Elmи мяъмуяси

 Gökçe Yükselen Abdurrazak Peler 

426 

of Sogdiana, and the place name Qipchaq in the vicinity of Kashgar reported 

by Kashgari

19

 as further evidences to the early presence of Cuman – 

Qipchaqs in the region. 

Karamanlıoğlu (1962: 175) notes that the Cumans and the Qipchaqs 

were two different and separate peoples. Cumans started to migrate towards 

west after 1017 with the pressure of the Kara-Kitays and established 

themselves in Eastern Europe around 1050. They were dispersed and 

replaced by the Qipchaqs, who also came from the east, after they were 

defeated in 1103 by the Rus’. Cumans were subjugated by the Qipchaqs and 

the two peoples unified under the Qipchaqs; however they were continued to 

be called Cumans in Europe and the two names, i.e. Cuman and Qipchaq, 

became to designate the same people after the 12

th

 century. He also mentions 

the relation of the Qipchaq Confederacy to the Kimeks and (Y)imeks, but 

states that this relation and whether the latter two are the same people or two 

different peoples are controversial (Karamanlıoğlu: 176). 

Arat (1950: 713b-714b) also treats Cumans and Qipchaqs as two 

separate people. He also notes that the Cumans came to the Ukrainian 

Steppes earlier than the Qipchaqs and were replaced by the latter after they 

were destroyed by the Rus’. Reference is made by Arat to the historical 

                                                                                                                   

they established a short-lived state in Eastern K’ang-chü between 43-36 B.C. and second 

time was in 91 A.D., when the Hsiung-nu was fleeing westwards from Inner Asia. It is 

possible that the Huns, who invaded Europe in 370 A.D., are the descendants of this 

Hsiung-nu group. (Czegledy 1983: 32-33). In Avesta a nomadic state is mentioned in the 

same region under the name Kangha (Czegledy 1983: 45). Czegledy also identifies the 

region with the great Turanian foe of the Persians in the period between 129-128 B.C. and 

60 A.D. (1983: 123). After 350 A.D. K’ang-chü was occupied by the Ting-lings. The 

southern Ting-ling tribes appear in the Chinese sources also as the Kao-chü (Ting-ling) “the 

High Wagon (Ting-ling)”. (Czegledy 1983: 35-36). This is important because the ethnonym 

Qangli (the people, who constituted the eastern wing of the Cuman – Qipchaq Confederacy 

in the later periods) is attributed to wagons in the Turkic legendary tradition and this name 

is given to them by Oghuz Khan as they invented the wagon (Pelliot 1930: 337-338). 

Interestingly Marquart (1914: 164) locates the homeland of the Qangli in the Chu Valley. 

On the other hand Clauson (1972: 638) thinks that the people gave the name to ‘wagon’ as 

they were the first ones among Turks to use wagons rather than receiving the name as they 

had invented it. By the 7th Century the name K’ang-chü started to designate Sogdiana, 

which laid south to the Sir Darya and the name Kang had been used by Sogdians 

themselves since the 6th century (Czegledy 1983: 35).  

19

 Kashgari (Atalay 1985-86 v. 1: 474) notes a place name as Qiphchaq in the vicinity of 

Kashgar. 

---

Some Notes on the History, the Culture and the Language of the Medieval Qipchaq - Cuman Turks 

427 

sources mentioning the Qipchaq and Kimek / Yimek connection without 

stating whether the two are the same people or two separate peoples. 

On the other hand Hazai (1986a: 126a) after listing references made to 

the Qipchaq – Kimek relation in oriental historical sources

20

 concludes that a 

loose polity of Turkic tribes, including the Kimeks existed in West Siberian 

Steppes under the name Qipchaq

21

 in the 10

th

 – 11

th

 centuries and these tribes 

moved to the Russian steppes in the middle of the 11

th

 century, becoming the 

dominant power of the area in 1064. On the Cuman – Qipchaq problem he 

suggests that the Cumans were a dominant tribe of the Qipchaqs and in the 

West were identified with the whole of the Qipchaq Confederacy. However 

he (1986b: 373a) also states that the Cumans’ forefathers are the Shari

22

 

people who were forced to migrate westwards at the beginning of the 11

th

 

century by the Quns, who were displaced by the Kitays. This westwards 

migration of the Sharis and the Quns brought these two tribes in contact with 

the Kimeks and the Qipchaqs, leading to the establishment of a new 

confederation. Hazai thinks that it must be this period, when the Shari was 

                                                 

20

 Ibn Xurdādbih mentions Qipchaqs and Kimeks as two separate peoples in the mid ninth 

century (de Goeje 1889: 31). Gardîzî noting that the Kimeks were originally a branch of the 

Tatars (i.e. Mongols), places the Qipchaqs and the Imeks under them as two of their seven 

adopted, inferior tribes and locates them on the Irtish (Martinez 1982: 120). However in 

Hudûd al-Ālam (Minorsky 1937: 101, 316-17), which is written in an earlier period (982 

A.D.) reference is made to a later stage of the history of the Qipchaqs. They are located 

further west to the north of the Pechenegs. They are considered to be separated from the 

Kimeks, but it is also noted that their ruler was ruling on behalf of the Kimeks. Cahen – 

Deverdun – Holt (1986: 1107a) give a contrasting information stating that in the 10th 

century the Kimeks were regarded to be a branch of the Qipchaqs by the Arab geographers. 

On the other hand Bosworth (1986: 108a) ascribing to the adduced data regards Qipchaqs 

to have sprung from the Kimeks and sees this as the main significance of this remote 

people. Kashgari located the Yimek on the Irtish as a branch of the Qipchaqs (Atalay 1985-

86 v. 1: 325) but later he notes that the Qipchaqs regard themselves to be a separate people 

(Atalay 1985-86 v. 3: 29).  

21

 Marquart (1914: 137) states that this Qipchaq ‘Kingdom’ was established by people, who 

fled from Manchuria after the rise of the Jurchens (Chinese Kin Dynasty). For a detailed 

account of the Manchurian origins of the early Qipchaqs also see Pelliot 1920. 

22

 Hazai (1986b: 373a) thinks that the Shari people are identical with the Yellow Uighurs. 

Marvazî locates a group of Shari in the Sha-chou region noting that they came to the region 

fleeing from Islam (Minorsky 1942: 19). Minorsky (1942: 100) notes that this group of 

Sharis seems to be connected with the Yellow Uighurs of the Kan-su region. He also 

reports that a greater group of the Sharis migrated to the west. Hazai must be referring to 

this group. 

---