describing the latter as a branch of the Slavs.62 Importantly, the Ukrainian Cossack chronicles influenced the formation of modern Ukrainian identity.63 The Ukrainian Cossack chronicles emphasized the national and religious orientation of the 1648 uprising and such interpretations influenced the early nineteenth-century Ukrainian historians and poets.64 Sysyn also argues that the designation “Ukraine,” the national cult of Khmelnytsky, and the myth of the Ukrainian Cossack nation—all of which are usually regarded as being created by the Romantics—had their origins in the Ukrainian Cossack chronicles composed in the eighteenth century. It was these texts, as well as folklore, that provided inspiration for the nineteenth-century Romantic movement in Ukraine.65 It should also be noted that the authors

Khazars. Élie Borschak, La légende historique de l’Ukraine: Istorija rusov (Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 1949), p. 32. The Khazars were a Turkic nomadic people that established a vast empire, the Khazar Khanate, in southern Russia in the seventh century. Accordong to Orest Subtelny, the Cossack claim to Khazar ancestry was influenced by the Polish nobility (szlachta)’s belief that they were descended from the Sarmatians, an ideology known as Sarmatism. See Orest Subtelny, Domination of Eastern Europe: Native Nobilities and Foreign Absolutism, 1500–1715 (Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1986), p. 47. 61 Sysyn, “Cossack Chronicles,” p. 603; Frank Sysyn, “The Image of Russia and Russian- Ukrainian Relations in Ukrainian Historiography of the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries,” in Culture, Nation and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1600–1945), ed. Andreas Kappeler et al. (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003), p. 127. 62 Borschak, La légende historique de l’Ukraine, p. 28. According to Élie Borschak, whereas the Cossack chronicles simply argue that the Cossacks descend from the Khazars, the Istoriya Rusov describes the Khazars as a military caste organized like the Cossack army of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, making the rest of the population a tax-paying class. The Istoriya Rusov therefore argues that the Ukrainian nobility and its privilege originate from the Khazar cavalry of the ninth century. Borschak, La légende historique de l’Ukraine, p. 32. 63 Sysyn, “Cossack Chronicles,” pp. 604, 607. According to Sysyn, the Istoriya Rusov also influenced “the Ukrainian national revival” in the nineteenth century. Sysyn, “Cossack Chronicles,” p. 607n30. 64 Sysyn, “The Khmelnytsky Uprising and Ukrainian Nation-Building,” p. 166. 65 Sysyn, “The Cossack Chronicles,” pp. 604, 607. 92 CHAPTER 3 of the Ukrainian Cossack chronicles, i.e., the intellectuals of the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate, were direct heirs of the Khmelnytsky Cossack uprising.66 Ivan L. Rudnytsky points to the fact that it was among the descendants of the Cossacks and the Hetmanate who constituted the Left Bank nobility, that the Ukrainian cultural awakening began, with the exception of Shevchenko, who was of peasant origin.67 In sum, it may be argued that the historical importance of Ukrainian Cossackdom lies not only in the important role it played in the formation of the Cossack Hetmanate in the mid-seventeenth century, but also, to a certain degree, in the development of the modern Ukrainian nation in the middle of the nineteenth century. … True historical qazaq entities, or cossack groups, perhaps foreshadowed by the quasi-qazaq bands such as the Qara’unas, the Negüderi, and the Yasa’urī, began appearing in the Black Sea steppes when the Jochid Ulus gradually disintegrated into smaller states and tribal groupings throughout the fifteenth century. The Tatar fugitives from the dissolving Jochid Ulus became freebooters in the Black Sea steppes, constituting the first qazaq bands in this region. These Tatar cossacks were then followed by the East Slavic adventurers and fugitives from Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy whose adoption of the qazaq, or cossack, way of life, made qazaqlïq an important socio-political phenomenon in the western Qipchaq Steppe as well as a trans-cultural Eurasian phenomenon. Throughout the sixteenth century, there existed several qazaq/cossack entities in the Black Sea steppes: the Aq Kirmān cossacks, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the Don Cossacks, among others. Ukrainian Cossackdom occupies the most important place in the history of the qazaqlïq or cossack phenomenon in the Black Sea steppes because it led to the formation of the Cossack Hetmanate, which was the first polity that

66 Sysyn, “The Khmelnytsky Uprising and Ukrainian Nation-Building,” p. 166. 67 Ivan L. Rudnytsky, “A Study of Cossack History,” Slavic Review 31, no. 4 (1972): 874. In addition, Zenon Kohut argues that the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate led to the formation of a pre-modern nation, i.e., the Little Russian identity, when, by the mid-eighteenth century, the Ukrainian elite of the Left Bank, who descended from Cossack officials, identified its inhabitants, land, and state with Little Russia. Kohut, “Ukrainian Nationbuilding,” pp. 565, 569. Kohut regards the formation of this Little Russian identity as a prelude for modern Ukrainian nation-building. Kohut, “Ukrainian Nationbuilding,” p. 576. On the rather ambiguous role of the Little Russian identity in the formation of the Ukrainian national movement, see Kohut, “Ukrainian Nationbuilding,” pp. 574–76. The QAZAQ GROUPS OF THE BLACK SEA STEPPES 93 the Ukrainians established after the breakup of the Kievan Rus’ state in the middle of the thirteenth century. This cossack polity or state, considered a successor to Kievan Rus’ by modern Ukrainians, came into existence in the mid- seventeenth century as a result of the 1648 Cossack rebellion against Poland. Significantly, it was the military organization created by the Zaporozhian Cossacks that enabled the establishment of the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate. Although it was later annexed into the Russian Empire, the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate contributed to the consolidation of a separate Ukrainian identity. The Ukrainian Cossack phenomenon thus played an important role in the final differentiation of the East Slavs into Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians, a process that had begun in earlier periods.

PART 2 Qazaqlïq and the Formation of the Qazaqs

∵

CHAPTER 4 The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans: The Formation of the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks

A Brief History of the Eastern Dasht-i Qipchāq from the Mid-Fourteenth Century to the Mid-Fifteenth Century: The Rise and Fall of Two Prominent Jochid Lineages

If we are to name the most important qazaqlïq phenomenon in post-Mongol Central Eurasia, our choice must fall on the political vagabondage of two rival Jochid families: the qazaqlïq activities (ca. 1450–70) led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, the great-grandsons of Urus Khan (r. ca. 1368–78), on the one hand, and the qazaqlïq activities (ca. 1470–1500) conducted by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, two grandsons of Abū al-Khair Khan (r. 1428–68), on the other. These two chronologically consecutive and interrelated qazaqlïq phases, which took place in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe during the second half of the fifteenth century, resulted in the division of the nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe into two separate nomadic entities, the qazaq Uzbeks (Uzbak-i qazāq) and the Shibanid Uzbeks (Uzbak-i Shībān).1 This development holds a major place in the history of Central Eurasia because the qazaq Uzbeks

1 I have adopted the terms “qazaq Uzbek” (Uzbak-i qazāq) and “Shibanid Uzbek” (Uzbak-i Shībān), which are used by Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt in his Tārīkh-i Rashīdī to differentiate the Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan and by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, respectively. However, Yuri Bregel does not support the reading Uzbak-i qazāq (as a Persian compound) and employs “Uzbek-Qazaqs” for the early Qazaqs. See Yuri Bregel, “Uzbeks, Qazaqs and Turkmens,” in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 225n16. In my study, I use the term “qazaq Uzbek” instead of “Uzbek-Qazaq” for Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s ulus since contemporary Central Asian historians juxtaposed “Shībānī” with “Qazāq,” for instance, as in the cases of “Uzbakān-i Shībānī” (Shibanid Uzbeks) with “Uzbakān-i Qazāq” (qazaq or Qazaq Uzbeks) and “khānān-i Shībānī” (Shibanid khans) with “khānān-i Qazāq” (Qazaq khans), when referring to the two Uzbek entities. Furthermore, Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt at times refers to the early Qazaqs simply as “Uzbeks” because the early Qazaqs were still viewed as belonging to the Uzbek ulus by contemporaries in the early sixteenth century. This means that the early Qazaqs were “fugitive/vagabond, i.e., qazaq Uzbeks,” not “Qazaqs” yet. Chapter 5 discusses in detail the origin and meaning of the term

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi ��.��63/9789004306493_006 98 CHAPTER 4 became modern Kazakhs, while the Shibanid Uzbeks came to constitute an integral part of modern Uzbeks.2 During the Mongol period, the nomadic population of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe, from which both the qazaq Uzbeks and the Shibanid Uzbeks branched off, belonged to the left, or eastern, wing of the Jochid Ulus. When the partition of the newly conquered territories was made in the middle of the thirteenth century, the Dasht-i Qipchāq (Qipchaq Steppe), the mediaeval Islamic name for the vast steppe region that stretches from Ukraine in the west to Kazakhstan in the east, was divided among the sons of Chinggis Khan’s eldest son Jochi. While the western half of the Qipchaq Steppe formed an integral part of the patrimony of Jochi’s second son Batu, who was also recognized as the ruler of the whole Jochid Ulus, the eastern half of the Qipchaq Steppe became the ulus of Jochi’s eldest son Orda. The patrimony of Orda, referred to by contemporaries as the “Ulus of Orda” (ulūs-i Orda), then formed the left, or eastern, wing of the Jochid Ulus, to which some other sons of Jochi, including Toqay- Timur, belonged. Rashīd al-Dīn designates the Jochid princes who belonged to this wing as “the princes of the left arm/wing” (shāhzādagān-i dast-i chap).3 In some Timurid sources, the Ulus of Orda was referred to as Aq Orda, or the White Horde, while Batu’s patrimony, which formed the right, or western, wing of the Jochid Ulus, was called Kök-Orda, or the Blue Horde. For instance, the right wing (dast-i rāst) of the Jochid Ulus is referred to as Kūk Orda, whereas the left wing (dast-i chap) is called Aq Orda in the Persian Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī composed in the early fifteenth century.4 In contrast, in Russian sources and the Turkic Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān by Ötämiš Ḥājī, it was the Ulus of Orda that was designated as Kök-Orda, or the Blue Horde. For instance, Ötämiš Ḥājī refers to Batu’s ulus as Aq Orda and that of Orda as Kök-Orda.5 Throughout the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth centuries, the princes of the left wing of the Jochid Ulus acknowledged the suzerainty

Uzbek and then demonstrates how “qazaq Uzbek” changed to “Qazaq” as the designation of the Qazaqs. 2 The present-day Uzbeks who descend from the nomadic elements, i.e., the Shibanid Uzbeks are now classified as “joqchi Uzbeks” in Uzbekistan. The Uzbeks who are descended from the sedentary population of Transoxiana form the yo‘kchi Uzbeks. For their respective characteristics, see Peter Finke, Variations on Uzbek Identity: Strategic Choices, Cognitive Schemas and Political Constraints in Identification Processes (New York: Berghahn Books, 2014), pp. 216–19. 3 See Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, pp. 506–7. 4 See Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, pp. 81–82. 5 See Ötemís Qažy, Šyńğys-name, ed. M. Q. Äbuseyítova, Qazaqstan tarihy turaly türk derektemeler 1 (Almaty: Dayk, 2005), p. 158. On the problem of this discrepancy, see Utemish-Khadzhi [Ötämiš Ḥājī], Chingiz-name, trans. and ed. V. P. Yudin (Alma-Ata: Gilim, 1992), pp. 14–56. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 99 of the princes of the right wing, i.e., Batu’s descendants, while maintaining their autonomy within the Jochid Ulus. Rashīd al-Dīn remarks that Orda’s descendants were “independently the rulers of their own ulus” (bi-istiqlāl, pādshāh-i ulūs-i khvīsh), implying that the Ulus of Orda was an autonomous ulus or state.6 The traditional suzerain-vassal relationship between the right wing of the Jochid Ulus and its left wing began to change when Batu’s lineage came to an end in 1359–60 and a long succession struggle broke out among the Jochid princes. By 1361, the line of Orda had also lost its prominence in the Ulus of Orda and the descendants of Jochi’s thirteenth son, Toqay-Timur, obtained supremacy in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe. By 1366, one of these Toqay-Timurid princes, Mubārak Khvāja, minted his own coins, a right that had been reserved to the khans of the right wing of the Jochid Ulus.7 Furthermore, the eastern half of the Qipchaq Steppe, a region peripheral to the traditional seat of power at Saray, now emerged as the birthplace of some energetic leaders who gained control of both halves of the Jochid Ulus. The first such leader was Urus Khan, a descendant of Jochi’s thirteenth son Toqay-Timur or Jochi’s eldest son Orda. Muʿīn al-Dīn Naṭanzī and those who follow him describe him as a descendant of Orda, while many others, including the compiler of the Muʿizz al-ansāb, the author of the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma and Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan view him as a descendant of Toqay-Timur.8

6 See Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 507. On the political activities of the princes of the Ulus of Orda up to the mid-fourteenth century, see T. T. Allsen, “The Princes of the Left Arm: An Introduction to the History of the Ulus of Orda in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 5 (1985/1987): 8–26. 7 See István Vásáry, “The Beginnings of Coinage in the Blue Horde,” Acta Orientalia 62, no. 4 (2009): 380. 8 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 68. For those who regard Urus Khan as a descendant of Toqay-Timur, see Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, trans. and ed. M. Kh. Abuseitova and others, Istoriya Kazakhstana v persidskikh istochnikakh 3 (Almaty: Dayk, 2006), p. 44; “Tauarih-i guzida-yi nūsrat-name,” in Qazaqstan tarihy turaly türk derektemeler, vol. 1, XV–XIX Gasyrlar šyğarmalarynan üzíndíler, trans. and ed. M. Q. Äbuseyítova (Almaty: Dayk, 2006), pp. 47–49; and Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, trans. Petr I. Desmaisons (St. Petersburg: 1871–1874; repr., Amsterdam: Philo, 1970), p. 178 (text), p. 187 (trans.). Modern historians also differ in their view about the ancestry of Urus Khan. For instance, without providing any evidence, George Vernadsky argues that Urus Khan’s descent from Orda is more reliable. See George Vernadsky, A History of Russia, Vol. 3, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), p. 249. Jiger Janabel also believes that Urus Khan descended from Orda because his rise to the throne of the Ulus of Orda was unchallenged. See Janabel, “From Mongol Empire to Qazaq Jüzder,” p. 36. However, recent studies by modern Kazakh scholars and István Vásáry have demonstrated that the 100 CHAPTER 4

After ascending the throne of the Ulus of Orda in 1361, Urus Khan led a major expedition through the Volga region and by 1374 united the right wing and left wing of the Jochid Ulus, becoming the first Jochid prince from the left wing to occupy the throne of the Jochid Ulus. Urus Khan, a contemporary of Temür, was powerful enough to be recognized by the Timurids as the legitimate inheritor of the throne of the Jochid Ulus. For instance, the Ẓafarnāma of Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī, written in the early fifteenth century, lists twenty five khans of the Jochid Ulus, and Urus Khan is included among them.9 However, because of the rise of an ambitious Jochid sulṭān named Toqtamïsh, who was another descendant of Toqay-Timur, Urus Khan’s polity did not develop into a lasting dynasty equivalent to that of Batu.10 When Urus Khan executed a Jochid local ruler of Mangïshlaq, Toy-Khvāja, who had refused to join him in his campaign against the right wing of the Jochid Ulus, the latter’s son Toqtamïsh fled from the Qipchaq Steppe and sought refuge with Temür in 1376.11 Toqtamïsh was supplied with troops and money and appointed governor of Utrar and Sairam by Temür. Toqtamïsh spent a while raiding the nomads of Urus Khan as well as rallying the former followers of his father.12 After a series of indecisive battles and defeats, Toqtamïsh succeeded in gaining the support of the majority of the nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe. In 1377, he finally overthrew Urus Khan’s son and successor, Malik Temür.13 In the following year, just as Urus Khan had done before him, Toqtamïsh Khan led an expedition against the western wing of the Jochid Ulus, which was experiencing internecine warfare between Mamay and other rival contenders to the throne of Saray. After defeating and ousting Mamay, he re-subjugated Muscovy, becoming not only another prince from the left wing of the Jochid Ulus to capture the throne of Saray, but also the first member of the Jochid family to unify the whole Jochid Ulus that had remained divided since Batu’s lineage perished a couple of decades earlier. However, Toqtamïsh Khan, who by 1380 was ruling a vast nomadic empire, also failed to found a lasting dynasty of his own in the Qipchaq Steppe. He entered into war against his former overlord Temür by invading the latter’s

Toqay-Timurid descent of Urus Khan is far more plausible. See T. I. Sultanov, Podnyatye na beloy koshme: Potomki Chiniz-khana (Almaty: Dayk, 2001), pp. 137–44; and Vásáry, “The Beginnings of Coinage in the Blue Horde,” 371–85. 9 Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma, 1: 13. 10 On his Toqay-Timurid descent, see István Vásáry, “The Tatar Ruling Houses in Russian Genealogical Sources,” Acta Orientalia 61, no. 3 (2008): 365–72. 11 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, pp. 92–93. 12 Ötemís Qažy, Šyńğys-name, p. 192. 13 Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma, 1: 78. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 101 territories. In two major battles that took place in 1391 and 1395, respectively, Toqtamïsh Khan suffered crushing defeats at the hands of Temür and lost all his territories. Toqtamïsh Khan lived the rest of his life as a political vagabond. After the downfall of Toqtamïsh Khan, Temür Qutluq Khan, another Toqay- Timurid prince, and his Manghit amīr Edigü gained control over the Jochid Ulus. However, after Edigü’s downfall in 1411, both halves of the Jochid Ulus were plunged into another succession struggle among the Jochid princes who included the sons of Toqtamïsh Khan and the descendants of Urus Khan. The contender to the throne who emerged as the winner from this succession struggle in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe was Barāq Khan, a grandson of Urus Khan. In 1420–21, Barāq Khan went to Temür’s grandson Ulugh Beg, who was then the governor of Transoxiana, and asked for his help in defeating his rivals. By 1424–25, Barāq Khan seized the throne of Saray by defeating and ousting Ulugh Muḥammad, the future founder of the Kazan Khanate, who was then the ruler of the right wing of the Jochid Ulus.14 However, Barāq Khan was not the sole ruler of the whole Qipchaq Steppe. Ulugh Muḥammad was not completely defeated. The Mamluk historian Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī writes that, by 1423, Ulugh Muḥammad was still the ruler of the Ulus of Jochi. Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī also records that Barāq Khan was as one of the three rulers of the Qipchaq Steppe by 1427.15 Furthermore, in a letter sent to the Ottoman sultan Murād II (r. 1421–44) in 1428, Ulugh Muḥammad claimed that he had succeeded in ousting Barāq Khan in the previous year. However, Ulugh Muḥammad also mentioned in the letter that Barāq Khan had taken the throne of the Ulus of Jochi in the previous years, demonstrating that Barāq Khan had gained control of the western Ulus of Jochi after all.16 Johann Schiltberger, a German captive who was in the Qipchaq Steppe, serving a Jochid contender to the throne, also records that Barāq Khan was one of the three rulers of the Qipchaq Steppe, the other two being Ulug Muḥammad and Devlet-Berdi.17

14 Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain,” p. 256 (text), p. 196 (trans.). Barāq Khan defeated his rivals between 1422 and 1424. See Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia, p. 293; and Bertold Spuler, Die Goldene Horde. Die Mongolen in Russland. 1223–1502, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1965), pp. 156–57. 15 See Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī, “ʿIqd al-Jūmān,” in Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy ordy, vol. 1, izvlecheniya iz sochineniy arabskikh, trans. and ed. V. G. Tizengauzen (St. Petersburg: 1884), pp. 501–2 (text), pp. 533–34 (trans.). 16 See A. N. Kurat, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivindeki Altın Ordu, Kırım ve Türkistan hanlarına ait yarlık ve bitikler (Istanbul: Bürhaneddin Matbaası, 1940), p. 8. 17 See Johann Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger: a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396–1427, trans. J. Buchan Telfer (London: 1879; repr., New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), p. 37. 102 CHAPTER 4

In 1425–26, Barāq Khan sent a letter to Ulugh Beg and laid claim to Sighnaq, an important center of trade between the nomadic and sedentary regions that had belonged to his grandfather, Urus Khan. In the ensuing battle, Barāq Khan soundly defeated the Timurid army led by Ulugh Beg and plundered Transoxiana.18 By that time, Barāq Khan had probably become the most powerful ruler in the Qipchaq Steppe. Naturally, a later Qazaq historian, Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī, who wrote the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh in the Kasimov Khanate in the early seventeenth-century, remembered him as a khan who “subdued all the neighboring uluses in a short time.”19 However, Barāq Khan also failed to found an Urusid dynasty since he was killed by one of his foes in Moghulistan in 1428–29.20 Rule over the eastern Qipchaq Steppe then passed to Abū al-Khair Khan, who was a descendant of Shībān, the fifth son of Jochi. Abū al-Khair Khan first started his political career as a liegeman of another Shibanid prince, but in 1428, he was elected khan among the nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe. In the Nusakh-i jahān-ārā, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ghaffārī writes that Abū al- Khair Khan rose to power benefitting from the rivalries between the sons of Toqtamïsh Khan and those of Urus Khan.21 In the following years, Abū al-Khair Khan subdued his rivals, invaded Khorezm, which was under Timurid juris- diction, and in 1446, he annexed the regions in the lower and middle course of the Syr Darya, including Sighnaq, which became his capital.22 By the mid- fifteenth century, Abū al-Khair Khan had united most of the nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe. According to Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Abū al- Khair Khan was, at that time, the greatest ruler (pādshāh) of the Jochid Ulus.23 Abū al-Khair Khan also exerted his power beyond the Qipchaq Steppe when he led his army to Transoxiana and defeated ʿAbdallāh Mīrzā, son of Ulugh Beg,

18 Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain,” pp. 257–58 (text), pp. 197–98 (trans.). 19 Žalayyr Qadyr-Ğali Bi, “Žamiğ at-tauarih,” in Qazaqstan tarihy turaly türk derektemeler, vol. 1, XV–XIX Gasyrlar šyğarmalarynan üzíndíler, trans. and ed. M. Q. Äbuseyítova (Almaty: Dayk, 2006), p. 160. 20 Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain,” p. 258 (text), p. 198 (trans.). 21 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ghaffārī, “Nusakh-i jahān-ārā,” in Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy ordy, vol. 2, izvlecheniya iz persidskikh sochineniy, trans. and ed. V. G. Tizengauzen (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1941), p. 271 (text), p. 212 (trans.). 22 Masʾūd Kūhistānī, “Tārīkh-i Abū al-Khair Khānī,” in Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV–XVIII vekov, comp. and trans. C. K. Ibragimov and others (Alma-Ata: Nauka Kazakhskoy SSR, 1969), pp. 158–59. 23 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, pp. 119–120. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 103 and in 1451, placed Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā, who had asked him for help against ʿAbdallāh Mīrzā, on the throne of Samarqand.24 However, Abū al-Khair Khan’s polity began to weaken even before his death due to an invasion from the east. In about 1457, the Qalmaqs, a Mongolic nomadic people also known as Oyirats, inflicted a severe defeat upon Abū al-Khair Khan’s army near Sighnaq and plundered Turkistān.25 When Abū al- Khair Khan died in 1468, his old enemies attacked his son and successor Shaikh Ḥaidar and killed him. Abū al-Khair Khan’s nomadic empire then quickly disintegrated and his descendants remained scattered for the next three decades. In sum, from the mid-fourteenth century onward, the eastern Qipchaq Steppe, which corresponds roughly to modern Kazakhstan, became the birthplace of several competent Jochid leaders. While no Jochid prince from the western Qipchaq Steppe gained full control of the right wing, let alone the entire Jochid Ulus, the Toqay-Timurid rulers Urus Khan, Toqtamïsh Khan, and Barāq Khan, and the Shibanid ruler Abū al-Khair Khan succeeded one after another in creating their own nomadic empires in the Qipchaq Steppe. Yet, neither they nor their immediate successors succeeded in perpetuating their newly created polities. However, over the course of a century-long succession struggle, two prominent Jochid lineages were formed in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe: the Urusid and the Abū al-Khairid clans. A new generation of political leaders arose among them and succeeded in founding a lasting dynasty of their own at the turn of the sixteenth century.

Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s Qazaqlïq

Separation from Abū al-Khair Khan’s Uzbek Ulus Abū al-Khair Khan was a powerful ruler who did not tolerate any opposition. Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan states in the Šajara-i Türk:

24 Masʾūd Kūhistānī, “Tārīkh-i Abū al-Khair Khānī,” p. 167. 25 Masʾūd Kūhistānī, “Tārīkh-i Abū al-Khair Khānī,” pp. 169–70. In modern literature, the term Turkistan is used to designate the oasis regions of Central Asia, i.e., Transoxiana (Western Turkistan) and the Tarim Basin (Eastern Turkistan). However, in the medieval and early modern periods, Turkistān denoted the steppes north of the Syr Darya River that was inhabited by Turkic nomads. It also came to denote Yassī, a town on the middle Syr Darya River. In this chapter, Turkistān refers to Yassī unless indicated otherwise. 104 CHAPTER 4

He was a person who made his friends laugh but made his enemies cry. Among his kinsmen sitting around him, there was no one at whom he did not shoot arrows and whom his arm did not reach (dūstlarnï küldürüp dušmanlarnï yaġla tib yürügän kiši erdi tört yanïndaġï olturġan qarïndašlarïnïng hīč qaysïna tīri ötmägän vä qolï yetmägäni yoq erdi).26

Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt also writes in the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī that “in those days, Abū al-Khair Khan completely dominated the Qipchaq Steppe. The Jochid sulṭāns were oppressed” (dar ān ayyām Abū al-Khair Khān istīlā-yi tamām dar Dasht-i Qīpchāq dāsht. Salāṭīn-i Jūchī-nizhād muʿtariż mī shud).27 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt goes on to say that Abū al-Khair Khan “wanted to eliminate, with complete farsightedness, any prince of the Jochid line from whom he smelled the scent of rebellion” (baʿżī az salāṭīn-i Jūchī-nizhād, har kas ki az vay ravāyiḥ-i fitna bi tamām dūrāndīshī istishmām mīnumūd, ān-rā mīkhvāst ki nāchīz gardānad).28 Under such circumstances, two Jochid princes, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, resented their subordinate status and decided to flee from their state, like many other Central Eurasian figures had done in order to avoid difficult political situations. Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan were by no means petty fugitives for they were members of a good lineage. The Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat- nāma refers to them as the sons of Barāq Khan, although in the section where the genealogy of the Toqay-Timurids is given only Jānībeg Khan is presented as a son of Barāq Khan, while Girāy Khan is introduced as a great grandson of Urus Khan.29 Whether Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan were brothers or dis- tant cousins, they were both descended from Urus Khan. Accordingly, a number of Central Asian sources present Urus Khan as the ancestor of the Qazaq khans. For instance, in the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma, Girāy Khan’s son Burūndūq Khan is specifically addressed as a descendant of Urus.30 In Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī’s Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, the history of the Qazaq khans, that is, the descendants of Jānībeg Khan, is included in the dāstān (tale) devoted to Urus Khan.31

26 Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, p. 190 (text). 27 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 108. 28 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 404. 29 See “Tauarih-i guzida-yi nūsrat-name,” pp. 24–25, 49. 30 See “Tauarih-i guzida-yi nūsrat-name,” p. 23. 31 See Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī, Sbornik letopisei: Tatarskii tekst, s russkim predisloviem, ed. I. Berezin (Kazan, 1854), pp. 154–55; and Žalayyr Qadyr-Ğali Bi, “Žamiğ at-tauarih,” pp. 159–60. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 105

According to Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan fled from Abū al-Khair Khan with a few of his men and went to Moghulistan.32 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī writes as follows about the flight of the two Toqay- Timurid princes in his Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār:

[Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan] left the circle of obedience and subordi- nation and chose to leave their homeland. They took their hearts away from their inherited land and set foot on the path of exile. With a group of people who recognized their fate, they set out for Moghulistan (pāy az dāyira-i iṭāʿat va inqiyād bīrūn nihāda jalāy-i vaṭan ikhtiyār nimūdand va dil az mamlakat-i maurūs̱ī bardāshta qadam dar ṭarīq-i ghurbat guẕāshtand va ba ṭāyifa-i az qadarshināsān rāh-i Mughūlistān pīsh giriftand).33

Sources such as the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī or the Baḥr al-asrār do not explain when Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s separation from Abū al-Khair Khan took place. It may be that it happened some time after the latter’s power waned as a result of the crushing defeat that he suffered at the hands of the Qalmaqs in 1457. However, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s flight from Abū al-Khair Khan may also have taken place earlier than 1457 because the Ming Shilu, the imperial annals of the Ming Dynasty, records that they sent envoys to the Ming court in 1451. The names of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, along with that of the Chaghatayid khan Esen Buqa, appear in the list of several sulṭans of “the western regions” that sent envoys to the Ming court in 1451.34 Even though the record in the Ming Shilu does not provide any direct evidence regarding the year of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s separation from Abū al-Khair Khan, it shows that by 1451, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan were acting as autonomous princes with their own diplomatic initiatives. The place Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan chose for their exile was Moghulistan, the eastern branch of the former Chaghatayid Khanate. It was

32 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 404. 33 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fols. 131b–132a. 34 Chen Gaohua 陈高华, ed., Mingdai Hami Tulufan ziliao huibian 明代哈密吐鲁番资料汇编 (Urumqi: Xinjiang ren min chu ban she, 1984), p. 110. Based on this information, Kim Hodong argues that Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s flight to Moghulistan took place in the early 1450s. Kim Hodong, “15–16 segi Jungang asia sin yumogjibdan deul-ui donghyang–jeongi Mogulhangug ui bunggoe wa gwanlyeonhayeo [The new nomadic groups of Central Asia in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries—in relation to the collapse of the early Moghul Khanate],” Russia Yeongu 3, no. 1 (Seoul: 1993): 105. 106 CHAPTER 4 then ruled by the Chaghatayid khan Esen Buqa, who treated Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan well and settled them in the western frontier of Moghulistan.35 According to Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Esen Buqa Khan regarded Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s arrival as a benefit (khayr) because his brother Yūnus Khan, a counterclaimant to the throne of Moghulistan, had just established himself near his western border with the support of the Timurid ruler of Samarqand, Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā (r. 1451–69). The pastureland Esen Buqa Khan gave Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan in western Moghulistan served as a buffer zone (vāsiṭa) between his domain and that of Yūnus Khan.36 It should be noted that Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s choice of destination and Esen Buqa Khan’s amicable reception reflected a long standing political relationship that had existed between the Jochid Ulus, the Timurid state, and Moghulistan throughout the previous century. Along with the enmity between Moghulistan and Transoxiana, there existed a kind of loose family alliance between the Abū al-Khairids and the Timurids, as well as a hostile relationship between the Timurids and Urus Khan’s family. As mentioned earlier, the Timurid ruler Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā was able to gain control of the throne of Samarqand in 1451 thanks to the military assistance of Abū al-Khair Khan. Therefore, when Sulṭān-Aḥmad Mīrzā, son of Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā, later asked Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, grandson of Abū al-Khair Khan, to assist him in his campaign against Moghulistan, he reminded the latter of the former alliance between his father and Abū al-Khair Khan.37 Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara, the Timurid ruler of Khorasan, also visited Abū al-Khair Khan in 1468 to seek his help and was well treated even though their joint military action did not mate- rialize due to Abū al-Khair Khan’s death. In contrast, Temür supported Toqtamïsh who fled from Urus Khan in 1376, and their joint military action caused the death of two of Urus Khan’s sons. Half a century later, Barāq Khan, the former protégé of Ulugh Beg, clashed with the latter over the ownership of Sighnaq and plundered Transoxiana, thereby prolonging the hostile relationship between the two families. Therefore, the formation of a new alliance between the two Jochid princes and Esen Buqa Khan in the face of a common enemy, the Timurids, should be viewed as a logi- cal consequence of the political dynamics in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Central Asia.

35 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 404. 36 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fol. 132a. 37 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 28; and Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” in Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV–XVIII vekov, comp. and trans. C. K. Ibragimov and others (Alma-Ata: Nauka Kazakhskoy SSR, 1969), p. 107. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 107

Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s Qazaqlïq and the Rise of the Qazaq Uzbek Ulus After fleeing from Abū al-Khair Khan, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s Uzbeks lived the life of political vagabondage and brigandage in the western part of Moghulistan, i.e., present-day south-eastern Kazakhstan. According to the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, these dissident Uzbeks who escaped and separated (gurīkhta judā shudand) from the mass of their people (mardum-i bisyār) wandered around destitute (bī sāmān va sargardān mī-būdand) and were given the designation qazaq.38 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī relates that because the Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan “spent their time plundering the Qalmaq and Qirghiz tribes and in the border regions engaged in stealing like wolves” (rūzgār bi-tākht va tārāj-i aqvām-i Qalīmāq va Qirghīz mīguẕarānīdand va dar ḥavāshī-i mamālik bi-gurg-rubāyī mashghūl būdand), the name qazaq was attached to them.39 These qazaq Uzbeks steadily grew in strength during the course of their qazaqlïq period. Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan were able to increase the number of their followers by providing refuge to “everyone, both rulers and soldiers, who turned against Abū al-Khair Khan” (har kas az shāh va sipāh ki az Abū al-Khair Khān mutanaffir mīgashtand).40 Abū al-Khair Khan’s death in 1468 and the ensuing succession struggle created an opportunity for Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan to become the dominant force in the Qipchaq Steppe. They began their counteroffensive against Abū al-Khair Khan’s son and successor, Shaikh Ḥaidar, and drew under their banners a great number of Uzbek nomads who were seeking a safe refuge. Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt relates that, after the death of Abū al-Khair Khan, enmities broke out among the Uzbek people and everyone, who could, fled for protection to Girāy Khan and Jānībeg Khan so that these khans became powerful.41 Ḥāfiẓ Tanīsh Mīr Muḥammad Bukhārī, the compiler of the ʿAbdallāh-nāma, or Sharaf-nāma-i shāhī, also writes as follows about what happened after Abū al-Khair Khan’s death:

People turned toward destruction and a great crowd hurried to the Qazaq khans, who were also of Jochid origin, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan. Bewildered, they found peace and repose there (mardum . . . rūy dar inḥiṭāṭ āvardand va khalqī farāvān pīsh-i pādshāhān-i Qazāq ki īshān nīz

38 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 404. 39 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fol. 132a. 40 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fol. 132a. 41 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 404. 108 CHAPTER 4

Jūchī-nizhād būdand Jānībeg Khān va Girāy Khān shitāftand va ānjā sarāsīma-vār ārām va qarār yāftand).42

While the followers of the Qazaq khans Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, who provided stability in the midst of political turmoil, were growing in number, the polity of Abū al-Khair Khan’s son and successor, Shaikh Ḥaidar, was dis- integrating. According to the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-nuṣrat-nāma, during Shaikh Ḥaidar’s reign, the Uzbek people “stopped to honor the virtue and nobility of the great begs and his good kinsmen and his power diminished day by day.”43 With the shift in the balance of power between the two groups, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan were able to replace the weakened Abū al-Khairids as the new rulers of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe in the 1470s. This meant that Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan re-established the rule of the Urusid line in the former domain of their great-grandfather, Urus Khan, and their father Barāq Khan. A late sixteenth-century Muscovite letter mentioning the retinues of Kuchum (r. 1563–98), the last Sibir khan, thus refers to the Qazaq khans as the sons of Urus Khan (‘Urus tzaryovym detyam’), indicating that the Qazaq khans were viewed as the perpetuators of the Urusid lineage by contemporaries.44 After the deaths of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, their sons Burūndūq Khan and Qāsim Khan led the qazaq Uzbeks against Abū al-Khair Khan’s descendants, whom they succeeded in keeping out of the Qipchaq Steppe permanently. By 1500, the authority of the qazaq Uzbek khans of the Urusid line was firmly established in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe. The small group of dissident Uzbeks who had begun their qazaqlïq in the eastern frontier of the Qipchaq Steppe some twenty years earlier was transformed into a new state. The descendants of Jānībeg Khan formed the nucleus of the new khanate that lasted until the mid-nineteenth century when it was incorporated into the Russian Empire.45 They formed a class called aq süyek, or the White Bone, which remained the ruling elite of Qazaq society. The Qazaq commoners meanwhile formed the qara süyek, or the Black Bone class. These Black Bone Qazaqs later became divided into three jüzs, or hordes: the Ulu Jüz (the Senior Horde); the Orta Jüz (the Middle Horde); and the Kishi Jüz (the Lesser or Junior Horde), all of which

42 Ḥāfiẓ Tanish Bukhārī, Sharaf-nama-ii shakhi: kniga shakhskoy slavy, ed. and trans. M. A. Salakhetdinova (Moscow: Nauka, GRVL, 1983), fol. 40b (text), 1: 99 (trans.). 43 “Tauarih-i guzida-yi nūsrat-name,” p. 24. 44 See Sobraniye gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov, 2: 128. 45 After the death of Girāy Khan’s son Burūndūq Khan, the descendants of Jānībeg Khan became the only Jochid lineage to retain the throne of the Qazaq Khanate. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 109 were headed by the descendants of Jānībeg Khan.46 Traditionally, the Orta Jüz and the Kishi Jüz recognized the seniority of the Ulu Jüz. I am inclined to think that this political tradition arose possibly because the Ulu Jüz tribes descended from the Qazaq nomads who had participated in Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s qazaqlïq. The present habitat of the Ulu Jüz in southeastern Kazakhstan encompasses the region where the qazaq Uzbeks spent their qazaqlïq days.

The Qazaqlïq Days of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān

Escape from Astrakhan The rise of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan to power in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe in the latter half of the fifteenth century coincided with the fall of the Abū al-Khairids. While Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan were moving “from qaza- qlïq status of ambitious brigandage to istiqlāl, or sovereignty,” the descendants of Abū al-Khair Khan became utterly dispersed after the death of Abū al-Khair Khan and his successor, Shaikh Ḥaidar.47 Among the scattered Abū al-Khairids were two grandsons of Abū al-Khair Khan—Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān—whose father, Shāh Budāq, had died while the two brothers were still young. When the old enemies of Abū al-Khair Khan, including Ibaq Khan, the Shibanid prince of western Siberia, and Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan attacked and killed Shaikh Ḥaidar, the two brothers went to Hajji- Tarkhan (Astrakhan), which was under the control of their foster father. But in 1471 when Ibaq Khan laid siege to Hajji-Tarkhan, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān decided to leave the fortress and flee with their retainers, thus beginning their qazaqlïq that would last almost three decades.48 The small qazaq band that Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān initially led was made up of a handful of loyal servitors. According to the Shībānī-nāma, those cohorts who followed the two brothers were “forty

46 In Chapter 6, I discuss in detail the Qazaq oral tradition narrating the origin of the three Qazaq jüzs. 47 This expression is a quote from Stephen Dale. See Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises, p. 99. 48 In 1481, this Ibaq Khan attacked and killed Aḥmad Khan, the ruler of the Great Horde, who had just returned from the Ugra River after confronting the Muscovites led by Grand Prince Ivan III. The standoff between the Tatar and Muscovite forces in 1480 is known as the “Stand on the Ugra River (Stoyaniye na reke Ugre).” See Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey, 12: 202–3. 110 CHAPTER 4

The Qipchaq Steppe Hajji-Tarkhan

Lake Balkhash

Aral Sea Syr Darya Moghulistan Sighnaq Turkistan Caspian Sea Khorezm Otrar Sairam Khiva Transoxiana Tashkent Ferghana Bukhara Amu Darya Samarqand

Khorasan

Herat

FIGURE 5 Transoxiana and the Qipchaq Steppe, ca. 1500 old servitors, who, from generation to generation, have been foster-fathers and foster-brothers” (chihil nafar az bāyriyān-i qadīm ki pidar bar pidar ātāke va kökältash būd).49 Out of these forty loyal cohorts, twenty belonged to the Qūshchī tribe that had served the Shibanids since the time of Shībān, the fifth son of Jochi according to the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-nuṣrat-nāma.50 The two brothers and their followers then went to the province of Turkistān, which was under the Timurids, but had to flee again to Bukhārā since Girāy Khan came with a large army to drive them out of the region. Muḥammad Shībānī Khan had to spend two years in Bukhārā as a retainer of the Timurids before returning to the Qipchaq Steppe.

Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s Political Vagabondage and the Reunification of the Former Ulus of Abū al-Khair Khan The period of political vagabondage of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān can also be characterized as a period of brigandage. When they ran out of provisions, they often resorted to raiding their neighbors. Before reaching

49 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 13. 50 “Tauarih-i guzida-yi nūsrat-name,” p. 25. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 111

Turkistān after their escape from Hajji-Tarkhan (Astrakhan), Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s small qazaq band raided one of the amīrs of Aḥmad Khan, who was their enemy. In Turkistān, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan organized several raiding expeditions against neighboring uluses in order to obtain provisions. Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī writes in his Shībānī-nāma:

At that time, the provisions ran out in the camp. He sent . . . with a group of brave warriors of the army to plunder the ulus. When they arrived at the ulus, they plundered so much that they gained a lot of property. They returned after having taken the property (dar ān ḥāl dar āvard va āzūq tamām shuda būd . . . bā jamʿī az dilāvarān-i lashkar bi-tākht kardan bi-ulūs firistādand. va chūn īshān bi-ulūs rasīdand chandānki tākht kar- dand, māl-i bisyār bi-dast uftād va māl-rā girifta bāz-gashtand).51

According to the Baḥr al-asrār, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān engaged in plundering activities in the steppe and wilderness near Sighnaq.52 They also pillaged and raided some places belonging to Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan in Moghulistan.53 In the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma and the anonymous Shībānī-nāma, both written in Chaghatay Turkic, this period of wandering and brigandage undergone by the two grandsons of Abū al-Khair Khan is referred to as qazaqlïq. The Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma relates that Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and his cohorts “did not separate from one another in many wanderings during this qazaqlïq” (bu qazaqlïqda köp gardishlarda ayrïlmaġan turur).54 The anonymous Shībānī-nāma similarly writes that Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s qazaq band “did not separate from one another during their qazaqlïq” (qazaqlïqda ayrïlmaġan turur).55 The qazaqlïq phase of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān can also be considered a period of struggle for survival against the relentless attacks of Jānībeg Khan, Girāy Khan, and their sons, who were determined to expel the two brothers from the Qipchaq Steppe. As mentioned above, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān had to flee from Turkistān to Bukhārā because Girāy Khan came after them. On their way to Transoxiana,

51 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 15. 52 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fol. 143a. 53 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fol. 143a. 54 Tavarikh-i guzīda-Nuṣrat-nāma, p. 273. 55 Berezin, Sheybaniada, p. 63. 112 CHAPTER 4 they were attacked again by Iränji Khan, a son of Jānībeg Khan, and as a result, most of their bahadurs and amīrs became scattered.56 When Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān returned to the Qipchaq Steppe from Bukhārā two years later and went to Mūsā Mīrzā of the Manghit Ulus (Noghay Horde), they were once again attacked by the Qazaqs led by Jānībeg Khan’s son Qāsim Sulṭān and Girāy Khan’s son Burūndūq Khan. This time, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s qazaq band defeated their assail- ants with the help of the Manghīts.57 The two brothers were attacked again by Burūndūq Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, the eldest son of Jānībeg Khan, when they settled in Sighnaq after returning from the Manghit Ulus. A long siege ensued and Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, not being able to overcome numeri- cal inferiority, had to take flight to Mangïshlaq, a peninsula on the northeast shores of the Caspian Sea.58 The wheel of fortune finally turned in Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s favor when the Timurid ruler Sulṭān-Aḥmad Mīrzā, son of Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā, asked Muḥammad Shībānī Khan to take part in the campaign against Moghulistan, recalling the old alliance between his father and Abū al-Khair Khan. Muḥammad Shībānī Khan joined the expedition and led the advance party but unexpectedly decided to switch sides and joined the Moghul ruler Sulṭān Maḥmud Khan, thereby contributing to the latter’s victory over the Timurid army. In return, Sulṭān Maḥmud Khan gave Muḥammad Shībānī Khan the town of Utrar after they captured it from the Timurids. Sulṭān Maḥmud Khan also sent a relief army to Muḥammad Shībānī Khan when the Qazaqs, led by Burūndūq Khan and the sons of Jānībeg Khan, besieged Utrar. A while later, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān were attacked by the combined forces of the Qazaqs and Moghuls, who had allied themselves to quell the growing strength of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan. Yet once again, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan successfully held out against his enemies. The Qazaq khans then not only withdrew their forces, but also gave up the idea of eliminating Muḥammad Shībānī Khan. A truce, which included marriage alliances, was concluded between the two parties in 1500.59 As a result, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān survived the decades-long struggle against the Qazaq khans, and succeeded in establishing a foothold in the Syr Darya region.

