The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

To a question of the political reasons of migration of nomads from Asia in the steppe of Eastern Europe in 20 - the 40th of the 11th century.

 © 2004 S.V. Gurkin

To the QUESTION OF the POLITICAL REASONS of MIGRATION of NOMADS FROM ASIA IN the STEPPE of EASTERN Europe In 20 - the 40th of the 11th century

Cumans (kipchak, Cumana) - medieval nomad Turkic-speaking tribes - left a noticeable mark not only in the history of the Eurasian steppes, but also had a great influence on development of many early feudal states of the Old World. Thanks to works of domestic and foreign researchers many questions of their history received an explanation in scientific literature. However to this day in a kipchakovedeniye there is a number of the problems considered with insufficient completeness and which do not have the final decision. The problem of migration of Turkic-speaking, tyurkizirovanny and mongoloyazychny tribes of Central Asia in 20 - the 40th of the 11th century on the West and their influences on appearance of Cumans and other ethnic communities in steppes of Eastern Europe which still in a domestic historiography was not a subject of a special detailed research first of all belongs to them.

As a result of a number of historical collisions (7-8th centuries) the Turkic-speaking telessky tribe of sir living in steppes of Central Asia (seyanto), having accepted the new ethnic name of kipchak, several waves otkochevat on the West in upper courses of Irtysh and the steppe of East Kazakhstan. After them in the 9th century on these territories from the East mongoloyazychny syanbiysky nomads of a kimaka intruded (Kumasi, si, hi, Kai). They subordinated kipchak and created the Kimaksky khaganate (the end of IX - the first third of the 11th century). At the beginning of the 11th century of a kipchaka were released from under the power of kimak and in 20 - the 40th of this century began to show activity in the South and the West of the possession [1-4].

Invasion of kipchak into the southern Russian steppes was preceded by the important events played in the territory of modern Kazakhstan in Semirechye and Western Siberia. In 20 - the 40th of the 11th century on extensive space of the steppes stretched from Ob and Irtysh to the Aral Sea and the Caspian Sea there take place large movements of nomads [5, page 68].

In a modern historiography the point of view was approved that the migration wave was a consequence of education in the territory of Northern China of the state of Liao created by tribes mongoloyazychny kida-it at the beginning of the 10th century V.F. Minorsky considered all migration chain and came to a conclusion that began the events interesting us occurred in the first half of the 11th century. Its position was accepted by many researchers [6, page 18].

Kipchaki began the movement on the West because on their lands, at first in borders of Kazakhstan, then to Central Asia and further in the steppe of Eastern Europe, kuna and Kai intruded. However S.G. Agadzhanov considers that the picture of this chain of migrations was more difficult and was characterized by wider range [5, page 68].

S.M. Akhinzhanov also had doubts concerning rather big temporary gap

between the expansionist policy which was carried out by the state of Liao in the 10th century and the beginning of migration process in the first half of the 11th century [2, page 179-180]. Therefore, relying on data of the remained written sources, we will consider the available facts.

Sharaf's certificate al-Zamana al-Marvazi about the people participating in this migration most informatively: "Among them there is a group (people) who are called kuna, they arrived from the earth China, being afraid of the Chinese khan. They were nestoriansky Christians. They left the pastures because of the shortage of lands... They were pursued by the people by the name of Kai. They are more numerous and are stronger than them. They banished them from these (new) pastures. Then they (kuna) went to lands of spheres, and spheres went to the earth the Turkmen. Turkmens moved to east lands of State Healthcare Institutions, and State Healthcare Institutions moved to lands of Pechenegs near coast of the Armenian (Black) sea" [6, page 103-104]. Al-Marvazi listed six people which took part in migration in the story. It are Kai, kuna, spheres, Turkmens, State Healthcare Institutions, Pechenegs.

In Matvei Edessky's chronicle under 1050 - 1051 it is noted that the people otts (dragon) broke the tribe hardesh (light, yellow, red) which in turn inflicted defeat over oguza and Pechenegs, having forced the last to go to borders of the Byzantine empire [7, page 89]. According to Matvei Edessky, four people - otts, hardesh, oguza and Pechenegs took part in the movement.

