Elmи мяъмуяси

 Gökçe Yükselen Abdurrazak Peler 

430 

chief of the Ölberli clan became the supreme ruler and the head of the Qay 

clan his co-regent. After the steppe was taken from the Uzes a confederacy 

was established bordering Hungary, Byzantium, Rus’ and China. This 

empire was divided into two by the Ural River and the Kimek

28

 was 

constituting the eastern wing (Pritsak 1982: 336-340).  

Although finding Pritsak’s philological and historical arguments 

extremely complex and conjectural (1991: 143), Golden (1995-97: 101) 

notes that the Cuman – Qipchaqs have a very complicated ethno-genesis, 

which developed far from the horizons of the sedentary world, and involved 

a range of Inner Asian peoples. They were merged with other peoples on 

their way during their migration and were also joint by others, who left Inner 

Asia migrating westwards in the later periods. This complex process, which 

evolved over centuries, has resulted in a variety of names in different 

sources. In spite the fact that he considers Pritsak’s reconstruction as Proto-

Mongolian K’umo-hsi > Turkic Kimek – Qay to be highly problematic, he 

notes that the Mongolian connection cannot be ignored. The chain migration 

caused by the instability and internecine strife in the Qitan / Liao Empire 

brought new tribal and ethnic elements in the Kimek Union entailing the 

ethno-political developments, evolving around the Qays, the Quns, the 

Sharis, the Kimeks and the Qipchaqs and giving birth to the Cuman – 

Qipchaq confederation (Golden 1995-97: 102-104). 

Additionally Kljaštornyj (1988: 73-90) has identified the Qipchaqs with 

the Sir people of the Orkhon Inscriptions and the Hsieh (*siet) / Hsieh-yen-

                                                 

28

 Pritsak (1982: 340) notes that the Kimek wing of the Qipchaq Confederation changed its 

name to Qangli during the Mongolian period. William of Rubruck clearly states that the 

Cumans, Qipchaqs and the Qangli were one people: “Commani qui dicuntur Capchat” 

“Cangle quidam parentela Commanorum.” (Golden 1991: 133). They are also mentioned 

by Carpini as Cangiate (Bosworth 1978: 542b). Golden (1992: 277-78) names this later 

period of the confederation as the Cuman – Qipchaq – Qangli Union and divides it into 

three subdivisions: the Cuman Confederation in the West, the Qipchaq – Qangli in Central 

Asia and the Qipchaqs in Western Siberia. Unlike other associated Turkic peoples the 

Qanglis are not mentioned by the Muslim geographers of the 9th – 10th centuries 

(Bosworth 1978: 542a), but Kashgari (Atalay 1985-86 v. 3: 379) notes ‘Qangli’ to be the 

name of a prominent Qipchaq. The Qanglis are repeatedly referred to in the sources 

pertinent to the century preceding the Mongol invasions. A great proportion of them were 

massacred by the Mongols as they were constituting a significant part of the Khwarezmian 

army. The remaining Qangli population melted into the Turkic hordes of the Mongols 

(Bosworth 1978: 542a-542b). 

---

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

431 

to of the Chinese sources. This hypothesis is found very appealing by 

Golden (1995-97:100-101) as well. 

3. Tribal and Political Organisation of the Cuman – Qipchaqs 

Regardless of all the complexity of its evolution the Cuman - Qipchaq 

Confederation is still regarded to be the successor and the heir of the Kimek 

Qaganate, but with a very important difference. The Qipchaqs unlike the 

Kimeks lacked the qaganal institution

29

 and lived in a loose confederacy of 

tribes and clans (1995-97: 103). This nomadic confederacy, which stretched 

from the Danube to the steppes surrounding the Central Asian oasis cities in 

the south and into Western Siberia in the north, was divided into various 

geographically marked sub-confederations. These subdivisions of the Cuman 

– Qipchaq polity, which included Mongolic and Iranian elements as well, 

were the Central Asian – Kazakhstan Group, the Ural – Volga Group, the 

Don River Region Group, the Dnieper River Region Group and the 

Danubian Group (Golden 1991: 134). On the other hand Pritsak (1982: 342-

368) claims establishing evidence for the existence of at least twelve groups, 

which namely are the Volga Group, the Don Group, the Donec’ Group, the 

Left Bank of the Dnieper Group, the Dnieper Meadow group, the Azov 

Group, the Crimean Group, the Right Bank of the Dnieper Group, the Kiev – 

Korsun’ / Xerson Group, the Bug Group, the Lukomor’e Group and the 

Danube Group, in Western Eurasia alone. Undoubtedly, the diversity

30

 of the 

peoples constituting the Qipchaq union must have played an important role 

in their non-unified situation. Additionally it is possible that the influence of 

their sedentary neighbours, the Federation of the Eastern Slavic 

Principalities ruled by the Rjurikids had contributed to this statelessness. The 

involvement of the Cumans - Qipchaqs and the Cherny Klobuki ‘Black 

Hoods’

31

 in the internal struggles of the Rjurikids as auxiliary forces, 

                                                 

29

 Golden (1992: 202-205) tries to explain the formation of the qaganal institution among the 

Kimeks with their involvement in the international fur trade, which required a sophisticated 

form of political organization. 

30

 Archaeological sites on the Lower Volga confirms the multi-layered ethno-linguistic 

structure of the Cuman – Qipchaq Confederacy as the eastern groupings display more 

Mongoloid elements and the western groupings display a more Europoid character (Golden 

1992: 278). 

31

   The Cherny Klobuki ‘Black Hoods’ were composed of the residues of the Ghuzz / Uzes / 

Torki, Pechenegs and lesser groups like the Berendei, Kui / Kovui, Turpei and Kaepichi 

 

---