56 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 16; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” p. 102. 57 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 20; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” pp. 103–4. 58 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” pp. 24–27; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” pp. 105–7. 59 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” pp. 50–51; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” pp. 120–21. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 113

For Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, who displayed their abilities as warlords during their war against the Qazaq khans, their qazaqlïq phase was not just a period of political hardship, but also an opportunity to expand their qazaq band or their ulus. Just as Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan had attracted new supporters during their qazaqlïq days, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān also rallied the Uzbeks, including the scattered followers of Abū al-Khair Khan, and steadily expanded their small qazaq band during their days of wandering in the political wilderness. In the Shībānī-nāma, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī describes how the number of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s qazaq band, initially made up of forty men, began to grow after the two brothers and their loyal servitors escaped from Hajji- Tarkhan and killed Ibaq Khan’s brother, revenging the death of their uncle Shaikh Ḥaidar:

When this news reached all corners of the world, the young arrived from everywhere, and the experienced elders joined together in groups in full hope until the number of the warriors of victory reached one hundred and fifty (va chūn īn khabar bi-aṭrāf va aknāf-i ʿālam rasīd, az har jā javānān rasīda va pīrān-i kār-dīda bi-umīdvārī-i tamām fauj fauj mulḥaq shudand tā ʿadad-i ʿasākir-i nuṣrat bi-ṣad va panjāh nafar rasīd).60

When Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān settled in Turkistān after their flight, Āq Sūfī Bahādur, a member of the Qūshchī tribe, came with the remainder of this tribe and joined their winter camp in Qarākūl, supplying a fresh force to Shībānī Khan’s orda, or camp.61 Thanks to this new supply of recruits, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan was able to organize the aforementioned raiding expeditions to neighboring uluses. Furthermore, after Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān with their small force defeated the large Qazaq army led by Qāsim Sulṭān, new followers joined them while they were visiting the Manghit Ulus. The Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma relates: “Having seen and heard that in the battle he accomplished glorious deeds, and having realized that he would reach his goal in the end, from all directions came good kinsmen, men, and braves. Then four hundred people gathered.”62 Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī also mentions in the Shībānī-nāma that bahadurs and amīrs joined Muḥammad Shībānī Khan

60 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 14. 61 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 15; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” p. 101. 62 “Tauarih-i guzida-yi nūsrat-name,” p. 28. 114 CHAPTER 4 until his army numbered four hundred.63 However, unlike the compiler of the Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī states that this event took place much later, when Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān succeeded in repelling the allied forces of the Qazaqs, Timurids, and Manghits after Muḥammad Shībānī Khan had helped Sulṭān-Maḥmūd Khan defeat Sulṭān-Aḥmad Mīrzā’s forces. At any rate, both sources agree that after these new recruits arrived, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan set out to invade Khorezm. After Muḥammad Shībānī Khan secured Utrar and added Sabrān and Yassī (Turkistān) to his domain, he himself began to recruit new supporters. He sent for the sulṭāns and the amīrs who were the old servitors of Abū al-Khair Khan scattered around the Qipchaq Steppe, or in the Chaghatayid ulus, i.e., the Timurid realms.64 According to the Shībānī-nāma, when the news of this recruitment of the sulṭāns and the amīrs became well known, people came from everywhere in full hope, including two of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s uncles, Sīyunch Khan and Kūchkūnchī Khan, and as a result, “a very large group was found in a short time” (dar andak zamānī jamʿīyat-i tamām bi-ẓuhūr payvast).65 Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s qazaq war band greatly increased in strength when Muḥammad Shībānī Khan first captured Samarqand in 1500 on behalf of Sulṭān-Maḥmūd Khan, who had failed to do so himself. According to the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, the Uzbeks joined Muḥammad Shībānī Khan from everywhere and by then his forces numbered fifty thousand.66 It should be noted that all these new recruits who gathered around Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, who was a successful qazaq leader, obviously became the source of manpower needed to conquer the Timurid states of Transoxiana and Khorasan.

The Conquest of the Timurid States and the Revival of the Abū al-Khairid Dynasty While the small qazaq war band of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan was developing into a force of fifty thousand warriors, a succession struggle was under way among the Timurid princes of Transoxiana following the death of the three sons of Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā in the mid-1490s. Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, who secured his northern frontier by concluding a truce with the Qazaq khans in 1500, embarked on the conquest of the Timurid state of Transoxiana. Just as Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan had seized the Qipchaq Steppe from the

63 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 37; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” p. 113. 64 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” pp. 52–53; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” p. 122. 65 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 53. 66 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 154. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 115

weakened Abū al-Khairids, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, who was just a petty ruler of a few oasis towns in the Syr Darya region, conquered Transoxiana by capturing the disunited Timurid cities one after another. In the course of seven years, he took not only Samarqand, Bukhārā, and Khorezm from the Timurids, but also Tashkent and Ferghana from the Moghuls. Muḥammad Shībānī Khan completed his conquest of the Timurid states of Transoxiana and Khorasan when he captured Harāt from the sons of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara in 1507. He then had his name and that of his grandfather, Abū al-Khair Khan, read in the Friday sermon (khuṭba), signaling the revival of the Abū al-Khairid dynasty.67 The Abū al-Khairid takeover of Transoxiana and Khorasan meant that the qazaq war band of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān had now become a new polity. It also meant that Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s status had changed from qazaq to sovereign. Actually, Central Asian sources do not clearly state when the period of qazaqlïq for Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān ended. A clue to this can be found in the Taẕkira-i Muqīm Khānī, a history of the Shibanid and Toqay-Timurid Uzbeks written by Muḥammad Yūsuf Munshī in 1704.68 In this work, the end of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān’s days of wandering is equated with their conquest of Transoxiana. Muḥammad Yūsuf Munshī writes:

For a while, el and ulus became dispersed, wandering aimlessly in poverty until the sulṭāns reached the age of discretion. Together with their tribes and relatives, they laid the foot of courage onto the path of conquering the province of Transoxiana and set out for it (muddatī īl va ulūs mutafar- riq va sargardān va bī sar va sāmān shudand tā sūlṭānān bi ḥadd-i tamyīz rasīdand. Bi ittifāq-i qabāyil va khvīshān pāy-i jalādat va dilāvarī dar rāh-i ṭalab nihāda bi ʿazm-i taskhīr-i vilāyat-i māvarāʾal-nahr ʿāzim shudand).69

Therefore, the conquest of the Timurid state in Transoxiana by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, or more precisely, the beginning of this conquest, may be regarded as the end of their period of qazaqlïq. In the revived Abū al-Khairid state, the former qazaq companions of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan constituted the nucleus of the ruling elite. The newly conquered territories were distributed as appanages to the Abū

67 Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar, 4: 379; and Thackston, Habibu’s-siyar, 2: 540. 68 For a discussion of the work, see R. D. McChesney, “The ‘Reforms’ of Bāqī Muḥammad Khān,” Central Asiatic Journal 24 (1980): 71–72. 69 Muḥammad Yūsuf Munshī, Taẕkira-i Muqīm Khānī, ed. Firishta Ṣarrāfān (Tehran: Mīrāṣ-i Maktūb, 2001), p. 11. 116 CHAPTER 4

al-Khairid sulṭans who had joined Muḥammad Shībānī Khan in various stages of his qazaqlïq. For instance, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan took possession of Samarqand, while he assigned Bukhārā to his brother Maḥmūd Sulṭān, and Tashkent to his uncle Sīyunch.70 Until the mid-sixteenth century, the Abū al-Khairid polity maintained a system of corporate or clan rule, in which the eldest member among the appanage holders succeeded to the throne.71 The Qūshchī tribe, whose members had constituted half of the qazaq war band that accompanied Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān from the beginning of their qazaqlïq days, also enjoyed special privileges in the Abū al- Khairid state. For instance, according to the anonymous Shībānī-nāma, Köpek Bey of the Qūshchī tribe received an appanage (Khorezm) along with other Abū al-Khairid princes.72 The members of the Qūshchī tribe became heredi- tary atalïqs (chief amīr) throughout the sixteenth century, including the reign of ʿAbdallāh Khan II (r. 1583–98).73

The Consolidation of the Two Neo-Uzbek States in the Oases and Steppes of Central Asia

The newly established Abū al-Khairid dynasty nearly collapsed when Muḥammad Shībānī Khan was killed in battle against the Safavids led by the new ruler of Iran, Shāh Ismāʿīl Safavī (r. 1501–24), in 1510. By the end of 1511, most of the territories that had been conquered by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan fell to a combined force of Shāh Ismāʿīl Safavī, Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur, the future founder of the Timurid Mughal dynasty, and the Moghuls. However, under the leadership of ʿUbaidallāh Sulṭān (r. 1533–40), son of Maḥmūd Sulṭān, the Abū al-Khairid princes, many of whom had probably spent their days of wandering and hardship together as qazaq companions, repulsed their ene-

70 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” pp. 80–81; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” p. 127; Muḥammad Shībānī Khan redistributed the appanages after the failure of his Qazaq expedition in 1510. The Abū al-Khairid princes were offended because of this. See ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī, “Zubdat al-ās̱ār,” in Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV–XVIII vekov, comp. and trans. C. K. Ibragimov and others (Alma-Ata: Nauka Kazakhskoy SSR, 1969), p. 134. 71 On the Uzbek principle of succession, see Martin B. Dickson, “Uzbek Dynastic Theory in the Sixteenth Century,” in Trudy dvadtsat’ piatogo Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov, Moskva 1960, vol. 3, Zasedaniya sektsii X, XI, XIII, 208–16 (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoi literaury, 1963), pp. 208–16. 72 Berezin, Sheybaniada, p. 91. 73 See Mansura Haidar, Central Asia in the Sixteenth Century (New Delhi: Manohar, 2002), pp. 47–48. The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 117 mies and re-established their authority over Transoxiana in 1512. Their domi- nance remained unchallenged until the end of the dynasty at the end of the sixteenth century.74 In the Qipchaq Steppe, Qāsim Khan (r. ca. 1511–21), son of Jānībeg Khan, succeeded Burūndūq Khan as the new ruler of the Qazaq Khanate by 1511. During his reign, the Qazaq Khanate developed into a nomadic empire that stretched from the Altai Mountains in the east to the Yayïq River in the west. In the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, Qāsim Khan is described as the most powerful ruler of the Qipchaq Steppe, or the Jochid Ulus, since the reign of Jochi Khan (d. 1227), possessing an army numbering over one million men.75 Babur also writes in his Bābur-nāma:

They say that among the Qazaq khans and sulṭāns, no one kept that ulus under control like Qāsim Khan. His army numbered close to three hundred thousand (Derlär kim Qazaq ḫan vä sulṭānlarïnïng arasïda heč kim ol ulusnï Qāsim Ḫanča żabṭ qïlġan emästür. Čerigini üč yüz minggä yavuq čïnarlar edi).76

During the reign of Qāsim Khan, the Manghits (Noghays), who occupied the central Qipchaq Steppe, were pushed further west.77 After the death of Qāsim Khan around 1521, however, the Qazaq Khanate experienced a period of decline during the reigns of his son Mamāsh Khan, and the two sons of his brother Adīq Sulṭan, Tāhir Khan and Buydāsh Khan. The Qazaqs became so divided that Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt remarks that after the year 940 (1533–34), “the Qazaqs became totally uprooted” (qazāq biʾl-kull musta⁠ʾṣal shud).78 More correctly, in the Tārīkh-i Ḥaidarī, written during the reign of Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan (r. 1538–80), the Qazaqs are described as being “dispersed” (parīshān) rather than “uprooted” (mustaʾṣal).79 The Qazaq

74 The history of the Chinggisid Uzbek dynasty up to the eighteenth century is discussed in the work by Robert McChesney. See Robert McChesney, “The Chinggisid Restoration in Central Asia: 1500–1785,” in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden (Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 75 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 405. 76 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 18; and Babur, Baburnama, trans. Thackston, 1: 23. 77 On the Qazaq aggressions against the Manghit Ulus (Noghay Horde) during the reign of Qāsim Khan (r. ca. 1511–21), see A. Isin, Kazakhskoye khanstvo i Nogayskaya Orda vo vtoroy polovine XV–XVI v. (Almaty: [s.n.], 2004), pp. 54–61. 78 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 109. 79 See Ḥaidar b. ʿAlī Ḥusainī Rāzī, “Tārīkh-i Ḥaidarī,” in Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy ordy, vol. 2, izvlecheniya iz persidskikh sochineniy, trans. and ed. 118 CHAPTER 4

Khanate soon regained its supremacy over the eastern Qipchaq Steppe during the long reigns of Qāsim Khan’s son Ḥaqq Naẓar, and Ḥaqq Naẓar’s son Tavakkul Khan (r. 1582–98). The Urusid clan remained as the dynasts of the Qazaq Khanate until the mid-nineteenth century. In the middle of the sixteenth century, the Abū al-Khairid dynasty entered a phase of inter-clan warfare that lasted until 1581.80 The Abū al-Khairid rulers of each appanage were engaged in an internecine struggle until ʿAbdallāh Sulṭān, who since 1561 had been the de facto ruler of the appanage of Bukhārā, subdued all the other sulṭāns by 1581. ʿAbdallāh Sulṭān (r. 1583–98) became khan after his father Iskandar’s death in 1583, and from then on embarked on the conquest of neighboring regions. During his reign, he captured Badakhshān from the Timurid Mughals under Akbar (r. 1556–1605) in 1584, and Khorasan from the Safavids ruled by Shāh ʿAbbās I (r. 1588–1629) by 1589. Khorezm was also annexed to his realm in 1594–95. Although ʿAbdallāh Khan II’s death and his son’s assassination in 1598 brought about a brief interregnum and the change of the Uzbek dynasty from the Abū al-Khairids to the Toqay-Timurids, or Astrakhanids, in 1599, the Uzbek domination of Transoxiana and Balkh remained unbroken for another two and a half centuries.81 In sum, the Abū al-Khairid princes, who had participated in the qazaqlïq of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, and their descendants retained supremacy over Transoxiana and adjacent regions throughout the sixteenth century, while the descendants of the two qazaq khans of Urusid lineage, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, ruled over the eastern Qipchaq Steppe well into the mid-nineteenth century. In other words, the two rival Uzbek fugitive groups that had undergone the period of qazaqlïq consecutively during the

V. G. Tizengauzen (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1941), p. 274 (text), p. 215 (trans.). 80 The political history of the Abū al-Khairids from the mid-sixteenth century is discussed in great detail in the monograph by Audrey Burton. Audrey Burton, The Bukharans: A Dynastic, Diplomatic and Commercial History 1550–1702 (New York: St. Martin’s, 1997). 81 For the career of Bāqī Muḥammad Khan (r. 1603–5), the real founder of the Toqay-Timurid Uzbek dynasty at the turn of the seventeenth century, see McChesney, “The ‘Reforms’ of Bāqī Muḥammad Khān,” pp. 75–84. For a detailed account of the Toqay-Timurids’ acquisition of power in the Uzbek Khanate at the turn of the seventeenth century, see Thomas Welsford, Four Types of Loyalty in Early Modern Central Asia: The Tūqāy-Timūrid Takeover of Greater Mā Warā al-Nahr, 1598–1605, Brill’s Inner Asian Library 27 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). For a study of the political history of the Toqay-Timurid Uzbek dynasty, see A. K. Alekseev, Politicheskaya istoriya Tukay-timuridov: Po materialam persidskogo istoricheskogo sochineniya Bakhr al-asrar (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo S.-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, 2006). The Qazaqlïq of Two Rival Chinggisid Clans 119 Jochi

Batu (eldest son) Shiban (fth son) Toqay-Temür (r. 1227–55) (thirteenth son)

< The khans of the right wing of the Jochid Ulus (Golden Horde) > Urus Khan (r. ca. 1368–78) Abū al-Khair Khan (r. 1428–68) Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan

Muḥammad Shībānī Khan (r. 1500–10) and Maḥmūd Sulṭān

Qāsim Khan (r. ca. 1511–21) ʿUbaidallāh Khan (r. 1533–40) ʿAbdallāh Khan Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan (r. 1583–98) (r. 1538–80) < The khans of the Shibanid Uzbeks> < The Qazaq khans > FIGURE 6 The Genealogical Tree of the Jochid Khans second half of the fifteenth century in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe developed into two separate uluses or states based in the oases and the steppe regions of Central Asia, respectively. … The Qazaqs emerged as a new nomadic people in the sixteenth century as a result of the division of the Uzbek Ulus and the formation of two separate Uzbek khanates and uluses. These developments had their origins in the qazaqlïq activities of two Uzbek fugitive bands in the second half of the fifteenth century that 120 CHAPTER 4 were related to the rivalry and conflict between the two most prominent Jochid families of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe during that century. The early Qazaqs are the subject of an article by Beatrice Forbes Manz dealing with the effect of the multi-ethnic empires on the formulation of identity. In it, Manz touches on the topic of the formulation of Qazaq identity. Manz argues that the Qazaq identity emerged as a result of the divisions of the Turko-Mongolian ruling group of the former Mongol Empire from the fifteenth century onwards. More specifically, the Qazaqs arose when the nomad confederation of the Jochid Ulus split into the Uzbeks, who chose closer relations with the settled population of Transoxiana, and the Qazaqs, who retained a more nomadic way of life in the Qipchaq Steppe.82 This study builds on this explanation and adds that the migration of the Shibanid Uzbeks to the sedentary oasis region of Central Asia and the establishment of the qazaq Uzbeks in the Qipchaq Steppe did not result from ideological differences. Their differentiation originates from the two interrelated but conflictual qazaqlïq experiences of the Uzbek nomads in the second half of the fifteenth century. The selection of oasis versus steppe as their abodes was not the cause of their separation but the result of their division. The connection between the two above-discussed qazaqlïqs of the Uzbek nomads in the second half of the fifteenth century and the formation of the Qazaqs has not received sufficient attention by modern scholars. In general, Central Asian history specialists are more interested in explaining the emergence of “the Qazaq Khanate” as resulting from the separation of the Uzbek nomads led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan from Abū al-Khair Khan, rather than examining the formation of “the Qazaq people” in relation to the more complex historical process that involved the two sets of qazaqlïq activities undertaken by rival Chinggisid clans and the subsequent formation of the two Uzbek uluses. As will be further discussed in the next chapter, the formation of a separate Qazaq identity was a product of the qazaqlïq phenomenon.

82 Beatrice Forbes Manz, “Multi-Ethnic Empires and the Formation of Identity,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 26, no. 1 (2003): 87–90. CHAPTER 5 The Formation of a Separate Qazaq Identity

The Origin and Meaning of the Designation Uzbek

The division of the nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe into the Qazaq ulus and the Shibanid Uzbek ulus in the sixteenth century was one of the most important developments of new identities that occurred in post-Mongol Central Eurasia: it shaped the ethnic and political map of modern Central Asia. Importantly, prior to this differentiation, the nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe who constituted the two qazaq warrior bands led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, and by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, respectively, were collectively known to their contemporaries as Uzbeks. Central Asian historians such as Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan and the author of the Shajarat al-atrāk, an abridgement of the Tārīkh-i arbaʿ ulūs by Ulugh Beg, traced the origin of the designation Uzbek to Uzbek Khan (r. 1313–41), the ruler of the Jochid Ulus.1 According to Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan, the people of the Jochid Ulus were called Uzbek after they were converted to Islam under Uzbek Khan.2 In the Šajara-i Türk, Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan relates:

He [Uzbek Khan] brought the el and ulus to the faith of Islam. Thanks to this possessor of good fortune, all the people had the honor of receiving the glory of Islam. It is after him that all the el of Jochi was called the el of Uzbek (el ulusnï dīn-i islāmġa körküzdi barča ḫalq ol ṣāḥib-i davlatnïng sababïndïn šaraf-i islāmġa mušarraf boldïlar andïn song barča Jochi elini Özbäk eli tidilär).3

1 Two Safavid historians, Ḥaidar b. ʿAlī Ḥusainī Rāzī and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ghaffārī, also write that the people of the Ulus of Jochi became known as Uzbeks after the reign of Uzbek Khan. See Ḥaidar, “Tārīkh-i Ḥaidarī,” p. 272 (text), p. 213 (trans.); and Ghaffārī, “Nusakh-i jahān-ārā,” p. 270 (text), p. 211 (trans.). 2 On the Islamization of the Ulus of Jochi under Uzbek Khan, see Devin DeWeese, Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and Conversion to Islam in Historical and Epic Tradition (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994). 3 Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, pp. 174–75 (text), p. 18 (trans.).

The anonymous compiler of the Shajarat al-atrāk (and probably Ulugh Beg himself) provides a slightly different version of the story about the origin of the designation Uzbek. He relates:

When Sulṭān Muḥammad Uzbek Khan, along with his own el and ulus, attained the blessing and favor of God, his Excellency Sayyid ʿAṭā brought all of them to the region of Transoxiana and those who stayed behind without the blessing of Sayyid ʿAtā were designated as Qalmāq, which means “those who remained behind.” The people who left in the company of Sayyid ʿAtā and Sulṭān Muḥammad Uzbek Khan took the name of their commander and pādshāh, which was Uzbek, whenever anyone asked “who is this newcomer?” For this reason, from that time, the men who came were called Uzbak and the men who stayed behind became known as Qalmāq (chūn Sulṭān Muḥammad Uzbak Khān bā hamrāhī-i īl va ulūs-i khvūd vāṣil-i saʿādat va faẓl-i ilāhī gardīda-and ḥażrat-i Sayyid ʿAṭā tamāmī-i īshān-rā bi-jānib-i diyār-i māvarāʾ al-nahr āvard va az ānchi bī saʿādatānī ki . . . ḥażrat-i Sayyid ʿAtā . . . dar ānjā māndand mausūm bi-Qalmāq shudand ki bi-maʿnī-i māndanī bāshad va az ānchi mardumī ki bi-rifāqat-i. . . . Sulṭān Muḥammad Uzbak Khān ʿāzim shuda mī-āmadand har kasī ki az īshān mī pursīda-and ki īn āyanda kīst nām-i sardār va pādshāh-i khvūd rā ki Uzbak būd mīgiriftand bidān sabab az ān zamān mardum-i āmada mausūm bi-Uzbak shuda-and va mardumī ki mānda- and Qalmāq gardīda-and).4

It is clear that, whether these accounts reflect actual historical events or not, the designation Uzbek began to be used as a term denoting the nomadic people of the Jochid Ulus during the reign of Uzbek Khan. The Ilkhanid historian Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī Qazvīnī refers to the army of Uzbek Khan that invaded the Ilkhanate after the death of Abū Saʿīd Khan (r. 1316–35), the last effective Ilkhanid ruler in Iran, as Uzbeks (Uzbakiyān) in his Tārīkh-i guzīda and calls the Jochid Ulus “the kingdom of Uzbek” (mamlakat-i Uzbak).5 Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī Qazvīnī’s son Zain al-Dīn, who added the description of the events

4 “Shajarat al-Atrāk,” in Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy ordy, Vol. 2, Izvlecheniya iz persidskikh sochineniy, trans. and ed. V. G. Tizengauzen (Moscow and Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1941), p. 266 (text), pp. 206–7 (trans.). 5 Zain al-Dīn b. Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī Qazvīnī, “Tārīkh-i guzīda,” in Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy ordy, Vol. 2, Izvlecheniya iz persidskikh sochineniy, trans. and ed. V. G. Tizengauzen (Moscow and Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1941), pp. 221–22 (text), p. 95 (trans.). The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 123 that took place in Iran between 1341 and 1390 to the Tārīkh-i guzīda, also designates the Jochid Ulus ruled by Jānī Beg Khan (r. 1342–57), son of Uzbek Khan, as “the Uzbek Ulus” (ulūs-i Uzbak).6 Therefore, it may be assumed that the Jochid Ulus became known as the Uzbek Ulus after Uzbek Khan’s reign. The designation Uzbek was also used in Mamluk and Timurid sources to refer to the Jochid Ulus of the fourteenth century. For instance, in the Tārīkh al-duwal wa al-mulūk, the Jochid Ulus controlled by Mamay is called “the territories of Uzbek” (bilād-i Uzbak).7 The Timurid historian Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū also uses the designation Uzbek, when describing the Ilkhanid amīr Chūpān’s invasion of the Jochid Ulus in 1324. He states in his work that amīr Chūpān “entered the Uzbek Ulus” (bi-ulūs-i Uzbak dar-āmad).8 It should be noted that Timurid historians also regarded the Jochid Ulus ruled by Urus Khan, the ancestor of the Qazaq khans Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, as Uzbek. Describing a Jalayir amīr who revolted against Temür and fled to Urus Khan, Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī refers in his Ẓafarnāma to the Jochid Ulus as “the Uzbek domain” (vilāyat-i Uzbīk).9 Similarly, in the Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, Naṭanzī refers to the throne of the western wing of the Jochid Ulus, which Urus Khan had captured, as “the Uzbek throne” (takht-i Uzbak).10 Timurid historians also identified the Jochid Ulus ruled by Toqtamïsh Khan with the Uzbek Ulus. Describing the conquest of the Jochid Ulus by Temür, Naṭanzī states that “the entire capital of the Uzbeks was destroyed by the Chaghatay” (majmūʿ-i pāytakht-i uzbak dar zīr-i dast va pāy-i jaghatāy ʿālīyahā sāfilahā shud).11 Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī also writes in the Ẓafarnāma that “some of the Uzbek people” (baʿżī ulūs-i Uzbak), who were near the River Özi (Dnieper), were pillaged by Temür’s amīr ʿUs̱mān during Temür’s campaign in “the right wing of the Ulus of Jochi Khan” (ulūs-i dast-i rāst-i Jūchī khān).12 Elsewhere, Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī refers to the envoys dispatched to Temür by Edigü and Temür Qutluq Khan, who became the new rulers of the Jochid Ulus after Toqtamïsh Khan’s downfall, as “the Uzbek envoys” (īlchiyān-i Uzbak).13

6 Zain al-Dīn, “Tārīkh-i guzīda,” p. 226 (text), p. 97 (trans.). 7 Ibn al-Furāt, “Tārīkh al-duwal wa al-mulūk,” in Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy ordy, vol. 1, izvlecheniya iz sochineniy arabskikh, trans. and ed. V. G. Tizengauzen (St. Petersburg: 1884), p. 339 (text), p. 350 (trans.). 8 Ḥāfiẓ Abrū, Zayl-i jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 117. 9 Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma, 1: 71. 10 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 93. 11 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 349. 12 Yazdī, Ẓafarnāma, 1: 541. 13 Yazdī, Ẓafarnāma, 2: 34. 124 CHAPTER 5

Naturally, the Jochid Ulus ruled by Abū al-Khair Khan, the grandfather of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, was also called Uzbek. In the Tārīkh-i Raużat al-ṣafā, Mīr Khvānd designates Abū al-Khair Khan, from whom Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd sought military aid in 1451, as “the khan of the Uzbeks” (khān-i Uzbak).14 Mīr Khvānd’s grandson Khvāndamīr also refers in his Ḥabīb al-siyar to the army of Abū al-Khair Khan that fought on Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd’s side against ʿAbdallāh Mīrzā, son of Ulugh Beg, as Uzbeks (Uzbakān).15 In sum, the designation Uzbek, which is usually associated in modern scholarly literature with the ulus of Abū al-Khair Khan and his descendants, was a generic name attached to the Jochid Ulus after the reign of Uzbek Khan (r. 1313–41). It is not clear exactly when the designation Uzbek became fixed as the designation of the nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe, nor when it stopped being used for those of the western Qipchaq Steppe. However, it should be noted that the nomads of the Jochid Ulus ruled by Urus Khan and those by Abū al-Khair Khan were called Uzbeks without distinction. That is to say, the two bands of qazaq nomads led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, and Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān, respectively, were regarded as belonging to the same Uzbek ulus by their contemporaries in the late fifteenth century.

The Qazaq Uzbeks (Uzbak-i qazāq) and the Shibanid Uzbeks (Uzbak-i Shībān)

The designation qazaq, which began to denote independent warriors or political vagabonds in post-Mongol Central Eurasia, was also employed by the mid- fifteenth century to refer to some specific groups of warrior bands and brigands in both halves of the Qipchaq Steppe. The Nikon Chronicle makes mention of a group of border guards based in Ryazan that joined the Muscovites in the battle against Tatar invaders in 1444. These border guards are referred to as “the Ryazan cossacks (qazaqs)” (kazaki ryazan’skia).16 Around the same time, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandī refers to a group of Uzbek freebooters that appeared in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe as “the qazaq Uzbeks”

14 Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh Mīr Khvānd, Tārīkh-i Raużat al-ṣafā, ed. Riżā Qulī Khān, 6 vols. (Tehran: Pīrūz, 1960), 6: 776. 15 Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar, 4: 50; and Thackston, Habibu’s-siyar, 2: 378. 16 See Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey, 12: 62. The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 125

(Uzbakān-i qazāq).17 He also calls another group of Uzbek warriors that plundered the Māzandarān region in 1440–41 qazāqs.18 As discussed earlier, the name qazaq was also attached to the dissident Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan because they led the life of political vagabondage and brigandage in the eastern part of the Qipchaq Steppe in the second half of the fifteenth century. However, it should be noted that the qazaq Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan and their descendants were still viewed as Uzbeks by the following Central Asian writers, without being differentiated from the Shibanid Uzbeks. Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, who provides in the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī an explanation as to why these dissident Uzbeks acquired the designation Qazaq, is one of them. Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt refers to the Uzbeks led by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan not only as Qazaqs, but also as “qazaq Uzbeks” (Uzbak-i qazāq). As for the Uzbeks headed by the Abū al-Khairid clan, he calls them “Shibanid Uzbeks” (Uzbak-i Shībān).19 Furthermore, praising ʿAbd al-Rashīd Khan (r. 1533–60), the Moghul khan to whom he dedicated his work, for having achieved victory over the Qazaqs, Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt states that ʿAbd al-Rashīd Khan “triumphed over the Uzbeks” (bar Uzbak ẓafar yāft).20 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt also refers to the domain of Tāhir Khan (r. 1523–33) as “Uzbekistan” (Uzbakistān).21 Fażlallāh b. Rūzbihān Khunjī, the court historian of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, also identifies the Qazaqs with the Uzbeks. In his Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, which gives an eyewitness account of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s third campaign against the Qazaqs in 1508–9, Khunjī relates that there were three branches (ṭāyifa) that “belong to the Uzbeks” (mansūb bi-Uzbak). The first was the Shibanids (Shibānīyān). The second was the Qazaqs (Qazāq), “who are, in strength and ferocity, well known throughout the world” (ki dar quvva va ba⁠ʾs mashhūr-i āfāqand). The third was the Manghit (Manfit [sic]), “who are the rulers of Hajji Tarkhan” (ki īshān pādshāhān-i Hājjī Tarkhān-and).22 Consequently, Khunjī argues that “the Qazaqs are a branch of the Uzbeks” (Qazzāq yik ṭāyifa az Uzbak-and).23 Like Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, he refers

17 Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain,” p. 259 (text), p. 199 (trans.). 18 Samarqandī, “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain,” p. 258 (text), p. 199 (trans.). 19 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 187. 20 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 187. 21 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 541. 22 Fażlallāh b. Rūzbihān [Isfahānī] Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā: Tārīkh-i pādshāhī-i Muḥammad Shībānī, ed. Manūchihr Sutūda (Tehran: Bungāh-i Tarjuma va Nashr-i Kitāb, 1341/1962), p. 41. 23 Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, p. 171. 126 CHAPTER 5 to the Shibanids and the Qazaqs as “Shibanid Uzbeks” (Uzbakān-i Shībānī) and “qazaq Uzbeks” (Uzbakān-i Qazzāq), respectively.24 Khunjī deplores the fact that the Qazaqs and the Shibanids sell each other into slavery, treating their “own people” (qaum-i khūd) as war booty.25 He also identifies the two groups by relating that “there is constant strife and conflict among the Uzbek khans, especially among the Shibanid khans and the Qazaq khans” (miyān-i khānān-i Uzbak hamīsha munāzaʿat va mujādala ast khuṣūṣan miyān-i khānān-i Shībānī va khānān-i Qazzāq).26 Interestingly, Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī, who was himself from the Qazaq Jalayir tribe, refers to the Qazaq ulus as Özbäkya in the dāstān (tale) of Urus Khan and Uraz Muḥammad Khan that provides a brief account of the Qazaq khans.27 For instance, listing the names of such Qazaq khans as Jānībeg Khan and Barāq Khan, who were the ancestors of Uraz Muḥammad, Jalāyirī states that a certain Aḥmad Khan “is called Aqmat Khan by the Uzbeks” (Özbäkya Aqmat Ḫān tib eyürlär).28 Describing the left wing and the right wing of Urus Khan’s ulus called the Alach Thousand and the Qataghīn Thousand, respectively, Jalāyirī states that “these are the ones who have been Alach Thousand’s aghas. They are famous and well known in Uzbekya” (bu Alač mingining aġasï bola kelgän bular turur. Özbäkya arasïnda maʿlūm mashhūr turur).29

The Differentiation of the Qazaqs from the Uzbeks

To form a new tribe or ulus around a charismatic leader, often bearing the name of its founder, was a common phenomenon in post-Mongol Central Eurasia.30 The qazaq Uzbeks and the Shibanid Uzbeks, who were led by two rival clans, also developed into two separate uluses, and were perceived as such by their neighbors. The Timurid prince Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur, a contemporary of Qāsim Khan, always used the designation Qazaq when referring to the Qazaqs in his Bābur-nāma. For instance, Babur calls Qāsim Khan “the khan of

24 Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, p. 211. 25 Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, p. 42. 26 Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, p. 144. 27 See Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī, Sbornik letopisei, pp. 154–55, 162–71. Uraz Muḥammad Khan was appointed khan of the Kasimov Khanate by Boris Godunov (r. 1598–1605), the first non-Rurikid tsar of Russia, around 1600. 28 Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī, Sbornik letopisei, p. 164. 29 Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī, Sbornik letopisei, p. 171. 30 On the emergence of new tribes bearing the names of their founders in the Chinggisid world, see Golden, “Migrations, ethnogenesis,” pp. 118–19. The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 127 the Qazaq ulus” (Qazaq ulusïnïng ḫanï).31 Muscovite sources also refer to the Qazaqs simply as Qazaqs (Kazaki) and to the Qazaq ulus as the Qazaq Horde (Kazattskoy Orda), probably in accordance with the Manghit (Noghay) or Qazaq designation of the Qazaqs. In 1519, it was reported to the Grand Prince Vasiliy Ivanovich that the Qazaq Horde (Kazattskoy Orda) was pressing the Manghits (Noghays).32 In 1535, the Manghits (Noghays) reported to Muscovy that the Qazaqs (Kazaki) together with the Qalmaqs (Kolmaki) had attacked them.33 Again in 1569, it was reported that Ḥaqq Naẓar (Aknazar) of the Qazaq Horde (Kazattskoy Orda) and twenty other princes came to fight the Noghay Horde (Nogayskoy Orda).34 The Safavid historian Ḥaidar b. ʿAlī Ḥusainī Rāzī also attaches the designation Qazaq to the Qazaq khans in his Tārīkh-i Ḥaidarī. The Qazaq khans are referred to as “the sulṭāns of the Qipchaq Steppe who are known as Qazāq” (salāṭīn-i Dasht-i Qibchāq ki bi-Qazāq mashhūr-and).35 Shāh Maḥmūd b. Mīrzā Fāżīl Churās, who wrote the Tārīkh, a Persian history of the Moghul Khanate, in the latter half of the seventeenth century as a continuation of the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī by Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, also differentiates the Qazaqs from the Shibanid Uzbeks. For instance, he refers to Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan as “Ḥaqq Naẓar Khān Qaẕāq” and to ʿAbdallāh Khan II as “ʿAbdallāh Khān Uzbak.”36 Unlike Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, who describes ʿAbd al-Rashīd Khan’s victory over the Qazaqs as the Moghuls’ triumph over the Uzbeks, Churās depicts it as the Moghul victory over “the Shibanids and the Qazaqs” (Shībān va Qaẕāq).37 The early Shibanid Uzbek historians also began using the designation Qazaq to refer to the Qazaq khans and the people they led. In the Shībānī- nāma, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī seldom uses the designation Qazaq for the Qazaq khans but calls Jānībeg Khan’s son Maḥmūd Sulṭān “Maḥmūd Sulṭān Qazāq” in order to differentiate him from his namesake, Maḥmūd Sulṭān, the younger brother of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan.38 Although Fażlallāh b.

31 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 18. 32 M. K. Koygeldiyev and others, eds., Istoriya Kazakhstana v russkikh istochnikakh, vol. 1, Posol’skiye materialy russkogo gosudarstva (XV–XVII vv.) (Almaty: Dayk, 2005), p. 19. 33 Posol’skiye materialy russkogo gosudarstva (XV–XVII vv.), pp. 66–67. 34 Posol’skiye materialy russkogo gosudarstva (XV–XVII vv.), p. 151. 35 Ḥaidar, “Tārīkh-i Ḥaidarī,” p. 274 (text), p. 215 (trans.). 36 Shāh-Maḥmūd b. Mīrzā Fāżīl Churās, Khronika, trans. and ed. O. F. Akimushkin, Pamyatniki pis’mennosti Vostoka, vol. 45 (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka, 1976), fols. 47a, 53a (text), p. 155, 171 (trans.). 37 Churās, Tārīkh, fols. 47b (text), p. 156 (trans.). For some reason, the translator of the Tārīkh renders “Shībān va Qaẕāq” as “the Shibanid Qazaqs” (Shiban-kazaki). 38 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” 26; and Bināʾī, “Shībānī-nāma,” p. 107. 128 CHAPTER 5

Rūzbihān Khunjī regards the Qazaqs as a branch of the Uzbeks, he also uses the term “Qazaq ulus” (ulūs-i Qazzāq) for the Qazaqs while employing the term “Shibanid ulus” (ulūs-i Shībānī) for the Shibanids.39 Other later Uzbek historians used the term Qazaq more explicitly. In his Zubdat al-ās̱ār, ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī refers to the ulus of Qāsim Khan that fought against the Shibanid Uzbeks led by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan as Qazaqs.40 Similarly, Zain al-Dīn Maḥmūd Vāṣifī provides an account of ʿUbaidallāh Khan’s campaign against the Qazaqs in his Badāyiʿ al-vaqāyiʿ in a section titled “the Book of Conquest of the Qazaqs” ( fatḥnāma-i qazāq).41 In this section, he uses the terms Qazāq and Qazāqstān to designate the nomadic people of the Qazaq khans and their domain, respectively.42 Ḥāfiẓ Tanish Bukhārī, who compiled the Sharaf-nāma-i shāhī, or ʿAbdallāh-nāma, in the latter half of the sixteenth century, also differentiates the Qazaqs from the Uzbeks. For instance, he refers to Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan as “the Qazaq rulers” (pādshāhān-i Qazāq).43 Likewise, Khvājam Qulī Bīk Balkhī b. Qipchāq Khān, who wrote the Tārīkh-i Qipchāq Khānī in India in the early eighteenth century, distinguishes between the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks despite the fact that both groups were ruled by the Chinggisids of the same Toqay-Timurid lineage from the end of the sixteenth century. For instance, he refers to the armies of Qāsim Khan and Muḥammad Shībānī Khan as Qazaqs and Uzbeks, respectively.44 The same holds true for the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks who formed an alliance in order to drive the Chaghatay Mughal army led by Aurangzeb out of Balkh.45

The Uniqueness of Qazaq Identity

The ascription of the designation Qazaq to the ulus of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s descendants by their contemporaries signified that the Qazaqs had

39 Fażlallāh b. Rūzbihān Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, p. 148. 40 ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī, “Zubdat al-ās̱ār,” p. 133. 41 Zain al-Dīn Maḥmūd Vāṣifī, Badāīʿ al-vaḳāīʿ [Badāyiʿ al-vaqāyiʿ]. ed. A. N. Boldyrev, 2 vols, Pamiatniki literatuy narodov Vostoka: Teksty, Bol’shaya seriya, vol. 5 (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoy literatury, 1961), 2: 1308. 42 Vāṣifī, Badāīʿ al-vaḳāī ʿ, p. 1314. 43 Ḥāfiẓ Tanish, Sharaf-nama, fol. 40b (text), 1: 99 (trans.). 44 Khadzham-Kuli-Bek Balkhi, “Iz Ta⁠ʾrikh-i Kipchak-khani,” in Izvlecheniya iz sochineniy XIII–XIX vekov, trans. and ed. M. Q. Äbuseyítova and others, 369–80, Istoriya Kazakhstana v persidskikh istochnikakh 5 (Almaty: Dayk, 2007), p. 376. 45 Khadzham-Kuli-Bek Balkhi, “Iz Ta⁠ʾrikh-i Kipchak-khani,” pp. 378–79. The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 129 become a separate nomadic people who differed from the Shibanid Uzbeks. This point becomes clear if we consider the fact that the appellation Qazaq was the only expression of identity that set the Qazaqs apart from the Shibanid Uzbeks, with whom they shared such designations as Turk, Moghul, ulūs-i Jūchī, and Toqmaq, which had existed before the two groups underwent their respective periods of qazaqlïq in the second half of the fifteenth century.