Having compared two sources, we will see that to Kaya's people there corresponds the tribe otts. Both names mean - snakes. The second couple is made by spheres and har-desh which are translated as light, yellow, red. Oguza and Pechenegs are marked out at both authors. Matvei Edessky has no kuna and Turkmens. But if with the last more and more or less clearly as bulk the Turkmen was made by the same oguza and carat onions, then with kuna the situation is slightly more difficult.

Matvei Edessky does not know kun at all. According to its version, Kai attacked on hardesh at once and by that migrations of Turkic-speaking tribes on the West gave an impetus. Mahmoud Kashgarsky also does not mention the people under the name of kuna. Appear in its list: "... bass-myly, Kai, to a yabag, Tatars, Kyrgyz" [8, page 64]. Kyrgyz, according to this author, sosedit with is scarlet - Xing (China).

Kuna are known to only two authors - al-Marvazi and al-Biruni. So, last in the composition "Taf-khim" noted: "The sixth climate begins with the territory of East Turkic peoples: Kai, kun, Kyrgyz, toguz-oguz, country Turkmen, faraba" [9, page 145]. At al-Biruni kuna are placed to the east of Kyrgyz, toguzo-guz and the country the Turkmen, therefore, they had to live near kidanyam or be their part. And at al-Marvazi there is a direct instruction on the fact that

the special group of people under the name of kuna ran from the emperor kidany [6, page 103-104].

The certificate al-Marvazi allowed Akhinzhanov to assume that kuna were the small part of kidansky tribes which broke away from bulk and left on the West. He writes: "Perhaps, kidany reports about this group to Ibn al-Asir according to which a part kitayev at Arslan-hane (10321057/1058. - Of this year) it was lodged on border between China and possession of karakhanid where they had to protect mountain passes what received pastures for. Also a certain salary was appointed by it. They were 16 thousand tilt carts" [2, page 182]. At al-Marvazi there is also a message relating approximately to the same time that khans kitayev and Uyghurs, being afraid of claim of khans of Islam (which usually identify with karakhanida), closed roads to the countries and exposed army [6, page 19].

According to Mahmoud Kashgarsky, the eastern frontier of the state of karakhanid passed in the region of the Heap and further on the Tarim Rivers and Cherchen [8, t. I. page 339, 364]. Akhinzhanov limits the western borders of the kidansky empire of Liao in the 11th century to the western edge of the Gobi Desert. Between borders of these public entities mountains of East Tien Shan where, according to the researcher, and lodged throwing for protection of mountain passes in 1032 at the very beginning of Suleyman Arslan-hana ibn Yusuf's government lay. In confirmation of the specified date the author provides lists of the people from works al-Biruni Tafkhim, created between 1029 and 1034 and "al-Kanun al-Masudi", written after 1030. In the last kuna are not inhabitants of the Far East any more [2, page 182-183]. Let's note argumentativeness of such exact dating of resettlement of kun which is based upon so shaky argument, Tafkhim could be complete both in 1030, and in 1034. And how many years passed after 1030 before completion of work over "al-Kanun al-Masudi" Akhinzhanov does not specify. Therefore, in our opinion, emergence of kun on East Tien Shan should be dated more vaguely, the beginning of the 30th of the 11th century, and it is possible, even the end 20 - the beginning of the 30th of the 11th century, data al-Biruni could be based on information of earlier sources.