The Designation Turk The designation Turk (Türk in Turkic), which initially encompassed the core tribes of the First and Second Türk Khaganates, went out of use as a self- appellation in the Mongolian Plateau with the collapse of the Second Türk Khaganate. Other Turkic and non-Turkic-speaking nomadic tribes such as the Uighur, the Qirghiz, and the Khitan that later occupied the Mongolian steppes retained their respective tribal names. For instance, the Uighurs did not identify themselves with the Türks, using the designation Turk only for the latter in their official inscriptions.46 Accordingly, the designation Turk (Tujue in Chinese) was not used as a term denoting other Turkic or non-Turkic tribes of Central Eurasia in the accounts of the “northern barbarians” included in the official Chinese dynastic histories. The Chinese histories reserve the use of the term Tujue to the members or the direct descendants of the First and Second Türk Khaganates. Other Turkic-speaking tribes such as the Tiele, the Uighur, and the Qirghiz are not called Tujue. On the other hand, the designation Turk became used as a generic term for the Inner Asian nomadic tribes in the Perso-Islamic world.47 For instance, Muslim geographers such as Gardīzī and Marvazī describe all the northern peoples, including some Finno-Ugrian and Slavic peoples, as Turks.48

46 See Talat Tekin, “The Tariat (Terkhin) Inscription,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37 (1983): 46 (text), 49 (trans.). 47 V. V. Barthold ascribes the spread of the name Turk to Muslim authors. See V. V. Bartol’d, Ocherk istorii turkmenskogo naroda, in V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya, vol. 2, pt. 1, ed. B. G. Gafurov (Moscow: Nauka, 1963), pp. 553–54. Peter Golden on the other hand assumes that the name Turk was still used in the non-Islamic Turkic world after the fall of the Second Türk Khaganate independently from Muslim usage. He shows in his work that Türk continued to have some use in Turkic to denote the Turkic literary language among the Qocho Uighurs. See Peter Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1992), pp. 115–16. 48 See Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī, Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī on China, the Turks and India: Arabic text (circa AD 1120) with an English translation and commentary by V. Minorsky, trans. V. Minorsky (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1942), pp. 29–36; and 130 CHAPTER 5

The designation Turk, as a generic term for the Central Eurasian nomads or rather as an antonym of the designation Tajik, meaning the sedentary Iranian population, continued to be used in Mongol and post-Mongol Iran and Central Asia.49 Most notably, Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī, the author of the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, classifies all the nomadic tribes of the Inner Asian steppes as Turks, including non-Turkic tribes such as the Mongols and the Tanguts. He also states that all these Inner Asian tribes descend from the four sons of Dīb Bāqūy, son of Japheth, son of Noah.50 Accordingly, Rashīd al-Dīn refers to the original Mongol tribes that had gathered around Chinggis Khan as “Mongol Turks” (Atrāk-i Mughūl).51 The Timurid historian Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī expands this notion in the Introduction (muqaddima) to his Ẓafarnāma by developing a genealogy of the Timurids and the Chinggisids that includes such mythical figures as Turk Khan, a son of Japheth, and the twin brothers Tātār Khan and Mughūl Khan, great-great-great grandsons of Turk Khan.52 According to this genealogy, the descendants of Mughūl Khan, i.e., the Mongols, are a branch of the Turks. Naturally, the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks were also regarded as Turks by their contemporaries. Perhaps such a view is best reflected in the Šajara-i

A. P. Martinez, “Gardīzī’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2 (1982): 109–217. The eleventh-century Qarakhanid scholar Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī uses Turk specifically with reference to his Turks, i.e., the Qarakhanids, whom he distinguishes from the Oghuz. However, he also uses Turk as a generic term in his work following the Perso-Islamic tradition and not the Inner Asian steppe tradition. He traces the origin of the Turks to the biblical figure Japheth, son of Noah, and also identifies Alp Er Tonga, the legendary hero of the Turkic epics, with Afrāsiyāb, the Turanian hero of the Iranian Shāh- nāma. See Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Luġāt at-Turk), ed. and trans. Robert Dankoff, in collaboration with James Kelly, 3 pts. ([Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University], 1982–1985), 1: 82–83, 2: 225. In his famous Persian mirror for princes, best known as the Qābus-nāma, the eleventh-century Ziyarid ruler Kai Kāʾūs b. Iskandar also applies the term Turk to non-Turkic Inner Asian peoples such as the Tibetans, the Qay, and the Tatars. See Kai Kāʾūs ibn Iskandar, A Mirror for Princes: The Qābūs Nāma, trans. Reuben Levy (London: Cresset, 1951), p. 103; and Kai Kāʾūs ibn Iskandar, The Naṣīḥāt-nāma, Known as Qābūs-nāma, of Kai Kā’ūs b. Iskandar b. Qābūs b. Washmgīr [Qābūs-nāma], ed. Reuben Levy (London: Luzac, 1951), p. 63. 49 For the term Tajik in relation to the name Turk, see Subtelny, “The Symbiosis of Turk and Tajik,” pp. 48–49. 50 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 25. 51 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 112. 52 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fols. 16b, 17b. The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 131

Türk by Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan and the anonymous Shajarat al-atrāk. In his work, the title of which can be translated as “genealogy of the Turks,” Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan includes brief genealogies of the Qazaq khans and the Shibanid Uzbek khans.53 Such Abū al-Khairid khans as Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and ʿAbdallāh Khan II, and such Toqay-Timurid khans as Urus Khan, Barāq Khan, Jānībeg Khan, and Qāsim Khan are mentioned in this Chinggisid history.54 Similarly, the Shajarat al-atrāk, also meaning “genealogy of the Turks,” offers a brief description of the reigns of Urus Khan and Barāq Khan, the two progenitors of the Qazaq khans, in the section on the Jochid khans.55 Furthermore, the account relating the origin of the designation Uzbek in this work describes Uzbek Khan’s people or ulus as Turks. More specifically, the Shajarat al-atrāk states that the Uzbeks and the people of Turkistān were able to unite with one another because of their common Turkic origins. This account runs as follows:

When they arrived in the region of Turkistān, due to the passage of time, the people of Turkic origin, who inhabited those lands, joined the Uzbek ulus due to their close origin (va chūn bi-diyār-i Turkistān-zamīn rasīda- and binābar murūr-i ayyām mardum-i turk-nizhād ki dar ān sarzamīnhā būda-and az jahat-i qarīb aṣlī dākhil-i ulūs-i Uzbak shuda-and).56

The Shibanid Uzbek khans were also referred to as Türk by the Ottoman historian Muṣṭafa ʿĀlī. Although he seldom uses the designation Türk as a generic term in his work, Muṣṭafa ʿĀlī designates Chinggis Khan and the Uzbek khans as “the khaqans of the Turks” (ḫavāḳīn-i Türk) in his account of the Abū al-Khairid khans.57

53 As a matter of fact, the term Turk in this work denotes the Mongols and the Chinggisids. The same holds true for the term Turk used in the Shajarat al-atrāk. 54 Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, pp. 178–79, 182–83 (text), pp. 187–88, 192–93 (trans.). 55 Ulugh Beg, “Iz Ta⁠ʾrikh-i arbaʿ ulus,” in Izvlecheniya iz sochineniy XIII–XIX vekov, trans. and ed. M. Q. Äbuseyítova and others, Istoriya Kazakhstana v persidskikh istochnikakh 5 (Almaty: Dayk, 2007), pp. 104, 111. 56 “Shajarat al-atrāk,” p. 266 (text). It is not clear here whether Turkistān denotes the steppes north of the Syr Darya River or the city of Yassī. 57 Muṣṭafa ʿĀlī, Künhüʾl-ahbār, 5 vols. (Istanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1860–68), 4: 18. 132 CHAPTER 5

The Designation Moghul The designation Moghul, a corruption of Mongol, originally encompassed the core tribes of Chinggis Khan.58 It excluded other Mongolic or Turkic-speaking tribes such as the Jalayir, Oyirat, Kereyit, and Naiman. However, following the conquest of the whole of the Inner Asian steppes by the Mongols, the scope of the designation Moghul was expanded. After mentioning that the designation Tatar had become a generic term for the Inner Asian nomads due to the power and prestige of the Tatars, Rashīd al-Dīn describes in his Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh how the designation Moghul similarly became a self-appellation of other Inner Asian tribes. He relates:

In this time, because of the charisma of Chinggis Khan and his clan . . . other tribes of the Turks like Jalayir, Tatar, Oyirat, Öngüt, Kereyit, Naiman, Tangut, and others, each of which has its own specific name and special nickname, are proud to call themselves Mongol (chunānki dar īn zamān ba-vāsiṭat-i daulat-i Chingīz Khān va ūrūgh-i ū . . . dīgar aqvām-i atrāk mānand-i jalāyir va tātār va uyrāt va unkūt va kirāyit va naymān va tangqūt va ghair ham ki har yik-rā ismī muʿayyan va laqabī makhṣūṣ būda, jumla az rūy-i tafākhur khvūd rā mughūl gūyand).59

In the western half of Central Eurasia, the designation Moghul was seldom used as a political designation after the dissolution of the Mongol Empire in the middle of the fourteenth century. Even though the term Moghul continued to be used as a self-designation by the eastern branch of the Chaghatayid Khanate, it had a narrower meaning when compared to the term Moghul used during the Mongol period. According to Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, it only denoted the Chaghatayid ulus, or people, not the Mongols in general. Mentioning Ulugh Beg’s work on the four Chinggisid uluses, he relates that “one of the four is the Moghul. The Moghul has become divided into two branches. One is the Moghul and the other is the Chaghatay” (az ulūs-i arbaʿ yikī Mughūl ast. Va Mughūl bi-dū qism maqsūm shoda-ast. Yikī Mughūl va dīgarī Chaghatāy).60 The designation Moghul, however, continued to be used in Central Asian sources in relation to Mongol political traditions and even the identity of the Turkic nomad elites in post-Mongol Central Eurasia. For instance, the com-

58 For a likely explanation as to why the term Mongol changed to Moghul, see Igor De Rachewiltz, “The Name of the Mongols in Asia and Europe: A Reappraisal,” Études mongoles et sibériennes 27 (1996): 199–210. 59 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, pp. 57–58. 60 See Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 190. The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 133 piler of the Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, which is a genealogy of the Timurids and the Chinggisids, describes Temür as being of Mongol descent. Mentioning the ancestors and the tribe of Temür, he adds that “the chroniclers of the Turks, who are true in intellect, write that all the Mongol tribes descend from two persons who had gone to Ergüne Qun” (muvarrikhān-i atrāk-i sādiq al-ʿuqūl chunān taqrīr mī-kunand ki tamāmat-i aqvām-i mughūl az nasl-i dū shakhṣ and ki dar Arkana Qutūqūn rafta būdand).61 Naṭanzī, another Timurid historian, also associates Temür with the Mongols. Describing Temür’s military campaign against Urus Khan, Naṭanzī writes that Temür “threw . . . (?) according to the Mongol custom and he returned” (bar qāʿida-i sunnat-i mughūl sarā ān biy-andākht va bāz gardīd).62 The designation Moghul was used in connection to Temür by non-Timurid writers as well. The Tunisian historian Ibn Khaldūn calls Temür “the sulṭān of the Mughul and Tatar,” describing the meeting between himself and Temür.63 Similarly, the Ottoman historian Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī writes that Temür held a banquet according to “the Mongol custom” (Moġul āyīni) after his conquest of Anatolia.64 Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī also describes Temür as being of Mongol descent by explaining that he belongs to “the Tatar tribe called the ulus of Barlas” (ulus-i Barlas nām Tatar ḳabīlesi).65 The designation Moghul also seems to have been in use in the Crimean Khanate in the early sixteenth century. In a letter sent to the Polish king, the Crimean khan Meḥmed Girāy (r. 1514–23) styled himself as the king of the Mongols. He writes “the great khan of the Great Horde, the Qipchaq Steppe, and all the Mongols, pādshāh Meḥmed Girāy Khan” (ulu ordanung ulu ḫanï Dešt-i Ḳīpčāḳ barča Moġul pādšāhï Meḥmed Girāy Ḫan).66 Similarly, the designation Moghul was also employed to designate another Chinggisid ulus, namely, the Uzbek Ulus. For instance, Khvāndamīr writes that, with the support of Temür, Toqtamïsh Khan mounted the throne in Sighnaq

61 Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, fol. 3a. 62 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 425. 63 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ibn Khaldūn, Al-Ta‘rif bi-Ibn Khaldun wa-riḥlatihi Gharban wa-Sharqan, ed. Muḥammad ibn Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Cairo: Lajnat al-ta⁠ʾlīf wa-al-tarjamah wa-al-nashr, 1951), p. 366. 64 Muṣṭafa ʿĀlī, Künhü’l-ahbār, 5: 99. 65 Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî, Füsûl-i hall ü akd ve usûl-i harc ü nakd: İslam devletleri tarihi; 622–1599, ed. Mustafa Demir (Istanbul: Değişim Yayınları, 2006), p. 105. 66 V. Veliaminof-Zernof, Matériaux pour servir à l’histoire du Khanat de Crimée: Extrait, par ordre de l’Académie impériale des sciences, des archives centrales du Ministère des affaires étrangères, à Moscou (Saint-Petersbourg, 1864), p. 2. 134 CHAPTER 5

“according to the Mongol custom” (marāsim-i Mughūl-rā riʿāyat karda).67 Naṭanzī even refers to the amīrs of the Uzbek Ulus as Mongols. He relates that when Jalāl al-Dīn Sulṭān, son of Toqtamïsh Khan, gave complete power to the Tāzīks in his assembly, the Mongol amīrs became weak and seduced Jalāl al-Dīn Sulṭān’s brother to revolt.68 The Uzbeks continued to use the designation Moghul after Muḥammad Shībānī Khan founded the Shibanid Uzbek Khanate. Muḥammad Shībānī Khan gives himself that name in a ghazal that he wrote in Chaghatay Turkic. He writes “all the people are contained in me, but I am not contained in this people. The good and the evil are contained in me, but I am not contained among the Mongols” (Barča ulus mendä sïġar, men bu ulusa sïġmasam. Yaḫšï yaman mendä sïġar, men bu Moġula sïġmasam).69 Some later Uzbek historians also used the designation Moghul to refer to the dynasties they served. Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs, the author of the Firdaws al-Iqbāl, a history of the Qunghrat Uzbek Dynasty, describes the Qunghrat tribe, to which his overlord belonged, as being one of “the Mongol tribes” (aqvām-i Moġul).70 Describing a privilege given to the Naiman and Uighur tribes among the Uzbek el, or people, Mūnīs adds that this conformed to “the Mongol custom” (Moġul rasmi).71 Similarly, Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī Balkhī refers to his master Naẕr Muḥammad Khan (r. 1606–42 and 1648–51), a Toqay- Timurid Uzbek ruler of Balkh, and the Uzbek dynasty itself as Mughūl. In his Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār, a work that includes a detailed history of the Shibanid and Toqay-Timurid Uzbeks, he named the section dealing with the Uzbek khans as follows:

On the description of the conditions of the Mongol khans from the appearance of the dawn of the blessed existence of Japheth, son of Noah, peace be upon them both, to the happy days of his Excellency who has the rank of caliph, Naẕr Muḥammad Khan . . . (dar taużīḥ-i aḥvāl-i

67 Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar, 3: 427. 68 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 101. 69 Yakup Karasoy, ed., Şiban Han Dîvânı (Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu, 1998), pp. 184, 795; also see András J. E. Bodrogligeti, “Muḥammad Shaybānī Khan’s Apology to the Muslim Clergy,” Archivum Ottomanicum 13 (1993–94): 99. 70 Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs and Muḥammad Rīżā Mīrāb Āgahī, Firdaws al-Iqbāl: History of Khorezm, ed. Yuri Bregel (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), p. 193; and Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs and Muḥammad Rīżā Mīrāb Āgahī, Firdaws al-iqbāl: History of Khorezm, trans. Yuri Bregel, Islamic History and Civilization 28 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), p. 82. 71 Mūnīs, Firdaws al-Iqbāl, p. 103; and Mūnīs, Firdaws al-iqbāl: History of Khorezm, trans. Yuri Bregel, p. 26. The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 135

khavāqīn-i Mughūl az badv-i ẓuhūr-i ṣubḥ-i vujūd-i masʿūd-i Yāfis̱ ibn Nūḥ ʿalayhimā al-salām tā ayyām-i bā farjām-i ḥażrat-i khilāfat-rutbat Naẕr Muḥammad Khān . . .).72

Like Mūnīs, Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī Balkhī describes the Uighur tribe as belonging to the Mongols.73 As a matter of fact, to Amīr Valī Balkhī, the designation Mughūl (Mongol) was just an old designation for the Uzbeks. Explaining the designations of the inhabitants of Turkistān, he writes:

From the time of Japheth’s son, Turk, to the time of the reign of Mughūl Khan, the people of this land were called Turks. After the rule of Mughūl Khan over the tribes of that region, everyone in that country was called Mongol. After . . . the reign of Uzbek Khan, the inhabitants of that land are called Uzbeks until today (Turk b. Yāfis̱ tā hangām-i ẓuhūr-i Mughūl Khān mardum-i īn sarzamīn-rā Turk guftand va baʿd az tasalluṭ-i Mughūl Khān bar aqvām-i ān ḥudūd har ki dar ān mamlakat būd ū-rā Mughūl khvāndand va pas az . . . salṭanat-i Uzbak Khān sukkān-i īn sarzamīn-rā tā imrūz Uzbak mī-gūyand).74

Consequently, it is natural that the Qazaqs should also have been regarded as being of Mongol descent by Fażlallāh b. Rūzbihān Khunjī, who participated in Muḥammad Shībānī Khan’s campaign against the Qazaqs. In the Mihmān- nāma-i Bukhārā, Khunjī identifies the Qazaqs with the Tātārs, i.e., the Mongols. His description of the Qazaqs runs as follows:

The terrible ferocity and violence of the army of the Qazaqs, who, previously, at the time of the appearance of Chinggis Khan, were called the army of the Tātārs, are well known and mentioned by the Arabs and the Persians (ṣaulat va ba⁠ʾs-i shadīd-i ʿaskar-i Qazzāq ki dar zamānhā-i sābiq ki biʿādī-i ẓuhūr-i Chingīz Khān būd, īshān-rā lashkar-i Tātār guftandī mashhūr va maẕkūr-i alsina-i ʿarab va ʿajam ast).75

72 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār fī maʿrifat il-akhyār, vol. 1, part 1, ed. Ḥakīm Muḥammad Saʿīd, Sayyid Muʿīn al-Ḥaqq, and Anṣār Zāhid Khān (Karachi: Pakistan Historical Society, 1984), p. 17 (text). 73 Makhmud ibn Vali, More tayn, p. 17. 74 Makhmud ibn Vali, More tayn, fols. 156a–156b. 75 Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, p. 213. 136 CHAPTER 5

The Qazaqs themselves may also have shared the same idea about their ancestry according to an account recorded by N. I. Grodekov in the late nineteenth century. Grodekov’s informant, a Qazaq named Sulṭān Qanaev, expressed the view that the Qazaqs descend from three hundred Mongols in the following manner: “There were two brothers, Moghul and Tatar. From the former originate the Qazaqs. The Moghuls fought against the Tatars and were defeated by them. Three hundred men escaped from the battle and began to call themselves the Three Hundred. They took refuge in a mountain. They multiplied there and went out to the steppe.”76

Ulūs-i Jūchī and Toqmaq The term ulūs-i Jūchī (Jochi’s ulus) and the term Toqmaq were two other names that were used by contemporary writers to designate the nomadic population of the Qipchaq Steppe in post-Mongol Central Eurasia. The designation ulus- i Jochi, which literally means the people of Jochi, encompassed the nomadic population of Central Eurasia that had been brought under Jochid gover- nance in the first half of the thirteenth century, just as the designation ulūs-i Jaghatāy, or Chaghatay’s ulus, encompassed the Timurids and the Moghuls who descended from the nomadic subjects of Chaghatay Khan. To the Timurid historians, ulūs-i Jūchī denoted the Jochid Ulus, while ulūs-i Jaghatāy denoted the Timurid state. For instance, Khvāndamīr relates that Temür turned his attention toward Iran (mamlakat-i īrān) after consolidating his power in the Chaghatayid realm (mamlakat-i Jaghatāy), i.e., the Timurid realm, and the Ulus of Jochi (ulūs-i Jūchī Khān).77 Along with the Northern Yuan Mongolian chroniclers, the Timurid historians also used the designation Toqmaq to refer to the nomadic population of the Qipchaq Steppe, i.e., the Jochid Ulus. Therefore, they used both the terms ulūs-i Jūchī and Toqmaq to refer to the ulus of Urus Khan, the ancestor of the Qazaq khans. For instance, Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī relates that when Temür gathered “the whole Chaghatayid ulus” (tamāmī-i ulūs-i Jaghatāy) and crossed the Syr Darya River, Urus Khan also brought together “all the Jochid ulus” (tamām-i ulūs-i Jūchī).78 Naṭanzī also designates the domain of Temür Malik, son of Urus Khan, as “the Jochid ulus” (ulūs-i Jūchī).79 At the same time, Naṭanzī employs the term Toqmaq to refer to the armies of both Temür Malik and Temür’s

76 N. I. Grodekov, Kirgizi i karakirgizy Syr-Dar’inskoi oblasti, vol. 1 (Tashkent: Tipo-Litografya S. I. Lakhtina, 1889), p. 2. 77 See Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar, 3: 430. 78 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbbāsī, 1: 206. 79 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 427. The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 137 protégé Toqtamïsh. He calls the army of the former “the Toqmaq trouble makers” (būlghāūlān-i Tūqmāq) and the army of the latter “the Toqmaq army” (lashkar-i Tūqmāq).80 Naṭanzī also refers to the Ulus of Jochi as “the Toqmaq Ulus” (ulūs-i Tūqmāq).81 Likewise, the nomadic people of Abū al-Khair Khan, the ancestor of the Shibanid Uzbeks, are identified with the Jochid Ulus or Toqmaq in Central Asian sources. For instance, Khvāndamīr refers to Abū al-Khair Khan as “the pādshāh of the ulus of Jochi Khan” (pādshāh-i ulūs-i Jūchī Khān).82 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī calls the army that gathered around Abū al-Khair Khan “the Toqmaq army” (sipāh-i tāq [sic]).83 The seventeenth-century Buddhist Mongolian chroniclers employed the term Toγmaγ for the nomads of the Qipchaq Steppe irrespective of political divisions. For instance, in his Erdeni-yin Tobči, Saghang Sechen refers to the nomads of the Jochid Ulus during the reigns of Esen Taishi (r. 1439–55) and the Qazaq khan Ḥaqq Naẓar (r. 1538–80) as Toγmaγ without distinction.84 In mentioning the names of several Jochid khans, Lubsangdanjin, the author of the Altan Tobči, also designates both the Uzbek khan Muḥammad Shībānī and the Qazaq khan Ḥaqq Naẓar as Toγmaγ.85 In sum, the nomadic peoples of the Qipchaq Steppe, including the ulus of Urus Khan and that of Abū al-Khair Khan, were regarded as belonging to the same nomadic entity called Jochi’s ulus (ulūs-i Jūchī) and Toqmaq by their contemporaries in post-Mongol Central Eurasia. Importantly, the same holds true for the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks. … The Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks originally belonged to the same ulus, or people, of Jochi that, after the reign of Uzbek Khan, became known as the Ulus of Uzbek. Besides their common Uzbek ancestry, these two groups shared the same Turkic identity, which was an expression of Inner Asian

80 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, pp. 336, 425. 81 Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī, p. 435. 82 Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar, 4: 50. 83 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fol. 140b. 84 See Saghang Sechen, Erdeni-yin Tobci (‘Precious Summary’): A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662, ed. M. Gō, I. de Rachewiltz, J. R. Krueger, and B. Ulaan, vol. 1, The Urga Text (Canberra: The Australian National University, 1990), pp. 113, 141, 142. 85 Lubsangdanjin, Altan Tobči: eine mongolische Chronik des XVII. Jahrhunderts von Blo bzan bstan’jin, ed. Hans-Peter Vietze and Gendeng Lubsang (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1992), p. 90. 138 CHAPTER 5 nomadic identity, as opposed to the Tajik, or sedentary Iranian, identity; the same Mongol identity, which traced their descent from Chinggis Khan and the early Mongols, regardless of their being Turkic-speakers; and the Jochid identity, a variant of which was the Uzbek identity, as opposed to the Chaghatayid or other Chinggisid identities. What set the two nomadic peoples apart from each other was the Qazaq identity. It should be noted that the Qazaq identity, which was basically an anti-Shibanid or anti-Abū al-Khairid political identity, was formed and became consolidated as a result of the qazaqlïq activities of the Urusid clan headed by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan—activities that were closely interwined with the qazaqlïq of the Abū al-Khairid clan led by Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān. Perhaps the point can be made clear by noting that without Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s qazaqlïq activities, the nomadic people of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe would have retained the designation Uzbek. Likewise, without the qazaqlïq activities of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and Maḥmūd Sulṭān and the establishment of the Abū al-Khairid dynasty in Transoxiana, the qazaq Uzbeks, i.e., the Qazaqs would have remained as Uzbeks rather than adopting the designation Qazaq as a self-appellation. Therefore, the emergence of the Qazaqs as a separate nomadic identity should be viewed as being the outcome of the combination of the two consecutive qazaqlïq activities (ca. 1450–70 and ca. 1470–1500) led by the rival Jochid clans. Putting it differ- ently, the socio-political phenomenon of qazaqlïq not only played an important role in the process of state formation, but also laid the foundation for the emergence of new identities in post-Mongol Central Asia. The investigation of the multiple layers of identity shared by the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks at the turn of the sixteenth century teaches us that the designations Turk, Moghul, and Uzbek carried significantly different meanings during the post-Mongol period than they do now. In modern scholarly literature, Turk, Moghul, and Uzbek are virtually used as synonyms for the Turkic- speaking peoples, the Mongolic-speaking peoples, and the ulus of the Abū al-Khairids or the inhabitants of modern Uzbekistan, respectively. Such modern usage of the terms Turk, Moghul, and Uzbek may lead to misinterpretations of the group identities of post-Mongol Central Asia unless they are critically understood. The Formation Of A Separate Qazaq Identity 139

Turk

Mongol

Jochi’s ulus/Toqmaq/Uzbek

Shibanid Uzbek Qazaq Uzbek Qazaq

FIGURE 7 The Multiple Layers of Identity of the Shibanid Uzbeks and Qazaqs CHAPTER 6 The Legend of Alash Khan and the Genealogy of the Uzbeks

The Legend of Alash Khan and the Origin of the Qazaqs

The Qazaqs have traditionally been divided into three jüzs, or hordes: the Ulu Jüz (the Senior Horde) occupying southern and southeastern Kazakhstan; the Orta Jüz (the Middle Horde), which inhabited central and northern Kazakhstan; and the Kishi Jüz (the Lesser or Junior Horde) located in western Kazakhstan.1 These jüzs are made up of a number of tribes, subdivided into clans, to which individual Qazaqs belong. The legend of Alash Khan is a Qazaq oral tradition that narrates the origin of these three Qazaq jüzs. According to this oral tradition, which can also be considered a foundation myth, the first leader of the Qazaq people was Alash Khan.2 The importance of Alash Khan to the Qazaqs can be seen in the fact that the Qazaqs have been using the name Alash as a synonym for their nation. For instance, the short-lived independent Qazaq government (1917–20) that was formed after the Bolshevik Revolution and the party that ran it were named the Alash Autonomy (Alash Autonomiyasy) and the Alash Horde (Alash Orda), respectively. The Qazaqs in their entirety were referred to as “Altï san Alash (six components of Alash)” in the nineteenth-century Khoqand chronicle Tārīkh-i Shāhrukhī.3 According to Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev, a Qazaq historian of

1 The origin of the three Qazaq jüzs is not documented and thus historians are not able to precisely date the formation of this tribal division. Historians have proposed varying dates for the formation of the three Qazaq jüzs, ranging from the mid-sixteenth century to the mid- seventeenth century. Janabel even argues that the Qazaq tribal division appeared in the second half of the fifteenth century. See Janabel, “From Mongol Empire to Qazaq Jüzder,” 103–6. The term “horde,” originating from the Mongolian orda meaning “the royal tent or residence,” is often used to refer to the tripartite Qazaq tribal division. However, jüz in Kazakh literally means one hundred. Therefore, the three Qazaq jüzs can be rendered as the three Qazaq Hundreds. 2 Furthermore, the Qazaq shezhires, or genealogies, trace the descent of the Qazaqs from Alash Khan. 3 See T. K. Beisembiev, “Ethnical Identity in Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the 18th and 19th Centuries: According to the Khokand Chronicles,” Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies 6 (1991): 60.

9789004306493 The Legend of Alash Khan 141 the early twentieth century, the expression “Altï Alash (Six Alash)” probably began to be used since the reign of Tauke Khan (r. 1680–1718) to refer to the three Qazaq jüzs and other nomadic tribes that submitted to Tauke Khan.4 According to most versions of the legend of Alash Khan, the Qazaqs originated from a group of fugitives who selected Alash, an outcast prince, as their first khan. Apparently, such an account of Qazaq origin does not conform to the historical reality, which is that the Qazaqs emerged from the group of Uzbek nomads headed by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan who underwent a period of qazaqlïq in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe in the second half of the fifteenth century. This chapter is therefore devoted to an examination of the legend of Alash Khan in relation to the early history of the Qazaqs in an attempt to bridge the gap between Qazaq oral and written history.5

Different Versions of the Legend of Alash Khan One of the most detailed versions of the legend of Alash Khan was recorded by the Qazaq historian Chokan Valikhanov. According to this version, the three Qazaq jüzs, or hordes, emerged from the vagrant nomads that had fled from a certain ruler of Turan, named (in Cyrillic spelling) “Abdulla Khan” or “Abdul-Azis Khan.” These qazaqs formed a new polity when they chose as their first khan an exiled prince named Alash, who was the abandoned son of “Abdulla Khan”:

Very long, long ago, in Turan there was a king called Abdulla, but according to other [versions] Abdul-Azis-Khan. This king had a leprous son, thus named Alacha–blotchy faced.6 His father, following an old tradition

4 See Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev, “Proiskhozhdeniye Kirgiz-Kazakov i istoriya obrazovaniya Kazakskogo khanstva,” (1925), reprinted in Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev, Istoriya Kazakhs kogo naroda, ed. A. Takenov and B. Baygaliev, 132–88 (Almaty: Sanat, 2009), p. 184. 5 Only a few specialists in Qazaq history, such as Aleksandr P. Chuloshnikov and Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev, have attempted to investigate the historical basis of the legend of Alash Khan since several different versions of the legend had been collected in the nineteenth century by Qazaq and Russian ethnographers such as Chokan Valikhanov, N. I. Grodekov, G. N. Potanin, M. Zh. Kupeev, and Aleksei I. Levshin. For a discussion of the legend of Alash Khan, see Aleksandr P. Chuloshnikov, Ocherki po istorii Kazak-Kirgizskogo naroda v svyazi s obshchimi istoricheskimi sud’bami drugikh tyurkskikh plemen: Lektsii, chitannye v Orenburgskom otdelenii Moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo instituta v 1921 godu, pt. 1, Drevnee vremya i sredniye veka (Orenburg: Kirgizskoye gosudarstvennoye izdatel’stvo, 1924), pp. 269–80; and see Tynyshpaev, “Proiskhozhdeniye Kirgiz-Kazakov,” pp. 176–85. 6 The word alacha is rendered as spotted, blotchy, patchy, motley, variegated, varicolored, among others, by Gerhard Doerfer. See Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente, 2: 102. 142 CHAPTER 6

of ousting all those who are afflicted with contagious diseases, banished his son. At the same time, many of his subjects, dissatisfied with the cruelty of Abdulla and driven by hunger, went into the steppe, which lies north of the Syr River, to the deserts of Karakum and Bursuq, and started to live the life of qazaqs (kazachestvovat). The brave and bold batyrs increased in number to three hundred and gained fame, power, and wealth in a short time. Several years passed, calamities started: the band of qazaqs everywhere suffered continual defeats by their neighbors. The steppe vagabonds (vol’nitsa) suffered hunger, and a lack of leadership and disagreement among the members of the brotherhood led them to disorder and internecine strife. On top of misery, Abdulla himself, taking advantage of the situation, started to search for them, and only the force of fortune saved them from the final destruction. In such a deplorable course of events, a wise old man Alach (a foreigner, an alien) among the two hundreds appeared, and made a speech so powerful and convincing that the qazaqs proclaimed him their forefather and judge, and following his advice, they invited the leprous son of Abdulla, Alacha, and made him khan. Thus the steppe vagrants-qazaqs, having already established a well- organized society, and in a certain sense, a nation (natsiey), if this word can be applied to a nomadic people, were named Alach or—by the number hundred—Uch Alach (three hundred) in commemoration of their independence, sovereignty, and in special memory of their khan Alacha, and their father-judge Alach. (Quite a clever combination of alachs). But despite the apparent rebirth (vneshnee pererozhdenie), the neighbors and Abdulla himself, still saw them as vagabonds-freebooters (brodyag- razboynnikov), and the name qazaq stayed with them. Alach with Alacha and all three hundred of them, taking advantage of hunger and diseases among Abdulla’s people, made him acknowledge their independence in writing. This is how Alach became a people and Alacha their khan.7

Another version of the legend of Alash Khan was recorded by N. I. Grodekov. According to this version, the three Qazaq jüzs evolved from the three detachments of Uzbek border guards made up of bachelor horse riders. N. I. Grodekov writes as follows:

According to the legend widespread in the Syr Darya Region, the ancestor, that is, the first ruler of the Kirgiz, i.e., Qazaqs, was Alash, a contemporary

7 Valikhanov, “Kirgizskoye rodosloviye,” pp. 126–27. The Legend of Alash Khan 143

of Alasha Khan, which is why the battle cry of all three hordes is Alash.8 Alasha Khan sent three detachments of bachelor horsemen (kholostoy nayezdnik) from different Uzbek clans to the border region to guard his property. Staying there for a long time without wives, they tricked three hundred kibitok doly (Gypsies or wanderers) into coming to them by tell- ing stories about their wealth and they conspired with the wives to kill their husbands; and then took these women. The leaders of the three hordes after Alash were his three sons: the eldest—Bayshura, the middle— Dzanshura and the younger—Karashura. Having multiplied and become rich, the Kirgiz, i.e., Qazaqs, started to spread in all directions; they occupied: the Great Orda, the south, near the inhabited places, the Middle Orda—a place suitable for the pasturing of cattle, and the Junior Orda—a place bordering Russia.9

A longer version of the legend of Alash Khan was recorded by Grigoriy Nikolayevich Potanin. According to this version, the three Qazaq jüzs were formed when Alash, an abandoned prince and leader of a group of freebooters, was joined by Uysun, Bulat, and Alchin, the three sons of Kotan, and elected khan:

There was once a khan. This was near (the city of) Turkistan and it was at that time that Kotan, the forefather of the Kazak-Kirgiz people, i.e., Qazaqs, which consisted of five hundred families, lived. The khan had no children from his first wife and that is why he took a second wife, a maiden, whom he captured somewhere; he took the second wife to have a son and heir. And in fact the second wife gave birth to a son, who was blotchy-faced (ala), i.e., he had birthmarks. The first wife of the khan became envious and angry. She started to tell the khan that he should get rid of such a successor since he was blotchy-faced and could spoil all the offspring, who would also come out variegated and therefore would not live in peace, and would not have harmony among themselves. She said to the khan that if he could not kill his son, he should get rid of him

8 The Qazaqs were called “Kirgiz” or “Kirgiz-Kaisak” by the Russians until 1925, who wanted to distinguish them from the Slavic cossacks (Russian kazaki, Ukrainian kozaki). The Qirghiz were in turn called “Kara-Kirgiz.” See Eugene Schuyler, Turkistan: Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bukhara, and Kuldja, 2 vols. (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1877), 1: 30. 9 Grodekov, Kirgizy i Karakirgizy, pp. 2–3. 144 CHAPTER 6

somehow. The khan consented to his wife’s conviction, took a chest, put some food into it, put his son inside it and placed the chest into the sea. The son had then already reached the age that he could take food. The chest drifted to the other side of the sea, and there a poor man (nishchiy) found the khan’s spotted son. He took the boy and raised him. The boy grew up and became a hero (bogatyr), a strong man. He gathered one hundred different lads and started to go on raids (baramta) with them and have a good time.10 His father, the khan, found out about this, and wanted to see his son. He then sent to him the eldest son of a rich man called Kotan, named Uysun, with one hundred men. Uysun and his companions liked the free life of the spotted son of the khan so that they stayed there and did not return to the khan. Then the khan sent Bulat, the second son of Kotan, with one hundred men. And they also stayed around the khan’s son since they liked the free life. Then the khan sent Alchin, the third son of Kotan, with one hundred men. And they stayed there too, attracted by the free life. All who gathered around the khan’s son started to ride around the steppe, raiding. They were bachelors and started taking as wives maidens of diverse peoples—Tatars, Kalmyks, and Russians, and from these three hundred men, who had come with Kotan’s sons, descend the Kazak-Kirgiz. Since they took wives from different peoples, the Kazak-Kirgiz are of different facial types. They all decided to choose a khan, and since the blotchy-faced bogatyr, their leader, was the khan’s son, they decided to choose him. In the old days, someone elected khan was raised on any kind of good carpet but the Kazak-Kirgiz did not have such a carpet (they did not produce them)—they were only able to make striped woven coverlets, today called alachi; they took this alacha and raised the khan’s blotchy-faced son on it and proclaimed him khan. After that, he was named Alasha Khan or Alacha Khan. From Uysun and his men started the generation of Ulu Jüz, i.e., the Senior Hundred; from Bulat and his men started the generation of Orta Jüz, i.e., the Middle Hundred; and from Alchin and his hundred men started the generation of Kishi Jüz, i.e., the Junior Hundred. From these generations started the Kazak-Kirgiz of the Senior, Middle, and Junior Hordes.11

10 In the Kazakh language, the term barymta means a retaliatory plundering of an offender’s livestock. 11 G. N. Potanin, Kazakhskiy fol’klor v sobranii G. N. Potanina (Arkhivnye materialy i publikat- sii), ed. M. G. Gabdullin, M. S. Sil’chenko, and N. S. Smirnova (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1972), pp. 67–68. The Legend of Alash Khan 145

Another legend of Alash Khan, collected by Mashkhur Zhusup Kupeev, presents a similar plot to that provided by Potanin except that it emphasizes the role of Mayqï Biy, a guardian of Alash. In this version, the three Qazaq jüzs are described as the descendants of the three hundred men led by Uysyn, Bulat, and Alshyn, who proclaimed Alash, an exiled prince, khan. This version goes as follows:

Mayky-bi was lame from birth and rode in a two-wheeled cart (dvukolka), to which men were harnessed. Mayky-bi brought the blotchy-faced émigré to his people and arranged a great banquet on the occasion. After a while, he gave the blotchy-faced boy one hundred young men, led by his son Uysyn, to escort him and sent them to Saryarka (the legend talks of the areas like Ulytau, Kishitau, Karakengir, Sarykengir, among others). A soothsayer accurately determined that the boy was destined to become a ruler. Addressing them at parting, Mayky-bi said, “the khan must be just, his people—persistent and patient, and then they can sail on the ship on the black earth.” That was the beginning of the Qazaq people. The khan- father received the news about these developments. He wanted his son to return and sent an envoy to the elders Kotan, Kogam, Kondyger, Kobol, and Mayky, demanding the return of his son. To search for Alash and his people, he sent Bulat, a son of Kotan, into the steppe. He was accompanied by one hundred young men. Instead of bringing back Alash, those who had arrived succumbed to the blandishments, seduced by the free life of the steppe, remained in Saryarka. Kyzyl Arystan (the khan-father) did not lose hope and decided once again to persuade the elders to return his child. At that time, Alshyn, a son of Kogam, set out to the steppe with a hundred young men, together with thirteen respected elders. There is a saying among the Qazaqs that if the people reach the number of three hundred and thirteen, no one can stand against them, even if the whole world were their enemy. This is how the number of the Qazaqs reached that figure. Having gathered together, the three hundreds placed the variegated boy on the alash (carpet) and proclaimed him khan. This happened on the mountain Ulytau. And they became a single people and became known worldwide. Since then, the descendants of the elder hundred men, led by Uysyn, were called the Senior Jüz. They agreed among themselves that the Senior Jüz should form a secure rear and provide the troops. The hundred men who came to the Ulytau in the second place came to be called the Middle Jüz. During the time of military operations, they were required to be near the khan and protect him. And finally, those who came along with Alshyn, a son of Kogam, were named the 146 CHAPTER 6

Junior Jüz. Not sparing their lives, they were the first to throw themselves at the enemy. This was the beginning of the three Qazaq jüzs.12

A different version of the legend of Alash Khan can be found among the seven oral accounts of Qazaq origin recorded by the Russian ethnographer Aleksei I. Levshin in the early nineteenth century. According to this legend, the Qazaq jüzs descend from the survivors of the three hundred men who participated in a failed attack on Bukhārā led by their leader named Alacha:

Many Kirgiz-Kazaks think that they formerly constituted one and the same people with the Alat, or Siberian Tatars; that they separated from them because of internal disputes; that at first they were governed by several sultans; that later one of them named Alacha, gained power over all the others, became the chief of the people, and decided to attack Bukhārā with three hundred warriors; but he was defeated, taken prisoner with all who remained alive after the battle, and settled with them in Turkistan. Several years after that, he died; but after his death the cap- tives preserved their former division in three detachments, or three sotnya, one of which is called the Senior, Hundred (Ulu-Yuz), the other Middle (Urta-Yuz), and the third Lesser Hundred (Kichi-Yuz) . . .13

Who was Alash Khan? While the various versions of the legend of Alash Khan differ in detail, the more complete versions recorded by Valikhanov, Potanin, and Kupeev depict the founding father of the Qazaqs as an exiled prince, who was joined and placed on the throne by his own tribesmen. Perhaps the prototype of the legend of Alash Khan can be found in the folklore productions of the nomads of the Qipchaq Steppe dating back to the pre-Mongol period. Gardīzī, a mid-eleventh century Persian historian and geographer, wrote down for the Ghaznavid court the following account of the origin of the Kimeks, a nomadic tribe that was residing in the Qipchaq Steppe at the turn of the eleventh century:

The origin of the Kimeks had been that the chief (mihtar) of the Tatars died and left two sons. The elder son seized the kingship and the younger

12 Zh. O. Artykbaev, Materialy k istorii pravyashchego doma Kazakhov (Almaty: Galym, 2001), pp. 16–17. 13 Aleksei Levshin, Opisaniye kirgiz-kaysakskikh, ili kirgiz-kazachikh, ord i stepey (St. Peters burg: Tipografii Karla Krayya, 1832), pp. 27–28. The Legend of Alash Khan 147

son became jealous of his brother. The name of this younger brother was Shad. He made an attempt to kill his elder brother but could not and became worried about himself. There was a slave girl (kanīzak) and she was his lover. He took that girl and ran away from his brother. He arrived at a place where there were a great river, many trees, and abundant game. There he pitched his tent and settled down ( firūd āmad). Every day this man and girl, the two together, would hunt and eat the meat of the game and they would make garments from the skins of sables, grey squirrel, and ermine until seven persons from the relative of the Tatars came near them. The first one was Īmī; the second, Īmāk; the third, Tatār; the fourth, Bayāndur; the fifth, Khifchāq; the sixth, Lanīqāz; and the seventh, Ajlād. This folk (īn qaumī) had brought the horses of their lords (khudāvandān) to pasture. In those places where the horses were, there was no pasture left. Therefore, they came in search of grass to the region where Shad was. When the girl saw them, she came out and said “Irtish,” which means “alight.” That river was named Irtish for this reason. When this group of men recognized the girl, everyone dismounted and pitched the tents. When Shad returned, he brought a lot of game and entertained them. They stayed there until winter and because the snow came, they could not return. There was abundant grass in that place and they were all there. When spring arrived and the snow melted, they sent a person to the abode of the Tatars so that he may bring news of that tribe. When he arrived there, he saw that the whole area had been emptied. It became devoid of people because the enemy had come, plundered and killed all the people. The remnants, who had remained, came to him from the foot of the mountains. The man told about Shad and his own friends’ situation. All the men headed for the Irtish. When they arrived there, they greeted Shad as their ruler and held him in respect. Other people who heard this news began to come. Seven hundred individuals gathered. For a long time, they stayed serving Shad. Later when they multiplied, they spread to those mountains and formed seven tribes named after these seven persons we have mentioned.14

14 ʿAbd al-Ḥayy ibn Z̤aḥḥāk Gardīzī, Tārīkh-i Gardīzī, tālīf-i Abū Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Ḥayy ibn al-Z̤aḥḥāk ibn Maḥmūd Gardīzī; bi-taṣḥīḥ va taḥshīyah va taʿlīq-i ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī (Tehran: dunyā-i Kitāb, 1363/1984), pp. 549–51; For the Russian translation of Gardīzī’s account of the Kimeks, see V. V. Bartol’d, “Izvlecheniye iz sochineniya Gardizi Zayn al-akhbār: Prilozheniye k Otchetu o poezdke v Srednyuyu Aziyu s nauchnoyu tsel’yu 1893–1894 gg.,” in V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya, vol. 8, ed. O. F. Akimushkin (Moscow: 148 CHAPTER 6

There are some obvious parallels that can be drawn between the legend of Alash Khan and Gardīzī’s account of the Kimeks. They both tell the story of the exiled life of a prince, the joining of other tribesmen and their selection of the prince as their new leader, and the creation of new tribes. Therefore it may be assumed that the legend of Alash Khan reflects the folklore heritage of the pre-Mongol Qipchaq Steppe. In fact the Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy [Kazakh Soviet encyclopedia], which reflects the official Soviet interpretation of the legend of Alash Khan, views Alash Khan as a mythical figure who united the ancient nomadic tribes of the Qipchaq Steppe during the pre-Mongol period.15 The Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy also identifies Alash Khan with Alanja, a figure who is mentioned as a descendant of Japheth in the Šajara-i Türk.16 Alanja appears to have been first introduced by the Timurid historian Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī in the genealogy of the Chinggisids and the Timurids as the father of the twin bothers Mughūl and Tātār.17 Accordingly, the Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy explains that Alash was the name of the pre-Mongol Qazaq tribal union made up of the Oghuz, Qipchaq, and Qanqli tribes.18 Alash Khan is also regarded as an ancient figure by some Kazakh amateur historians. For instance, Zh. O. Artykbaev identifies Alasha or Alacha with the aforementioned Alanja.19 Similarly, Mukhamet-Khalel Suleymanov argues, without providing any supporting evidence, that there have been several Alash Khans in Qazaq history from the Kök Türk period.20 However, it should be noted that no written sources attest to the existence of the Alash tribal confederation in the Qipchaq Steppe during the pre-Mongol period. Neither the Alash tribal confederation nor Alash Khan is mentioned in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh by Rashīd al-Dīn or in other sources that provide information on the medieval Turkic tribes. The Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy identifies Alash Khan with Ulash, a figure that appears in the Book of Dede

Nauka, 1973), pp. 43–45; and for an English translation of this text, see Martinez, “Gardīzī’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” 109–217. 15 Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy, s.v. “Alasha Han.” 16 Although the Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy also cites the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh by Rashīd al-Dīn, Alanja is not mentioned in this source. 17 See Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fol. 17b. 18 Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy, s.v. “Alash.” Citing the Kazakh Soviet Encyclopaedia, Jiger Janabel also states in his dissertation that the Alash tribal confederation existed in the Qipchaq Steppe in the pre-Mongol period. See Janabel, “From Mongol Empire to Qazaq Jüzder,” p. 186. 19 Artykbaev, Materialy k istorii pravyashchego doma Kazakhov, pp. 7–8. 20 Mukhamet-Khalel Suleymanov, Era Chingiskhana v istorii Kazakhskoy natsii (stepnaya dilogiya) (Almaty: zerger il’yas, 2009), p. 189. The Legend of Alash Khan 149

Qorqut, an epic of the Oghuz Turks.21 However, such identification is based on pure speculation. A critical examination of the legend of Alash Khan and the sources relating to the early history of the Qazaqs reveals the fact that the basic plot of the legend of Alash Khan depicts, albeit vaguely, the historical events of the post-Mongol period, including the political activities of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan or those of other members of the Urusid lineage. First of all, the name Alash in the form of Alacha appears in Central Asian sources as the name of Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan, the Chaghatayid ruler of the eastern half of the Moghulistan from 1487 to 1503–4.22 In the Bābur-nāma, Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur explains why Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan, who was his maternal uncle, was called Alacha Khan and what this nickname meant:

The reason he was called Alacha Khan is as follows. They say that in the Qalmaq and Moghul language, alachi means killer; Because Sulṭān- Aḥmad Khan defeated the Qalmaqs several times and killed many people, he was called Alachi, which through frequent repetition became Alacha (Alačanïng vajh-i tasmiyasï munï derlär kim Qalmaq vä Moġul tili bilä öltürgüčini alači derlär. Qalmaqnï nečä qatla basïp qalïn kišisin qïrġan üčün alači dey dey kasrat-i istiʿmāl bilä Alača boluptur).23

In the Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, who was a cousin and protégé of Babur, also gives a similar explanation of Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan’s nickname. According to Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan acquired the nickname “Alācha Khan” after killing numerous Qalmaqs in several raids:

The Qalmaqs called him Alāchī Khan. In the Moghul dialect (ʿibārat-i mughūl), the meaning of alāchī is a killer (kushanda), that is to say, the killer khan (khān-i kushanda). This title (laqab) remained with the khan. People called him Alācha Khan. Now among the Moghuls, he is called Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan. All the other tribes call him Alācha Khan.24