Of mountainous areas of East Tien Shan in Semirechye Akhinzhanov sees the reason of leaving kidany in the shortage of pastures. Leaning on one of Bartold's statements, the researcher dates new resettlement of kidaney-kun after which they were attacked by a kimakov-kaa (snakes), 1041 - 1042 [2, page 183]. However Bartold wrote: "It is unknown from what source one of compilers of the 16th century borrowed news that this resettlement happened in 433 g (10411042) and that Arslan-han demanded from immigrants of adoption of Islam, they resolutely refused, but in all the rest rendered to the khan implicit obedience so he decided to leave them alone" [10, page 49]. Akhinzhanov's opinion that on kidaney-kun the kimaki-ka living in Priirtyshje and steppes of Kazakhstan also attacked cannot be accepted from full

confidence. At al-Biruni in its Tafkhim Kai are called the first, and kuna the second [9, page 145]. It is worth to remember that not all Kai (hi, si) in the middle - the second half of the 9th century left the territory of Mongolia and Manchuria. Many of them were subdued kidanyam and were a part of their state education [11, 12]. It is quite possible that subject kidanyam Kai pursued kun. But also this assumption is fully unprovable because of weakness of istochnikovy base.

The ethnopolitical situation in the region interesting us in 20 - the 40th of the 11th century is represented more difficult and many-sided. Its sharpness reflects the interests of various tribes and the people which faced here. That in it to understand and understand the reasons which generated this migration chain it is necessary to consider relationship of the Uigur principalities located in the territory of Dzungaria and the Gansuysky corridor lasting along a mountain chain Nan-Shan with the Kidansky empire and the Tangut state.

After defeat by Kyrgyz of the Uigur khaganate a considerable part of Uyghurs went to 840 g on the West and around the Heap, Tarim and the Gansuysky corridor where there passed the major trade ways from the Median empire to East Turkestan, founded several independent principalities. North of Celestial Empire in X - the beginning of the 11th century there was also a rough formation of statehood at kidany and Tanguts. These young public entities, having saved up forces, sought for expansion of the territories including in the West. If the peak of kidansky aggression falls on the 10th century, then Tanguts become more active in the first decades of the 11th century [13-16].

One of the factors pushing Tanguts to captures in the West was desire to take control of fertile steppes in Prialashanye and Prinanshanye and also to take under control the Gansuysky corridor along which there passed the major caravan track connecting the East and the West [14, page 72].

Active fighting between Tanguts and Ganzhou Uyghurs is noted between 1006 and 1010. Though Uyghurs also managed to beat off Tangut approach, apparently, in this fight they suffered notable losses. According to researchers, this fact and also superiority of Tanguts in human and material resources, some help rendered to them kidanyam to some extent affected the final result of fight [14, page 73; 17].

In 1026 throwing together with Tanguts three days unsuccessfully besieged Ganzhou [13, page 71]. However soon Tanguts intensified military operations against Uyghurs and in 1028 took Ganzhou. By 1036 Tanguts, having taken fortresses of Suzhou, Guazhou and Shazhou (Duhuang), seized the most western site of the Gansuysky corridor and liquidated the Uigur statehood here. Sources left us few data on the future of Ganzhou Uyghurs. It is known that part of them fled to Tibet, others left on the West, the majority was killed and only

few groups remained on the place under control of Tanguts. According to A.G. Malyavkin, the Uyghurs running from Tanguts represented rather small groups, and their resettlement of any consequences had no [14, page 74; 15, page 51]. Completely it is difficult to accept his opinion as very small and sketchy certificates of sources do not allow to claim so resolutely about lack of any consequences of this resettlement.

The further course of events is restored only presumably as sources after 1036 are silent about the uyguro-Tangut relations though on the political map of the region the Uigur Tourist's fan principality still continues to exist. Why Tangut aggression on the West - the northwest stopped after capture of the Gansuysky corridor? And whether it stopped? Perhaps, opposed to their further advance in this direction throwing what promoted maintaining the Uigur statehood near Turfan Depression?

About the political relations between the Tourist's fan principality and kidanyam there are no data too, but the statements mentioned above al-Marvazi and also information on the Uigur Embassies to kidanyam and uy-guro-kidanskoy to trade is suggested an idea of presence at both states of some general tasks. Those joint interests could serve in protection of the western borders from claims of karakhanid. Therefore in mountains of East Tien Shan kidani-kuna in number of 16 thousand tilt carts, i.e. 16 thousand soldiers, and together with families about 80 thousand people were also lodged. If still to consider inflow on this territory of the Uyghurs running from Tanguts and the local nomadic community, then involuntarily you ask a question: whether there was no relative overpopulation and the shortage of pastures here? It is natural that the nomads who crowded in the specified region looked for solutions of the pressing problems, and it was expressed in their everything the amplifying pressure in the direction of the Tarbagatai, Semirechya and the Kazakhstan steppes.