21 See Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy, s.v. “Alash.” 22 An obscure figure named Alasha Bahādur is also mentioned in the Tārīkh-i Abū al-Khair Khānī. According to Masʾūd Kūhistānī, Abū al-Khair Khan once stayed at the yurt of Alasha Bahādur. Masʾūd Kūhistānī, “Tārīkh-i Abū al-Khair Khānī,” p. 143. 23 Babur, Bābur-nāma, 1: 17; and Babur, Baburnama, trans. Thackston, 1: 22. 24 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, p. 156. 150 CHAPTER 6

For this reason, Shakarim Kudayberdy-uly, a Qazaq ethnographer of the early twentieth century, speculates that “Alacha” became the battle cry of the Qazaqs, who fought against the Qalmaqs under Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan’s leadership.25 Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan is also referred to as “Alacha Khan” in the Shibanid Uzbek sources. According to the Shībānī-nāma, Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan was “famous as Alācha Khan” (bi-Alācha Khān shuhrat dāsht).26 Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan is also called “Alācha Khān” in the Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, the ʿAbdallāh-nāma, and the anonymous Shībānī-nāma.27 In sum, “Alacha Khan” was the nickname of Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan, who was an early sixteenth century Moghul khan. Irrespective of whether Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan can be identified with the Alacha Khan of the Qazaq oral tradition, he was a contemporary of the early Qazaqs. The name Alach also appears as the name of a Qazaq military or tribal unit in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh written by the Qazaq writer Jalāyirī in the early seventeenth century. According to Jalāyirī’s description of the right and left wings of Urus Khan’s ulus, Alach Thousand (Alač mingi) was the name of the left wing.28 It is not certain whether Alach was indeed the name of this military or tribal unit during Urus Khan’s reign or whether it became attached to Urus Khan’s left wing later, for instance, by the time Jalāyirī wrote the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh in the early seventeenth century. At any rate, it should be noted that the name Alash as a tribal name appears in the source in connection with Urus Khan, who was the great-grandfather of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan. As a matter of fact, Valikhanov’s discussion of the legend of Alash Khan indicates that Alash Khan may have been Urus Khan. Mentioning a Qazaq oral tradition which relates that the children of Alash Khan were killed by Temür, Valikhanov assumed that Alash Khan became the first khan of the Qazaqs in the second half of the fourteenth century, which means that Alash Khan was a contemporary of Urus Khan.29 It should be noted that the ruler

25 See Shakarim Kudayberdy-uly, Rodoslovnaya tyurkov, kirgizov, kazakhov i khanskikh dinas- tii (Alma-Ata: SP Dastan, 1990), p. 47. 26 Kubo, “Shaybānī-nāma,” p. 43. 27 Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, p. 146; Ḥāfiẓ Tanish, Sharaf-nama, fol. 43b (text), 1: 104 (trans.); and Berezin, Sheybaniada, p. 89. However, in the anonymous Shībānī- nāma, his brother Sulṭān-Maḥmud Khan is also referred to as “Alača Khan.” See Berezin, Sheybaniada, p. 95. 28 Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī, Sbornik letopisei, pp. 170–71. 29 Valikhanov, “Kirgizskoye rodosloviye,” p. 122. Commenting on the legend of Alash Khan recorded by Valikhanov, Aleksandr P. Chuloshnikov also concludes that the Qazaqs emerged as a new people in the mid-fourteenth century. See Chuloshnikov, Ocherki po istorii Kazak-Kirgizskogo naroda, p. 275. Furthermore, Chuloshnikov argues that the legend of Alash Khan talks about two different historical events: the formation of the Qazaqs The Legend of Alash Khan 151 of the Qipchaq Steppe when Temür first marched into the Ulus of Jochi was Urus Khan. Interestingly, Urus Khan’s son Qutlugh-Buqa was killed in a battle against Temür’s protégé Toqtamïsh.30 Urus Khan died during the confronta- tion between the Uzbeks and the Timurid army in 1377. His son and successor, Toqtaqaya, also died around the same time. Temür then defeated Temür- Malik, another son of Urus Khan, enabling Toqtamïsh to gain ascendancy in the Qipchaq Steppe.31 Furthermore, one of the accounts of the origin of the Qazaqs recorded by Levshin corroborates the speculation that Alash Khan may have been Urus Khan. According to this account, the three Qazaq jüzs originate with Urus Khan:

Other Kirgiz-Kazaks say that their ancestors, from the ancient times, formed one people of the Turkic tribes that became divided into three separate hordes only because their khan Orus, or, as some call him, Ak-niyaz, distributed his realm to his three sons. Orus or this Ak-niyaz was at first, in their opinion, a commander of Noghay khan, Ulyanty, who lived immediately after Tamerlane, around Ural, Ilek, and Or; but then he refused to obey Ulyanty, subdued several different branches of Turks and Mongols, became an absolute monarch over them, and took all the lands that now belong to his descendants.32

In this account, the first khan of the Qazaq jüzs is also referred to as Ak-niyaz. Accordingly, Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev assumes that Alash Khan was Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan (r. 1538–80), Jānībeg Khan’s grandson, who re-united the Qazaqs in the second half of the sixteenth century. Tynyshpaev identifies this Ak-niyaz not only with Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan, but also with Alash Khan. He argues that the mausoleum of Alash Khan was built after the reign of Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan because the ʿAbdallāh-nāma does not mention, it whereas it does make reference to the adjacent mausoleum of Jochi twice in its description of ʿAbdallāh Khan II’s expedition against Bābā Sulṭān, the Shibanid governor of Tashkent.33 In accordance with Tynyshpaev’s discussion, the mausoleum of Alash Khan, which is located in central Kazakhstan, is regarded by contemporary Kazakh scholars as having been erected sometime between the fourteenth and the

in the fourteenth century and the reunification of the Qazaqs by Qāsim Khan in the early sixteenth century. Chuloshnikov, Ocherki po istorii Kazak-Kirgizskogo naroda, p. 277. 30 Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma, 1: 75. 31 Shāmī, Ẓafarnāma, 1: 76, 78. 32 Levshin, Opisaniye kirgiz-kaysakskikh, p. 29. 33 Tynyshpaev, “Proiskhozhdeniye Kirgiz-Kazakov,” p. 181. 152 CHAPTER 6 sixteenth centuries.34 Tynyshpaev also identifies Alash Khan with Ḥaqq Naẓar on the grounds that Alash Khan’s failed attack on Bukhārā and his being taken prisoner, as mentioned in Levshin’s account, are reminiscent of Ḥaqq Naẓar’s death following his failed attempt to conspire against Bābā Sulṭān.35 Apart from Urus Khan and Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan, the legendary Alash Khan may also represent Jochi, the founder of the Ulus of Jochi, from whom the Qazaq khans descend. Mayqï Biy, who is presented in Kupeev’s version as Alash’s protector, was one of the amīrs of Chinggis Khan.36 In Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, Bāyqū, i.e., Mayqï is listed as one of the four amīrs who were given to Jochi by Chinggis Khan.37 Mayqï later commanded the right wing of Batu’s army.38 In addition, according to Artykbaev, Jochi appears in some Qazaq oral traditions as a son of Alash Khan.39 Interestingly, Mukhamet- Khalel Suleymanov, who argues that there have been several Alash Khans in Qazaq history, maintains that the last Alash Khan was Jochi, who was called “Our Alash Khan (bizding Alash-Han).”40

A Tale of Qazaqlïq However, irrespective of whether Alash Khan represents Urus Khan or Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan or Jochi Khan, the legend of Alash Khan should be understood broadly as a historical narrative of the qazaqlïq phase of the early Qazaqs for several reasons. First, the legend of Alash Khan begins with the separation of a prince and a group of people from their own tribe or state that can be considered the first stage of qazaqlïq. The more complete versions of the legend of Alash Khan depict Alash Khan as an abandoned prince, i.e., a royal outcast, and the first Qazaqs as a group of people that chose to break away from their own ulus. This is most noticeable in Valikhanov’s version of the legend of

34 Nusupbekov, Istoriya Kazakhskoy SSR, 2: 208–9; and Michael Fergus and Janar Jandosova, Kazakhstan: Coming of Age (London: Stacey International, 2003), p. 225. In contrast, the Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy states that the mausoleum of Alasha Khan was constructed in the tenth and eleventh centuries. See Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy, s.v. “Alasha Han kumbezi.” 35 See Tynyshpaev, “Proiskhozhdeniye Kirgiz-Kazakov,” p. 181. 36 Kazakh historians are also aware that Mayqï Biy was Chinggis Khan’s amīr Bāyqū. See “Köne türikter men qazaqtar žaiyndağy Mońğol fol‘klorlyq derektemeleri,” in Derektemeler men mūrağattyq qūžattar, trans. and ed. M. A. Qūl-Mūhammed and others, Qazaqstan tarihy turaly Mońğol derektemeler 3 (Almaty: Dayk, 2006), p. 144. 37 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 408. 38 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 132. 39 Artykbaev, Materialy k istorii pravyashchego doma Kazakhov, pp. 31–46. 40 Suleymanov, Era Chingiskhana, 189. The Legend of Alash Khan 153

Alash Khan, which describes the initial members of the future Qazaq ulus as a group of fugitives that ran away from their state to the steppe “dissatisfied with the cruelty of Abdulla and driven by hunger.”41 In both Potanin and Kupaeev’s versions of the legend of Alash Khan, the forefathers of the Qazaqs are described as a group of people, who, initially dispatched by their ruler to bring back Alash, chose to remain behind with Alash, thus becoming separated from their original ulus. In Grodekov’s version of the legend of Alash Khan, the first Qazaqs are not depicted as fugitives but as a group of horse riders detached from the main Uzbek ulus, just like Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s qazaq Uzbeks themselves. Finally, Levshin’s account also depicts the first members of the Qazaq jüzs as a group of people separated from the Alat or Siberian Tatars due to internecine feuds. Second, the legend of Alash Khan describes the Qazaq forefathers as leading the life of vagabondage and brigandage, which is the basic characteristic of the qazaq way of life. Valikhanov’s version of the legend of Alash Khan relates that many of Abdulla’s subjects started to live the life of qazaqs (kazachestvovat’) after fleeing their state. It also explains that their new name Qazaq was attached to them because they were regarded as vagabond-brigand (brodyag- razboynik) by their previous ruler Abdulla and their neighbours, clearly indicating that the qazaqlïq days of the Qazaq forefathers were characterized by wandering in the steppe and raiding their neighbors.42 Potanin’s version of the legend of Alash Khan also relates that the Qazaq forefathers evolved from the hundred young men who gathered around Alash and engaged in brigandage (baramta). It also adds that this group of freebooters was later joined by other members of their original ulus who favored their free life and that together they continued to ride across the steppe, raiding their neighbours. According to Grodekov’s version of the legend of Alash Khan, the Qazaq forefathers, who were originally a group of border guards, also became brigands when they undertook an organized plundering activity, i.e., the capturing of women as their wives, which enabled them to emerge as a new ulus. Finally, the failed attack on Bukhārā by Alash Khan mentioned in Levshin’s version may also be interpreted as a plundering raid. Third, the legend of Alash Khan ends with the transformation of the qazaq band into a new khanate, which was also the consequence of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s qazaqlïq activities. Potanin and Kupeev’s versions of the legend of Alash Khan both describe the process whereby a group of vagabonds attracted new followers and created a new khanate by placing Alash on the throne. In

41 Valikhanov, “Kirgizskoye rodosloviye,” p. 126. 42 Valikhanov, “Kirgizskoye rodosloviye,” p. 127. 154 CHAPTER 6

Valikhanov’s version of the legend of Alash Khan, the leaderless Qazaqs select Alash as their first khan in order to overcome their lack of leadership and as a result develop into a new ulus or nation (natsiya), to use Valikhanov’s term.43 Although the legend of Alash Khan contains the characteristics of the socio- political phenomenon of qazaqlïq, it is not clear whether it refers specifically to the early Qazaqs. However, there is an important clue that is overlooked by historians of the early Qazaqs. After briefly describing the three Qazaq jüzs in a diplomatic letter to Emperor Qianlong (1711–99), the sixth Manchurian emperor of the Qing Dynasty, Ablay Khan (r. 1771–81) states that “we all are the descendants of Jānībeg Khan’s three sons (biz Žäníbek hannyń üšūlynyń ūrpağymyz).”44 If the Qazaqs of the eighteenth century traced the origin of the three Qazaq jüzs to Jānībeg Khan’s three sons, it may be inferred that the legend of Alash Khan, which explains the origin of the three Qazaq jüzs, essentially reflects the qazaqlïq period undergone by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan in the eastern Qipchaq Steppe in the second half of the fifteenth century.

The Genealogy of the Shibanid Uzbeks

Unlike the Qazaqs, who created their foundation legend in the form of oral tradition, the Shibanid Uzbeks, centered in the oases of Central Asia, developed the account of their origin in the context of the Perso-Islamic historiographical tradition, which prevailed in Islamic Central Asia during the post-Mongol period. Whereas the legend of Alash Khan only concerns the origin of the Qazaq tribal confederation, the Uzbek histories deal with the origin of the Inner Asian nomads in general and encompass a much longer period of time. They generally consist, on the one hand, of a Chinggisid genealogy that begins with Japheth, son of Noah, and the account of the origin of Inner Asian nomadic tribes, on the other.

The Ilkhanid Account of the Chinggisid and Mongol History What would become the foundation of the Shibanid Uzbek understanding of their ancient past was first recorded by the Ilkhanid historian Rashīd al-Dīn. In the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, Rashīd al-Dīn presents a Chinggisid genealogy that begins with the biblical figure Japheth (Yāfas̱), son of Noah (Nūḥ). In this genealogy, Japheth, who was also known as Abūlja Khan among the Inner Asian tribes, appears as the ancestor of all the Turks and the Chinggisids.

43 Valikhanov, “Kirgizskoye rodosloviye,” p. 127. 44 See Cin patšalyq däuíríníń mūrağat qūžattary, p. 104. The Legend of Alash Khan 155

More specifically, Rashīd al-Dīn relates that the four sons of Dīb Bāqūy, son of Abūlja Khan (Japheth), became the ancestors of all the nomadic Turks (Atrāk-i ṣaḥrā-nishīn).45 Rashīd al-Dīn also lists as Chinggis Khan’s ancestors figures such as Qiyan (Qiyān), who, along with Nüküz (Nukūz), took refuge in a grassy plain (ṣaḥrā-i pur ʿalaf ) called Ergüne Qun (Arkana-qūn), meaning a valley of wall (kamar-i sadd); an amīr named Börte China (Būrta Chīna); Alan Qo’a (Ālān Quvā), a female ancestor of Chinggis Khan, who was impregnated by a “radiant being” and gave birth to three sons, including Bodonchar (Būẕanchar); and Tūmina Khan, who was the father of Qabul Khan and Qāchūlī.46 This genealogical account is partly based on the thirteenth-century Mongolian version of the Chinggisid genealogy recorded in the Secret History of the Mongols. In the Mongolian history, Börte China, Alan Qo’a, Bodonchar, Tūmina Khan, and Qabul Khan also appear as the ancestors of the Chinggisids. Interestingly, Börte China, who is listed as an amīr in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, is presented as not only the progenitor of the Chinggisids and the Mongols, but also a grey wolf, börte-činu in Mongolian, in the Secret History of the Mongols.47 Rashīd al-Dīn provides information on the origin of the Inner Asian tribes in the first section of the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, titled “On the history of the appearance of the tribes of the Turks and the account of their division into diverse tribes and a brief explanation about the state of the ancestors and forefathers of each tribe . . .” (dar bayān-i ḥikāyat-i ẓuhūr-i aqvām-i atrāk va kayfīyat-i inshiʿāb-i īshān bi-qabāʾil-i mukhtalifa va sharḥ-i ḥāl-i ābāʾ va ajdād-i har qaum bar sabīl-i kullī . . .).48 In this section, Rashīd al-Dīn describes in detail the origin and characteristics of the Inner Asian tribes, which he classifies into the following four groups. The first group is called “the tribes of Oghuz (aqvām-i Ūghūz),” which consist of the twenty four branches of Oghuz, a descendant of Japheth, who converted to Islam or monotheism, and other tribes that either sided with or were named by Oghuz, such as the Uighur, Qipchaq, and Qanqli.49 The second group is called “the tribes of the Turks that are now called Mongol but in the older times each of which had its own specific name and each of which had a separate sovereign and a commander and from which separate groups and tribes were created and have remained” (aqvāmī az atrāk ki īshān-rā īn zamān mughūl mī-gūyand lākin dar zamān-i qadīm har yik qaum az īshān ʿalā

45 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 25. 46 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, pp. 113, 167–86. 47 Histoire secrète des Mongols, ed. Louis Ligeti, Monumenta linguae mongolicae collecta 1 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971), p. 13. 48 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 21. 49 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 29. 156 CHAPTER 6 al-infirād bi-lughatī va ismī makhṣūṣ būda va har yik ʿalā-ḥidda sarvarī va amīrī dāshta va az har yik shuʿab va qabāʾilī munshaʿib gashta mānand).50 Tribes such as the Jalayir, Tatar, and Oyirat are included in this group. The third group is “the Turkic tribes that have also had separate monarchs and leaders but who do not have a close relationship to the tribes mentioned in the previous chapter or to the Mongols yet are close to them in physiognomy and language” (aqvāmī az atrāk ki īshān nīz ʿalā-ḥidda, pādshāhī va muqaddamī dāshta-and lākin īshān-rā bā aqvām-i atrāk ki dar faṣl-i sābiq yād karda shuda va bā aqvām-i mughūl, ziyādat-i nisbatī va khvīshī qarīb al-ʿuhda nabūda, ammā bā shakl va zabān bā īshān nazdīk būda-and).51 The tribes such as the Öngüt, Naiman, Kereyit, Qirghiz, and Tangut are included in this group.52 The last group is called “the Turkic tribes that were anciently styled Mongol” (aqvāmī az atrāk ki dar zamān-i qadīm laqab-i īshān mughūl būda . . .).53 To this group belong the tribes and clans such as the Qunqirat (Qunghrat), Manqut (Manghit), and Ushin. In his description of the Inner Asian tribes, Rashīd al-Dīn traces the origins of the tribes of Oghuz and the tribes belonging to the Mongols, whom he calls “Mongol Turks” (Turk-i mughūl), to the offspring or the allies of Oghuz Khan and to the descendants of Qiyan (Qiyān) and Nüküz (Nukūz), who came out of Ergüne Qun (Arkana-qūn), respectively. Rashīd al-Dīn does not clearly explain the origins of the second and the third groups of the Inner Asian tribes in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh. However, judging from his remark that Oghuz Khan’s uncles and nephews who did not agree (muttafiq nabūdand) with him went to the east and became Mongols, Rashīd al-Dīn may have attributed the origin of the remaining eastern Inner Asian tribes to the tribes that did not join Oghuz Khan.54 Rashīd al-Dīn’s account of the origin of the Turks and the Chinggisids was repeated by another Ilkhanid historian, Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī Qazvīnī. Like Rashīd al-Dīn, Qazvīnī lists figures such as Japheth, who he says was also called Abūnja Khan, Qiyan (Qiyān), who entered Ergüne Qun with Nüküz (Tukūz [sic]), Börte China (Būrta Chīna), who was the leader of the Mongols when they left it, and Alan Qo’a (Alān Quvā) among the ancestors of Chinggis Khan in his Tārīkh-i guzīda.55 However, Qazvīnī also adds a new figure named

50 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 47. 51 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 87. 52 These tribes (aqvāmī), which had their own monarchs, were in fact kingdoms or khanates. 53 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 111. 54 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 32. 55 Ḥamdullāh Mustaufī Qazvīnī, Tārīkh-i guzīda, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥusain Navāʾī (Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1339/1961; repr., Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1387/2009), pp. 562–69. The Legend of Alash Khan 157

Mansak to the Chinggisid genealogy, describing him as a son of Japheth and ancestor of the Mongols.56 In regard to the origin of the Inner Asian tribes, Qazvīnī generally repeats Rashīd al-Dīn’s accounts but differs from the latter in that he describes the Mongols as an offshoot of the tribes of Oghuz (Ughūz).57

The Timurid Account of the Chinggisid and Timurid Genealogical History The Japhetic genealogy of the Chinggisids developed by the Ilkhanid historians was adopted and expanded by the Timurid historian Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī, who sought to enhance the dynastic legitimacy of the Timurids, who had become the most powerful dynasts in Central Eurasia by the early fifteenth century. In the Introduction (muqaddima) to the Ẓafarnāma, Yazdī adds figures such as Turk Khan and Mughūl Khan to the genealogy of the Chinggisids and the Timurids. Instead of Dīb Bāqūy, Yazdī presents Turk Khan as a son of Japheth, whom he also calls Abū al-Turk, meaning the father of the Turks.58 According to Yazdī, the Mongols descend from Turk Khan, not from Mansak, the son of Japheth whom Qazvīnī had presented as the ancestor of the Mongols. Yazdī makes Mansak the progenitor of the Ghur, whom he describes as the enemy of the Turks.59 This Turk Khan, who is described by Yazdī as the progenitor of the Turks and inventor of the tent, that is, the nomadic way of life, is not mentioned in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh. However, Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī presents him as a son of Japheth and ancestor of the Turks in his Dīwān Luġāt at-Turk, stating that “The Turks are, in origin, twenty tribes. They all trace back to Turk, son of Japheth, son of Noah.”60 In his work, Yazdī introduces another figure, named Mughūl Khan, who had a twin brother named Tātār Khan, as a descendant of Turk Khan and common ancestor of Chinggis Khan and Temür.61 Yazdī also differs from Rashīd al-Dīn in that he describes Oghuz (Ughūz) as a descendant of Mughūl Khan and includes him among the ancestors of Chinggis Khan.62 Furthermore, Yazdī relates that the descendants of Mughūl Khan, whom he refers to as Mongols, nearly became annihilated when they

56 Qazvīnī also adds that the Mongols call Mansak “Dīb Bāqū Khān.” Qazvīnī, Tārīkh-i guzīda, 562. Dīb Bāqū Khan is introduced as a son of Japheth and ancestor of the Turks in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh. See Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 30. 57 Qazvīnī, Tārīkh-i guzīda, p. 562. 58 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fol. 16a. 59 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fol. 16b. 60 Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, 1: 82. 61 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fol. 17b. 62 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fol. 18a. 158 CHAPTER 6 were heavily defeated by the descendants of Tātār Khan, whom he calls Tatars, and that only Qiyan (Qiyān) and Nüküz (Nukūz), along with some female survivors, escaped to the Ergüne Qun (Arkana-qūn) valley.63 Yazdī also mentions figures such as Alan Qo’a (Alān Qū), Bodonchar Qa’an (Būzanchar Qāʾān), and Tūmina Khan, all of whom are also mentioned in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, as the common ancestors of the Chinggisids and the Timurids.64 In Yazdī’s version of the Inner Asian genealogy, the two lineages split in the generation of Tūmina Khan’s two sons, Qabul Khan and Qāchūlī. The Chinggisids descend from the former, while the Timurids spring from the latter.65 Yazdī’s version of the Japhetic genealogy was also adopted by Ulugh Beg, the author of the Tārīkh-i arbaʿ ulūs, a history of the four Chinggisid uluses. In the genealogical account of the Chinggisids and the Timurids contained in the anonymous Shajarat al-atrāk, which is considered to be an abridgement of the Tārīkh-i arbaʿ ulūs, Japheth (Yāfas), Turk Khan, also called Yāfas Ughlān, meaning son of Japheth, the twin brothers Mughūl Khan and Tātār Khan, Oghuz (Ughūr [sic]) Khan, Alan Qo’a (Alān Quvā), Tūmīna Khan (Tūmina Khān), Qabul Khan, and Qāchūlī, all of whom appear in the Introduction (muqaddima) to the Ẓafarnāma, are also mentioned.66 However, not all Timurid historians repeated Yazdī’s version of the Chinggisid and Timurid genealogies. Unlike Ulugh Beg, the anonymous author of the Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb adopted Rashīd al-Dīn’s version of the Chinggisid genealogy. Without mentioning such figures as Turk Khan and Mughūl Khan, who were added to the Chinggisid and Timurid genealogies by Yazdī, the Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb presents a dynastic genealogy that includes Qiyan, Nüküz (although these two are just referred to as “two persons who had gone to Ergüne Qun”), amīr Börte China (Būrta Chīna), Alan Qo’a (Alān Quvā), Bodonchar (Būdunzar), Tūmināy Khan, Qabul Khan, and Qāchūlī, all of whom appear in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh.67

The Uzbek Dynastic Genealogies The Shibanid Uzbeks, who assimilated the Persian culture that had flourished under the Timurids, created their own dynastic genealogy within the context

63 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fols. 21a–b. 64 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fols. 22a–25a. 65 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fac. ed. Urinboyev, fol. 24b. Qāchūlī is presented as the ancestor of the Barlas clan, to which the future Temür belonged, in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh. See Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh, p. 185. 66 Shajarat al-Atrāk, MS, London, British Library, India Office, Ethé 172, fols. 27–83. 67 Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, fols. 3a–13a (text), pp. 21–29 (trans.). The Legend of Alash Khan 159 of the Perso-Islamic historiographical tradition developed under the Ilkhanids and the Timurids.68 The early sixteenth-century Chaghatay Turkic source Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma, written by or for Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, repeats the Chinggisid genealogy and the account of the Inner Asian tribes that Rashīd al-Dīn had provided in the Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh.69 On the other hand, the anonymous Shībānī-nāma, another Chaghatay Turkic source written in the mid-sixteenth century, presents a dynastic genealogy that is closer to that provided by Yazdī. It lists figures such as Japheth, also called Abū al-Turk, Turk Khan, Mughūl Khan, Oghuz (Ughūz) Khan, Qiyan (Qiyān), Alan Qo’a (Alān Quvā), Tūmīna Khan, and Qabul Khan as Abū al-Khair Khan’s ancestors.70 Ḥāfiẓ Tanish Bukhārī, the court historian for ʿAbdallāh Khan II, repeats, albeit more briefly, Rashīd al-Dīn’s account of the origin of the Inner Asian tribes in his ʿAbdallāh-nāma, or Sharaf-nāma-i shāhī, written in the late sixteenth century.71 At the same time, Ḥāfiẓ Tanish Bukhārī adopts Yazdī’s version of the Chinggisid genealogy and lists Japheth, whom he also calls Īlcha Khan, Dīb Bāqūy (Dīb Bāūqūy), Mughūl Khan, Oghuz (Ughūz) Khan, Qiyan (Qiyān), Nüküz (Nukūz), Alan Qo’a (Alān Quvā), and Bodonchar (Būzanchar Qāʾān) as the ancestors of Abū al-Khair Khan.72 However, whereas the author of the anonymous Shībānī-nāma presents both Turk Khan, following Yazdī, and Dīb Bāqūy (Dīb Nāqūy), following Rashīd al-Dīn, as the name of Japheth’s son, Ḥāfiẓ Tanish mentions only the name Dīb Bāqūy (Dīb Bāūqūy). In addition, Ḥāfiẓ Tanish Bukhārī omits Qāchūlī, the ancestor of Temür, when mentioning Qāchūlī’s brother Qabul Khan.73 Like Ḥāfiẓ Tanish Bukhārī, Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, the court historian for Naẕr Muḥammad Khan (r. 1606–42 and 1648–51), a Toqay-Timurid, or Astrakhanid, Uzbek ruler of Balkh, provides in his Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār a description of the Inner Asian tribes and the ancestors of the Chinggisids based on the information given by Rashīd al-Dīn and Yazdī. In the khātima, or conclusion, of the sixth volume of the Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār, Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī describes the origin of the Inner Asian tribes, such as the Qipchaq (Qibchāq), Qunghrat (Qungrāt), and Barlas (Barlās), drawing on

68 For the Uzbek adoption of the Timurid Persian culture, see M. E. Subtelny, “Art and Politics in Early 16th Century Central Asia,” Central Asiatic Journal 27, nos. 1–2 (1983): 134–48. 69 Tavarikh-i guzīda-Nuṣrat-nāma, pp. 77–88. 70 Berezin, Sheybaniada, 2–26. 71 Ḥāfiẓ Tanish, Sharaf-nama, fols. 16a–17a, 20a–22b (text), 1: 59–61, 65–69 (trans.). 72 Ḥāfiẓ Tanish, Sharaf-nama, fols. 10a–24a (text), 1: 47–72 (trans.). 73 Berezin, Sheybaniada, 4; and Ḥāfiẓ Tanish, Sharaf-nama, fol. 10b, 23b (text), 1: 48, 71 (trans.). 160 CHAPTER 6

Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh.74 At the same time, the Chinggisid genealogy that he provides includes figures given by Yazdī such as Japheth, Turk Khan, Mughūl Khan, and Oghuz (Ūghūz) Khan, as well as Alan Qo’a (Alān Quvā) and Bodonchar Khan (Būzanjar Khān).75 Muḥammad Yūsuf Munshī, the early eighteenth-century court historian for Muḥammad Muqīm Khan, the Uzbek ruler of Balkh, presents a variant of Rashīd al-Dīn’s Chinggisid genealogy in his Taẕkira-i Muqīm Khānī. While, like Yazdī, Muḥammad Yūsuf Munshī includes Oghuz (Ughūr [sic]) Khan among the ancestors of Chinggis Khan, he does not make mention of Turk Khan and Mughūl Khan in his Chinggisid genealogy. He only lists Japheth, whom he also calls Īlcha Khan, Dīb Bāqūy (Dībāqūy), Alan Qo’a (Alān Quvā), Bodonchar Qa⁠ʾan (Būzanjar Qāʾān), and Tūmina Khan.76 The Uzbek histories composed under the patronage of the Chinggisid ʿArabshāhid and the non-Chinggisid Qunghrat dynasties located in Khiva and the non-Chinggisid Ming dynasty founded in Khoqand follow the same Perso- Islamic historiographical tradition that was adopted by the Abū al-Khairid and Toqay-Timurid dynasties centered in Transoxiana. In his Chaghatay Turkic Šajara-i Türk, Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan virtually reiterates Rashīd al-Dīn’s account of the ancient history of the Turks and Sharaf al-Dīn Yazdī’s version of the Chinggisid genealogy.77 So does Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs, the eighteenth-century court historian for the Qunghrat Dynasty, who in his Firdaws al-Iqbāl follows his predecessor, i.e., Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan.78 In his Tārīkh-i Shāhrukhī, a chronicle of the Khoqand Khanate written in 1871–72 for Khudāyār Khan (r. 1845–75, with interruptions), Niyāz Muḥammad b. Mullā ʿAshūr adopts and modifies Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī’s version of the Timurid genealogy in composing a dynastic genealogy that links his non-Chinggisid overlords to a mythical son of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur. Niyāz Muḥammad b. Mullā ʿAshūr differs from Yazdī in that, in his genealogy, the Chinggisids and the Timurids diverge in the generation of Bartan, the grandfather of Chinggis Khan, not in the generation of Qabul Khan and Qāchūlī, the sons of Tūmina Khan. However, following Yazdī, Niyāz Muḥammad b. Mullā ʿAshūr includes in his version of the Ming-Baburid genealogy Japheth, Turk

74 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fols. 275b–287b. 75 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fols. 275a–276b. 76 Munshī, Taẕkira-i Muqīm Khānī, pp. 59–65. 77 Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, pp. 9–68 (text), pp. 8–72 (trans.). 78 Mūnīs, Firdaws al-Iqbāl, pp. 50–89. The Legend of Alash Khan 161

Khan, Mughūl Khan, Qiyan (Qiyān), Alan Qo’a (An), and Bodonchar Khan (Būzanjar Khān).79 … The Shibanid Uzbeks, who formed a new state in the oases of Central Asia in the early sixteenth century, related their early history in the context of the Perso-Islamic historiographical tradition. They adopted the well-established accounts of the origins of the Inner Asian nomadic tribes and the Chinggisids that had been developed by the Ilkhanid and Timurid historians. They thus traced their ancestry to Japheth, son of Noah, and to the Inner Asian tribes that were led by such mythical figures as Turk Khan (or Dīb Bāqūy Khan), Mughūl Khan, Oghuz Khan, and Qiyan. In contrast, the Qazaqs developed their own legendary history in the form of an oral tradition, i.e., the legend of Alash Khan. This legend narrates the process whereby the Qazaqs formed a new khanate or tribal confederation known as the three Qazaq jüzs. According to the legend of Alash Khan, the Qazaqs, who actually emerged as a new ulus at the turn of the sixteenth century under the leadership of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, established their first state when they elected an exiled prince named Alash as their khan. This legendary Alash Khan could possibly represent a number of different historical figures, including the Chinggisid khans Urus Khan, Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan, and Jochi Khan, and the legendary founder of the Kimeks, Shad. However, judging from the fact that the legend of Alash Khan contains several characteristics of the socio-political phenomenon of qazaqlïq, it should be regarded as an oral tradition that essentially reflects the historical experiences related to Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s qazaqlïq days. The legend of Alash Khan shows that the collective memory of the Qazaqs about their qazaqlïq phase became an integral part of their historical consciousness. It may therefore be inferred that the qazaq Uzbeks and Shibanid Uzbeks, who established themselves at the turn of the sixteenth century in the steppe regions and oases of Central Asia, respectively, became two separate peoples that differed not only in their self-designation, but also in their foundation myth and collective historical consciousness.

79 Niyāz Muḥammad b. Mullā ʿAshūr, Taarikh Shakhrokhi: Istoriya vladeteley Fergany, ed. N. N. Pantusov (Kazan: Tipografiya Imperatorskago Universiteta, 1885), pp. 173–74. 162 CHAPTER 6

Nūḥ Yāfas /Abū al-Turk / Īlcha Khān

Turk / Yāfas Oghlan / Dīb Bāqūy

Alanja Mughūl Tātār

Ūghūz Khan

Qiyān

Būrta Chīna

Ālān Quvā

Būẕanchar

Tūmina Khan Qabul Khan Qāchūlī

Chinggis Khan Temür FIGURE 8 The Timurid and Shibanid Uzbek Genealogical Tree Conclusion

This study has attempted to examine the formation of the Qazaqs in relation to the socio-political phenomenon of qazaqlïq, which played an important role in the formation of new identities and states/polities in post-Mongol Central Eurasia. I have looked into the formative period of Qazaq history in the larger historical context within which the Shibanid Uzbeks and the Ukrainian Cossacks also came into existence. Qazaqlïq, or the qazaq way of life, was a form of political vagabondage that involved leaving one’s state or tribe, usually due to a difficult social or political situation, and living the life of a freebooter in a frontier or other remote region. Qazaqlïq emerged as a new and unique custom of political vagabondage in post-Mongol Central Eurasia when the time-honored steppe practices of flight and plundering combined with the socio-political conditions created by the fragmentation of the Chinggisid, and later Timurid, states in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Traditionally, in pre-Mongol Central Eurasian nomadic societies, compris- ing highly mobile horsemen and natural warriors, the practices of flight and plundering, i.e., quasi-qazaqlïq activities served as an effective means for many fugitive leaders to overcome adversity and build up a new power base. Some quasi-qazaqlïq activities even led to the formation of new polities and identities in pre-Mongol and Mongol Central Eurasia, as exemplified in the cases of the Rou-ran tribe, the Tuyuhun state, the Ashina clan, the Qara-Khitai state, the Qara’unas, the Negüderi, and the Yasa’urī, among others. While the quasi-qazaqlïq activities of the pre-Mongol and Mongol periods were intermittent and isolated enterprises, the post-Mongol qazaqlïq was a much more customary and extensive phenomenon that arose in the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana from the mid-fourteenth century onward. The fragmentation of the Chinggisid, and later Timurid, states and the internecine struggles within these states in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries triggered a steady flow of mounted political vagabonds, who, struggling for a political comeback or political survival, fled and became freebooters in the frontier and remote regions in Transoxiana and at both ends of the Qipchaq Steppe, which had expanded due to the weakening of central authorities. Dissident or displaced leaders of the Chinggisid and Timurid lineages, such as Temür, Toqtamïsh Khan, Abū al-Khair Khan, Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara, Jānībeg Khan, Girāy Khan, Muḥammad Shībānī Khan, and Babur chose to live, before coming to power, the qazaq way of life, thanks to which, they, as charismatic qazaq

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi ��.��63/9789004306493_009 164 Conclusion leaders, were able to muster a loyal band of warriors and increase their political and military power. Accordingly, the term qazaq in the sense of a fugitive, freebooter, or vagabond began to spread in the Qipchaq Steppe and Transoxiana starting in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: a wide range of sources written in Central Eurasia from the fifteenth century onwards refer to political vagabonds as qazaq. In addition, qazaqlïq became perceived by contemporaries as a political custom as manifested in such Persian phrase as rasm-i qazāqī, meaning the qazaq custom or manner. Importantly, unlike the quasi-qazaqlïq activities of the pre-Mongol and Mongol periods, qazaqlïq was a custom of political vagabondage that differed from ordinary acts of fleeing from the enemy and moving to some remote regions. A qazaq was a political vagabond who left his state or tribe, wandered in some remote areas that served as a place of refuge, and engaged in brigandage in order to return or rise to power, or at least to raid for booty. In essence, a qazaq was an ambitious brigand. The cossacks of the Black Sea steppes were the products of the qazaqlïq phenomenon. As the Ulus of Jochi gradually disintegrated into smaller polities throughout the fifteenth century, the Black Sea steppes became a political no- man’s land known as the Wild Field (Dikoye Pole), in which a great number of fugitives, in search of freedom and booty, took refuge. East Slavic adventurers and fugitives from Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy who followed the path of earlier Tatar fugitives, formed various cossack groups. Among these cossack groups, Ukrainian Cossackdom occupies the most important place. The qaza- qlïq activities carried out by the Ukrainian adventurers and fugitives not only led to the formation of the Ukrainian Hetmanate, but also contributed eventually to the consolidation of a separate Ukrainian identity distinct from that of the Russians. The Qazaqs, who became the dominant people of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe in the sixteenth century, are, along with the Ukrainian Cossacks, the most outstanding identity group that appeared in post-Mongol Central Eurasia as a result of the qazaqlïq phenomenon. The Uzbek nomads of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe bifurcated into the qazaq Uzbeks and the Shibanid Uzbeks at the turn of the sixteenth century as a result of the conflictual and interrelated qazaqlïq activities led by the members of the two rival Jochid families that represented the new and old ruling powers of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe: the Abū al-Khairid dynasty and the Urusid dynasty. With the course of time, the two Uzbek polities became transformed into two separate identities. The Uzbeks led by the Urusid lineage eventually developed a separate Qazaq identity and adopted “Qazaq” as a self-designation. It was by this Qazaq Conclusion 165 identity that the qazaq Uzbeks and the Shibanid Uzbeks, who shared the common designations, such as Turk, Moghul, ulūs-i Jūchī, and Toqmaq, could be differentiated from one another. In addition, the two Uzbek peoples developed distinct collective historical consciousnesses. The Qazaqs developed their own foundation myth in the form of an oral tradition, i.e., the legend of Alash Khan, whereas the Shibanid Uzbeks, who became assimilated to the Perso-Islamic culture of Transoxiana, adopted the well-established accounts of the origin of the Turks and the Chinggisids that had been provided by Ilkhanid and Timurid historians. This study has attempted to bring to light an alternative mechanism of state formation in pre-modern Central Eurasia by demonstrating that qazaqlïq activities laid the foundation for several Central Eurasian polities. Significantly, this study that examines the formation of the Qazaqs in the context of the qazaqlïq phenomenon challenges the prevailing interpretations of Qazaq ethnogenesis. More specifically, it disagrees with the Soviet historiographical and contemporary Kazakh understandings of Qazaq ethnogenesis, which emphasize the autochthonous development of Central Asian peoples and maintain that the Qazaqs were formed by the amalgamation of all the nomadic peoples that inhabited the steppes of Kazakhstan from the Bronze Age down to the Mongol invasion. The current Kazakh explanation of their origin not only traces a clear line of descent for the Qazaqs from the Bronze Age peoples that is built on conjecture, but also overlooks the simple historical fact that a separate Qazaq identity did not exist prior to the fifteenth century.1 Furthermore,

1 The theory of autochthonous development of the Qazaqs underlines the lineal descent of the Qazaqs from the Bronze Age Indo-European peoples while downplaying the later Mongol contribution to the ethnic makeup of the Qazaqs. The interpretation that Alash Khan was an ancient pre-Mongol Turkic figure is also connected with such a view. Therefore, this study that sees the formation of the Qazaqs and legend of Alash Khan as a post-Mongol phenomenon differs sharply from mainstream Kazakh scholarship. As a matter of fact, genetic studies do not corroborate the claim that the Qazaqs are lineally descended from the Bronze Age Indo-European peoples. According to a number of Y-Chromosome DNA test- ings, modern Kazakhs are characterized by a very low frequency of R1a1a, the most common Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup of the Bronze Age Indo-European pastoralists of the Kazakh Steppe, Central Asia, and Siberia. For the Kazakh haplogroups, see Table 1 and Table 2 in Matthew C. Dulik, Ludmila P. Osipova, and Theodore G. Schurr, “Y-Chromosome Variation in Altaian Kazakhs Reveals a Common Paternal Gene Pool for Kazakhs and the Influence of Mongolian Expansions,” PLoS One 6, no. 3 (2011): 2–3; see Table 1 in R. Spencer Wells et al., “The Eurasian Heartland: A Continental Perspective on Y-Chromosome Diversity,” PNAS 98, no. 18 (2001): 10245. M17 in Table 1 corresponds to haplogroup R1a1a; and see Table 3 in T. Zerjal et al., “A Genetic Landscape Reshaped by Recent Events: Y-Chromosomal Insights 166 Conclusion this study also complements the somewhat simplistic explanation that identifies the formation of the Qazaqs with the founding of the Qazaq Khanate by Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan, a view which is commonly found in Western scholarly literature. I have taken a dialectical approach and demonstrated that the Qazaqs originated in the conflictual and interrelated processes that led to the formation of both the Qazaqs and the Shibanid Uzbeks. This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of the qazaqlïq phenomenon that encompasses both Turkic qazaqlïq and Slavic cossackdom. While the origin of the Slavic cossack phenomenon has been the subject of several studies, the Turkic qazaqlïq phenomenon has received much less scholarly attention. Moreover, its connection with the Slavic cossackdom has not been fully investigated. In previous studies, the qazaqlïq activities of various qazaq or cossack leaders of the Black Sea steppes and the eastern Qipchaq Steppe have not necessarily been regarded as being the products of the same historical phenomenon. Instead, the qazaq leaders and their activities have been treated as unrelated regional political figures and events. However, this study has shown how, for instance, the Qazaqs and the Ukrainian Cossacks, two unrelated peoples, originated in the same custom of political vagabondage that became widespread in post-Mongol Central Eurasia. These two most prominent qazaq-related peoples founded their first states or polities after undergoing a period of qazaqlïq and subsequently developed into distinct identities or peoples through a process of differentiation from larger entities— from the Uzbek ulus and the East Slavs, respectively. Interestingly, there are a number of parallels between the relationship between the Qazaqs and the Uzbeks on the one hand, and that between the Ukrainians and the Muscovites on the other. The Qazaqs represented the old ruling power of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe, i.e., the Urusid dynasty, while the

into Central Asia,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 71 (2002): 474. Haplogroup 3 in Table 3 corresponds to haplogroup R1a1a. Importantly, the frequency of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1a among the Kazakhs is considerably lower than among the modern Uzbeks and Qirghiz (Kyrgyz), the neighboring Turkic nations of the Kazakhs. The most common Kazakh Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroup is C2b1b1 (formerly known as C3c1), which is found at a high frequency among the tribes of western Mongolia, including the Kalmyks. This implies that the Indo-European pastoralists who resided in the Kazakh Steppe from the Bronze Age have been supplanted by various Turkic and Mongolic nomads from the Mongolian steppes rather than gradually absorbing the latter. For the early Indo-European pastoralist Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroup R1a1a, see Table 3 in Christine Keyser et al., “Ancient DNA Provides New Insights into the History of South Siberian Kurgan People,” Human Genetics 126 (2009): 401; and see Table 3 in Chunxiang Li et al., “Evidence That a West-East Admixed Population Lived in the Tarim Basin as Early as the Early Bronze Age,” BMC Biology 8, no. 15 (2010): 6. Conclusion 167

Ukrainians inherited the traditional center of Kievan Rus’. Just as the Shibanid Uzbeks, who represented the new ruling power of the eastern Qipchaq Steppe, i.e., the Abū al-Khairid dynasty, migrated south from the steppes to the oases of Central Asia and expanded their scope by intermixing with the sedentary Iranian and other Turkic populations, so too did the Muscovites, who were a new power, arise on the peripheral regions of the former Kievan Rus’ state and expand their scope by incorporating the Tatar and Finnic populations. Ironically, even though the Qazaqs remained in the center of the former Uzbek Ulus, i.e., the eastern Qipchaq Steppe, and inherited the bulk of the Uzbek nomadic people, it was the Shibanid Uzbeks who retained the designation Uzbek. Similarly, it was the Muscovites who became known as “Russians,” not the Ukrainians, who were formerly called Ruthenians (Rusyny) by their contemporaries. Furthermore, the Qazaqs, formerly called qazaq Uzbeks, adopted the designation Qazaq, which reflects their qazaq origin, while the Ukrainians adopted the name ukraina, meaning “frontier region,” which also reflects, to some degree, their cossack connection. It was on the steppe frontier, i.e., ukraina that the Ukrainian adventurers and fugitives adopted the qazaq, or cossack, way of life and created a military organization, which later constituted the nucleus of the Cossack Hetmanate. In the process of examining the formation of new group identities in post- Mongol Central Eurasia resulting from the qazaqlïq phenomenon, this study has provided an answer to the question of why the Slavic Cossacks (Kazaks) and the Qazaqs, whom the Russian authorities had to arbitrarily distinguish, referring to the latter as “Kirgiz” or “Kirgiz-Kaisak” in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, shared the same self-designation. This enquiry has taken on a renewed importance in the twenty first century due to the rise of Kazakhstan, which bears the designation Qazaq and which is currently the most flourish- ing economy in Central Asia, and of Ukraine, which glorifies its Cossack past and forms the easternmost frontier of the European world. Kazakhstan and Ukraine, which stand at both ends of the vast plain historically known as the Dasht-i Qipchāq, testify to the importance of the socio-political phenomenon of qazaqlïq. 168 Conclusion

FIGURE 9 Kazakh horseman riding through winter steppe of fire Photo by Josh Brann

FIGURE 10 A Zaporozhian Cossack from Crimea (Cossack Mamay). Cossack Mamay is a legendary hero in Ukrainian folklore. Painting by an unknown folk artist, late 18th–early 19th century. Kyiv, National Center of Folk Culture “Ivan Honchar Museum.” Conclusion 169

FIGURE 11 The mausoleum of Alash Khan, the legendary founder of the Qazaq people. This monument is located in central Kazakhstan near the city of Zhezkazgan Photo by Maxim Khil

ق ز ق ق قز ق Appendix 1 in Written and (��ا ��ل�) and Qazaqlïq (��ا �) The Use of the Terms Qazaq Oral Sources

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Early Ẓafar-nāma by Hazār-i qadāq (qadāq The qazāq Thousand Fifteenth Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī mulkī) bā lashkarī dar was in the vanguard Century (Shāmī, Histoire des pīsh būd (Persian) with the army conquêtes de Tamerlan, 1: 72)

Early Muntakhab Hazār-i qadāq ki sān-i The qazāq hazār, or Fifteenth al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī īshān si hazār savār Thousand, which Century (Naṭanzī, būd bi yik daf‘a formed three Muntakhab, 416) mutakhallif shoda bā thousand horsemen, yāghī mulḥaq gashtand all at once rebelled (Persian) and joined the enemy

Early Ẓafar-nāma by Hazāra-i qazāq A renegade unit of Fifteenth Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī (Persian) 1,000 soldiers Century Yazdī (Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fol. 155a)

Early Muntakhab Dar ān navāhī dar (Jabbār Berdi) is Fifteenth al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī ṣūrat-i qāzāqī wandering around Century (Naṭanzī, mī-gardad (Persian) like a qazaq in those Muntakhab, 87) border regions

Early Muntakhab Jamʿī az mardum va A group of people, Fifteenth al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī aubāsh va qāzāq bi ruffians, and qazaqs Century (Naṭanzī, Jabbār-Birdī bin have joined Jabbār Muntakhab, 102) Tūqtāmish payvasta- Berdi, son of and va ū nīz quvvatī Toqtamïsh and he too paydā karda-ast has gained power (Persian)

(cont.)

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Late Muʿizz al-ansāb fī Ayyām-i qazāqī The days of qazaqlïq Fifteenth shajarat al-ansāb (Persian) (of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Century (Muʿizz al-ansāb fī Bayqara) shajarat al-ansāb, fol. 158b)

Late Matlaʿ-i saʿdain Gāhī jamʿī az lashkar-i Sometimes, a group of Fifteenth (Samarqandī, Uzbak qazāq shuda Uzbek soldiers would Century “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain va bi-vilāyat-i become qazāq and majmaʿ-i baḥrain,” Māzandarān come to the domain (text): 258; (trans.): mī-āmadand va har jā of Māzandarān and 199) dast-andāzī karda commit robbery bāz-mīraftand everywhere and then (Persian) return

Matlaʿ-i saʿdain . . . az lashkar-i ṭaraf-i (Shāhrukh ordered (Samarqandī, Dasht-i Qibchāq va that his amīrs) should “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain va ūzbakān-i qazāq bar be on guard against majmaʿ-i baḥrain,” khabar bāshand the armies from the (text): 259 (Persian) direction of the Dasht-i Qipchāq and the qazaq Uzbeks

Matlaʿ-i saʿdain va Mīrzā Sulṭān-Ḥusain ki Mīrzā-Sulṭān Ḥusain, majmaʿ-i bahrain dar ṭaraf-i Dasht-i who was a qazaq in (Samarqandī, Qipchāq muddatī the Dasht-i Qipchāq “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain va qazāq būd darīn vilā for a while, at that majmaʿ-i baḥrain,” bi-jānib-i khvārazm time, set out for (text): 261; (trans.): ‘azīmat nimūd va Khorezm, and the 201 umarā va sardārān ki amirs and the darīn ṭaraf būdand yik generals who were in ḥamla tāb-i this region could not muqāvimat-i ū withstand him even nayāvardand (Persian) for one assault Appendix 1 173

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Late Raużāt al-jannāt fī Mīrzā Sulṭān-Ḥusain ki Mīrzā Sulṭān-Ḥusain, Fifteenth auṣāf-i madīnat-i dar Dasht-i Qipchāq who was wandering Century Harāt (Isfizārī, qatrāq mī-gasht, darīn as a qazaq in the Raużāt al-jannāt 2: furṣat bi-khvārazm Qipchaq Steppe, came 275) āmada, sardārān va to Khorezm at that gardan-kishān-i īn time, and the generals navāḥi tāb-i ḥamla-i and rebels of these maukib-i ū regions could not nayāvardand (Persian) withstand the assaults of his party

Late Majalis al-nafa⁠ʾis Ol ḥażratnïng His Majesty (Sulṭān- Fifteenth (ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī, qazaqlïġïda Ḥusain)’s qazaqlïq Century Majālis al-nafāʾis, (Chaghatay Turkic) days 29)

Early Shībānī-nāma Sulṭān-Ḥusain Mīrzā Sulṭān-Ḥusain Mīrzā, Sixteenth (Kubo, “Shaybānī- qazāq shoda bar aṭrāf-i having become a Century nāma,” 22) mamālik-i ū tākht qazaq, raided along mī-āvard (Persian) the frontiers of his countries

Shībānī-nāma Jamāʿatī umarā ki dar A group of amīrs who, (Kubo, “Shaybānī- zamān-i qazāqī ki jān at the time of (Abū nāma,” 5) sipārīhā karda-and va al-Khair Khan’s) sabab-i daulat-i khānī qazaqlïq sacrificed shuda-and . . . in themselves and jamāʿat ki sābiqan ẕikr became the cause for yāft, dar zamān-i the khan’s coming to qazāqī vafādārī power . . . This group, nimūda-and va which was mentioned mamālik gushūda-and before, showed (Persian) loyalty at the time of qazaqlïq and conquered the states 174 Appendix 1

(cont.)

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Early The Anonymous Qazaqlïqda qïlïč These are the ones Sixteenth Shībānī-nāma čapqan davlatġa sabab who drew their Century (Berezin, bolġan bular turur swords and became Sheybaniada, 59) (Chaghatay Turkic) the cause of the power during the qazaqlïq days (of Abū al-Khair Khan)

Early Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i Qazaqlïqda qïlïč . . . who drew the Sixteenth nuṣrat-nāma basïp . . . sabab-i bu sword became the Century (Tavarikh-i guzīda- ḫānlar bular turur taqï source of the khan Nuṣrat-nāma, 266) davlat (Chaghatay (Abū al-Khair Khan)’s Turkic) power

Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i Bu qazaqlïqda köp (Muḥammad Shībānī nuṣrat-nāma gardishlarda Khan and his cohorts) (Tavarikh-i guzīda- ayrïlmaġan turur did not part company Nuṣrat-nāma, 273) (Chaghatay Turkic) with each other in many wanderings during this qazaqlïq

Early Zubdat al-ās̱ār (ʿAlī Nečä muddatlar qazaq For some time he Sixteenth Naṣrallāhī, Zubdat yosunluq on iki yïl ol wandered around in Century al-ās̱ār, fol. 470b) navāhīda qazaq yürür the border regions for (Chaghatay Turkic) 12 years as a qazaq

Early Bābur-nāma (Mano, Qazaqlïqlarda bir During his qazaqlïq, Sixteenth Bābur-nāma 1: 255) martaba Gurgān suyïnï he (Sulṭān-Ḥusain Century üzdürüp kečip bir pāra Bayqara) once caused Özbägnï yaḫšï bastï his horse to swim (Chaghatay Turkic) across the Gurgan River and soundly defeated a band of Uzbeks Appendix 1 175

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Bābur-nāma (Mano, Songra qazaqlïqlarda Later during my Bābur-nāma 1: 29) Ḫujandqa keldi. Alïp qazaqlïq, she came edim (Chaghatay to Khojent and Turkic) I married her

Bābur-nāma (Mano, Özüm bilä Villages and fiefs were Bābur-nāma 1: 223) qazaqlïqlarda bilä given to some of the bolup kelgän beglärgä beys and young vä yigitlärgä baʿżïsïġa warriors who came kent vä tuyul dek berildi and were with me (Chaghatay Turkic) when I myself was in qazaqlïq

Bābur-nāma (Mano, Ušbu qïš sipāhīlardïn This same winter Bābur-nāma 1: 144) baʿżïsï bizing bilä some of the soldiers, qazaqlïqlarda yürüy unable to go with us almay Andijānġa on our raids, barmaqqa ruḫṣat requested permission tilädilär (Chaghatay to go to Andizhan Turkic)

Bābur-nāma (Mano, Bir nečä Moġul Some Moghuls Bābur-nāma 1: 158) ošdïn bizdin ayrïlïp separated from us at qazaqlïqqa Osh and went to raid Andijānnïng girdiġä on the outskirts of kelgän egändürlär Andizhan (Chaghatay Turkic)

Bābur-nāma (Mano, ʿAjab mardāna va A remarkably brave, Bābur-nāma 1: 78) qazaq yigit (Chaghatay qazaq young man Turkic)

Early Ḥabīb al-siyar Mardum-i qazāq-i Brave qazaq men Sixteenth (Khvāndamīr, dil-āvar (Persian) Century Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siya 4: 231) 176 Appendix 1

(cont.)

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Mid- Tārīkh-i Rashīdī Chūn bi ḥadd-i tamyīz When Sulṭān Vais Sixteenth (Ḥaidar Dughlāt, resīd dar javār-i ʿamm Khan reached the age Century Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, ki Shīr-Muḥammad of discretion, he was 87, 91) Khān bāshad, būd. ān near his uncle who būdan ū-rā girān was Shīr-Muḥammad āmad. az vay mufāriqat Khan. He resented nimūd va bi rasm-i being [near his qazāqī bar aṭrāf uncle]. He left him bar-āmad . . . bi-rasm-i and went wandering qazāqī dar ḥudūd va around as a ḥavāshī-i Shīr- qazaq . . . wandered Muḥammad Khān around the frontier mī-gasht (Persian) regions of Shīr- Muḥammad in the manner of qazaqs

Tārīkh-i Rashīdī Sulṭān Saʿīd Khān chūn When Sulṭān Saʿīd (Ḥaidar Dughlāt, az jang-gāh bar-āmad Khan emerged from Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, va khvud-rā qarār dād the battlefield, he 167) ki dar Mughūlistān decided to spend his qazāqī karda bi-sar time as a qazaq in barad (Persian) Moghulistan

Tārīkh-i Rashīdī Dar umūr-i mulkī va In the affairs of (Ḥaidar Dughlāt, muhim guẕārī, government and Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, 9) kangāsh-i jang, az administration, the qazāqī va shab- conduct of war, ravī . . . dar īn hama whatever pertains to ustād va murabbī-i being a qazaq and man ū būd (Persian) night-raiding . . . in all of this, he was my master and patron Appendix 1 177

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Tārīkh-i Rashīdī Chūn īshān avval az ān Because they escaped (Ḥaidar Dughlāt, mardum-i bisyār and separated from Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, gurīkhta judā shudand the mass of their 404) va muddatī bī sāmān people at first and for va sargardān a while remained mī-būdand īshān-rā destitute wandering qazāq guftand īn laqab aimlessly, they were bidīshān muqarrar called Qazaqs and this shud (Persian) nickname was fixed to them

Mid- Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān Al-qiṣṣa Toḫtamïš In short, Toqtamïsh Sixteenth or Chingīz-nāma Oġlan qazaqlap yürüp became a qazaq and Century (Ötämiš Ḥājī, Ḫānnïng elidin yïlqï chased away the herd Čingīz-Nāma, fols. sürär erdilär vä el of [Urus] Khan’s 55b–56a) čapar erdi . . . Bu people and raided his Oġlan-i maẕkūr people . . . This qazaqlap yürüp bu aforementioned ṭarīqa išlär qïla bašladï prince turned qazaq (Chaghatay Turkic) and started to do things in this manner

Mid- Tārīḫ-i Ṣāḥib Girāy Zīrā Azaḳ ḳazaġı cümle Because all the Azaq Sixteenth KhanḪān (Remmāl aña tābiʿ olub, bile qazaqs were subject Century Ḫoca, Tārīḫ-i Ṣāḥib yortarlardı (Ottoman to him, they moved Girāy KhanḪān, 53) Turkish) around together

Late- Humāyūn-nāma va qabl az ān, ki ʿubūr-i And before that, Sixteenth (Gulbadan Begim, ān ḥażrat dar ayyām-i when during the Century Humāyūn-nāma, qazāqīha bi-vilāyat-i ū days of qazaqlïq, fol. 3b) uftāda būd, az żarūrat His Majesty had rafta būdand (Persian) happened to pass through his (the local warlord Khusrau-Shāh’s) territory, he had to leave out of necessity 178 Appendix 1

(cont.)

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Mid- Baḥr al-asrār fī Chūn dar ibtidā-yi Because, at the Seventeenth manāqib al-akhyār vuṣūl bi-Mughūlistān beginning of their Century (Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, rūzgār bi-tākht va arrival in fol. 132a) tārāj-i aqvām-i Moghulistan, they Qalīmāq va Qirghīz spent their time mīguẕarānīdand va plundering the dar ḥavāshī-i mamālik Qalmaq and Qirghiz bi-gurg-rubāyī tribes and in the mashghūl būdand ism-i border regions qazāq bar ān ṭāyifa engaged in stealing iṭlāq yāft (Persian) like wolves, the name qazaq was applied to that group

Late Däftär-i Bu aġalarïm mengä He (Čingiz) said, ‘My Seventeenth Čingiz-nāmä düšmān boldï mäni brothers became my Century (Däftär-i andïb öltürürlär deb enemies and will Čingiz-nāmä, 47) bašïndïn qorqub qazaq follow me and kill čïqïb ketäyin teb kengäš me.’ Fearing for his etib bir eki üč yigit life, he decided to özinä ayartïb anasï become a qazaq and Alanġoġa käldi (Volga chose one, two, three Tatar) young men and came to his mother Alanġo

Däftär-i Er yetkändin ṣong After he (Temür) Čingiz-nāmä qazaq čïqïb yalġuz became a man, he (Däftär-i Šïmaqï šährigä became a qazaq and Čingiz-nāmä, 64) bardï . . . Šïmaqï-da went to the city of buzaẇ kütmägä yalġa Shimaqi alone . . . In indi (Volga Tatar) Shimaqi, he went to the pasture to look after calves Appendix 1 179

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Mid- ʿUmdet al-aḫbār Dayısı olan ḳūñrāt (Ḥasan Beg) became a Eighteenth (ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Ḳanagaday oġlu aḳ qazaq and went to the Century Qırımī, ʿUmdet-üt- Ḥuseyn bey ki Horezm side of the governor tevārīḫ, 44) vālisi idi anıñ yanına of Khorezm, Aq ḳazāḳ çıḳub gitti Ḥuseyn, son of his (Ottoman Turkish) uncle Qānagadāy the Qunghrat

ʿUmdet al-aḫbār Ġulām mes̱ābesinde (Edigü) became a (ʿAbd al-Ghaffār ḫidmetkārlıḳtan ʿār qazaq because he was Qırımī, ʿUmdet-üt- eder olub ḳazāḳ çıḳtı ve ashamed of being in tevārīḫ, 57) ḫan civārından yılḳı the service of the sürdi gitti (Ottoman khan as a page. He Turkish) drove his horses and left the land of the khan

Collected Epic of Chora Batir ʿAlī Beyni I killed ʿAlī Bey . . . one in the (Radlov, Obraztsy öltürdüm . . . qara who has killed a Nineteenth narodnoy literatury öltürgän tur’almay, commoner cannot Century severnykh tyurkskikh törä öltürgän toz’almay, remain, one who has plemen, 178) yigit munda kal’amay, killed a nobleman Yädi ḫanġa Kazanġa cannot endure. A qazaq čïkïp young man cannot kätäyim . . . (Crimean remain here. I will Tatar) become a qazaq and go to Kazan and seven khans (?) . . .

Collected Epic of Qambar Qazanatlïqqa baramïz, We will go to qazaqlïq, in the Batir (Auezov, ed., Qalmaqqa oyran we will destroy the Nineteenth Kambar Batyr, 28) salamïz . . . (Kazan Qalmaqs Century Tatar) 180 Appendix 1

(cont.)

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Collected Epic of Edigü Ili khanom sebya Make yourself khan or in the (Idegey, 207–9) utverdi, il’ menya na raise me to the throne Nineteenth prestol vozvedi! Ili or take my life or Century zhizn’ otnimi ty moyu, I myself will kill you. ili sam ya tebya ub’yu. Go away from my Ukhodi ot moey ruki, hand. Go, become a ukhodi, ukhodi v qazaq . . . Do not drive kazaki . . . Ne goni me to become a qazaq menya v kazaki (Russian)

Mid- Polnoye sobraniye Kazaki ryazan’skia The Ryazan cossacks Fifteenth russkikh letopisey (Russian) Century 12: 62

Early Pamyatniki A kakimi dely poydut Whatever happens to Sixteenth diplomaticheskikh na tobya, i mne by you, I (Ivan III) would Century snosheniy moskovs- brata tvoyego like to send your kago Gosudarstva s Nurdovlata tsarya i brother Nūr Devlet krymskoyu i ulanov i knyazey i Khan and the oghlans, nagayskoyu ordami kazakov vsekh otpustiti princes, and cossacks i s turtsiey 1: 46 pod Ordu (Russian) all of them against the Horde

Pamyatniki Yaz Abdy-letif tsar tebe I, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Khan, diplomaticheskikh bratu svoyemu, to you my brother, 2: 51 velikomu knyazyu Grand Prince Vasily Vasil’yu Ivanovichyu Ivanovich of all vsea Rusii . . . s svoimi Russia . . . together ulany i s knyazmi i with my oghlans and vsemi s nashimi kazaki princes and all of our krepko shert dali cossacks, we firmly esmya . . . (Russian) swear an oath Appendix 1 181

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Late Sobranie gosudarst- Nashi lyudi prished v Our people having Sixteenth vennykh gramot i Sibir tebya s tsarstva come to Sibir drove Century dogovorov 2: 133–4 sognali i sibirskuyu you (Kuchum Khan) zemlyu vzyali a ty away from the poshel v kazakikh khanship and took kochevati . . . kazakom the Sibir land and you kochyuesh na pole ne so became cossack mn . . . svoimi lyudmi nomadizing . . . You (Russian) are nomadizing as a cossack in the steppe with not many of your own men

Late Joannis Dlugossii, Frequens Tartarorum A large Tatar army Fifteenth Annales seu exercitus ex fugitivis, collected from Century Cronicae incliti predonibus et exulibus, fugitives, expellees, Regni Poloniae, quos sua lingua and robbers, whom 243–44 Kozakos appellant they call in their (Latin) language cossacks

Early Marcin Bielski. . . . się zebrawszy tego . . . gathered at about Sixteenth Kronika Polska, czasu kilka set z that time, several Century 990–91 Przeclawem hundred strong, and Lanckorońskim jechali rode with Przeclaw w kozactwo pod Lanckoronski to Bilagród, zajęli dobytek practice cossack ways turecki i tatarski, in the vicinity of pędzili do domu . . . A Bilhorod. They natenczas się dopiero captured Turkish and Kozacy u nas wszczęli Tatar livestock and (Polish) drove it home. . . . It was only then that the cossackdom began in our country 182 Appendix 1

(cont.)

Date Source (Citation) Text (Language) Translation

Early Maciej z Miechowa, Dumtaxat interdum Sometimes only the Sixteenth Traktat o dvukh Kazaci eam pertran- cossacks pass by, Century Sarmatiyakh; seunt, quaerentes, ut searching for, in Sokrovennoye moris eorum est, quem accordance to their skazaniye devorent. Kazak way of life, someone mongolov, 151 Thartaricum nomen to devour. Kazak is a est, kozak vero Tatar word, but kozak Rutenicum, valens in in Ruthenian, lingua latina servilem, meaning in Latin a stipendiarium, slave, a hired man, a grassatorem seu vagabond or a reytteronem: spoliis horseman: They live enim vivunt, nulli by booty and are not subiecti gregatim subordinate to anyone latissimos et vacuos and they roam campos tres, sex, through the wide and decem, viginti, empty steppes in sexaginta etc numero detachments of three, percurrentes (Latin) six, ten, twenty, and sixty persons and more Appendix 2 The Characterization of Qazaq and Qazaqlïq by Modern Historians and Turkologists

Qazaq Qazaqlïq

Wilhelm Barthold Free and independent man, vagabond, and adventurer

A man, separated from his state, tribe or race and forced to lead the life of an adventurer

A person without his family and property, even when he did not lead the life of a vagabond or a brigand

Vasily Vasilievich Radlov Free man, independent, Adventure, wandering adventurer, wanderer around

Gerhard Doerfer Partisan, wandering robber, vagrant, who is not subject to a ruler permanently

Ahmed Zeki Velidi Togan The adventurers who withdrew to the mountains and wildernesses with a political aim as a result of a rebellion, leaving their society without a family (boydak) and sometimes together with their family, and wandered outside the control of the el and tribe (kabile) until they took control of governmental matters, taking advantage of an opportunity; the adolescent boys who became separated from their el in accordance with the practice of sending them out to the wilderness (sahra) in order to accustom them to life; and those who became separated from their el with the intention of ordinary brigandage

(cont.)

Qazaq Qazaqlïq

Annemarie von Gabain A royal figure who, with a political aim, separated from his state, and alone or together with the family, roamed the steppe without the customary protection of the tribe and sought to make conquests

Princes who could not assume power and therefore had to roam the land without a fixed destination

The whole tribes or units that broke away from their ancestral polity to become qazaqs

Isenbike Togan A retinue institution that functioned as a necessary stage between clan-tribal societies and states

Halil İnalcık An action of withdrawing to the steppe in order to wait for an opportune moment to overcome one’s rivals and regain power

Victor Ostapchuk Dissatisfied individuals or Leaving one’s state and groups who were outside going out into the steppe the legitimate authority with one’s followers to improve one’s fortune (material or political) Appendix 2 185

Qazaq Qazaqlïq

Wolfgang Holzwarth A participant in a band of The life of an adventurer, freebooters, plunderers, or which has the following robbers meanings: wandering (prowling); raiding, plundering, guerrilla warfare; the life outside of the established political order; and the period during which a non-reigning prince demonstrates his talent as a leader and gathers followers

Stephen Frederic Dale A political vagabond Throneless, vagabond times, which political vagabonds such as Babur had to undergo, wandering in the political wilderness, fighting for fortresses and kingdoms, or trying to recover those they had lost

Maria Eva Subtelny Freebooter, brigand, The period of brigandage vagabond, guerrilla warrior, that a qazaq spent, usually and Cossack as a young man, roaming about in some remote region on the fringes of the sedentary urban oases, usually after fleeing from a difficult social or political situation Bibliography

Primary Sources

ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī. Zubdat al-ās̱ār. MS, Tashkent, Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 5368. Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân. Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares par Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân. Edited and translated by Petr I. Desmaisons. St. Petersburg, 1871– 1874. Reprint, Amsterdam: Philo, 1970. Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī. The Mulfuzāt Timūry, or, Autobiographical Memoirs of the Moghul Emperor Timūr, Written in the Jagtay Turky Language, Turned into Persian by Abu Talib Hussyny, and Translated into English by Charles Stewart. Translated by Charles Stewart. London: The Oriental Translation Committee, 1830. Akty, otnosyashchiyesya k istorii Yuzhnoy i Zapadnoy Rossii, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoyu Kommissieyu. Vol. 2, 1599–1637. St. Petersburg: V tipografii Eduarda Pratsa, 1865. Alisher Navoiĭ. Mazholisun nafois [Majālis al-nafāʾis]. Edited by Suĭima Ghanieva. Tashkent: Ŭzbekiston SSR Fanlar Akademiyasi nashriëti, 1961. ʿAlīshīr Navāʾī. Majālis al-nafāʾis. MS, British Library, India Office, 2507. Auezov, M. O., and N. S. Smirnova, eds. Kambar Batyr. Alma-Ata: Izd-vo Akademii nauk Kazakhskoy SSR, 1959. Babur Mirza, Zahiruddin Muhammad. Baburnama. Translated by W. M. Thackston, Jr. 3 pts. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures, 18. Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1993. Babur, Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad. Bābur-nāma (Vaqāyiʿ). Edited by Eiji Mano. 2 vols. Kyoto: Syokado, 1995–96. Barbaro, Josafa, and Ambrogio Contarini. Travels to Tana and Persia by Josafa Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini. Translated by William Thomas and S. A. Roy. New York: B. Franklin, 1963. Bawden, Charles, ed. and trans. The Mongolian Chronicle Altan Tobči: Text, Translation and Critical Notes. Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen 5. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1955. de Beauplan, Guillaume Le Vasseur. A Description of Ukraine. Edited and translated by Dennis F. Essar and Andrew B. Pernal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1993. Bennigsen, Alexandre, Pertev Naili Boratav, Dilek Desaive, and Chantal Lemercier- Quelquejay, eds. Le Khanat de Crimée dans les Archives du Musée de Palais de Topkapı. Paris: Mouton, 1978.

9789004306493 Bibliography 187

Berezin, I., ed. and trans. Sheybaniada: Istoriya mongolo-tyurkov na dzhagatayskom dialekte. Biblioteka vostochnykh istorikov, vol. 1. Kazan, 1849. Bielski, Marcin, and Joachim Bielski. Kronika polska Marcina Bielskiego nowo przez Joachima Bielskiego syná jego wydána. Edited by K. J. Turowski. Sanok, 1856. Borschak, Élie. La légende historique de l’Ukraine: Istorija rusov. Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 1949. Bukhārī, Ḥāfiẓ Tanish Amīr Muḥammad. Sharaf-nama-ii shakhi: Kniga shakhskoy slavy. 2 vols. Facsimile edition and translation by M. A. Salakhetdinova et al. Moscow: Nauka, 1983. Chen, Gaohua 陈高华, ed. Mingdai Hami Tulufan ziliao huibian 明代哈密吐鲁番资料汇编. Urumqi: Xinjiang ren min chu ban she, 1984. Churās, Shāh-Maḥmūd b. Mīrzā Fāżīl. Khronika. Edited and translated by O. F. Akimushkin. Pamyatniki pis’mennosti Vostoka, vol. 45. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka, 1976. Clavijo, [Ruy González de]. Embassy to Tamerlane, 1403–1406. Translated by Guy Le Strange. The Broadway Travellers. London, 1928. Reprint, London: Routledge Curzon, 2005. Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä). Edited by A. Mirkasym Usmanov and Mária Ivanics. Studia Uralo-Altaica, 44. Szeged: University of Sezged, 2002. Dawson, Christopher, ed. Mission to Asia: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. [Długosz, Jan]. Joannis Dlugossii. Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Vol. 12, 1462– 1480. Edited by C. Baczkowski et al. Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2005. Drimba, Vladimir. Codex Comanicus. Édition diplomatique avec fac-similés. Bucarest: Editura Enciclopedică, 2000. Elverskog, Johan. The Jewel Translucent Sūtra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Fang, Xuanling 房玄齡. Jinshu 晉書 [Book of the Jin Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Fischel, Walter Joseph, trans. Ibn Khaldūn and Tamerlane: Their Historic Meeting in Damascus, 1401 AD (803 A.H.): A Study Based on Arabic Manuscripts of Ibn Khaldūn’s “Autobiography”. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952. Gardīzī, ʿAbd al-Ḥayy ibn Z̤aḥḥāk. Tārīkh-i Gardīzī. Edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī. Tehran: Dunyā-i Kitāb, 1363/1985. Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî. Füsûl-i hall ü akd ve usûl-i harc ü nakd: İslam devletleri tarihi; 622–1599. Edited by Mustafa Demir. Istanbul: Değişim Yayınları, 2006. Gulbadan Begim. “Humáyunnáma.” In Three Memoirs of Humáyun, vol. 1, Gulbadan Begim’s Humáyunnáma; Jawhar Áftábachi’s Tadhkirat’ul-wáqíát, edited and 188 Bibliography

translated by W. M. Thackston, pp. 1–73 (text), pp. 1–67 (trans.). Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2009. Ḥāfiẓ Abrū. Zayl-i jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh-i Rashīdī. Tehran: Shirkat-i taz̤āmunī-yi ʿilmī, 1939. Ḥaidar Dughlat Mīrzā, Muḥammad. Tārīkh-i Rashīdī. Edited by ʿAbbās Qulī Ghaffārī Fard. Tehran: Mīrās-i Maktūb, 2004. Haydar Dughlat, Mirza. [Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlat]. Tarikh-i-Rashidi: A History of the Khans of Moghulistan. Edited and translated by W. M. Thackston. 2 vols. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 37–38. Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1996. Herberstein, Sigmund. Notes upon Russia: Being a Translation of the Earliest Account of that Country, Entitled Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii. 2 vols. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1851–52. Reprint, New York: Burt Franklin, 1963. Histoire secrète des Mongols. Edited by Louis Ligeti. Monumenta linguae mongolicae collecta 1. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971. Ḫunği, Faḍlallāh b. Rūzbihān. Transoxanien und Turkestan zu Beginn des 16. Jahr hunderts: Das Mihmān-nāma-yi Buhārā des Fadlallāh b. Rūzbihān Hunği. Translated by Ursula Ott. Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, 25. Freiburg: Klaus Schwarz, 1974. Ibn ʿArabshāh, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. ʿAjāʾib al-maqdūr fī nawāʾib Taimūr. Edited by Aḥmad Fāʾiz al-Ḥimṣī. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1407/1986. Ibn al-Athīr, ‘Izz al-Dīn. Al-Kāmil fī al-tārīkh. Edited by Carl Johan Tornberg. Vol. 12. Beirut: Dar Sader, 1966. Ibn Battuta. Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325–1354. Translated by H. A. R. Gibb. New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1969. Ibn Batūtah. Riḥlat Ibn Batūtah, al-musammāh Tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār fī gharāʾib al-amṣār wa-ʿajāʾib al-asfār. 2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kitab al-Lubnānī, 1975. Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā. Al-Taʿrīf biʾl-Mustalah al-Sharīf. Edited by Samīr al-Durūbī. Vol. 1. Karak: Muʾta University, 1413/1992. Ibn Khaldūn, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Al-Taʿrif bi-Ibn Khaldūn wa-riḥlatihi Gharban wa- Sharqan. Edited by Muḥammad ibn Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī. Cairo: Lajnat al-ta⁠ʾlīf wa-al- tarjamah wa-al-nashr, 1951. Ibragimov, S. K., H. H. Mingulov, K. A. Pishchlina, and V. P. Yudin, comp. and trans. Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv 15–18 vekov. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1969. Idegey: Tatarskiy narodnyy epos. Translated by Semen Lipkin. Edited by M. A. Usmanov. Kazan: Tatarskoye knizhnoye izdatel’stvo, 1990. Isfizārī, Muʿīn al-Dīn Muḥammad Zamchī. Raużāt al-jannāt fī auṣāf-i madīnat-i Harāt. Edited by Sayyid Muḥammad Kāẓim Imām. 2 vols. Tehran, 1338–39/1959–60. Jalāyirī, Qādir ʿAlī Bek. Sbornik letopisei: Tatarskii tekst, s russkim predisloviem. Edited and translated by I. Berezin. Biblioteka vostochnykh istorikov, vol. 2. Kazan, 1854. Jūzjānī, Minhāj al-Dīn Abū ʿUthmān b. Sirāj al-Dīn. T̤abakāt-i-Nāṣirī: A General History of the Muhammadan Dynasties of Asia, including Hindustan; From A.H. 194 (810 AD) Bibliography 189

to AH 658 (1260 AD) and the Irruption of the Infidel Mughals into Islam. Translated by H. G. Raverty. 2 vols. London: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1872–81. Reprint, New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint, 1970. ———. Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī. Edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī. 2 vols. Lahore: Matbaʿah-i kūh-i Nūr, 1945–1954. Reprint. Kabul: Pūhani matbaʿah, 1963–64. Kai Kāʾūs ibn Iskandar. A Mirror for Princes: The Qābūs Nāma. Translated by Reuben Levy. London: Cresset, 1951. ———. The Naṣīḥāt-nāma, Known as Qābūs-nāma, of Kai Kāʾūs b. Iskandar b. Qābūs b. Washmgīr [Qābūs-nāma. Edited by Reuben Levy. London: Luzac, 1951. Karasoy, Yakup, ed. and trans. Türklerde şecere geleneği ve anonim Şibanî-nâme. Konya: Tablet, 2005. ———, ed. Şiban Han Dîvânı. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu, 1998. Khunjī, Fażlallāh b. Rūzbihān [Isfahānī]. Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā: Tārīkh-i pādshāhī-i Muḥammad Shībānī. Edited by Manūchihr Sutūda. Tehran: Bungāh-i Tarjuma va Nashr-i Kitāb, 1341/1962. Khvāndamīr, Ghiyās̱ al-Dīn b. Humām al-Dīn. Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār-i afrād-i bashar. Edited by Jalāl al-Dīn Humā’ī. 4 vols. Tehran: Kitābfurūshī-i Khayyām, 1333/1954–55. 3rd repr. ed., 1362/1984. Khwandamir. Habibu’s-siyar: Tome Three. Translated by W. M. Thackston. 2 pts. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 24. Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1994. Kubo, Kazuyuki, ed. “Shaybānī-nāma by Mullā Bināʾī, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī.” In A Synthetical Study on Central Asian Culture in the Turco-Islamic Period, 1–93 (Persian text), 61–67 (Japanese and English). Research Report, Ministry of Education, Science, Sports ad Culture, Japan, Project No. 6301043. Kyoto, 1997. Kuun, Géza, and Lajos Ligeti, eds. Codex Cumanicus. Budapest: MTAK, 1981. Lassota von Steblau, Erich. Habsburgs and Zaporozhian Cossacks: The Diary of Erich Lassota Von Steblau, 1594. Edited by Lubomyr R. Wynar. Translated by Orest Subtelny. Littleton, CO: Published for the Ukrainian Historical Association by Ukrainian Academic Press, 1975. Li, Yangshou 李延壽. Beishi 北史 [History of the Northern Dynasties]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003. Li, Zhichang 李志常. Changchunzhenren Xi You Ji Jiao Zhu 長春真人西遊記校注. Edited by Wang Guowei 王國維. Beijing: Wen dian ge shu zhuang, 1940. Linghu, Defen 令狐德芬. Zhoushu 周書 [Book of the Zhou Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003. Litterae nuntiorum apostolicorum historiam ucrainae illustrantes (1550–1850). Edited by Athansius G. Welykyj. Vol. 1, 1550–1593. Rome: PP. Basiliani, 1959. Liu, Xu 劉昫. Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 [Old book of the Tang Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002. 190 Bibliography

Lubsangdanjin. Altan Tobči: eine mongolische Chronik des XVII. Jahrhunderts von Blo bzan bstan’jin: Text und Index. Edited by Hans-Peter Vietze and Gendeng Lubsang. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1992. Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī Balkhī. Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār. MS, British Library, India Office, Ethé 575. ———. Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār. MS, Tashkent, Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 1385. ———. Baḥr al-Asrār fī maʿrifat il-akhyār. Edited by Sayyid Muʿīn al-Ḥaqq, Anṣār Zāhid Khān, and Ḥakīm Muḥammad Saʿīd. Vol. 1, part 1. Karachi: Pakistan Historical Society, 1984. Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī. Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Luġāt at-Turk). Edited and translated by Robert Dankoff, in collaboration with James Kelly. 3 pts. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 7. [Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University], 1982–85. Makhmud ibn Vali. More tayn otnositel’no doblestey blagorodnykh (geografiya). Translated by B. A. Akhmedov. Tashkent: Izdatel’stvo “Fan”, 1977. Mekhovskiy, Matvey [Maciej z Miechowa]. Traktat o dvukh Sarmatiyakh; Sokrovennoye skazanie mongolov. Translated by S. A. Kozin and A. I. Tsepkov. Ryazan: Aleksandriya, 2009. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ. Die Scheïbaniade: Ein özbegisches Heldengedicht in 76 Gesängen. Translated by Hermann Vambery. Budapest: K. K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1885. Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh Mīr Khvānd. Tārīkh-i Raużat al-ṣafā. Edited by Riżā Qulī Khān. 6 vols. Tehran: Pīrūz, 1960. Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb. Edited and translated by M. Kh. Abuseitova et al. Istoriya Kazakhstana v persidskikh istochnikakh 3. Almaty: Dayk, 2006. Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb. MS, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ancien fonds persan 67. Mūnīs, Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb and Muḥammad Rīzā Mīrāb Āgahī. Firdaws al-iqbāl: History of Khorezm. Edited by Yuri Bregel. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988. ———. Firdaws al-iqbāl: History of Khorezm. Translated by Yuri Bregel. Islamic History and Civilization, vol. 28. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999. Munshī, Muḥammad Yūsuf. Taẕkira-i Muqīm Khānī. Edited by Firishta Ṣarrāfān. Tehran: Mīrāṣ-i Maktūb, 2001. Naṭanzī, Muʿīn al-Dīn. Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Muʿīnī. Edited by Jean Aubin. Tehran: Khayyam, 1336/1957. The Nikonian Chronicle. Edited, introduced and annotated by Serge A. Zenkovsky. Translated by Serge A. and Betty Jean Zenkovsky. 5 vols. Princeton, N.J.: Kingston Press, 1984. Bibliography 191

Niyāz Muḥammad b. Mullā ʿAshūr. Taarikh Shakhrokhi: Istoriya vladeteley Fergany. Edited by N. N. Pantusov. Kazan: Tipografiya Imperatorskogo Universiteta, 1885. Ötemiş Hacı. Çengiz-name. Edited and translated by İlyas Kamalov. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2009. Ötämiš Ḥājī. Čingīz-Nāma. Edited and translated by Takushi Kawaguchi and Hiroyuki Nagamine. Studia Culturae Islamicae 94. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 2008. Ötemís Qažy. Šyńğys-name. Edited and translated by M. Q. Äbuseyítova. Qazaqstan tarihy turaly türk derektemeler, vol. 1. Almaty: Dayk, 2005. Ouyang, Xiu 歐陽修. Xin Wudaishi 新五代史 [New History of the Five Dynasties]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Ouyang, Xiu 歐陽修, and Song Qi 宋祁. Xin Tangshu 新唐書 [New book of the Tang Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003. Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh snosheniy Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Krymskoyu i Nagayskoyu ordami i s Turtsyey. Vol. 1, S 1474 do 1505 god, epokha sverzheniya mongol’skogo iga v Rossii, edited by G. F. Karpov. Sbornik Imperatorskogo Russkogo Istoricheskogo Obshchestva, vol. 41. St. Petersburg, 1884. Reprint, Nendeln: Kraus Reprint, 1971. Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh snosheniy Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Krymom, Nagayami i Turtsiyeyu. Vol. 2, 1508–1521 gg., edited by G. F. Karpov and G. F. Shtendman. Sbornik Imperatorskogo Russkogo Istoricheskogo Obshchestva, vol. 95. St. Petersburg, 1895. Reprint, Nendeln: Kraus Reprint, 1971. Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey. Vol. 11, Letopisnyy sbornik, imenuyemyy Patriarshey ili Nikonovskoy letopis’yu (Prodolzheniye). St. Petersburg, 1897. Reprint, Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul’tury, 2000. Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey. Vol. 12, Letopisnyy sbornik, imenuyemyy Patriarshey ili Nikonovskoy letopis’yu (Prodolzheniye). St. Petersburg, 1901. Reprint, Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul’tury, 2000. Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey. Vol. 23, Yermolinskaya letopis’. St. Petersburg, 1910. Reprint, Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul’tury, 2004. Polo, Marco. The Description of the World. 2 vols. Translated by A. C. Moule and Paul Pelliot. London: G. Routledge, 1938. Reprint, New York: AMS, 1976. Prodolzhenie drevney rossiyskoy vivlioḟiki. Edited by Nikolay Ivanovich Novikov. St. Petersburg: Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1786. Reprint, The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Pułaski, Kazimierz, ed. Stosunki z Mendli-Girejem, chanem Tatarów Perekopskich (1469– 1515): Akta i listy. Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną od połowy XV. wieku, vol. 1. Cracow and Warsaw: G. Gebethner i spółka, 1881. Qazvīnī, Ḥamdullāh Mustaufī. Tārīkh-i guzīda. Edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥusain Navāʾī. Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1339/1961. Reprint, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1387/2009. 192 Bibliography

Qırımī, ʿAbd al-Ghaffār. ʿUmdet-üt-tevārīḫ. Edited by Najīb ʿĀsim. Supplement to Türk Tarih Encümeni Mecmuası. Istanbul: 1343/1924–1925. Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī. Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh. Edited by Bahman Karīmī. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Iqbāl, 1367/1988. ———. Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh. Edited by Muḥammad Raushan and Muṣṭafā Mūsavī. 4 vols. Tehran, 1373/1994–95. Rashiduddin Fazlullah. Jamiʿuʾt-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles): A History of the Mongols. Translated by W. M. Thackston. 3 pts. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 45. [Cambridge, MA]: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1998–99. Remmal Khoja. Tarih Sahib Giray Han: Histoire de Sahib Giray, Khan de Crimée de 1532 à 1551. Edited and translated by Özalp Gökbilgin. Ankara: Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1973. [Rubruck, William of]. The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Möngke, 1253–1255. Translated by Peter Jackson. Introduction, notes and appendices by Peter Jackson with David Morgan. Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., no. 173. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1990. Samarqandī, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq. Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain va majmaʿ-i baḥrain. Edited by Muḥammad Shafīʿ. Vol. 2 in 3 pts. Lahore, 1365–68/1946–49. ———. “Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain va majmaʿ-i baḥrain.” In Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy. Vol. 2, Izvlecheniya iz persidskikh sochineniy. Edited and translated by V. G. Tizengauzen. Moscow and Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1941. Schiltberger, Johann. The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger: a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396–1427. Translated by J. Buchan Telfer. London: 1879. Reprint, New York: Burt Franklin, 1970. The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century. Translated by Igor de Rachewiltz. 2 vols. Brill’s Inner Asian Library, vol. 7. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Şeşen, Ramazan, ed. and trans. El-Cahiz ve Türklerin faziletleri: tercümenin gözden geçirilmiş 2. Baskısı ve Arapça tenkidli metin. 2nd ed. Istanbul: Yıldız Yayıncılık, Reklamcılık A.Ş., 2002. Shāmī, Niẓām al-Dīn. Histoire des conquêtes de Tamerlan intitulée Ẓafarnāma, par Niẓāmuddīn Šāmī. Vol. 1, Texte persan du Ẓafarnāma. Edited by F. Tauer. Prague: Oriental Institute, 1937. Shajarat al-Atrāk. MS, London, British Library, India Office, Ethé 172. Shen, Yue. Songshu [Book of the Liu Song Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Ssanang Ssetsen, Chungtaidschi. Erdeni-yin tobci (‘Precious summary’): A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662. Edited by Minoru Gō, Igor de Rachewiltz, J. R. Krueger, and Bibliography 193