Indirect confirmation to that are the events developed west of Dzungaria and Semirechya. So, in the 30th of the 11th century, new groups of oguz, kipchak and other nomads - natives of the Central and Western Kazakhstan joined structure still of completely not issued seldzhuksky association wandering in Youzhny's steppes Priaralya and on coast of Amu Darya. Agadzhanov, relying on Nassir Husrau and Abu's data - Beykhaki's l-Fazla, considers that in 1035 they went to borders of Khurasan where connected to ogu-za and Balkh's Turkmens and nomads from Transoxiana. Among balkhsky the Turkmen sources mention groups of horezmiyets in which the researcher sees ke-chats (kudzhat), dzhigrak and kipchak living on borders and within Khwarezm [5, page 44-45].

Agadzhanov and Guseynov fairly note that the shortage of pastures created as a result of movements of nomads after emergence in the 10th century ki-was one of stimulators of seldzhuksky gains

dansky state of Liao and power of karakhanid [5, page 56; 18, page 163-211; 19, page 208-222; 20, page 24-37]. According to Agadzhanov, the expansionist policy of the Tangut state in a certain measure was the reason of migrations of nomads in 30 - the 40th of the 11th century [5, page 68].

So, without having sustained all burdens of the existence in mountains of East Tien Shan, kuna, probably, at the beginning - the middle of the 40th of the 11th century moved on a subject karakhanidskoma the territory Arslan-hanu Semirechya. According to Akhinzhanov, "... Arslan-han did not touch them, only demanded adoption of Islam, but, having received a strong refusal, left them alone. This quite atypical behavior of the governor of the Muslim state conducting, as we know, ruthless holy wars with incorrect can be surprising if not to assume that this part of kidaney-kun professed Christian belief as reported about them to Marvazi" [2, page 184-185]. The provided statement of the researcher to some extent is confirmed by Bartold's words: "Christians in possession of karakhanid were not exposed to oppressions, at least, Christian writers told nothing about it" [21, page 290].

Muslim governors treated pagans differently. So, according to the message of Ibn al-Asira, in 1043, during gain by the Seljuks of Khwarezm, the Moslem was accepted "by ten thousand tents from tyurok-pagan which, happened, committed assaults on the Muslim countries within Balasagun and Kashgar. They [wandered] in the summer within the Bulgar, and wintered in the Regions of Balasaguna". After that, according to Ibn al-Asiru, having sacrificed 20 thousand rams in honor of adoption of new belief, they dissipated on the neighboring and other areas [22, page 53-54].

Ibn al-Asir did not specify ethnic origin of nomads, but, proceeding from a route of their kochevaniye, it is possible to tell with confidence that they treated kipchaka of Kazakhstan. V. Bartold, commenting on this fragment, noted: "10 thousand tents are only a part of the huge kypchaksky massif therefore, probably, in the 12th century the vast majority of kypchak were not Muslims. Besides in the environment and these kypchak adoption of Islam happened far not so peacefully as wrote Ibn about it al-Asir. Not concordant with dogmas of new religion, they were forced to otkochevat from the acquired places" [22, page 53-54]. Possibly, mentioned this group of kipchak al-Marvazi in the message: "The traveler going to kitayam at distance in a half-month of a way from Sandzhu (Shazhou) reaches group spheres which is known for a name of their chapter, being called Basmyl. They ran away into these places from Islam, being afraid of trimming" [6, page 19].