B. Ulaan. 2 vols. Faculty of Asian Studies monographs, n.s., nos. 15, 18. Canberra: Australian National University, 1990–1991. Syzdyqova, R. Qadyrghali bi Qosymūly zhane onyng zhylnamalar zhinaghy. Almaty: Qazaq universitetī, 1991. “Tauarih-i guzida-yi nūsrat-name.” In Qazaqstan tarihy turaly türk derektemeler. Vol. 5, XV–XIX ğasyrlar šyğarmalarynan üzíndíler, edited and translated by M. Q. Äbuseyítova et al., 13–66. Almaty: Dayk, 2006. Tavarikh-i guzīda-Nuṣrat-nāma [sic]. Facsimile edition by A. M. Akramov. Tashkent: Fan, 1967. Tuotuo 脫脫. Liaoshi 遼史 [History of the Liao Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003. Utemish-Khadzhi [Ötemish-Ḥājjī]. Chingiz-name. Edited and translated by V. P. Yudin. Alma-Ata: Gilim, 1992. Vāsifī, Zain al-Dīn Maḥmūd. Badāīʿ al-vakāīʿ [Badāyiʿ al-vaqāyiʿ]. Edited by A. N. Boldyrev. 2 vols. Pamyatniki literatury narodov Vostoka: Teksty, Bol’shaia seriya, vol. 5. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoi literatury, 1961. Vel’yaminov-Zernov, V. Matériaux pour servir à l’histoire du Khanat de Crimée: Extrait, par ordre de l’Académie impériale des sciences, des archives centrales du Ministère des affaires étrangères, à Moscou. St. Petersburg, 1864. Wei, Shou 魏收. Weishu 魏書 [Book of the Wei Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003. Wei, Zheng 魏徵. Suishu 隋書 [Book of the Sui Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2008. Xiao, Zixian 蕭子顯. Nan Qishu 南齊書 [Book of the South Qi Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973. Xue, Juzheng 薛居正. Jiu Wudaishi 舊五代史 [The Old History of the Five Dynasties]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003. Yao, Silian 姚思廉, and Yao Cha 姚察. Liangshu 梁書 [Book of the Liang Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973. Yazdī, Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī. Ẓafar-nāma. Facsimile edition by A. Urinboyev. Tashkent: Fan, 1972. ———. Zafar-name: Kniga pobed Amira Temura. Edited and translated by Ashraf Akhmedov. Tashkent: San’at, 2008. ———. Ẓafar-nāma: Tārīkh-i ʿumūmī mufaṣṣil-i Irān dar daura-i Tīmūrīyān. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAbbāsī. 2 vols. Tehran: Shirkat-i sahāmī-i chāp-i rangīn, 1336/1957. Žalayyr, Qadyr-Ğali Bi. “Žamiğ at-tauarih.” In Qazaqstan tarihy turaly türk derektemeler. Vol. 5, XV–XIX ğasyrlar šyğarmalarynan üzíndíler, edited and translated by M. Q. Äbuseyítova, 140–73. Almaty: Dayk, 2006. 194 Bibliography

Secondary Sources

Abdykalykov, M., and A. Pankratova, eds. Istoriya Kazakhskoy SSR s drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney. Alma-Ata: Kazogiz, 1943. Abuseitova, M. Kh. “Istoricheskiye issledovaniya v Kazakhstane.” In Istoriya issledo- vaniy kul’tury Kazakhstana: Sbornik statey, edited by Erden Zada-uly Kazhibekov, 5–18. Almaty: Qazaq universitetï, 1997. ———. Kazakhskoye khanstvo vo vtoroi polovine XVI veka. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1985. ———. Kazakhstan i Tsentral’naya Aziya v XV–XVII vv.: Istoriya, politika, diplomatiya. Almaty: Dayk, 1998. Abuseitova, M. Kh., and J. G. Baranova. Pis’mennye istochniki po istorii i kul’ture Kazakhstana i Tsentral’noy Azii v XIII–XVIII vv. (biobibliograficheskie obzory). Almaty: Dayk, 2001. Abuseitova, M. Kh., and Safar Abdullo, eds. Istoriko-kul’turnye vzaimosvyazi Irana i Dasht-i Kipchaka v XIII–XVIII vv.: Materialy Mezhdunarodnogo krugologo stola. Almaty: Dayk, 2004. Äbuseyítova, M. Q., Ä. Q. Muminov, D. E. Mederova, B. Eženhanūly, N. Bazylhan, and A. Š. Nūrmanova, eds. and trans. Cin patšalyq däuíríníń mūrağat qūžattary. Qazaqstan tarihy turaly qytay derektemeler 3. Almaty: Dayk, 2006. Adle, Chahryar, Irfan Habib, and Karl M. Baipakov, eds. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. 5, Development in Contrast: From the Sixteenth to the Mid- Nineteenth Century. Paris: Unesco, 2003. Adshead, S. A. M. Central Asia in World History. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993. Akasaka, Tsuneaki 赤坂恒明. “Jitsusi seiki chūyō- jitsu riku jūroku seiki shome ni okeru Uzubeku—isurāmu ka go no juchi urusu no sōshō 十四世紀中葉— 十六世紀初めにおけるウズベク: イスラーム化後のジュチ・ウルスの総称 [The Uzbeks from the mid-14th Century to the Early 16th century: A General Term for Ulus-i Jochi after Its Islamization].” Shigaku zasshi 109, no. 3 (2000): 325–63. ———. Juchi ei sho seiken shi no kenkyū ジュチ裔諸政権史の研究 [A Study of the Jochid Dynasty]. Tokyo: Kazama-Shobo, 2005. Akhmedov, B. A. Gosudarstvo kochevykh uzbekov. Moscow: Nauka, 1965. ———. Istoriko-geograficheskaya literatura Sredney Azii XV–XVIII vv: Pis’mennye pamyatniki. Tashkent: Fan, 1985. Akiner, Shirin. The Formation of Kazakh Identity: From Tribe to Nation-State. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1995. Alekseev, A. K. Politicheskaya istoriya Tukay-timuridov: Po materialam persidskogo istoricheskogo sochineniya Bakhr al-asrar. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo S.-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 2006. Allsen, T. T. “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 (1985/1987): 5–40. Bibliography 195

———. “Sharing out the Empire: Apportioned Lands under the Mongols.” In Nomads in the Sedentary World, edited by Anatoly M. Khazanov and André Wink, 172–90. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2001. Allworth, Edward A. The Modern Uzbeks: From the Fourteenth Century to the Present: A Cultural History. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1990. Amitai, Reuven, and Michal Biran, eds. Nomads as Agents of Cultural Change: The Mongols and Their Eurasian Predecessors. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2014. Ando, Shiro. Timuridische Emire nach dem Mu‘izz al-ansāb: Untersuchung zur Stammesaristokratie Zentralasiens im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, vol. 153. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1992. Artykbaev, Zh. O. Materialy k istorii pravyashchego doma Kazakhov. Almaty: Gylym, 2001. Atwood, Christopher P. “Six Pre-Chinggisid Genealogies in the Mongol Empire.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 19 (2013): 335–88. Aubin, Jean. “L’ethnogénèse des Qaraunas.” Turcica 1 (1969): 65–94. ———. “Le khanat de Čaġatai et le Khorassan (1334–1380).” Turcica 8, no. 2 (1976): 16–60. Balabanlilar, Lisa. Imperial Identity in Mughal Empire: Memory and Dynastic Politics in Early Modern Central Asia. London; New York: I. B. Tauris, 2012. Balanovsky, Oleg, Siiri Rootsi, Andrey Pshenichnov, Toomas Kivisild, Michail Churnosov, Irina Evseeva, Elvira Pocheshkhova, et al. “Two Sources of the Russian Patrilineal Heritage in Their Eurasian Context.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 82 (2008): 236–50. Barfield, Thomas J. The Nomadic Alternative. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1993. ———. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989. ———. “Tribe and State Relations: The Inner Asian Perspective.” In Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, edited by Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner, 153–82. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990. Barthold, V. V. Four Studies on the History of Central Asia. Translated by V. Minorsky and T. Minorsky. Vol. 2, Ulugh-Beg; Vol. 3, Mīr ʿAlī-Shīr and A History of the Turkman People. Leiden: Brill, 1958–62. Bartol’d, V. V. “Izvlecheniye iz sochineniya Gardizi Zayn al-akhbār: Prilozhenie k Otchetu o poyezdke v Srednyuyu Aziyu s nauchnoyu tsel’yu 1893–1894 gg.” In V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya. Vol. 8, edited by O. F. Akimushkin, 23–62. Moscow: Nauka, 1973. ———. “Istoriya izucheniya Vostoka v Evrope i Rossii.” In V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya. Vol. 9, edited by A. N. Kononov, 199–482. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. ———. “K istorii Khorezma v XVI v.” In V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya. Vol. 3, edited by O. G. Bol’shakov, 257–59. Moscow: Nauka, 1964. 196 Bibliography

———. “Kazak.” In V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya. Vol. 5, edited by S. G. Kliashtornyi, 535. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. ———. Ocherk istorii turkmenskogo naroda. In V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya. Vol. 2, pt. 1, edited by B. G. Gafurov, 545–623. Moscow: Nauka, 1963. ———. “Otchet o komandirovke v Turkestan.” In V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya. Vol. 8, edited by O. F. Akimushkin, 119–210. Moscow: Nauka, 1973. ———. Sochineniya. Edited by I. P. Petrushevskii et al. 9 vols. in 10. Moscow: Nauka, 1963–77. ———. “Tserimonial pri dvore uzbetskikh khanov v XVII veke.” In V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya. Vol. 2, pt. 2, edited by Yu. E. Bregel’, 388–99. Moscow: Nauka, 1964. ———. Ulugbek i ego vremia. In V. V. Bartol’d, Sochineniya. Vol. 2, pt. 2, edited by Yu. E. Bregel’, 25–196. Moscow: Nauka, 1964. Beisembiev, Timur. “Ethnical Identity in Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the 18th and 19th Centuries: According to the Khokand Chronicles.” Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies 6 (1991): 55–66. ———. “Legenda o proiskhozhdenii kokandskikh khanov kak istochnik po istorii ide- ologii v Sredney Azii.” In Kazakhstan, Srednyaya i Tsentral’naya Aziya v XVI–XVIII vv., edited by E. A. Tulepbaev, 95–105. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1983. ———. “Migration in the Qoqand Khanate in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” In Migration in Central Asia: Its History and Current Problems, edited by Hisao Komatsu, Chika Obiya and John S. Schoeberlein, 35–40. Japan Center for Area Studies (JCAS) Symposium Series 9. Osaka, Japan Center for Area Studies, 2000. ———. Tarikh-i Shahrukhi kak istoricheskii istochnik. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1987. Benson, Linda, and Ingvar Svanberg. China’s Last Nomads: The History and Culture of China’s Kazaks. Armonk, NY.: M. E. Sharpe, 1998. ———, eds. The Kazaks of China: Essays on an Ethnic Minority. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1988. Berindei, Mihnea. “Le problème des Cosaques dans la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle: À propos de la révolte de Ioan Vodâ, voïévode de Moldavie.” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 13, no. 3 (1973): 338–67. Biran, Michal. The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Blagova, G. F. “Istoricheskiye vzaimootnosheniya slov kazak i kazakh.” In Etnonimy: Sbornik statey, edited by Vladimir Andreevich Nikonov, 143–59. Moscow: Nauka, 1970. Bodrogligeti, András J. E. “Muḥammad Shaybānī Khān’s Apology to the Muslim Clergy.” Archivum Ottomanicum 13 (1993–94): 85–100. Boeck, Brian J. Imperial Boundaries: Cossack Communities and Empire-Buiding in the Age of Peter the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Bibliography 197

Bregel, Yuri. The Administration of Bukhara under the Manghïts and Some Tashkent Manuscripts. Papers on Inner Asia 34. Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2000. ———, comp. and ed. Bibliography of Islamic Central Asia. 3 vols. Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 160. Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, 1995. ———. Documents from the Khanate of Khiva (17th–19th centuries). Papers on Inner Asia 40. Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2007. ———. An Historical Atlas of Central Asia. Handbook of Oriental Studies, sec. 8, Central Asia, vol. 9. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. “Uzbeks, Qazaqs and Turkmens.” In The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden, 221–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Bretschneider, E. Mediaeval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources: Fragments towards the Knowledge of the Geography and History of Central and Western Asia from the 13th to the 17th Century. 2 vols. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1910. Broadbridge, Anne F. Kingship and Ideology in the Islamic and Mongol Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Buell, Paul D. “The Role of the Sino-Mongolian Frontier Zone in the Rise of Cinggis- Qan.” In Studies on Mongolia: Proceedings of the First North American Conference on Mongolian Studies, edited by Henry G. Schwarz, 63–76. Bellingham: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University, 1979. Bulag, U. E. “Dark Quadrangle in Central Asia: Empires, Ethnogenesis, Scholars and Nation-States.” Central Asian Survey 13, no. 4 (1994): 459–78. ———. Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Burton, Audrey. The Bukharans: A Dynastic, Diplomatic and Commercial History 1550–1702. New York: St. Martin’s, 1997. Bustanov, Alfrid K. Soviet Orientalism and the Creation of Central Asian Nations. Central Asian Studies 29. London: Routledge, 2015. Canfield, Robert, ed. Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Carlson, Charles F. “The Concept of Sovereignty in Kazakhstan.” In Altaica Berolinensia: The Concept of Sovereignty in the Altaic World: Permanent International Altaistic Conference, 34th meeting, Berlin, 21–26 July, 1991, edited by Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, 57–68. Wiesbaden: Harrassowtiz Verlag, 1993. Christian, David. “State Formation in the Inner Eurasian Steppes.” In Worlds of the Silk Roads, Ancient and Modern: Proceedings from the Second Conference of the Australasian Society for Inner Asian Studies (A.S.I.A.S.), Macquarie University, 198 Bibliography

September 21–22, 1996, edited by David Christian and Benjamin Craig, 51–76. Turnhout: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1998. Chuloshnikov, Aleksandr P. Ocherki po istorii Kazak-Kirgizskogo naroda v svyazi s obshchimi istoricheskimi sud’bami drugikh tyurkskikh plemen: Lektsii, chitannye v Orenburgskom otdelenii Moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo instituta v 1921 godu. Pt. 1, Drevnee vremya i sredniye veka. Orenburg: Kirgizskoye gosudarstvennoye izdatel’stvo, 1924. Ciociltan, Virgil. The Mongols and the Black Sea Trade in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Translated by Samuel Willcocks. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Collins, L. J. D. “The Military Organization and Tactics of the Crimean Tatars during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In War, Technology and Society in the Middle East, edited by V. J. Perry and M. E. Yapp, 257–76. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. Crowe, David M. “The Kazaks and Kazakstan: The Struggle for Ethnic Identity and Nationhood.” Nationalities Papers 26, no. 3 (1998): 395–419. Csiky, Gergely. “The Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī as a Source for Military History.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59, no. 4 (2006): 439–91. Dale, Stephen Frederic. The Garden of the Eight Paradises: Babur and the Culture of Empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan and India (1483–1530). Brill’s Inner Asian Library, vol. 10. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. “India under Mughal Rule.” In The New Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. 3, The Eastern Islamic World, Eleventh to Eighteenth Centuries, edited by David Morgan and Anthony Reid, 266–314. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ———. Indian Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600–1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ———. “Indo-Persian Historiography.” In Persian Historiography, edited by Charles Melville, 565–610. A History of Persian Literature 10. London: I. B. Tauris, 2012. ———. “The Later Timurids c. 1450–1526.” In The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden, 199–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “The Legacy of the Timurids.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 3rd ser., 8, no. 1 (1998): 43–58. ———. The Muslim Empires of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ———. “Steppe Humanism: The Autobiographical Writings of Zahir al-Din Muhammad Babur, 1483–1530.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 22 (1990): 37–58. Davies, Brian L. Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea Steppe, 1500–1700. London: Routledge, 2007. Bibliography 199

DeWeese, Devin. Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and Conversion to Islam in Historical and Epic Tradition. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994. ———. “A Neglected Source on Central Asian History: The 17th-Century Yasavī Hagiography Manāqib al-akhyār.” In Essays on Uzbek History, Culture, and Language, edited by Denis Sinor and Bakhtiyar A. Nazarov, 38–50. Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 156. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. ———. “A Note on Manuscripts of the Zubdat al-āthār: A Chaghatay Turkic History from Sixteenth-Century Mawarannahr.” Manuscripts of the Middle East 6 (1992): 96–100. ———. “The Politics of Sacred Lineages in 19th-Century Central Asia: Descent Groups Linked to Khwaja Ahmad Yasavi in Shrine Documents and Genealogical Charters.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, no. 4 (1999): 507–30. ———, ed. Studies on Central Asian History in Honor of Yuri Bregel. Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 167. Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, 2001. Dickson, Martin B. “Uzbek Dynastic Theory in the Sixteenth Century.” In Trudy dvadtsat’ piatogo Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov, Moskva 1960. Vol. 3, Zasedaniya sektsii X, XI, XIII, 208–16. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoi literatury, 1963. Di Cosmo, Nicola. “Ancient Inner Asian Nomads: Their Economic Basis and Its Significance in Chinese History.” The Journal of Asian Studies 53, no. 4 (1994): 1092–1126. ———. “Connecting Maritime and Continental History: The Black Sea Region at the Time of the Mongol Empire.” In The Sea: Thalassography and Historiography, edited by Peter Miller, 174–97. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2013. ———. “Introduction: Inner Asian Ways of Warfare in Historical Perspective.” In Inner Asian Warfare (500–1800), edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, 1–29. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. “State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History.” Journal of World History 10, no. 1 (1999): 1–40. Di Cosmo, Nicola, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden, eds. The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University, Press, 2009. Dihkhudā, ʿAlī Akbar. Lughat-nāma. Edited by Muḥammad Muʿīn and Jaʿfar Shahīdī. New ed. 14 vols. Tehrān, 1372–73/1993–94. Doerfer, Gerhard. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission, vol. 16. 4 vols. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. 1963–75. 200 Bibliography

Dovos, Éva. “A Qïpčaq-Uzbek Tale from Qarabu.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 27, no. 2 (1973): 163–89. Duan, Lianqin. Dingling, Gaoju yu Tiele [The Tingling, the Kaochü, and the Tiele]. Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1988. Reprint, Shanghai: Guangxi shifan dahue chubanshe, 2006. Dulik, Matthew C., L. P. Osipova, and T. G. Schurr. “Y-Chromosome Variation in Altaian Kazakhs Reveals a Common Paternal Gene Pool for Kazakhs and the Influence of Mongolian Expansions.” PLoS One 6, no. 3 (2011): 1–12. Eckmann, János. Chagatay Manual. Uralic and Altaic series 60. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966. Eitzen, Hilda. “Refiguring Ethnicity through Kazak Genealogies.” Nationalities Papers 26, no. 3 (1998): 433–51. Elias, N. Introduction to A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia Being the Tarikh-i- Rashidi of Mirza Haidar, Dughlat. An English Version Edited, with Commentary, Notes, and Map by N. Elias. The Translation by E. Denison Ross, by Muhammad Haidar Dughlat, 1–128. London: Sampson Low, Marston, 1895. Reprint, London: Curzon, 1972. Elverskog, Johan. Our Great Qing: the Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006. Engin, Muhabay, Ferit Agi, Nadir Devlet, and Ali Akış, eds. Kazak ve Tatar Türkleri. Istanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları, 1976. Feng, Rui 冯瑞. Hasake minzu guocheng yanjiu 哈萨克民族过程研究 [A study of the formation of the Qazaqs]. Beijing: Min zu chu ban she, 2004. Fergus, Michael, and Janar Jandosova. Kazakhstan: Coming of Age. London: Stacey International, 2003. Finke, Peter. Variations on Uzbek Identity: Strategic Choices, Cognitive Schemas and Political Constraints in Identification Processes. New York: Berghahn Books, 2014. Frank, Allen J. Islamic Historiography and “Bulghar” Identity among the Tatars and Bashkirs of Russia. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. The Siberian chronicles and the Taybughid Biys of Sibir’. Papers on Inner Asia 27. Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1994. Flemming, Barbara. “Ein alter Irrtum bei der chronologischen Einordnung des Tarğumān turkī wa ʿağamī wa muġalī.” Der Islam 44 (1968): 226–29. von Gabain, Annemarie. “Kasakentum, eine soziologisch-philologische Studie.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11, nos. 1–3 (1960): 161–67. Geng, Shimin 耿世民. “Hasake lishi yanjiu (2)—Hasake hanguo yu Hasakezu 哈萨克历史研究(二)—哈萨克汗国与哈萨克族 [A study of the Qazaq history (2)—the Qazaq Khanate and the Qazaqs].” Journal of Ili Normal University, no. 1 (2008): 1–6. Bibliography 201

Golden, Peter B. “Cumanica II: The Ölberli (Ölperli): The Fortunes and Misfortunes of an Inner Asian Nomadic Clan.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4 (1988): 5–29. ———. “Cumanica IV: The Tribes of the Cuman-Qıpčaqs.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 9 (1995–97): 99–122. ———. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State- Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1992. ———. “The Khazars and the Kazakhs: New Perspectives.” Review of Khazary i Kazakhi: sviaz’ vremën i narodov by B. B. Irmukhanov. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14 (2005): 281–97. ———. “Migrations, Ethnogenesis.” In The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden, 109–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “Nomads and Sedentary Societies in Medieval Eurasia.” In Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History, edited by Michael Adas, 71–115. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001. ———. Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. ———. “The Terminology of Slavery and Servitude in Medieval Turkic.” In Studies on Central Asian History in Honor of Yuri Bregel, edited by Devin DeWeese, 27–56. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2001. Gordeev, Andrey Andreevich. Istoriya Kazakov. Vol. 1, Zolotaya Orda i zarozhdenie kazachestva. Paris: Société d’lmpressions Périodiques et d’ Editions, 1968. Gordon, Linda. Cossack Rebellions: Social Turmoil in the Sixteenth-Century Ukraine. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation. Edited by Kemal Çiçek, Nejat Göyünç, Ercüment Kuran, and Ilber Ortayli. 4 vols. Ankara: Yeni Turkiye, 2000. Grigor’ev, A. P. “Zolotoordynskie khany 60–70-kh godov XIV v.: Khronologiya pravleniy.” Istoriografiya i istochnikovedenie istorii stran Azii i Afriki 7 (1983): 9–54. Grodekov, N. I. Kirgizi i karakirgizy Syr-Dar’inskoi oblasti. Vol. 1. Tashkent: Tipo- Litografya S. I. Lakhtina, 1889. Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia. Translated by Naomi Walford. New Jersey: Rutgers, 1970. Haenisch, Erich. Manghol un niuca tobca’an (Yüan-ch’ao pi-shi), Die Geheime Geschichte der Mongolen aus der chinesischen Transkription (Ausgabe Ye Teh-hui) im mongol- ischen Wortlaut wiederhergestellt. Vol. 2, Worterbuch zu Manghol un niuca tobca’an (Yüan-ch’ao pi-shi). Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1937. Reprint, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner Verlag, 1962. Haidar, Mansura. Central Asia in the Sixteenth Century. New Delhi: Manohar, 2002. 202 Bibliography

———. “The Mongol Traditions and Their Survival in Central Asia (14–15th Centuries).” Central Asiatic Journal 28, nos. 1–2 (1984): 57–79. Hali, Awelkhan, Zengxiang Li, and Karl W. Luckert. Kazakh Tradition of China. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1998. Halkovic, Stephen A. Jr. The Mongols of the West. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Halperin, Charles J. “The Missing Golden Horde Chronicles and Historiography in the Mongol Empire.” Mongolian Studies 23 (2000): 1–15. ———. Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History. London: Tauris, 1987. ———. The Tatar Yoke: The Image of the Mongols in Medieval Russia. Bloomington, Ind.: Slavica Publishers, 2009. Hambly, Gavin, ed. Central Asia. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969. Heywood, Colin. “Filling the Black Hole: The Emergence of the Bithynian Atamanates.” In The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation. Vol. 1, Politics, edited by Kemal Çiçek, Nejat Göyünç, Ercüment Kuran, and Ilber Ortayli, 109–14. Ankara: Yeni Turkiye, 2000. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization. Vol. 2, The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Holobutskiy, V. A. Zaporozhskoye kazachestvo. Kiev: Gos. izd-vo polit. lit-ry USSR, 1957. Holzwarth, Wolfgang. “Community Elders and State Agents: Īlbēgīs in the Emirate of Bukhara around 1900.” Eurasian Studies 9, nos. 1–2 (2011): 213–62. ———. “Nomaden und Sesshafte in turkī-Quellen (narrative Quellen aus dem frühen 16. Jahrhundert).” Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 4 (2002): 147–65. ———. “Relations between Uzbek Central Asia, the Great Steppe and Iran, 1700–1750.” In Shifts and Drifts in Nomad-Sedentary Relations, edited by Stefan Leder and Bernhard Streck, 179–216. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 2005. ———. “The Uzbek State as Reflected in Eighteenth Century Bukharan Sources.” Asiatische Studien 60, no. 2 (2006): 321–53. Howorth, Henry H. History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th Century. Part 2, division 2, The So-Called Tartars of Russia and Central Asia. London: Longmans, Green, 1888. Houtsma, M. Th. Ein türkisch-arabisches Glossar. Leiden: Brill, 1894. Hrushevsky, Mykhailo. History of Ukraine-Rus’. Vol. 7, The Cossack Age to 1625. Translated by Bohdan Struminski. Edited by Serhii Plokhy and Frank E. Sysyn with the assistance of Uliana M. Pasicznyk. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1999. Bibliography 203

Hudson, Alfred E. Kazak Social Structure. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 20. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. Reprint, New Haven: Human Relations Area Files, 1964. Ibragimov, S. K. “Eshche raz o termine ‘Kazakh.’ In Novye materialy po drevney i srednevekovoy istorii Kazakhstana, edited by V. Shakhmatov and S. K. Ibragimov, 66–71. Trudy Instituta istorii, arkheologii i etnografii, vol. 8. Alma-Ata: Izd-vo Akademii nauk Kazakhskoy SSR, 1960. Inalcık, Halil. “The Khan and the Tribal Aristocracy: The Crimean Khanate under Sahib Giray I.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3–4 (1980): 445–66. Irmukhanov, Beimbet Baktievich. Usun’ i etnogenez kazakhskogo naroda. Almaty: Nash Mir, 2006. Isin, A. Kazakhskoye khanstvo i Nogayskaya Orda vo vtoroy polovine XV–XVI v. Almaty, 2004. Ismail, Zeyneş. Kazak Türkleri. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2002. Jamsran, L., ed. Mongol Ulsyn Tüükh [The history of Mongolia]. Vol. 3. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Shinjlekh Ukhaany Akademi Tüükhiin Khüreelen [Mongolian Academy of History Sciences], 2003. Janabel, Jiger. “From Mongol Empire to Qazaq Jüzder: Studies on the Steppe Political Cycle (13th–18th Centuries).” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1997. Kafalı, Mustafa. Altın Orda Hanlığının kuruluş ve yükseliş devirleri. Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1976. Kato, Kazuhide. “Kebek and Yasawr, the Establishment of the Chaghatai-Khanate.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 49 (1991): 97–118. Kazin, V. Kh., comp. Kazach’i voyska: Khroniki gvardeyskikh kazach’ikh chastey; Pomeshcheny v knige Imperatorskaya gvardiya. Edited by V. K. Shenk. Spravochnaya knizhka Imperatorskoy glavnoy kvartiry. St. Petersburg, 1912. Reprint, [Russia]: Dorval’, 1992. Keenan, Edward Louis, Jr. “Muscovy and Kazan: Some Introductory Remarks on the Patterns of Steppe Diplomacy.” Slavic Review 26, no. 4 (1967): 548–58. Kellner-Heinkele, Barbara. “Who was ‘Abdulghaffār El-Qirimī? Some Notes on an 18th Century Crimean Tatar Historian.” Journal of Asian History 32, no. 2 (1998): 145–56. Kennedy, Craig Gayen. “The Juchids of Muscovy: A Study of Personal Ties Between Émigré Tatar Dynasts and the Muscovite Grand Princes in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1994. Keyser, Christine, Caroline Bouakaze, Eric Crubézy, Valery G. Nikolaev, Daniel Montagnon, Tatiana Reis, and Bertrand Ludes. “Ancient DNA Provides New Insights into the History of South Siberian Kurgan People.” Human Genetics 126 (2009): 395–410. 204 Bibliography

Khalid, Adeeb. “The Emergence of a Modern Central Asian Historical Consciousness.” In Historiography of Imperial Russia: the Profession and Writing of History in a Multinational State, edited by Thomas Sanders, 433–53. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1999. Khazanov, A. M. “Characteristic Features of Nomadic Communities in the Eurasian Steppes.” In The Nomadic Alternative: Modes and Models of Interaction in the African- Asian Deserts and Steppes, edited by Wolfgang Weissleder, 119–26. The Hague: Mouton, 1978. Khoury, Philip S., and Joseph Kostiner, eds. Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Khurmetkhan, M. Soyol irgenshil ba Töv Azi [Civilization and Central Asia]. Edited by L. Khaisandai. Ulaanbaatar: Shinjlekh Ukhaany Akademi Olon Uls Sudlalyn Khüreelen, 2005. Kim, Hodong. “The Early History of the Moghul Nomads: The Legacy of the Chaghatai Khanate.” In The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy, edited by Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David O. Morgan, 290–318. Islamic History and Civilization, vol. 24. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. Holy War in China: The Muslim Rebellion and State in Chinese Central Asia, 1864–1877. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004. ———. “15–16 segi Jungang asia sin yumogjibdan deul-ui donghyang—jeongi Mogulhangug ui bunggoe wa gwanlyeonhayeo [The new nomadic groups of Central Asia in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries—in relation to the collapse of the early Moghul Khanate].” Russia Yeongu 3, no. 1 (Seoul: 1993): 97–119. Klyashtornyi, S. G., and T. I. Sultanov. Gosudarstva i narody Evraziyskikh stepey: Drevnost’ i srednevekov’ye. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoye Vostokovedenie, 2000. Kochnev, Boris. “Les relations entre Astarkhanides, khans kazaks et ‘Arabshahides (dernières données numismatiques).” Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 3–4 (1997): 157–67. Kočubej, J. “Les éléments orientaux dans la culture et dans la vie quotidienne des cosaques ukrainiens.” In Les Cosaques de l’Ukraine: Rôle historique, représentations littéraires et artistiques: Actes du 5e Colloque International Franco-Ukrainien, edited by Michel Cadot and Emile Kruba, 117–24. Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne nouvelle, 1995. Kohut, Zenon E. “The Development of a Little Russian Identity and Ukrainian Nationbuilding.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10, nos. 3–4 (1986): 559–76. ———. “The Question of Russo-Ukrainian Unity and Ukrainian Distinctiveness in Early Modern Ukrainian Thought and Culture.” In Culture, Nation and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1600–1945), edited by Andreas Kappeler et al., 57–86. Edmonton; Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003. “Köne türikter men qazaqtar žaiyndağy Mońğol fol‘klorlyq derektemeleri.” In Derek temeler men mūrağattyq qūžattar. Edited and translated by M. A. Qūl-Mūhammed Bibliography 205

et al., 143–154. Qazaqstan tarihy turaly Mońğol derektemeler, vol. 3. Almaty: Dayk, 2006. Koygeldiyev, M. K., ed. Istoriya Kazakhstana v russkikh istochnikakh. Vol. 1, Posol’skiye materialy russkogo gosudarstva (XV–XVII vv.). Almaty: Dayk, 2005. Kozybaev, Manash Kabashevich, ed. Istoriya kazakhstana s drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney. Almaty: Izdatel’stvo Dăuīr, 1993. Krader, Lawrence. “Ethnonymy of Kazakh.” In American Studies in Altaic Linguistics, edited by Nicholas Poppe, 123–28. Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 13. 1962. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962. ———. Peoples of Central Asia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971. ———. Social Organization of the Mongol-Turkic Pastoral Nomads. The Hague: Mouton, 1963. Kradin, Nikolay. “From Tribal Confederation to Empire: the Evolution of the Rouran Society.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58, no. 2 (2005): 149–69. Kramarovsky, Mark G. “The Culture of the Golden Horde and the Problem of the Mongol Legacy.” In Rulers from the Steppe: State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery, edited by Gary Seaman and Daniel Marks, 255–73. Vol. 2 of the Proceedings of the Soviet-American Academic Symposia in Conjunction with the Museum Exhibitions, Nomads: Masters of the Eurasian Steppe. Monograph Series, no. 2. Los Angeles: Ethnographics Press, University of Southern California, 1991. Kudashev, V. N. Istoricheskie svedeniya o kabardinskom narode. Kiev: Tipo-Lit. S. V. Kul’zhenko, 1913. Reprint, Nal’chik: El’brus, 1991. Kudayberdi-uli, Shakerim. Rodoslovnaya tyurkov, kirgizov, kazakhov i khanskikh dinas- tii. Alma-Ata, SP Dastan, 1990. Kurat, A. N. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivindeki Altın Ordu, Kırım ve Türkistan hanlarına ait yarlık ve bitikler. Istanbul: Bürhaneddin Matbaası, 1940. Kuzeev, R. G. Bashkirskie shezhere. Ufa: Bashkirskoye knizhnoye izdatel’stvo, 1960. ———. “Historical Stratification of Generic and Tribal Names and Their Role in the Ethnogenetic Study of Turkic Peoples of Eastern Europe, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia.” In The Nomadic Alternative: Modes and Models of Interaction in the African- Asian Deserts and Steppes, edited by Wolfgang Weissleder, 157–65. The Hague: Mouton, 1978. Kuang, Shuntu. “Common People and the Founding of the Mughal Empire: Timurid Practices of Wartime Justice and Tyranny over Local Populaces,1494–1556.” MA diss., Columbia University, 2013. Laruelle, Marlène. “The Concept of Ethnogenesis in Central Asia: Political Context and Institutional Mediators (1940–50).” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 9, no. 1 (2008): 169–88. 206 Bibliography

Lattimore, Owen. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. Boston: Beacon, 1962. Lemercier-Quelquejay, Chantal. “The Kazakhs and the Kirghiz.” In Central Asia, edited by Gavin Hambly, 140–49. New York: Delacorte, 1966. ———. “Un condottiere lithuanien du XVIe siècle: Le prince Dimitrij Višneveckij et l’origine de la Seč Zaporogue d’après les Archives ottomans.” Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 10 (1969): 258–79. ———. “Une source inédite pour l’histoire de la Russie au XVIe siècle: Les registres des Mühimme Defterleri des Archives du Baş-Vekâlet.” Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique 8, no. 2 (1967): 335–43. Levshin, Aleksei. Opisaniye kirgiz-kaysakskikh, ili kirgiz-kazachikh, ord i stepey. St. Petersburg: Tipografii Karla Krayya, 1832. Li. Chunxiang, Hongjie Li, Yinqiu Cui, Chengzhi Xie, Dawei Cai, Wenying Li, Victor H. Mair et al. “Evidence That a West-East Admixed Population Lived in the Tarim Basin as Early as the Early Bronze Age.” BMC Biology 8, no. 15 (2010): 1–12. Lindner, Rudi Paul. “What Was a Nomadic Tribe?” Comparative Studies in Society and History 24, no. 4 (1982): 689–711. Liubavsky, M. Oblastnoye delenie i mestnoye upravlenie Litovsko-Russkogo gosudarstva ko vremeni izdaniya pervogo Litovskogo statuta. Moscow, 1892. Longworth, Philip. The Cossacks. London: Constable, 1969. Magocsi, Paul R. A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. ———. This Blessed Land: Crimea and the Crimean Tatars. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. Mano, Eiji. “Moghūlistān.” Acta Asiatica 34 (1978): 46–60. Manz, Beatrice F. “The Development and Meaning of Chaghatay Identity.” In Muslims in Central Asia: Expressions of Identity and Change, edited by Jo-Ann Gross, 36–44. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992. ———. “Historical Background.” In Central Asia in Historical Perspective, edited by Beatrice F. Manz, 4–24. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1994. ———. “Multi-ethnic Empires and the Formation of Identity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 26, no. 1 (2003): 70–101. ———. “Nomad and Settled in the Timurid Military.” In Mongols, Turks, and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, edited by Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, 425–57. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ———. Power Politics and Religion in Timurid Iran. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ———. The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ———. “Tamerlane’s Career and Its Uses.” Journal of World History 13, no. 1 (2002): 1–25. ———. “Temür and the Problem of a Conqueror’s Legacy.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 3rd ser., 8, no. 1 (1998): 21–41. Bibliography 207

———. “Women in Timurid Dynastic Politics.” In Women in Iran from the Rise of Islam to 1800, edited by Guity Nashat and Lois Beck, 121–39. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003. Martin, Virginia. Law and Custom in the Steppe: The Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century. Richmond: Curzon, 2001. Martinez, A. P. “Gardīzī’s Two Chapters on the Turks.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2 (1982): 109–217. McChesney, R. D. “The Amirs of Muslim Central Asia in the XVIIth Century.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 26, no. 1 (1983): 33–70. ———. Central Asia: Foundations of Change. Princeton, NJ: Darwin, 1996. ———. “The Chinggisid Restoration in Central Asia: 1500–1785.” In The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden, 277–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “Historiography in Central Asia since the 16th Century.” In Persian Historiography, edited by Charles Melville, 503–31. A History of Persian Literature 10. London: I. B. Tauris, 2012. ———. “The ‘Reforms’ of Bāqī Muḥammad Khān.” Central Asiatic Journal 24 (1980): 69–84. McNeill, William H. Europe’s Steppe Frontier, 1500–1800. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Melville, Charles Peter. “From Adam to Abaqa: Qāḍī Baiḍāwī’s Rearrangement of History.” Studia Iranica 30, no. 1 (2001): 67–86. ———. “From Adam to Abaqa: Qāḍī Baiḍāwī’s Rearrangement of History (Part II).” Studia Iranica 36, no. 1 (2007): 7–64. ———, ed. History and Literature in Iran: Persian and Islamic Studies in Honour of P. W. Avery. Pembroke Persian Papers 1. London: British Academic Press, 1998. ———. “History and Myth: the Persianisation of Ghazan Khan.” In Irano-Turkic Cultural Contacts in the 11th–17th Centuries, edited by É. Jeremías, 133–60. Piliscsaba: The Avicenna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, 2003. ———. “The Itineraries of Sultan Öljeitü, 1304–16.” Iran 28 (1990): 55–70. ———. “The Keshig in Iran: The Survival of the Royal Mongol Household.” In Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, edited by Linda Komaroff, 135–64. Islamic History and Civilization, vol. 64. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ———. “Pādshāh- i Islām: the Conversion of Sultan Maḥmūd Ghāzān Khān.” Pembroke Papers 1 (1990): 159–77. Menges, K. H. “People, Languages, and Migrations.” In Central Asia: 120 Years of Russian Rule, edited by Edward Allworth, 60–91. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1989. Mirzahan, Jahef 贾合甫米尔扎汗. “Wusun yu hasakezu di yuanliu guanxi 乌孙与哈萨克族的源流关系 [The origin of the Wusuns and the Qazaqs].” Xiyu yanjiu 2 (2006): 99–102. 208 Bibliography

Mukanov, M. S. Etnicheskiy sostav i rasselenie kazakhov Srednego zhuza. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1974. Nagamine, Hiroyuki 長峰博之. “Kazaku hankoku keiseishi no saikō: Jochi urusu sayoku kara Kazaku hankoku e カザク・ハン国」形成史の再考: ジョチ・ウルス左翼からカザク・ハン国へ [Rethinking the formation of the Qazaq Khanate: from the Left Hand of the Ulus-i Jochi to the Qazaq Khanate].” The Journal of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 90, no. 4 (2009): 441–66. Nemeth, Gyula. A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása. Budapest: V. Hornyánszky, 1930. Reprint, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991. Newby, L. J. The Empire and the Khanate: A Political History of Qing Relations with Khoqand, c. 1760–1860. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Noda, Jin 野田仁. “Kazafu hankoku to Torukisutan: yūbokumin no kunshu maisō to bobyō sūhai kara no kōsatsu カザフハン国とトルキスタン: 遊牧民の君主埋葬と墓廟崇拝からの考察 [The Qazaq Khanate and Turkistan (Yasi): from the khans’ burial and the Qazaq nomads’ worship of the shrine].” Isuramsekai 68 (2007): 1–24. ———. “Shinchō shiryō jō no Kazafu Sanbu 清朝史料上の哈薩克(カザフ)三部 [3 Qazak Hordes in the Qing Sources].” Manzokushi kenkyu 1 (2002): 16–30. Northrup, Linda S. “The Bahri Mamluk Sultanate, 1250–1390.” In The Cambridge History of Egypt. Vol. 1, Islamic Egypt, edited by Carl F. Petry, 242–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ———. From Slave to Sultan: The Career of Al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of Mamluk Rule in Egypt and Syria (678–689 AH/1279–1290 AD). Freiburger Islamstudien, Band 18. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998. ———. “Military Slavery in the Islamic and Mamluk Context.” In Unfreie Arbeit: Ökonomische und kulturgeschichtliche Perspektiven, edited by M. Erdem Kabadayi and Tobias Reichardt, 115–31. Skalaverei-Knechtschaft-Zwangsarbeit, Band 3. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 2007. ———. “Qalawun’s Patronage of the Medical Sciences in Thirteenth-Century Egypt.” Mamluk Studies Review 5 (2001): 119–40. Nurmanova, Aytjan. “La tradition historique orale des Kazakhs.” Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 8 (2000): 93–100. Nusupbekov, A. N., ed. Istoriya Kazakhskoi SSR: S drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei. Vol. 1, Pervobytno-obshchinnyi stroi: Plemennye soiuzy i rannefeodal′nye gosudarstva na territorii Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1977. ———, ed. Istoriya Kazakhskoy SSR: S drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney v pyati tomakh. Vol. 2, Razvitiye feodal’nykh otnosheniy: Obrazovaniye kazakhskoy narodnosti i Kazakhskogo khanstva. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1979. Nyambuu, Kh. Mongolin Ugsaatani Zuin Udirtgal: Ugsaatani Bureldhuun Garval Zui [Introduction to the Mongol ethnography]. Surah Bichig Huuhdiin Nomin Hevleriin Gaar: Ulaanbaatar, 1992. Bibliography 209

Ochir, T. A. Mongolchuudyn garal, nershil [The origin and ethnonyms of the Mongols]. Ulaanbaatar: IISNC, 2008. Olcott, M. B. The Kazakhs. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1995. O’Rourke, Shane. The Cossacks. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007. Ostapchuk, Victor. “Cossack Ukraine In and Out of Ottoman Orbit, 1648–1681.” In The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seven teenth Centuries, edited by Gábor Kármán and Lovro Kunčević, 123–52. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ———. “Five Documents from the Topkapı Palace Archive on the Ottoman Defense of the Black Sea against the Cossacks (1639).” Journal of Turkish Studies 11 (1987): 49–104. ———. “The Human Landscape of the Ottoman Black Sea in the Face of the Cossack Naval Raids.” Oriente Moderno, n.s., 20 (2001): 23–95. ———. “Long-Range Campaigns of the Crimean Khanate in the Mid-Sixteenth Century.” Journal of Turkish Studies 29 (2004): 75–99. ———. “An Ottoman Gazaname on Halil Pasha’s Naval Campaign against the Cossacks (1621).” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 14 (1990): 482–521. ———. “The Publication of Documents on the Crimean Khanate in the Topkapi Sarayi: The Documentary Legacy of Crimean-Ottoman Relations.” Turcica 19 (1987): 247–76. ———. “The Publication of Documents on the Crimean Khanate in the Topkapi Sarayi: New Sources for the History of the Black Sea Basin.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 6 (1982): 500–28. ———. War and Diplomacy across Steppe and Sea: The Ottoman Black Sea Frontier in the Early Seventeenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs, (in press). Ostapchuk, Victor, and Oleksandr Halenko. “Kozats’ki chornomors’ki pokhody u mors’kiy istoriyi Kyatiba Chelebi ‘Dar velykykh muzhiv u voyuvanni moriv.” In Mappa mundi: Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’ na poshanu Yaroslava Dashkevycha z nahody ioho 70-richchya = Studia in honorem Jaroslavi Daškevyč septuagenario dedi- cata, edited by Ihor Hyrych et al., 341–426. Lviv: M. P. Kots’, 1996. Ostrowski, Donald. Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304–1589. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Otarbaeva, Bakhytnur. “A Brief History of the Kazak People.” Nationalities Papers 26, no. 3 (1998): 421–32. Paul, Jürgen. “The State and the Military: A Nomadic Perspective.” Mitteilungen des SFB: Differenz und Integration 5 (2003): 25–68. Pavet de Courteille, Abel. Dictionnaire turk-oriental. Paris, 1870. Pelliot, Paul. Notes critiques d’histoire Kalmouke. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1960. ———. Notes sur l’histoire de la Horde d’Or. Suivies de quelques noms turcs d’hommes et de peuples finissant en “AR”. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1949. 210 Bibliography

Pishchulina, K. A. Yugo-Vostochnyy Kazakhstan v seredine XIV–nachale XVI vekov: Voprosy politicheskoy i sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoy istorii. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1977. Plokhy, Serhii. The Cossack Myth: History and Nationhood in the Age of Empires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. ———. The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ———. Religion and Nation in Modern Ukraine. Edited by Frank E. Sysyn. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003. Poe, M. “The Zaporozhian Cossacks in Western Print to 1600.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19 (1995): 531–47. Potanin, G. N. Kazakhskiy fol’klor v sobranii G. N. Potanina (Arkhivnye materialy i pub- likatsii). Edited by Seĭīt Qasqabasov, Nina Sergeevna Smirnova, and E. D. Tursunov. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1972. Potts, Daniel T. Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pritsak, Omeljan. “Das erste türkisch-ukrainische Bündnis (1648).” Oriens 6 (1953): 266–98. ———. “Kiev and All of Rus’: The Fate of a Sacral Idea.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10, no. 3/4, Concepts of Nationhood in Early Modern Eastern Europe (1986): 279–300. ———. “The Origin of Rus’.” Russian Review 36, no. 3 (1977): 249–73. ———. “The Polovcians and Rus.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2 (1982): 321–80. ———. Studies in Medieval Eurasian History. London: Variorum Reprints, 1981. ———. “The Turkic Etymology of the Word Qazaq ‘Cossack.’ ” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28, nos. 1–4 (2006): 237–43. Prodolzhenie drevney rossiyskoy vivlioḟiki. Edited by Nikolay Ivanovich Novikov. St. Petersburg: Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1786. Reprint, The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy, Almaty: Qazaq Sovet Ėntsiklopediyasining Bas Redakyaiyasi, 1972–80. Qian, Boquan 钱伯泉. “Hasakezu zuyuan xintan 哈萨克族族源新探 [A new study of the origin of the Qazaqs].” Minzu yanjiu 5 (2001): 68–74. ———. “Hasakezu di zuyuan he zuming hanyi yanjiu 哈萨克族的族源和族名含义研究 [A study of the origin of the Qazaqs and the meaning of the term Qazaq].” Journal of Xinjiang University 34, no. 1 (2006): 78–85. Quinn, Sholeh A. “The Timurid Historiographical Legacy: A Comparative Study of Persianate Historical Writing.” In Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East: Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period, edited by A. J. Newman, 19–31. Leiden: Brill, 2003. de Rachewiltz, Igor. “Turks in China under the Mongols: A Preliminary Investigation of Turco-Mongol Relations in the 13th and 14th Centuries.” In China among Equals, Bibliography 211

edited by Morris Rossabi, 281–310. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. Radlov, V. V. Obraztsy narodnoy literatury severnykh tyurkskikh plemen. Part 7, Narechiya Krymskogo poluostrova. Proben der Volksliteratur der Nördlichen Türkischen Stämme. VII. Threil. Die Mundarten der Krym. St. Petersburg: Tipografiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk, 1896. Reprint, Berlin: Zentral-Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1965. ———. Opyt slovarya tyurkskikh narechiy. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Imper atorskoy Akademii Nauk, 1899. Reprint, Moscow: Izd-vo vostochnoy lit-ry, 1963. Rigel’man, Aleksandr. Istoriya o Donskikh Kazakakh. Rostov-on-Don: Rostovskoye knizh. izd-vo, 1992. Roy, Olivier. The New Central Asia. London: I. B. Tauris, 2000. Rudnytsky, Ivan L. “A Study of Cossack History.” Slavic Review 31, no. 4 (1972): 870–75. ———. “A Work of Ukrainian Cossack Historiography.” Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes 18, no. 1 (1976): 73–79. Ryspaev, K. Istoriya Respubliki Kazakhstan. Almaty: Bilim, 2002. Saray, Mehmet. Kazak Türkleri tarihi: Kazakların uyanışı. Yeni Türk cumhuriyetleri tarihi serisi 2. Istanbul: Nesil Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık A.Ş., 1993. Sartori, Paolo, ed. Explorations in the Social History of Modern Central Asia (19th–Early 20th Century). Leiden: Brill, 2013. Schamiloglu, Uli. “Tribal Politics and Social Organization in the Golden Horde.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1986. ———. “The Umdet ül-ahbar and the Turkic Narrative Sources for the Golden Horde and the Later Golden Horde.” In Central Asian Monuments, edited by H. B. Paksoy, 81–93. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992. Schatz, Edward. Modern Clan Politics: The Power of “Blood” in Kazakhstan and Beyond. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004. Schuyler, Eugene. Turkistan: Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bukhara, and Kuldja. 2 vols. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1877. Seaman, Gary and Daniel Marks, eds. Rulers from the Steppe: State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery. Los Angeles: Ethnographics Press, Center for Visual Anthropology, University of Southern California, 1991. Seaton, Albert. The Horsemen of the Steppes: The Story of the Cossacks. London: Bodley Head, 1985. Sela, Ron. The Legendary Biographies of Tamerlane: Islam and Heroic Apocrypha in Central Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. ———. Ritual and Authority in Central Asia: The Khan’s Inauguration Ceremony. Papers on Inner Asia 37. Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2003. 212 Bibliography

Semenov, A.A. “K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii i sostave uzbekov Sheybani-khana.” In Materialy po istorii tadzhikav i uzbekov Sredney Azii 1, 3–37. Trudy instituta istorii, arkheologii i etnografii AN TadzhSSR 12. Stalinabad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoy SSR, 1954. Seres, István. “A Crimean Tatar Variant of the Čora Batir Epic.” Acta Orientalia 63, no. 2 (2010): 133–66. Shimo, Hirotoshi. “The Qarāūnās in the Historical Materials of the Īlkhanate.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 35 (1977): 131–81. Smirnov, V. D. Krymskoye Khanstvo pod verkhovenstvom Ottomanskoi Porty. St. Petersburg, 1887. Sneath, David. The Headless State: Aristocratic Order, Kinship Society and Misrepre sentations of Nomadic Inner Asia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Sinor, Denis, ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Sobraniye gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov, khraniashchikhsia v Gosudarstvennoi kollegii inostrannykh del. 5 vols. Moscow: V Tipografii N. S. Vsevolozhskogo, 1813–94. Starostin, Sergei, Anna Dybo, and Oleg Mudrak. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Stepaniv, Jaroslav [Yaroslav Dashkevych]. “A Turkish Document in Ukrainian from the Mid-Sixteenth Century: On The Origin Of the Ukrainian Cossacks.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1, no. 2 (1977): 211–24. Stökl, Günther. Die Entstehung des Kosakentums. Munich: Isar Verlag, 1953. Subtelny, Maria Eva. “Art and Politics in Early 16th Century Central Asia.” Central Asiatic Journal 27, nos. 1–2 (1983): 121–48. ———. “Bābur’s Rival Relations: A Study of Kinship and Conflict in 15th–16th Century Central Asia.” Der Islam 66, no. 1 (1989): 102–18. ———. “Centralizing Reform and Its Opponents in the Late Timurid Period.” In “Soviet and North American Studies on Central Asia,” edited by Robert McChesney, special issue, Iranian Studies 21, nos. 1–2 (1988): 123–51. ———. “Socioeconomic Bases of Cultural Patronage under the Later Timurids.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 20, no. 4 (1988): 479–505. ———. “The Symbiosis of Turk and Tajik.” In Central Asia in Historical Perspective, edited by Beatrice F. Manz, 45–61. John M. Olin Critical Issues Series. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1994. ———. “Tamerlane and His Descendants: From Paladins to Patrons.” In The New Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. 3, The Eastern Islamic World, Eleventh to Eighteenth Centuries, edited by David Morgan and Anthony Reid, 169–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Bibliography 213

———. “The Timurid Legacy: A Reaffirmation and a Reassessment.” In “L’héritage timouride: Iran—Asie centrale—Inde, IVe–IVIIIe siècles,” edited by Maria Szuppe, special issue, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 3–4 (1997): 9–19. ———. Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran. Brill’s Inner Asian Library, vol. 19. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Subtelny, Orest. Domination of Eastern Europe: Native Nobilities and Foreign Absolutism, 1500–1715. Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1986. ———. Ukraine: A History. 4th ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Suleymanov, Mukhamet-Khalel. Era Chingiskhana v istorii Kazakhskoy natsii (stepnaya dilogiya). Almaty: zerger il’yas, 2009. Sultanov, T. I. Kochevyye plemena Priaral’ya v XV–XVII vv. (Voprosy etnicheskoy i sotsial’noy istorii). Moscow: Nauka, 1982. ———. Podnyatye na beloy koshme: Potomki chiniz-khana. Almaty: Dayk, 2001. Svatikov, Sergey Grigor’evich. Rossiya i Don (1549–1917): Izsliedovanie po istorii gosu- darstvennago i administrativnago prava i politicheskikh dvizheniy na Donu. Vienna: Izd. Donskoy Istoricheskoy Komissii, 1924. Sysyn, Frank E. “The Cossack Chronicles and the Development of Modern Ukrainian Culture and National Identity.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 14, no. 3/4 (1990): 593–607. ———. “The Image of Russia and Russian-Ukrainian Relations in Ukrainian Historiography of the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries.” In Culture, Nation and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1600–1945), edited by Andreas Kappeler et al., 108–143. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003. ———. “The Khmelnytsky Uprising and Ukrainian Nation-Building.” Journal of Ukrainian Studies 17, nos. 1–2 (1992): 141–70. ———. “Recent Western Works on the Ukrainian Cossacks.” The Slavonic and East European Review 64, no. 1 (1986): 100–116. ———. “Are Hetmen Heroes?” New York Review of Books 40, no. 3 (1993): 45–46. Tekin, Talat. “The Tariat (Terkhin) Inscription.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37 (1983): 43–68. Togan, A. Zeki Velidi. Bugünkü Türkili (Türkistan) ve yakın tarihi. Istanbul: Arkadaş, Ibrahim Horoz ve Güven Basımevleri, 1942. ———. “La littérature kazakh.” In Philologiae Turcicae fundamenta. Vol. 2, edited by Jean Deny, 741–60. Wiesbaden: Francis Steiner, 1964. Togan, Isenbike. Flexibility and Limitation in Steppe Formations. The Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan. Ottoman Empire and its Heritage, vol. 15. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “Political, Cultural and Economic Relation between Central Asia and Turkey in the Period of Temur.” Paper presented at the Conference Amir Timur and His Role in History, Tashkent, October 24, 1996. 214 Bibliography

Trepavlov, V. V. The Formation and Early History of the Manghït Yurt. Papers on Inner Asia 35. Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2001. Turner, Frederick Jackson. “The Significance of the Frontier in American History (1893).” In Rereading Frederick Jackson Turner: “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” and Other Essays, edited by John Mack Faragher, 31–60. New York: H. Holt, 1994. Tynyshpaev, Mukhamedzhan. Istoriya Kazakhskogo naroda. Almaty: Sanat, 1998. ———. “Proiskhozhdeniye Kirgiz-Kazakov i istoriya obrazovaniya Kazakskogo khanstva.” (1925), reprinted in Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev, Istoriya Kazakhskogo naroda, edited by A. Takenov and B. Baygaliev, 132–88. Almaty: Sanat, 2009. Usmanov, M. A. Tatarskie istoricheskie istochniki XVII–XVIII vv. Kazan: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo Universiteta, 1972. Valikhanov, Chokan. “Kirgizskoye rodosloviye.” In Izbrannye proizvedeniya, edited by S. Mazhitov et al., 120–35. Almaty: Izdatel’stvo Arys, 2009. ———. “Pis’mo professoru I. N. Berezinu.” In Izbrannye proizvedeniya, edited by S. Mazhitov et al., 21–37. Almaty: Izdatel’stvo Arys, 2009. ———. Sobraniye sochinenii v pyati tomakh. Edited by A. Kh. Margulan. Vol. 1. Alma- Ata: Glavnaya redaktsiya Kazakhskoy sovetskoy entsiklopedii, 1984. Vámbéry, Hermann. Čagataische Sprachstudien: grammatikalischer Umriss und Chrestomathie, enthaltend zwölf Original-Auszüge mit Übersetzung, nebst Wörterbuch dieser ost-türkischen Sprache und verwandten Dialekten. Leipzig, 1867. Repr. ed., Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1975. Vásáry, István. “The Beginnings of Coinage in the Blue Horde.” Acta Orientalia 62, no. 4 (2009): 371–85. ———. “The Tatar Ruling Houses in Russian Genealogical Sources.” Acta Orientalia 61, no. 3 (2008): 365–72. ———. Turks, Tatars and Russians in the 13th–16th Centuries. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Veinstein, Gilles. “Early Ottoman Appellations for the Cossacks.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 23, nos. 3–4 (1999): 33–44. Vel’yaminov-Zernov, V. V. Izsledovanie o kasimovskikh tsaryakh i tsarevichakh. Trudy Vostochnogo Otdeleniya Imperatorskogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva 9–11. 4 vols. St-Petersburg: V tipografii Imperatorskoy Akademii nauk, 1863–87. Vernadsky, George. A History of Russia. Vol. 3, The Mongols and Russia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953. Vostrov, V. V., and M. S. Mukanov. Rodoplemennoy sostav i rasselenie kazakhov (konets XIX–nachalo XX v.). Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1968. Walker, C. T. Harley. “Jahiz of Basra to al-Fath Ibn Khaqan on the ‘Exploits of the Turks and the Army of the Khalifate in General.’ ” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1915): 631–97. Bibliography 215

Weissleder, Wolfgang, ed. The Nomadic Alternative: Modes and Models of Interaction in the African-Asian Deserts and Steppes. The Hague: Mouton, 1978. Wells, R. S., N. Yuldasheva, R. Ruzibakiev, P. A. Underhill, I. Evseeva, J. Blue-Smith, L. Jin, et al. “The Eurasian Heartland: A Continental Perspective on Y-Chromosome Diversity.” PNAS 98, no. 18 (2001): 10244–49. Welsford, Thomas. Four Types of Loyalty in Early Modern Central Asia: The Tūqāy- Timūrid Takeover of Greater Mā Warā al-Nahr, 1598–1605. Brill’s Inner Asian Library, vol. 27. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Witzenrath, Christoph. Cossacks and the Russian Empire, 1598–1725: Manipulation, Rebellion and Expansion into Siberia. London: Routledge, 2007. Wittfogel, K.A., and Chia-Sheng Feng. History of Chinese Society. Liao (907–1125). New York: Macmillan, 1949. Wixman, Ronald. The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1984. Wolczuk, Kataryna. The Moulding of Ukraine: The Constitutional Politics of State Formation. Herndon, VA: Books International, 2001. Woods, John E. The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999. ———. The Timurid Dynasty. Papers on Central Asia, no. 14. Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, 1990. ———. “Timur’s Genealogy.” In Intellectual Studies on Islam: Essays Written in Honor of Martin B. Dickson, edited by Michel M. Mazzaoui and Vera B. Moreen, 85–125. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990. ———. “Turco-Iranica II: Notes on a Timurid Decree of 1396/798.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43, no. 4 (1984): 331–37. Xu, Xifa 续西发. “Hasakezu di zucheng, zuyuan he xipu 哈萨克族的族称, 族源和系谱 [The Ethnonym, the Origin, and the Genealogy of the Qazaqs].” Journal of Ili Teachers College 1 (2005): 13–17. Yarshater, Ehsan. “The Persian Presence in the Islamic world.” In The Persian Presence in the Islamic World, edited by Richard G. Hovannisian and Georges Sabagh, 4–125. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Yudin, V. P. Tsentral’naya Aziya v XIV–XVIII vekakh glazami vostokoveda. Edited by Yu. G. Baranova. Almaty: Dayk, 2001. ———. “Ordy: Belaya, Sinyaya, Seraya, Zolotaya.” In Kazakhstan, Srednyaya i Tsentral’naya Aziya v XVI–XVIII vv., edited by E. A. Tulepbaev, 106–65. Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1983. ———. “K etimologii etnonima kazakh (qazaq).” In V. P. Yudin, Tsentral’naya Aziya v XIV–XVIII vekakh glazami vostokoveda, edited by Yu. G. Baranova, 137–66. Almaty: Dayk, 2001. Zaitsev, I. V. Krymskaia istoriograficheskaia traditsiia XV–XIX vekov: Puti razvitiia; Rukopisi, teksty i istochniki. Moscow: “Vostochnaia literatura,” 2009. 216 Bibliography

Zenker, Julius Theodor. Türkisch-arabisch-persisches Handwörterbuch. Leipzig, 1866. Repr. ed., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1979. Zerjal, T., R. S. Wells, N. Yuldasheva, R. Ruzibakiev, and C. Tyler-Smith. “A Genetic Landscape Reshaped by Recent Events: Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 71 (2002): 466–82. Zhdanko, T. A. “Ethnic Communities with Survivals of Clan and Tribal Structure in Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries.” In The Nomadic Alternative: Modes and Models of Interaction in the African-Asian Deserts and Steppes, edited by Wolfgang Weissleder, 137–45. The Hague: Mouton, 1978. Index

ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī Ukrainian 72n62, 78, 85, 164, 167 12, 28, 128 see also qazaq ʿAbdallāh Khan II (Jochid/Abū al-Khairid) Afrāsiyāb 129n48 13, 116, 127, 131, 151, 159 Afuzhiluo (Gaoche) 17, 54, 59 as unifier of Central Asia 118 as quasi-qazaq 53 ʿAbdallāh Mīrzā (Timurid) 102, 103, 124 agha 126 ʿAbdallāh-nāma (Ḥāfiẓ Tanīsh Mīr Agrippina (Grand Princess of Ryazan) 77 Muḥammad Bukhārī) 13 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ghaffārī 102, 121n1 see also Sharaf-nāma-i shāhī Aḥmad Khan (Jochid) 109n48 ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (Jochid/Crimean) 42 Ajlād (Kimek) 147 Abdul-Azis Khan 4, 141 Akbar (Timurid Mughal) 118 Abdulla Khan 4, 141, 142, 153 Ak-niyaz 151 Ablay Khan (Urusid) 154 and Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan 151 Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan (ʿArabshāhid) Akasaka, Tsuneaki 6n16 14, 103, 121, 160 ala 143 Abū al-Khairid(s) 35, 81, 103, 106, 108, 109, Alach 115, 116, 116n70, 118, 125, 131, 138 as designation for Qazaqs 142 revival of 115 name of Qazaq sage 42 system of clan rule of 116 alacha 141n6 see also Chinggisids, Shibanids, Ulus of Alacha Uzbek, Uzbek Khan battle cry of Qazaqs 150 Abū al-Khair Khan 1, 3, 4n9, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, Alacha Khan 141–42, 144, 146, 148 36, 49, 97, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, nickname of Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan 149–50 113, 114, 115, 120, 124, 137, 149n22, 159, 163 see also Alash Khan oppressive rule of 35, 103, 104 alachi 144 qazaqlïq of 34–35 Alāchī Khan 149 rise to power of 102 see also Alash Khan Abū al-Turk 157, 159 Alāch Thousand (tribe) 126, 150 see also Japheth Alan(s) 5n13, 86 Abū Bakr (caliph) 38 Alania 44 Abūlja Khan 154, 155 Alanja see also Japheth identified as Alash Khan in Qazaq Sovet Abūnja Khan 156 Entsiklopediyasy 148, 148n16 see also Japheth Alan Qo’a 11, 40 Abū Saʿīd Khan (Ilkhanid) 64, 122 as ancestress of Abū al-Khair Khan 159 Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī 36 as ancestress of Chinggisids 40, 155, 156, on qazaqlïq 30–31 158 acculturation 80–81 as ancestress of Timurids 158 Adīq Sulṭan (Urusid) 117 as ancestress of Toqay-Timurids 160 adventure 86 as ancestress of Uzbek Ming dynasty 161 as definition of qazaqlïq 23 as mother of Chinggis Khan 39 see also qazaqlïq alash 145 adventurer(s) 85 Alasha Bahādur 149n22 as definition of qazaq 4, 5, 22, 23, 25, 41, Alasha Khan 143–44, 148 51 mausoleum of 152n34 East Slavic 9, 47, 92, 164 see also Alash Khan 218 Index

Alash Autonomy 140 Aq Orda 98 Alash Horde 140 see also White Horde Alash Khan 146, 148–49 Aq Qoyunlū 72, 75 identified as Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan 151– 52 royal war band and its qazaq origin 64, identified as Jochi 152 64n40 identified as Urus Khan 150–51 Āq Sūfī Bahādur (Qūshchī) 113 mausoleum of 151 aq süyek 108 see also Alacha Khan see also White Bone Alash Khan, legend of 3, 10, 11, 18, 140–43, ʿArabshāhid 14, 160 45–46, 150n29 Artykbaev, Zh. O. 148, 152 historical basis of 141n5, 150n29 ʿaṣabīya 56 as tale of qazaqlïq 152–54, 161 Ashina 17, 72 Alash Orda 140 as quasi-qazaq 53–54 see also Alash Horde see also Kök Türk(s) Alash tribal confederation 148, 148n18 Ashina (clan) 53, 53n6, 59, 61, 163 Alchin 143, 144 see also Kök Türk(s) see also Alshyn Astrakhanid(s) 13, 118, 159 Alexander (Grand Duke) 43, 76 see also Toqay-Timurids ʿAlīshīr Navāʾī 16, 28 atalïq 116 Al-Jāḥiẓ Aurangzeb (Timurid Mughal) 128 on Turks’ love of plunder 55 autochthonous development, theory of 165n1 Alp Er Tonga 129n48 see also Qazaq ethnogenesis Alshyn 145 Avar(s) 51n2 see also Alchin ayyām-i qazāqī 2, 27, 29n31 Altai Mountains 53, 59 Azaq Qazaqs 39 see also Golden Mountain Azov 41, 75, 77 Altan Tobči (Lubsangdanjin) 18, 137 Azov Cossacks 75, 77 Altï Alash see also Azaq Qazaqs name for Qazaqs 140–41 American 80 Bābā Sulṭān (Abū al-Khairid) 152 amīr 11, 27, 34, 35n58, 37, 38, 39, 65, 67, Bābur-nāma (Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad 67n52, 101, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 123, 134, Babur) 15, 29, 71, 117, 126, 149 152, 152n36, 155, 158 Babur, Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad 2n5, 3, 3n7, see also noyan 15, 24, 31, 33, 45, 45n89, 46, 50, 70, 71, 74, Amīr Ḥusain (Qara’unas) 30–31, 63, 67 116, 117, 126, 149, 160, 163 Amīr Qazaghān (Qara’unas) 63 as qazaq 25, 29, 29n31, 30, 30n35 Amu Darya River 63 on Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara’s qazaqlïq 29 Anagui (Rou-ran) 59 Badāyiʿ al-vaqāyiʿ (Zain al-Dīn Maḥmūd Anatolia 64n41, 65, 72, 88, 133 Vāṣifī) 12, 128 as frontier region of Ilkhanate 9, 64 Badghis 62, 64 Andizhan 29, 30 Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī 101 appanage(s) Baghlan 62 Abū al-Khairid 115–16, 116n70, 118 bahadur 34, 112, 113 of Chinggis Khan’s sons 1n2 Baḥr al-asrār fī manāqib al-akhyār (Maḥmūd see also ulus b. Amīr Valī) 13, 35, 105, 111, 134, 159 Aq Kirmān 41, 75, 76, 92 Baida 78n21 see also Bilhorod see also Dmytro Vyshnevetsky Aq Kirmān Cossacks 75, 76, 92 Bāḳī Bey (Manghit) 39 Index 219

Balāsāgūn 54 Berdibek Khan (Jochid) 74n1 Balkh 13, 118, 128, 134, 159, 160 Berke (Jochid) 62 band(s) bey 29, 40 of cossacks 75 beyond the rapids 72n62, 79 of freebooters 25, 62, 64 see also za porohamy of fugitives 51, 52, 59, 60, 65, 79, 119 Bielski, Marcin 43, 77, 86–87 of loyal followers 71 Bilhorod 41, 43, 75, 76, of plunderers 25 see also Aq Kirmān of qazaqs 9, 10, 48, 49, 49n96, 50, 64, Bināʾī, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī 12, 28, 33, 34, 111, 68n53, 74, 92, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 113, 114, 127 116, 121, 124, 142, 153 Black Bone 108 of quasi-qazaqs 9, 45, 62, 92 see also qara süyek of refugees 64 Black Sea 70, 85, 87, 88 of robbers 25 region 9, 86 of warriors 3, 8, 48, 49, 164 Black Sea steppes 8, 9, 41, 41n75, 44, 74, 76, war 51, 64, 64n40 77, 79, 86, 89, 92, 166 see also qazaq institution turned into Wild Field 47, 164 bandit(s) 69, 88 see also Wild Field as definition of qazaq 76 Blue Horde 98 see also qazaq see also Kök-Orda Bāqī Muḥammad Khan (Uzbek Toqay- Bodonchar Timurid) 118n81 as ancestor of Chinggis Khan 40, 155, baramta 144, 153 158, 159, 160, 161 see also barymta, brigandage as brother of Chinggis Khan 39–40 Barāq Khan (Urusid) 84n33, 103, 106, 108, vagabondage of 40 126, 131 bogatyr 144 as father of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan see also bahadur 104 Bokharā 31 as ruler of the Qipchaq Steppe 101, see also Bukhārā 101n14, 102 Bolshevik Revolution 140 Barfield, Thomas 47n93, 55 Book of Dede Qorqut 148–49 Barlas (tribe) 63, 66, 158n65, 159 border guards Mongol origin of 67n49, 133 cossack 76, 77 Bartan Uzbek 142 as common ancestor of Chinggisids and Boris Godunov 126n27 Timurids 160 Borjigin (clan) 40 Barthold, Wilhelm 22–23 Börte China 155, 156, 158 barymta 144n10 see also börte-činu see also baramta börte-činu 155 Batu (Jochid) 21, 86, 98, 99, 100, 152 see also grey wolf Bayāndur (Kimek) 147 brigand(s) 8, 12, 17, 23, 25, 26, 35, 36, 43, 44, Bāyqū 152, 152n36 45, 58, 62, 67, 124, 153, 164 see also Mayqï Biy ambitious 72 Bayshura 143 brigandage 1, 3, 21, 23, 25, 35, 36, 48, 51, 72, de Beauplan, Guillaume Le Vasseure 82, 83, 72n62, 73, 74, 79, 86, 107, 110, 111, 125, 153, 86, 87 164 Beisembiev, Timur 65 ambitious 2, 109 Beishi 17 of Temür 68, 71 Belarusians 90n57, 93 see also qazaqlïq 220 Index

Bronze Age Cherkasy nomadic peoples of Kazakhstan 4, 5, name for Ukrainian Cossacks 84n33 5n13, 7, 165, 165n1 Cherkasy (town) 43, 76, 77n16, 78, 84, Budzhak 76 84n33, 86 buffer zone 65, 106 chi 84, 84n38 see also frontier regions Chimgi-Tura 34 Bukhārā 12, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118, 146, 152, China 1n1, 5, 54, 54n7, 55, 58, 59, 73, 84 153 Chinese dynastic histories, official 8, 17, 51, Bukhārī, Ḥāfiẓ Tanīsh Mīr Muḥammad 13, 55, 60, 60n24, 61, 129 107, 128, 159 see also Standard Chinese Histories Bulat 143–45 Chinggisid(s) 1, 2, 3, 9, 21, 37, 46, 64, 66, Burūndūq Khan (Urusid) 108, 108n45, 112, 67n52, 74, 80, 117n74, 120, 128, 130, 131, 117 132, 133, 138, 148, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, as descendant of Urus Khan 104 159, 160, 161, 163, 165 Buydāsh Khan (Urusid) 117 genealogy 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160 histories 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 33 Caraunas 62 see also Abū al-Khairids, Chaghatayids, see also Qara’unas Jochids, Shibanids, Toqay-Timurids, Central Asia(n) 1, 1n1, 7, 7n17, 8, 10, 13, 24, Urusids 26, 33, 54, 59, 66, 72, 74, 79, 86, 103n25, Chinggis Khan 1, 1n2, 17, 18, 27, 39, 40, 41, 98, 106, 116, 119, 120, 121, 130, 154, 161, 165, 130, 131, 131n53, 132, 135, 138, 152, 152n36, 167 155, 156, 157, 160, 161 Islamic 154 fictitious qazaq life of 39–40 post-Mongol 35, 74n2, 130, 138 not qualifying as qazaq 72n62 Central Eurasia(n) 1, 1n2, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 17, 21, Chingīz-nāma (Ötämiš Ḥājī) 13–14 45, 46, 48, 49n96, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 61, see also Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 79, 81, 97, 104, 121, 124, Chora Batir (= Hero Chora) 18, 36–37 126, 129, 130, 132, 137, 157, 163, 164, 165, Chuloshnikov, Aleksandr P. 141n5, 150n29 166, 167 Chūpān 123 definition of 1n1 Churās, Shāh Maḥmūd b. Mīrzā Fāżīl 11, 127 post-Mongol 1, 1n2, 2, 7, 8, 17, 21, 25, 35, Chuyue (tribe) 55, 60 45, 48, 49n96, 51, 73, 74, 81, 97, 121, 124, Clavijo 67 126, 132, 136, 137, 138, 163, 164, 165n1, 166, Codex Cumanicus 21n1 167 companion(s) 12, 34, 48, 49, 67, 68, 72n62, pre-Mongol 17, 51, 61, 163, 164, 165n1 115, 116, 144 steppes of 55, 85 see also nökör see also Inner Asia Constantinople 87, 88 Chaghatay(s) 63, 67n49, 69, 132 Contarini, M. Ambrosio 75 denoting Mughals 128 cossack(s) 9, 25, 44, 64n40, 74, 75n7, 76, 77, denoting Timurids 123 79, 80, 89, 92, 164, 166, 167 Chaghatayid 63, 64, 66, 72, 105, 106, 132, 136, acculturation of Slavic frontiersmen 80 138, 149 and Cossack 41n75 denoting Timurids 114, 136 denoting freebooter(s) 30, 31, 41, 42, 43, Khanate 11, 21, 47, 62, 66, 67n49, 105, 132 75, 77, 80 Ulus 66, 67, 67n49 etymology of 41n75 Chaghatay Khan 40, 67n49, 136 manner 31, 43 Chaghatay Turkic 8, 11, 21, 25, 45n89, 71 quasi- 86 chaika 87 Ryazan 41, 75, 77, 124 Index 221

Slavic 9, 80, 143n8, 167 Dnieper River 70, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84n33, 85, Tatar 64n41, 74, 75, 80, 83, 83n32, 84, 92 86, 86n43, 89, 123 way of life 47, 82, 92, 167 see also Özi see also kazaks, kozaks, qazaqs Doerfer, Gerhard 23 cossackdom 44, 89, 166 Don Cossacks 9, 39n70, 78, 79, 80, 87n45, 88, beginning of in Poland-Lithuania 43–44 89, 92 different roles in state formation of non-Muscovite identity of 89 Russian and Ukrainian 89 Dong Hu (tribe) 52, 59n19, 60, 60n24, 61 cossack phenomenon 8, 92, 93, 166 Don River 77, 78, 89 see also cossackdom Dughlāt (tribe) 11 Crimea 36, 77, 88 Dulun (Rou-ran) 53 Crimean Khanate 16, 39, 133 Duyin Bayan 39 Crimean Tatar(s) 16, 17, 18, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, Dzanshura 143 76, 78, 80, 133 chronicles 11, 16, 37, 39 Eastern Turkistan 103n25 custom of political vagabondage see also Tarim Basin, Xinjiang as qazaqlïq 2, 8, 46, 48, 72, 163, 164, 166 East Slavic as requisite for qazaqlïq 64n42 adventurers and fugitives 9, 47, 92, 164 not exclusive to post-Mongol Central cossacks 79, 80 Eurasia 73 frontiersmen 80, 80n24, 81 role of in state formation 7, 50 East Slavs 79, 83, 93, 166 widespread in post-Mongol Central Edigü (Manghit) 17, 37, 38, 101, 123 Eurasia 2, 45, 47 Egypt 2, 48 see also ambitious brigandage, qazaqlïq el 23, 115, 121, 122, 134 meaning of 23n7 Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä (anonymous) 17, 39, Epic of Edigü 18, 38 40, 41, 46, 71 Erdeni-yin Tobči (Saghang Sechen) 18, 137 Dale, Stephen F. 2, 3n7 Ergüne Qun 133, 155, 156, 158 characterization of qazaqlïq by 3, 25 Esen Buqa Khan (Chaghatayid) 63 definition of qazaq by 25 Esen Buqa Khan II (Chaghatayid/Moghul) dārūgah 34 105, 106 Dashi Linya 54 Esen Taishi (Oyirat) 137 see also Yelü Dashi Dasht-i Qipchāq 1, 97, 98, 167 Fedor I (Tsar) 42, 43 see also Qipchaq Steppe Ferghana 14, 115 dāstān 16, 104, 126 Finnic (= Finno-Ugrian) 129, 167 deserter 35 Firdaws al-Iqbāl (Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb designated as qazaq 15 Mūnīs) 14, 134, 160 see also qazaq fleeing, act of Devlet-Berdi (Jochid) 101 as strategy for maintaining political Dīb Bāqū Khān 157n56 autonomy 47n93 see also Dīb Bāqūy, Mansak qazaqlïq different from ordinary 33, 72, 164 Dīb Bāqūy 130, 155, 157, 159, 160, 162 see also flight, quasi-qazaqlïq Dikoye Pole 47, 74, 86, 164 flight 38, 53, 58, 112, 113 see also Wild Field as main activity of quasi-qazaqlïq 8, 17, dissident(s), political 21 51, 61, 72 as definition of qazaq/kazak/kozak 8, 42, as time-honored steppe practice along 45, 48 with plundering 163 see also kazak, kozak, qazaq of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan 105, Dlugosz, Jan 43, 74 105n34 222 Index flight (cont.) Temür’s career as 67 of Ukrainian serfs 82, 83 see also qazaqlïq, quasi-qazaqlïq qazaqlïq different from ordinary 72 see also quasi-qazaqlïq von Gabain, Annemarie 24 foundation myth 161 Gamberini, Carolus 65, 70, 85 freebooter(s) Gansu Province 53, 54 as definition of qazaq 1, 3, 8, 9, 25, 27, Gaoche 8, 17, 53, 59, 61 41n75, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 71, 142, 164 Gardīzī 128, 146 frontier 3, 9, 21, 21n1, 45, 47, 62, 63, 65, 72 genealogy life of as requisite for qazaqlïq 2, 30, 33, Chinggisid 27, 130, 133, 148, 154, 155, 157, 41, 163 158, 159, 160 nomads as natural 55 Inner Asian 158 origin of Alash Khan’s Qazaqs 142–43, Japhetic 157, 158 153 Ming-Baburid 160 origin of Aq Qoyunlū confederation Qazaq 14, 131, 140n2 64n40 Timurid 27, 130, 133, 148, 158, 160 origin of Ottomans 65, 70 Toqay-Timurid 104 qazaq 15, 64, 64n40, 66 genealogy of the Turks 131 Tatar 41, 75, 92 see also Šajara-i Türk, Shajarat al-atrāk Temür as 66, 68–69 genetic studies 165n1 Uzbek 35, 46, 124 see also Y-Chromosome DNA testing see also qazaq, cossack Geng, Shimin 6 frontier region(s) 9, 53, 59, 61 Ghur 157 as prerequisite for quasi-qazaqlïq Girāy Khan (Urusid) 6n16, 14, 15, 84n33, 123, activities 8, 65 150 as refuge from state control 47n93 as descendant of Urus Khan 104 expansion of in post-Mongol Central Asia as main enemy of Muḥammad Shībānī 46–47 Khan 12, 110, 111, 112 meaning of name ukraina 167 as qazaq before coming to power 3, 24, qazaqlïq activities in 1, 9, 32, 36, 71, 72, 46, 163 79, 83 diplomatic mission to China sent by 18 quasi-qazaqlïq activities in 62 genesis of Qazaqs in political vagabondage see also qazaqlïq, quasi-qazaqlïq of 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 97, 118, 120, Fufuluo (tribe) 53, 59 121, 124, 138, 141, 166 fugitive(s) legend of Alash Khan and qazaqlïq of as qazaqs 8, 9, 38, 41n75, 43–47, 47n93, 149, 153, 154, 161 48, 51, 66, 74, 75, 92, 164, 167 name Qazaq used for Uzbeks led by as quasi-qazaqs 51–60, 62–66 128 genesis of Qazaqs in a group of 2, 10, name qazaq Uzbek used for Uzbeks led by 97n1, 141, 153 97n1, 125 genesis of Rou-rans in a group of 17 qazaqlïq of 36, 43, 104–5, 105n34, 106–7, Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan’s 1, 11, 104 109 no place of refuge in the Mongolian rise to power of 49, 108 steppes for 72n62 see also Jānībeg Khan origin of Tatar cossacks 41 Golden Horde 1, 9, 89 quasi-qazaqlïq activities as means of see also Jochid Ulus survival for 72, 163 Golden Mountain 54 Slavic cossacks recruited from 77, 78 see also Altai Mountains Index 223

Gordeev, Andrey Andreevich 80 Ibaq Khan (Jochid) 109, 109n48, 113 Great Orda (Qazaq) 143 Ibn ʿArabshāh 68, 69 see also Ulu Jüz Ibn Khaldūn 133 Great Horde (Jochid) 42, 109n48, 133 identity see also Golden Horde anti-Abū al-Khairid 138 Great Wei 59 Chaghatayid 138 see also Northern Wei Dynasty Inner Asian nomadic 137–38 grey wolf 155 Jochid 138 see also börte-činu Little Russian 92n67 Grodekov, N. I. 18, 136, 141n5, 142 Mongol 132, 138 group identities 1, 138, 167 Muscovite 89 guerrilla warfare Qazaq 5, 7, 8, 10, 120, 129, 138, 164, 165 as definition of qazaqlïq 25, 29, 31, 43 Tajik, or sedentary Iranian 138 see also kozactwo, qazaqlïq Turkic 137 guerrilla warrior Ukrainian 81, 89, 90, 91, 93, 164 as definition of qazaq 25 Uzbek 138 Gulbadan Begim (Timurid Mughal) 29n31 Īlcha Khan 159, 160 Gypsies 143 see also Japheth Ilkhanate 21, 62, 63, 64, 122 Ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār afrād-i bashar (Ghiyās̱ Ilkhanid(s) 5n13, 10, 11, 62, 122, 123, 154, 156, al-Dīn Khvāndamīr) 16, 30n35, 63, 124, 157, 159, 161, 165 133, 136, 137 Ilyās Khvāja (Chaghatayid/Moghul) 67 Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū 123 Īmāk (Kimek) 147 Ḥaidar b. ʿAlī Ḥusainī Rāzī 121n1, 127 Īmī (Kimek) 147 Hajji-Tarkhan (= Astrakhan) 109, 111, 113 İnalcık, Halil 24 Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī Qazvīnī 14, 122, 156, India 3n7, 29, 62, 71, 128 157, 157n56 Indian 50, 62 Han Dynasty 5 Indo-European peoples 4, 165n1 Ḥaqq Naẓar Khan (Urusid) 117, 118, 127, 137, Inner Asia 1n1, 8, 14 151, 152, 161 see also Central Eurasia Harāt 16, 28, 70, 115 Inner Asian Ḥasan Beg (Sijivut) 17, 37, 38 genealogy 158 Hazāra 63n33 identity 137–38 hazāra-i qazāq 26, 26n17 nomads 2, 6, 14, 57, 129, 132, 154, 161 von Herberstein, Sigismund 70, 75 steppes 55, 60, 130, 132 Heywood, Colin 64–65 tradition 129n48 Hindustan 62 tribes 2, 14, 130, 132, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, Hlynsky, Bohdan 80 161 Holzwarth, Wolfgang 24–25 Iran 16, 47, 47n93, 62, 72, 116, 122, 123, horde(s) 6n16, 18, 108, 140, 141, 143, 144, 151 129n48, 130, 136 etymology of 140n1 Iranian, sedentary 130, 138, 167 see also jüz, orda see also Tajik Hrabianka, Hryhorii 90 Iränji Khan (Urusid) 112 Hrushevsky, Mykhailo Irmukhanov, Beimbet Baktievich 5n13 on Ukrainian Cossackdom 81, 82n27, Irtish 147 83n32 Iskandar Khan (Abū al-Khairid) 118 Hulegü (Ilkhanid) 62 Islam Hushin (tribe) 5n13 Oghuz Khan’s conversion to 155 see also Uysyn Uzbek Khan’s conversion to 121 224 Index

Islām Girāy (Jochid/Crimean) 42 Jiu Wudaishi 17 istiqlāl 2, 99, 119 Jochi 1, 11, 98, 99, 102, 110, 117, 121, 123, 136, Istoriya Rusov 91, 91n62, 91n63 137, 152, 161 Ivan III (Grand Prince) 41, 77, 109n48 as Our Alash Khan 152 Ivan IV (Tsar) 77, 78, 80 mausoleum of 151 Ivan Runo 76 Jochid(s) 6n16, 15, 16, 26, 36, 41, 42, 47, 62, 65, 72, 80, 83, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, Jabbār Berdi (Jochid) 15, 27 107, 108n45, 120, 131, 136, 137, 138, 164 Jalayir (tribe) 16, 16n24, 18, 63, 123, 126, 132, see also Abū al-Khairids, Chinggisids, 156 Shibanids, Urusids Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh (Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī) 16, Jochid Ulus 6, 6n16, 9, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 26, 102, 104 37n64, 38, 47, 49, 62, 74, 74n2, 89, 92, Jāmiʿ al-tavārīkh (Rashīd al-Dīn) 14, 16, 18, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 117, 120, 121, 130, 132, 148, 148n16, 150, 152, 154, 155, 122, 123, 124, 136, 137 156, 157, 157n56, 158, 158n65, 159, 160 see also Golden Horde, Ulus of Jochi Janabel, Jiger 6–7, 99n8, 140n1, 148n18 joqchi Uzbeks 98n2 Jānībeg Khan (Urusid) 6n16, 14, 15, 84n33, see also Shibanid Uzbeks, yo‘kchi Uzbeks 123, 126, 131, 150 Jungharia 53, 59 as descendant of Urus Khan 104 Junghars 37 as main enemy of Muḥammad Shībānī see also Kalmyks, Oyirats, Qalmaqs Khan 12, 111, 112 Junior Hundred 144 as qazaq before coming to power 3, 24, see also Kishi Jüz 46, 163 Junior Jüz 146 diplomatic mission to China sent by 18 see also Kishi Jüz genesis of Qazaqs in political vagabondage Junior Orda 143 of 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 97, 118, 120, see also Kishi Jüz 121, 124, 138, 141, 166 Jurchen 54 legend of Alash Khan and qazaqlïq of see also Manchurian 149, 153, 154, 161 jüz 6n16, 18, 108, 109n46, 140, 140n1, 141, 142, name Qazaq used for Uzbeks led by 128 143, 145, 146, 151, 153, 154, 161 name qazaq Uzbek used for Uzbeks led by see also horde, Qazaq jüzs 97n1, 125 Qazaq Khanate ruled by descendants of Kābul 29, 33, 74 45 Kābulshāh (Chaghatayid) 67 qazaqlïq of 36, 43, 104–5, 105n34, 106–7, Kai Kāʾūs b. Iskandar (Ziyarid) 129n48 109 Kalmyks 144, 165n1 rise to power of 49, 108 see also Junghars, Oyirats, Qalmaqs see also Girāy Khan Kaniv 78 Japheth Karachay-Malkar Turks 44n87 as ancestor of Chinggisids and Mongols Karakengir 145 10, 130, 134, 135, 154–61 Kara-Kirgiz 143n8 as ancestor of Turks 129n48, 130, 135, 157, see also Kyrgyz, Qirghiz 157n56 Karashura 143 see also Abū al-Turk, Abūlja Khan, Abūnja Kasimov Khanate 16, 102, 126n27 Khan, Īlcha Khan see also Uraz Muḥammad Khan Jetes (= Moghuls) 31 Ḳāysūnī-zāde Meḥmed Nidāʾī (= Remmāl Jin Dynasty (Manchurian) 54 Ḫoca) 39 Jinshu 17, 52 kazachestvovat 4, 142, 153 Jiu Tangshu 17, 58, 60 see also qazaqlïq Index 225 kazak(s) 41, 41n75, 42, 45, 48, 80, 83, 143n8 Khorasan 9, 27, 33, 45, 47, 48, 62, 63, 63n33, denoting political dissident or runaway 42 64, 67, 68, 72, 106, 114, 115 denoting slave, vagrant, and freebooter 44 as frontier region between Mongol states see also qazaq, kozak 72 ḳazaḳ çıḳmaḳ 24, 38 Khorezm 13, 14, 26, 27, 28, 38, 70, 102, 114, 115, see also qazaqlïq 116, 118 Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic Khunjī, Fażlallāh b. Rūzbihān 12, 125, 2n1 127–28, 135 Kazakh(s) 1, 2, 2n1, 98, 165n1 khuṭba 115 Kazakh Steppe 72n62, 165n1 Khvājam Qulī Bīk Balkhī b. Qipchāq Kazakhstan 1n1, 2n3, 4, 5, 5n13, 6, 7, 9, 18, 58, Khān 128 65, 98, 103, 107, 109, 140, 151, 165, 167 Kievan Rus’ 87, 88, 93, 167 Kazak-Kirgiz 143, 144 Kimeks 146, 148, 161 see also Kazakhs see also Tatar Kazan 36, 37, 76, 77 Kim, Hodong 105n34 Kazan Khanate 83–84, 101 Kirgiz 142, 143, 143n8, 167 Kazan Tatars 76 see also Kazakhs Kebek (Chaghatayid) 63, 64 Kirgiz-Kaisak 143n8, 167 Kennedy, Craig Gayen 42 see also Kazakhs Kereyit (tribe) 132, 156 Kirgiz-Kazaks 146, 151 khan 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, see also Kazakhs 38, 39, 40, 59, 63, 65, 66, 67, 76, 80, 97n1, Kishi Jüz 108, 109, 140, 144 99, 100, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, see also Junior Hundred, Junior Jüz, Junior 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 126n27, 127, Orda, Lesser Hundred, Lesser or Junior 128, 131, 133, 134, 136, 137, 141, 142, 143, Horde 144, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 161 Kishitau 145 khanate 10, 32, 32n46, 108, 119, 153, 156n52, knights-errant 86 161 Kobol 145 khanship 40 Kočubej, J. khātima 159 on Turkic cultural influence on Ukrainian khayr 106 Cossacks 84 Khazars 90n60 Kök Orda 98 Ukrainian Cossack claim to descent from see also Blue Horde 90, 90n60, 91, 91n62 Kök Türk(s) 8, 17, 51n2, 53, 54, 57, 60, 61, Khifchāq (Kimek) 147 61n28, 72, 148 see also Qipchaq founding legend of 53n6 Khitai (Uzbek tribe) 65 see also Tujue, Türks Khitan 54, 59, 60n24, 129 Kondyger 145 see also Liao Dynasty, Qara-Khitai Köpek Bey (Qūshchī) 116 Khiva 13, 14, 160 Kotan 143, 144, 145 Khmelnytsky, Bohdan 88, 90, 91 kozactwo 43 Khmelnytsky Cossack uprising 97 denoting raiding or guerrilla warfare 43 Khojent 29 see also qazaqlïq Khoqand kozak(s) 9, 41, 41n75, 43, 44, 45, 75, 83, 143n8 chronicle 14, 140, 160 denoting fugitives, expellees, and Khanate of 14, 66, 160 robbers 43 see also Ming dynasty (Uzbek), Yaʿqūb name cossack originating from 41n75 Beg see also kazak, qazaq 226 Index

Kuban Cossacks 85 rise to power of 114–16 Kūchkūnchī Khan (Abū al-Khairid) 114 see also Muḥammad Shībānī Khan Kuchum Khan (Jochid/Sibir) 42, 108 Majalis al-nafa⁠ʾis (ʿAlīshīr Navāʾī) 28 see also Sibir Mākhān Kudayberdy-uly, Shakarim 150 as place of refuge 67, 68, 70, 72n62 Kūk Orda 98 Makhmet (Jochid) 83, 84 see also Kök Orda see also Ulugh Muḥammad Khan Kupeev, Mashkhur Zhusup 141n5, 145, 146 Mala Khortytsia 78 Kyiv 76, 77, 77n16, 83n32, 86 Mala Rossiya 90 Kyrgyz 165n1 see also Little Russia see also Kara-Kirgiz, Qirghiz Malfuzāt-i Tīmūrī (Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī) 30, Kyzyl Arystan 145 36, 46, 71, 72 Malik Temür (Urusid) 100 Lanckoronski, Przeclaw 43, 76 Mamāsh Khan (Urusid) 117 Lanīqāz (Kimek) 147 Mamay 100, 123 Later Tang Dynasty 59 Mamluk 101, 123 see also Shatuo Türks Qipchaq dictionaries 21n1, 45, 48 Lattimore, Owen Sultanate 2, 48 on formation of new nomadic peoples in Manchuria 1n1, 52 connection with migrations 61n28 Manchurian 6n16, 54, 66, 154 leniency 48n94 see also Qing Dynasty Lesser Hundred 146 Manghit(s) 7n17, 37, 39, 76, 101, 112, 114, 117, see also Kishi Jüz 117n77, 125, 127 Lesser or Junior Horde 108, 140, 144 see also Manqut, Noghays see also Kishi Jüz Manghit Dynasty (Uzbek) 65 Levshin, Aleksei I. 18, 141n5, 146, 151 Manghit Ulus 17, 112, 113 Liangshu 61 see also Noghay Horde Liao Dynasty 54 Mangïshlaq 100, 112 see also Khitai, Qara-Khitai Manqut (tribe) 156 Liaoshi 17 see also Manghit liegeman 33, 36, 102 Mansak 157, 157n56 Lithuania 76 see also Dīb Bāqū Khān see also Poland-Lithuania Manṣūr (Chaghatayid/Moghul) 33 Lithuanian 43, 47, 83, 84n33 Manz, Beatrice Forbes Little Russia 90, 92n67 on formulation of Qazaq identity 120 Liubavsky, M. 83 Marco Polo 62 Liu, Yuan (Xiongnu) 54n7 Marv 67, 70 Louis IX 86 Massagetae 4 Lubsangdanjin 18, 137 Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdain va majmaʿ-i baḥrain (Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandī) 15, Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī 129n48, 157 27, 46, 71 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī Balkhī 13, 105, 106, Maximilian I (Holy Roman Emperor) 70 107, 134, 135, 137, 159 Mayky-bi 145 meaning of name qazaq given by see also Mayqï Biy 35–36 Mayqï Biy Maḥmūd Sulṭān (Urusid) 112, 127 as guardian of Alash Khan 145 Maḥmūd Sulṭān (Abū al-Khairid) 9, 10, 12, identified as Bāyqū 152, 152n36 97, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, see also Bāyqū 121, 124, 127, 138 Māzandarān 35, 125 qazaqlïq of 33, 34, 109, 110–14 Meḥmed Girāy Khan (Jochid/Crimean) 39, 133 Index 227

Mengli Girāy Khan (Jochid/Crimean) Mongolian steppes 53, 59, 59n19, 72n62, 129, 41, 42, 76 165n1 Middle East 62 reason for absence of qazaqlïq in 72n62 Middle Horde 108, 140, 144 Mongolic 17, 103, 132, 138, 165n1 see also Orta Jüz Para- 60n24 Middle Hundred 144 proto- 22n2 see also Orta Jüz Mosqof ḳazaḳ 87 Middle Jüz 145 see also Muscovite Cossacks see also Orta Jüz Mubārak Khvāja (Jochid) 99 Middle Orda 143 Mughals 118, 128 see also Orta Jüz Mughal Empire 3, 3n7, 15, 116 Miechowa, Maciej z 44 Mughūl (Mongol) 133, 134, 135 Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā (Fażlallāh b. Mughūl Khan 11, 130, 135, 148, 157, 158, 159, Rūzbihān Khunjī) 12, 125, 135 160, 161 Ming Dynasty 18, 51n1, 105 Mugulü (Rou-ran) Ming dynasty (Uzbek) 160 as quasi-qazaq 51–52 see also Khoqand Khanate Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt 11, 13, 31, 32, 33, Ming Shilu 18, 105 63, 63n33, 97n1, 102, 104, 105, 107, 117, Mīr Khvānd 16, 124 125, 127, 149 Mirzahan, Jahef 5 meaning of qazaq given by 35, 43 Mīrzā Yūsuf (Manghit) 78, 80 Muḥammad Muqīm Khan (Uzbek Moghul (Mongol) 10, 129, 132, 132n58, 133, Toqay-Timurid) 160 134, 136, 138, 165 Muḥammad Shībānī Khan 3, 7, 7n17, 9, 10, see also Mughūl 12, 24, 33, 34, 46, 49, 50, 63, 63n33, 71, 74, Moghul(s) (eastern Chaghatays) 11, 12, 25, 97, 97n1, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 63, 66, 67, 71, 112, 115, 116, 116n70, 118, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 116, 125, 127, 132, 136, 150 134, 135, 138, 159, 163 usage of name by Muḥammad Ḥaidar qazaqlïq of 33–34, 109, 110–14 Dughlāt 132 rise to power of 114–16 Moghulistan 13, 26, 33, 36, 66, 102, 105, see also Abū al-Khairids 105n34, 106, 107, 111, 112, 149 Mühimme defterleri 76, 87 see also Moghul Khanate, Moghul Ulus Muʿizz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb 27, 71, Moghul Khanate 3, 11, 31, 32, 127 99, 133, 158 Moghul Ulus 32, 49 Mūnīs, Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb 14, 134,160 Mongol(s) 1, 5n13, 7, 8, 18, 40, 46, 47, 62, Munshī, Muḥammad Yūsuf 65n45, 115, 160 63, 64, 66, 72, 74n2, 86, 89, 98, 130, Muntakhab al-tavrīkh-i Muʿīnī (Muʿīn al-Dīn 131n53, 135, 151, 155, 156, 163, 164, 165, Naṭanzī) 15, 26n17, 27, 98, 123 165n1 Murād II (Ottoman) 101 as descendants of Mughūl Khan 157 Murong Xianbei 52 Crimean Tatars designated as 133 see also Tuyuhun, Xianbei modern 2 Mūsā Mīrzā (Manghit) 112 Qazaqs identified as 135–36 Muscovites 36, 41, 42, 47, 48, 74n2, 76, 77, spread of name as self-appellation 84n33, 87, 87n45, 89, 108, 109n48, 124, 133 166, 167 Timurids designated as 133 Muscovite Cossacks 87 Uzbeks designated as 134–35 Muscovite sources 11, 25, 41, 42, 44, 76, 84, 127 Mongol custom 133, 134 Muscovy 9, 42, 47, 58, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 89, Mongol Empire 2, 6, 6n16, 9, 21, 40, 46, 61, 90, 92, 100, 127, 164 62, 120, 132 Mongol impact on state formation 89 Mongolian Plateau 72n62, 129 Muṣṭafa ʿĀlī 131, 133 228 Index

Naiman (tribe) 132, 134, 156 Oghuz (tribe) 129n48, 148, 149, 155, 156 Nan Qishu 60–61 see also Turkmen Naṭanzī, Muʿīn al-Dīn 15, 26n17, 27, 99, 123, Oljeitü Khan (Ilkhanid) 63, 64 133, 134, 136, 137 Öngüt (tribe) 132, 156 Naẕr Muḥammad Khan (Uzbek Toqay- oral tradition(s) Timurid) 13, 134, 159 Crimean Tatar 18 Negodar 62 Noghay 18, 38 see also Negüder of the Qipchaq Steppe 14, 21, 26, 36 Negüder 62 Qazaq 3, 10, 18, 37, 140, 150, 152, 154, 161, 165 Negüderi (tribe) 9, 45, 48, 62, 63n33, 65, 72, Volga Tatar 17, 39 79, 92, 163 orda 113, 140n1 as quasi-qazaqs 63 Orda (Jochid) 98, 99, 99n8 Nikon Chronicle 41, 69, 75, 124 Orta Jüz 108, 109, 140, 144 Niyāz Muḥammad b. Mullā ʿAshūr 14, 160 see also Middle Horde, Middle Hundred, Noah 10, 129n48, 130, 134, 154, 157, 161 Middle Jüz, Middle Orda Noda, Jin 6n16 Orus Khan 151 Noghay(s) 7n17, 18, 36, 38, 76, 77, 78, 80, 112, see also Urus Khan 117, 117n77, 127 Ostapchuk, Victor 24, 39n70, 80n24, 87n46, see also Manghits 88 Noghay Horde 112, 117n77, 127 characterization of Zaporozhian Cossacks see also Manghit Ulus by 88 nökör(s) 49, 72n62 definitions of qazaq and qazaqlïq by 24 difference between qazaq and 72n62 study of Cossack naval raids by 87n46 nomadic empire 2, 59, 100, 103, 117 Otamiš Ḥājī 13, 16, 26, 27, 49, 98 nomadic state 2, 49n96, 51n2, 55, 58, 59, 61, Ottoman(s) 39, 70, 72, 74n2, 76, 78, 83, 85, 72n62 101, 131, 133 Noqai (Jochid) 65 as retinue institution 24 northern barbarians 8, 17, 51, 60, 129 frontier freebooter origin of 64–65 Northern Liang Dynasty 53, 54n7 perception of Temür and Ukrainian see also Xiongnu Cossacks 70 Northern Wei Dynasty 52, 53, 59 Ottoman Turkish 16, 21, 37 see also Tabgach Ottomanists 24 Northern Yuan 136 Our Alash Khan 152 see also Mongols, Yuan Dynasty see also Alash Khan, Jochi Khan noyan 67, 67n52 outcast 10, 69, 141, 152 see also amīr as definition of qazaq/kozak 38, 39, 43 Nüküz 155, 156, 158, 159 see also kozak, qazaq Nūr al-Dīn (Manghit) 38 outer frontier strategy 55 Nūr Devlet Khan (Jochid/Crimean) 41, 42 Oyirat(s) 4n9, 103, 132, 156 Nusakh-i jahān-ārā (Aḥmad b. Muḥammad see also Junghars, Kalmyks, Qalmaq(s) Ghaffārī) 102 Özbäkya 138 Nyambuu, Kh. 5n13 see also Uzbakistān Özi 123 oases 25 see also Dnieper River of Central Asia 10, 103n25, 116, 119, 120, Öz Temir (Jochid) 80 154, 161, 167 see also Transoxiana pādshāh 122, 133, 137 oghlan 26, 42 patrimony 98 Oghuz Khan 11, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 see also appanage, ulus Index 229

Perso-Islamic Qara’unas (tribe) 9, 30, 48, 62, 63, 66, 67, 72, historiographical tradition 10, 14, 129n48, 92, 163 154, 159, 160, 161, 165 as derogatory term for Moghuls 63 world 129 as quasi-qazaqs 62 Pingliang 53, 61 Qāsim Khan (Urusid) 108, 112, 113, 118, 126, place of refuge 72, 72n62, 164 128, 131, 150n29 see also political no-man’s lands growth of Qazaq Khanate into nomadic plunderer(s) 2 empire under 117, 117n77 as definition of qazaq 25 Qataghīn Thousand (tribe) 126 see also qazaq Qay (tribe) 60n24, 129n48 plundering Qazan (Chaghatayid) 63, 66 and allocation of booty 57 qazaq(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 34, 48, 64, 68n53, as definition of barymta 144n10 72n62, 74, 92, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, as main activity of quasi-qazaqlïq 8, 17, 153 51, 72, 163 characterized as ambitious brigand 72, as means of acquiring provisions 21 164 as nomads’ way of life 55, 57, 58 denoting renegades 26, 26n17 as part of qazaqlïq activities 24–25, 31, diffusion of term in the fifteenth century 34, 68, 68n53, 76, 111, 153 45–46 see also flight, quasi-qazaqlïq lexical definitions of 22–25 Poland-Lithuania 9, 75, 77, 78, 83, 92, 164 manner 2, 31 Polish-Lithuanian 43, 75, 78, 82, meaning freed, free 45 Commonwealth 88n51 meaning of term in sources written prior political no-man’s land(s) 9, 47, 47n93 to the fifteenth century 21n1 see also place of refuge meaning slave 44, 44n87 Potanin, Nikolayevich 18, 141n5, 143, 145, 146, not attested to in Codex Cumanicus 21n1 153 term used in broader senses in the western princes of the left arm/wing 99 Qipchaq Steppe/Eastern Europe than in see also Ulus of Orda Central Asia 23, 33, 45 see also adventurer, cossack, freebooter, Qabul Khan 155, 158, 159, 160 fugitive, outcast, robber, vagabond, Qābus-nāma (Kai Kāʾūs b. Iskandar) 129n48 vagrant, wanderer Qāchūlī (Timurid) 155, 158, 158n65, 159, 160 Qazaq(s) 1, 2, 3, 6n16, 7, 7n17, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, Qādir ʿAlī Bek Jalāyirī 16, 102, 104, 126 97n1, 102, 120, 140, 141, 150, 152, 154 Qalmaq(s) 36, 37, 103, 105, 107, 122, 127, 149, ethnogenesis 4, 5n13, 6, 7, 165 150 formation of 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 120, 150n29, 163, etymology of name 122 165, 165n1, 166 see also Kalmyks, Junghars, Oyirats parallels between Qazaqs and Ukrainians Qamar al-Dīn (Moghul) 26 166–67 Qambar Batir (= Hero Qambar) 18, 37, separate identity of 5, 7, 8, 10, 120, 129, 37n62 138, 164, 165 Qanqli (tribe) 148, 155 see also Kazakhs Qarakhanid(s) 54, 129n48 qazaq čiq- 40, 41 Qara Qorum 86 see also qazaqlïq Qara-Khitai 8, 58 Qazaq ethnogenesis state 17, 54, 59, 61, 72, 163 Kazakh interpretations of 7, 165 see also Liao Dynasty, Khitan Soviet interpretations of 4, 5n13, 6, 165 Qarākūl 113 see also autochthonous development qara süyek 108 Qazaq Horde 127 see also Black Bone see also Qazaq Khanate 230 Index qazāqī 2, 27, 29n31, 33, 164 qazaq Uzbeks 10, 35, 35n58, 36, 49, 97, 98, see also qazaqlïq 107, 108, 109, 120, 124, 125, 126, 138, 153, qazaq institution 161, 164, 165, 167 as alternative to state 49n96 definition of name 97n1 see also qazaq warrior bands see also Qazaqs, Uzbeks Qazaq jüzs 6n16, 18, 109n46, 140, 141, 142, qazaq warrior band(s) 143, 145, 146, 151, 153, 154, 161 transformation of into state 48–50 origin of 140n1 see also qazaq institution see also Kishi Jüz, Orta Jüz, Three qazaq way of life 4, 47, 72n62 Hundred, Uch Alach, Ulu Jüz as stepping stone to power 2, 3, 74, 163 Qazaq Khanate 2, 6, 6n16, 7, 14, 36, 84n33, as well-established custom of political 108n45, 117, 118, 120, 166 vagabondage in post-Mongol Central qazaqlap yür- 27, 27n19 Eurasia 8, 46, 48 see also qazaqlïq definition of 163 qazaqlïq 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 21, 26, 79, 81, depicted in the legend of Alash Khan 153 92, 97, 120, 138, 154, 161, 163, 164, 165, differentiated from mere act of fleeing by 166, 167 Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt 33 absence of in the Mongolian steppes sources for understanding nature of 15, 72n62 18, 39 archetypical characterization of by Abū see also custom of political vagabondage, Ṭālib al-Ḥusainī 30 qazaqlïq characterization of by Stephen F. Dale and Qianlong (Qing) 154 Maria Eva Subtelny 3 Qing Dynasty 6n16, 66, 154 created from combination of steppe see also Manchurian practices of flight and plundering with Qipchaq Steppe 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, fragmentation of Chinggisid and 18, 21, 26, 27, 28, 33, 35, 35n58, 36, 37, 38, Timurid states 21, 163 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 70, 72, 72n62, 74n2, difference between quasi-qazaqlïq and 84n33, 92, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 72 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 117, 118, emergence of in post-Mongol Central 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 133, 136, 137, Eurasia 46, 48 138, 141, 146, 148, 148n18, 151, 154, 163, legend of Alash Khan as tale of 152–54, 164, 166, 167 161 definition of 98 lexical definitions of 22–25 history of eastern 97–103 of Abū al-Khair Khan 34, 35 see also Dasht-i Qipchāq of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan 36, 107 Qipchaq (tribe) 2, 5, 5n13, 6, 148, 155, 159 of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan 33, 34, 109, Qipchaq Turkic 21n1, 48 111, 113, 115 Qirghiz 17, 36, 58, 107, 129, 156, 165n1 of Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara 27–29, 45n89, see also Kyrgyz 68n53 Qırımī, ʿAbd al-Ghaffār 16, 37, 37n64, 38 of Temür 67, 71, 72 Qiu Chang Chun Xi You Ji (Li Zhichang) 54 role of in state formation 48, 50 Qiyan 11, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161 three phases of 48 quasi-qazaq(s) 8, 9, 45, 49n96, 51, 53, 58, 62, See also ambitious brigandage, custom of 79, 92, 163 political vagabondage, qazaq way of life quasi-qazaqlïq 8, 11, 17, 62, 79 Qazaq Sovet Entsiklopediyasy 148, 148n16, as effective means of survival 72 152n34 created from combination of fugitives and Qazāqstān 128 frontier regions 65 Index 231

defined as fleeing and plundering Temür referred to as 69 activities of nomad fugitives seeking see also kozak, qazaq survival 51, 72 robbery 35 difference between pastoralism and 51 Rou-ran 8, 17, 51, 51n2, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61, difference between qazaqlïq and 72, 61n28, 72, 163 163–64 Dong Hu origin of 59n19 historical consequences of 51, 59, 61, 64, Khaganate 51n2, 53 163 Ruan-ruan 52, 53, 60 Qunduz 62 see also Rou-ran Qunghrat (tribe) 18, 38, 134, 156, 159 de Rubrouck, Guillaume 86 see also Qunqirat Rudnytsky, Ivan L. 92 Qunghrat Dynasty (Uzbek) 14, 134, 160 runaway(s) Qunqirat (tribe) 156 as definition of qazaq/kazak/kozak 8, 36, qūrama 66 39, 42, 45, 47 Qūrama 65, 65n45, 66 qazaqlïq as life of 30, 31, 36, 48, 71 Qūshchī (tribe) 110, 113, 116 see also kazak, kozak, qazaq Qutlugh-Buqa (Urusid) 151 Ru-ru 54 see also Rou-ran Radlov, Vasily Vasilievich 23, 36 Rus’ Cossacks 87 raid(s) see also Zaporozhian Cossacks as definition of qazaqlïq 29–30 rūs ḳazaḳ 87 see also qazaqlïq see also Rus’ Cossacks, Zaporozhian Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī 14, 16, 18, Cossacks 98, 99, 130, 132, 148, 152, 154, 155, 156, Rus’ principalities 1 157, 158, 159, 160 see also Kievan Rus’ rasm-i qazāqī 2, 32, 164 Russia 42, 69, 90n58, 90n60, 126n27, 143 Raużāt al-jannāt fī auṣāf-i madīnat-i Harāt Russian Empire 90, 93, 108 (Muʿīn al-Dīn Muḥammad Zamchī Russians 70, 90, 90n58, 91, 93, 143n8, 144, Isfizārī) 28 164, 167 refugee(s) 64, 65, 67 Rusyny 167 designated as qazaq 21 Ruthenian (Middle Ukrainian) 21, 41, 44, 75 registered Cossacks 88, 88n51 Ruthenian(s) 86, 89, 91, 167 see also Ukrainian Cossacks, Zaporozhian see also Ukrainians Cossacks Ryazan 41, 75, 77, 124 renegade(s) 47, 54, 72, 74 designated as qazaq 10, 15, 26, 46 Sabrān 114 as quasi-qazaq 53 Safavids 16, 116, 118, 121n1, 127 see also qazaq, quasi-qazaq Saghang Sechen 18, 137 retainer 49, 72 n62, 109, 110 Ṣāḥib Girāy Khan (Jochid/Crimean) 39, 42 see also nökör ṣaḥrā 23, 155 retinue institution 24, 64n42 Sairam 100 see also qazaqlïq Šajara-i Türk (Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan) Rigel’man, Aleksandr 89 14, 103, 121, 128, 160, robber(s) 62 Saka 4, 5 as definition of qazaq/kozak 23, 25, 43, see also Scythians 75 Samarqand 29, 30n35, 31, 47, 68, 69, 71, 103, Don Cossacks referred to as 77, 78 106, 114, 115, 116 232 Index

Samarqandī, Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq Shevchenko 92 15, 27, 35, 124 she-wolf 53n6 Samerkund 31 see also Ashina see also Samarqand shezhire 140n2 Saray 47, 83, 84n33, 99, 100, 101 Shībān (Jochid) 102, 110 Sarāy Malik (Chaghatayid) 64 Shibanid(s) 110, 125, 126, 127, 128 Saray, Mehmet 4n9 see also Shibanid Uzbeks Sarmatia 44 Shībānī-nāma (anonymous) 12, 35, 45n89, Sarmatians 90, 90n60 71, 111, 116, 150, 159 Sarmatism 90n60 Shībānī-nāma (Kamāl al-Dīn ʿAlī Bināʾī) 12, Sartach (Jochid) 86 13, 28, 33, 34, 45n89, 71, 109, 111, 113, 114, Saryarka 145 150 Sary-Azman 78 Shibanid Uzbek(s) 7, 7n17, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, Sarykengir 145 97, 97n1, 98, 98n2, 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, Sayyid ʿAṭā 122 128, 129, 130, 137, 138, 154, 158, 161, 163, see also Islam 164, 165, 166, 167 Schiltberger, Johann 101 definition of name 7n17, 97n1 Scythians 4, 5, 5n13, 6 historians 127, 128, 134 Secret History of the Mongols 18, 40, 155 see also joqchi Uzbeks, Shibanids Semirechye 58 Shibanid Uzbek Khanate 13, 63, 134 see also Zhetysu see also Uzbek Khanate Senior Jüz 145 Shimaqi 40 see also Ulu Jüz Shirin (tribe) 37 Senior Horde 16n24, 108, 140, 144 Shīr-Muḥammad Khan (Chaghatayid/ see also Ulu Jüz Moghul) 32, 32n46 Senior Hundred 144, 146 Shiwei (tribe) 60n24 see also Ulu Jüz Siberia 89, 109, 165n1 serfdom 77, 78, 82, 83 see also Sibir Shad (Kimek) 147, 161 Sibir 42, 43,108 Shāh ʿAbbās I (Safavid) 118 Sighnaq 102, 103, 106, 111, 112, 133 Shāh Ismāʿīl Safavī (Safavid) 63n33, 116 Sigismund II Augustus 75, 88n51 Shāhrukh (Timurid) 15, 35n58 Sijivut (tribe) 17, 37, 38 Shaikh Ḥaidar (Abū al-Khairid) 103, 107, Sistan 68 108, 109 Sīyunch Khan (Abū al-Khairid) 114, 116 Shajarat al-atrāk 121, 122, 131, 131n53, 158 slave 52, 86, 88, 147 see also Tārīkh-i arbaʿ ulūs, Ulugh Beg as definition of qazaq/kazak 44, 44n87 Shāmī, Niẓām al-Dīn 15, 26n17, 67n52, 100, slavery 52, 83, 126 123 Songshu 61 Shanxi Province 54, 54n7 South Asia 50 Sharaf-nāma-i shāhī (Ḥāfiẓ Tanīsh Mīr Soyurghatmish Khan (Chaghatayid) 67n52 Muḥammad Bukhārī) 13, 14, 107, 128, Standard Chinese Histories (= zhengshi) 159 definition of 51n1 see also ʿAbdallāh-nāma see also official Chinese dynastic histories Shatuo Türk(s) 8, 17, 54, 60, 61 Stand on the Ugra River 109n48 as border guards in service to Tang 54, starosta 78 58, 59 state Western Türk/Chuyue origin of 55, 60 qazaq institution as alternative model to see also Chuyue, Later Tang Dynasty, 49n96 Western Türks transformation of qazaq band into 49–50 Index 233 state formation Tang Dynasty 54, 55n10, 57, 58, 59 qazaqlïq as alternative mechanism of Tangut(s) (tribe) 58, 130 165 Taragay (Timurid) 40 respective roles of Don Cossacks and Tārīkh (Shāh Maḥmūd b. Mīrzā Fāżīl Churās) Ukrainian Cossacks in 89 11, 127 role of qazaqlïq in 7, 8, 50, 138 Tārīkh al-duwal wa al-mulūk (Ibn al-Furāt) von Steblau, Erich Lassota 88 123 steppe(s) 1n1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 17, 21, 24, 42, 44, Tārīkh-i Abū al-Khair Khānī (Masʾūd 52, 54, 61n28, 64n41, 72, 72n62, 77, 80, Kūhistānī) 12–13 81, 82, 82n27, 83, 85, 86, 98, 103n25, 111, Tārīkh-i arbaʿ ulūs (Ulugh Beg) 121, 158 119, 120, 131n56, 136, 142, 144, 145, 153, see also Shajarat al-atrāk 161, 163, 165, 167 Tārīkh-i Dūst Sulṭān (Ötämiš Ḥājī) 13–14, 26 Stökl, Gunther 80 see also Chingīz-nāma Subtelny, Maria Eva 3, 3n7, 25 Tārīkh-i guzīda (Ḥamd Allāh Mustaufī characterization of qazaqlïq by 3 Qazvīnī) 14, 122, 123, 156 definitions of qazaq and qazaqlïq by 25 Tārīkh-i Ḥaidarī (Ḥaidar b. ʿAlī Ḥusainī Rāzī) Suishu 17 117, 121n1, 127 Sulduz (tribe) 63 Tārīkh-i Kashgar 12 Süleyman (Ottoman) 39 Tārīkh-i Qipchāq Khānī (Khvājam Qulī Bīk Suleymanov, Mukhamet-Khalel 148, 152 Balkhī b. Qipchāq Khān) 128 sulṭān 10, 100, 104, 105, 114, 116, 117, 118, 127, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī (Muḥammad Ḥaidar 133, 146 Dughlāt) 3, 11, 13, 31, 35, 46, 97n1, 104, 105, Sulṭān-Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā (Timurid) 50, 70, 107, 114, 117, 125, 127, 149 103, 106, 112, 114, 124 Tārīkh-i Raużat al-ṣafā (Mīr Khvānd) 16, Sulṭān-Aḥmad Khan (Chaghatayid/Moghul) 124 and nickname Alacha Khan 149–50 Tārīḫ-i Ṣāḥib Girāy Ḫān (Ḳāysūnī-zāde Sulṭān-Aḥmad Mīrzā (Timurid) 50, 106, 112, Meḥmed Nidāʾī) 39 114 Tārīkh-i Shāhrukhī (Niyāz Muḥammad b. Sulṭān-Ḥusain Bayqara (Timurid) 13, 15, 45, Mullā ʿAshūr) 14, 140, 160 46, 70, 71, 74, 106, 115, 163 Tarim Basin 103n25 qazaqlïq of 27–29, 45n89, 68n53 see also Eastern Turkistan, Xinjiang Sulṭān-Maḥmud Khan (Chaghatayid/ Tartar(s) 62, 75 Moghul) 114, 150n27 see also Mongols, Tatars Sulṭān Saʿīd Khan (Chaghatayid/Moghul) Tashkent 65, 67, 115, 116, 151 and qazaq way of life 11, 33 Tatār (Kimek) 147 Sulu (Türgesh) 17, 57 Tatar(s) Synopsis 90n58 denoting Mongols 69, 133, 135 Syr Darya River 4, 65, 102, 103n25, 112, 115, denoting Turkic nomads of Jochid 131n56, 136, 142 Ulus 9, 11, 16, 17, 36, 37, 39, 39n70, 40, Sysyn, Frank E. 90, 91, 91n63 41, 43, 47, 58, 70, 74, 76, 78, 79, 83, 85, 92, szlachta 90n60 109n48, 124, 144, 146, 153, 164, 167 meaning of name 74n1 Tabgach (= Tuoba) 52, 59, 59n19 see also Uzbeks see also Northern Wei Dynasty, Xianbei Tatar (tribe) 129n48, 132, 136, 146, 147, 156 Tāhir Khan (Urusid) 117, 125 as Tatar Khan’s descendants 136, 158 Tajik 123, 130, 138 see also Kimek see also Iranian, sedentary Tatar cossacks Tamerlane 3, 70, 151 as border guards serving Muscovy and see also Temür Poland-Lithuania 75 234 Index

Tatar cossacks (cont.) historians 27, 30n35, 123, 130, 133, 136, compared to Aq Qoyunlū 64n41 148, 157, 158, 161, 165 followed by Slavic cossacks 74, 92 qazaqlïq of 70–71 mingling of East Slavic frontiersmen with Timurid Empire 3 80 Tingling (tribe) 60n24 relationship to Ukrainian Cossacks 83, see also Tiele 83n32, 84 Togan, Isenbike 23–24, 64 superseded by East Slavic Cossacks Togan, Zeki Velidi 4, 23 79–80 Tolun Khvāja (Moghul) 30, 30n35 Tatar Khan 130, 136, 148, 157, 158 Tomakivka 79n22 Tatary 88 Tonyukuk 17 Tauke Khan (Urusid) 141 on source of Kök Türk strength 57 Tavakkul Khan (Urusid) 118 Toqay-Timur (Jochid) 98, 100 Tavārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat-nāma 12, 14, 33, as ancestor of Urus Khan 99, 99n8 34, 99, 104, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114, 159 Toqay-Timurid(s) (Qazaq) 36, 101, 103, 104, Tāzīk 134 105, 128, 131 see also Tajik Toqay-Timurid(s) (Uzbek) 13, 115, 118, 118n81, Taẕkira-i Muqīm Khānī (Muḥammad Yūsuf 128, 134, 159, 160 Munshī) 65n45, 115, 160 see also Astrakhanids Temir Aksak 69 Toγmaγ 18, 137 meaning of name 69 see also Toqmaq see also Temür Toqmaq 10, 129, 136, 137, 165 Temür 3, 15, 17, 24, 26, 27, 39, 45, 46, 63, 64, see also ulūs-i Jūchī 68n53, 72n62, 100, 101, 106, 123, 133, 136, Toqta (Jochid) 65 150, 151, 157, 158n65, 159, 163 Toqtamïsh Khan (Jochid) 14, 15, 16, 74, 102, as freebooter turned sovereign 66–70 103, 106, 123, 133, 134, 137, 151, 163 as quintessential qazaq 9, 71, 72 as qazaq 26–27, 49 fictitious qazaq life of 40–41 as ruler of the Qipchaq Steppe 100–1 qazaqlïq of as narrated by Abū Ṭālib Toqtaqaya (Urusid) 151 al-Ḥusainī 30–31 Toy-Khvāja (Jochid) 100 Temür-Malik (Urusid) 151 Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis (Maciej z Temür Qutluq Khan (Jochid) 101, 123 Miechowa) 44 Themirassack 70 Transoxiana 7, 13, 33, 46, 47, 48, 50, 63, 64, see also Temür 66, 67, 67n49, 68, 71, 72, 72n62, 98n2, Three Hundred 136, 140n1, 142 101, 102, 103n25, 106, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, see also Qazaq jüzs 120, 122, 138, 160, 163, 164, 165 Tibetan Plateau 52, 59 see also Turan, Western Turkistan Tibetans 54, 55, 58, 129n48 Trans-Yaik Tatars 69 see also Tufan see also Yayïq Tiele (tribe) 60, 60n24, 129 tsar 69, 84, 89, 126n27 Timur 67 tsarevich 80 see also Temür Tufan 55 Timurid(s) 3, 67, 67n49, 74, 98, 100, 102, Tughlugh-Temür (Chaghatayid/Moghul) 66, 106, 110, 112, 114, 115, 118, 123, 126, 130, 67 133, 136, 148, 151, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, Tujue 53, 54, 129 163, 165 see also Kök Türks, Türks genealogy 157, 158, 160 Tūmina Khan 155, 159 Index 235

as common ancestor of Chinggisids and Uighur(s) 17, 55, 60, 60n24, 129, 134, 135, 155 Timurids 158, 160 brigands 58 Turan 129n48, 141 ukraina 77, 167 see also Transoxiana Ukraine 83, 84, 87, 87n45, 89, 90, 91, 98, 167 Türgesh 17, 57 Ukrainian(s) 82, 84, 85, 90, 90n57, 90n58, Türk(s) 2, 5, 57, 60, 61, 61n27, 129, 129n47, 131 90n60, 91, 93, 166, 167 see also Kök Türks parallels between Ukrainians and Qazaqs Turk(s) 166–67 denoting Inner Asian nomads in general Ukrainian Cossack(s) 76, 77n16, 78, 80, 81, 129, 129n47,129n48, 130, 131, 131n53, 132, 82, 83, 84, 84n33, 85, 86, 87, 88, 88n51, 133, 135, 138, 148, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 89, 90, 91, 91n62, 93, 163, 164, 166 157n56, 160, 165 Ottoman fear of 65, 70 denoting Ottomans 43, 70, 85, 87, 88 role of in state formation 89 denoting Turkic-speaking peoples 4n9, Turkic cultural influence on 84 21, 129, 132 Ukrainian-Ruthenian identity of 89 love of plunder 55–56 see also Zaporozhian Cossacks Turkicization Ukrainian Cossack chronicles of Mongol elites 47–48 and formation of modern Ukrainian Turkistān identity 91–92 definition of 103n25 claim to Khazar descent in 90, 90n60, 91, denoting the steppes north of Syr Darya 91n62 River 103n25, 131, 131n56, 135 separate Ukrainian identity manifested in denoting Transoxiana and Tarim Basin 90 103n25 Ukrainian Cossackdom denoting Yassī 103, 110, 111, 113, 114, 131n56, and defense of the Ukrainian steppe 143 frontier 85 see also Yassī and development of modern Ukrainian Türk Khaganate 59, 129 nation 92, 164 Second 57, 129, 129n47 and formation of Cossack Hetmanate 9, Western 54, 57 81, 82n27, 83, 92, 164 Turk Khan 11, 130, 135, 157, 158, 159 and struggle against Polish state 88 Turkmen(s) 64, 72 development of 78 and strategy of fleeing 47n93 Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate as frontier freebooters 64 and consolidation of separate Ukrainian see also Oghuz identity 9, 88, 90, 93 Turko-Mongolian and Little Russian identity 92n67 peoples 1, 1n2, 74n2 and Ukrainian nation 81, 92 ruling group 120 created by Zaporozhian Cossacks 93, Tuyuhun 17, 59, 61n28, 72 167 as quasi-qazaq 52–53 Ukrainian Cossack state Tuyuhun state 8, 17, 61, 72, 163 and differentiation between Belarusians see also Murong Xianbei and Ukrainians 90n57 Tynyshpaev, Mukhamedzhan 140, 141n5, 151, Ukrainian Cossack uprising 90, 92 152 Ukrainian elite of the Left Bank and Little Russian identity 92n67 ʿUbaidallāh Khan (Abū al-Khairid) 12, 116, Ulash 148 128 Ulugh Beg (Timurid) 101, 102, 106, 124 Uch Alach 142 as author of Tārīkh-i arbaʿ ulūs 121, 122, see also Qazaq jüzs 132, 158 236 Index

Ulugh Muḥammad Khan (Jochid) 83, Utrar 100, 112, 114 as rival of Barāq Khan 84n33, 101 Uushin 5n13 Ulu Jüz 16n24, 108, 109, 140, 144 see also Uysyn see also Great Orda, Senior Horde, Senior Uysun 143, 144 Jüz, Senior Hundred Uysyn (tribe) 5, 5n13 ulus 9, 10, 11, 14, 21, 30, 33, 47, 65, 97n1, 98, see also Hushin, Ushin, Uushin, Wusun 99, 102, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, Uzbak-i qazāq 35, 97, 97n1, 125 122, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, Yuri Bregel on 97n1 134, 136, 137, 138, 150, 152, 153, 154, 158, see also qazaq Uzbeks 161, 165, 166 Uzbak-i Shībān 7n17, 97, 125 meaning of 1n2 see also Shibanid Uzbeks ulūs-i Jaghatāy 136 Uzbek(s) see also Chaghatay denoting Jochid ulus after Uzbek Khan ulūs-i Jūchī 136 1, 3, 4, 7n17, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 34, 35, 36, 43, see also Ulus of Jochi 46, 74n2, 81, 97n1, 103, 107, 108, 116, 118, Ulus of Jochi 1, 6n16, 9, 47, 74n1, 101, 121n1, 119, 120, 121, 121n1, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 121n2, 123, 136, 151, 152, 164 127, 128, 131, 135, 137, 138, 141, 151, 153, see also Jochid Ulus 164, 165, 166 Ulus of Orda 14 denoting present-day Uzbeks 66, 98, see also patrimony, princes of the left 98n2, 165n1 arm/wing denoting Shibanid Uzbeks 11, 13, 14, 25, Ulus of Uzbek 1, 3, 4, 7n17, 16, 137 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 48, 65, 66, 71, 113, 114, see also Uzbek Khan 118, 120, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 134, 137, 138, Ulyanty Khan (Manghit) 151 142, 143, 154, 158, 159, 159n68, 160, 166 Ulytau 145 see also qazaq Uzbeks, Shibanid Uzbeks, ʿUmar-Shaikh (Timurid) 26 Tatars, Ulus of Uzbek, Uzbek Khan ʿUmdet al-aḫbār (ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Qırımī) Uzbekistan 47n93, 65, 98n2, 138 16, 37 Uzbakistān underdog(s), political 2, 9, 32, 55 denoting present-day Kazakhstan 125 Uraz Muḥammad Khan (Urusid/Kasimov) see also Özbäkya, Uzbekya 16, 126, 126n27 Uzbek Khan (Jochid) Urus Khan (Urusid) 6n16, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, and origin of desination Uzbek 1, 121, 26, 27, 49, 97, 103, 106, 131, 133 121n1, 122, 123, 124, 131, 135, 137 ancestry of 99, 99n8 see also Ulus of Uzbek, Uzbek as grandfather of Barāq Khan 101, Uzbek Khanate 3, 65n45, 118n81 102 see also Shibanid Uzbek Khanate as great-grandfather of Jānībeg Khan Uzbek Ulus 18, 35, 49, 119, 133, 134, 167 and Girāy Khan 104, 108 Uzbekya 126 as unifier of the Qipchaq Steppe 99, see also Uzbakistān 100 Uzun Ḥasan (Aq Qoyunlū) 75 identified as Alash Khan 150–52, 161 identified as Jochi’s ulus 136, 137 vagabond(s) 21n1, 31, 36, 41n75, 71 identified as Uzbek 123, 124, 126 as definition of qazaq/kazak 1, 8, 22, 23, Urusid(s) 6n16, 15, 81, 102, 103, 108, 118, 138, 26, 30, 35, 38, 44, 45, 46, 51, 72n62, 97n1, 149, 164, 166 142, 153, 164 Ushin (tribe) 5n13 vagabond(s), political 8, 9, 12, 21, 21n1, 30, see also Uysyn 47, 101, 163 Index 237

as definition of qazaq 48, 71, 72, 164 Western Turkistan 103n25 designated as qazaq in sources 3, 124, 164 see also Transoxiana Stephen Dale’s rendering of qazaq as 3, White Bone 108 3n7, 25 see also aq süyek see also qazaq White Horde 98 vagabondage, political see also Aq Orda and formation of Qazaqs 1, 2, 3, 7 wilderness 1, 23, 40, 41, 80, 111 designated as qazaqlïq in post-Mongol political 3, 25, 113 Central Eurasia 21 see also steppe of Jānībeg Khan and Girāy Khan 1, 97, Wild Field 9, 47, 74, 86, 164 107, 125 as political no-man’s land 47, 164 of Muḥammad Shībānī Khan and see also Dikoye Pole Maḥmūd Sulṭān 97, 110 Woods, John 64, 64n41 Stephen Dale’s definition of qazaqlïq as Wusun(s) 4, 5, 5n13 25 see also qazaqlïq Xianbei 52, 59, 59n19 vagrant(s) 52, 59 see also Dong Hu as definition of qazaq/kazak 23, 33, 40, Xiaosha (Ashina) 57 44, 48, 142 Xinjiang 1n1, 17, 53, 66 Qazaq 3, 141 see also Eastern Turkistan, Tarim Basin see also kazak, qazaq Xin Tangshu 17, 55, 57, 58, 60, 60n24 Vais Khan (Chaghatayid/Moghul) Xin Wudaishi 17 as qazaq 11, 31–32, 32n46, 33 Xiongnu 2, 5, 54n7, 59, 60, 60n24, 61, 84 Valikhanov, Chokan 3, 5n13, 18, 141, 141n5, origin of Northern Liang 53 146, 150, 150n29, 152, 153, 154 Xu, Xifa 5n14 Vásáry, István 99n8 Vāṣifī, Zain al-Dīn Maḥmūd 12, 128 Yaʿqūb Beg Vasily Ivanovich (Grand Prince) 42 Qūrama origin of 66 Velychko, Samuil 90, 90n60 see also Khanate of Khoqand Vernadsky, George 99n8 Yasa’ur (Chaghatayid) Vitovt (Grand Duke of Lithuania) 83 as quasi-qazaq 63, 64 Volga region 100 Yasa’urī (tribe) 9, 62, 65, 72, 92, 163 Volga Tatar(s) 11, 17, 39, 40 as quasi-qazaqs 63–64 Vyshnevetsky, Dmytro 78, 78n21 Yassī 103n25, 114, 131n56 see also Turkistān wanderer 143 Yayïq (Ural) River 117 as definition of qazaq 8, 23, 45 Yazdī, Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī 15, 26, 123, 130, 136, see also qazaq 148, 157, 158, 159, 160 wandering 2, 54, 86, 115 Y-Chromosome DNA testing experienced by various qazaqs 23, 25, 27, of Kuban Cossacks 85 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38n67, 39, 43, 45n89, of modern Kazakhs 165n1 71, 111, 113, 116, 153 see also genetic studies see also qazaqlïq Yelü Dashi 17, 59, 72 Wei Shou 53 as quasi-qazaq 54, 58 Weishu 17, 51–53, 59, 59n19, 60, 61, 84 yigit 29, 30, 40, 49 Western Türk(s) 6, 54, 55, 60 yo‘kchi Uzbeks 98n2 see also Kök Türks see also joqchi Uzbeks 238 Index

Yuan Dynasty 21, 62 designated as rūs ḳazaḳs by Yūnus Khan (Chaghatayid /Moghul) 106 Ottomans 87 yurt 53, 58, 149n22 fortresses 79n22 Yuwen Xiongnu and Ukrainian Cossack sea raids of against Ottomans 86–88 hairstyle 84 Y-Chromosome DNA haplogroups of 85 see also Rus’ Cossacks, Ukrainian Cossacks Ẓafar-nāma (Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī) 15, Zaporozhian Sich 81 26n17, 46, 100 Zhetysu 54, 58 Ẓafar-nāma (Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī) 15, 26, Zhuye Jinzhong (Shatuo Türk) 46 as quasi-qazaq 17, 54, 55 Zain al-Dīn 14, 122 family of 58 za porohamy 72n62, 79 Zubdat al-ās̱ār (ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. see also Zaporozhia ʿAlī Naṣrallāhī) 12, 28, 128 Zaporozhia 72n62, 78 Zaporozhian Cossack(s) 9, 41, 41n75, 78, 79, 83, 86, 87n45, 88, 92, 93