Kipchaki-shary even before the leaving on the East located near the tribe of basmyl and, maybe, therefore al-Marvazi transferred also to them this name. Minorsky localized the new place of the settlement kipchakov-spheres near the river Edzin-gol [6, page 19]. Akhinzhanov believing that they appeared here agrees with his opinion, being afraid of Islamization, and mu-

the sulmanstvo did not extend to the east of the city of Kashgar during this period, therefore, the initial habitat of this part of the people spheres was somewhere to the west of this city [2, page 185-186]. Having mentioned Kashgar as eastern frontier of distribution of Islam, Akhinzhanov made a mistake. The eastern frontier of possession of karakhanid in the first half of the 11th century passed in the district of the city the Heap and further down the river Cherchen, the Takla Makan Desert proceeding on the easternmost tip. Kashgar is to the West - the northwest from this desert. Therefore places of initial resettlement kipchakov-spheres should be looked for not west of Kashgar, otherwise you will get to Fergana and Shash, and to the West - the northwest from the Heap where just both Balasagun is located and the Chu and Talas Rivers flows, and behind them Ridge Karatau stretches.

About localization of the people spheres in the 11th century in a historiography there was no consensus. I. Markvart first considered that Sara's country (spheres) with the city of the same name was in Mazendarana, but then it changed the point of view and placed it in the area east of the Turkmen steppes [23, page 52, 202]. Bartold suggested that it lay in the Chuy Valley where the settlement Saryg was located [24, page 395]. According to Agadzhanov, spheres (Sara) lived to the east the Turkmen, and the last, according to data al-Biruni, in the first third of the 11th century occupied Semirechye [18, page 157]. Proceeding from it B.E. Kumekov believed that spheres wandered near the Alakulsky hollow [25, page 125]. Akhinzhanov generally accepted the point of view of Minorsky who in the tribe in a broad sense saw spheres the kipchak occupying steppes of the Central Kazakhstan. The researcher considered the center of their lands a river basin of Sarysu and area to the northeast of the Aral Sea. According to Akhinzhanov, it is necessary to add mountain valleys of Ridge Karatau and the basin of the Talas Rivers and Chu (what still Bartold insisted on) where near Balasagun kipchak which part, without having wanted to accept Islam in 1043, left on the East [2, page 186-187 wintered to these territories; 22, page 53-54; 26, page 317]. Presence here of kipchak in the first third of the 11th century is demonstrated also by monuments of archeology [27, 28]. In our opinion, spheres it is necessary to include lands in borders of the country of the people northern and east Priissykkulya, up to Mountains Karkara and the basin of the Sary-Gian and Tekes Rivers near which the toponyms beginning on Sara - concentrate (Saryzhaz, Sarybastau).

Arrival of kidaney-kun to Semirechye, according to Akhinzhanov, forced to change kipchak limits of the movements and to transfer winter pastures to lower reaches of the Syr Darya [2, page 187]. His point of view in a certain measure is confirmed by data of the Khivan khan Abulgazi: "Most closer (other) fir-trees to Turkmens there lived China, kangla and naymana. These or began to attack remained the Turkmen. Turkmens left all these yurtas - Issyk Kul, Almalyk, to Sauries, mountains Ulug-tag also went to the mouth of the river Cheese. They put the sovereign in Yangikenta, and aestivated and wintered on both parties of Cheese" [29, page 37].

In the Turkmens mentioned by Abulgazi generally it is necessary to see the karluk which appeared here about 766 g [14, page 117-179; 30, page 145]. At the time Al-Biruni noted that Turkmens lived in Semirechye [9, page 145], but from Mahmoud Kashgarsky's explanation becomes clear that karluk were also called Turkmens. In its work there is even information about karluk-sky Turkmens [8, t. I. page 80, t. 3. page 56, 393]. It is possible to agree with Akhinzhanov that throwing, attacking on the Turkmen, are those kidani-kuna which lodged in the end 20 - the beginning of the 30th of the 11th century in mountains of East Tien Shan, and then in the first half of the 40th of the 11th century went to Semirechye.

From naymana and kanglam the situation is slightly more difficult. Akhinzhanov believes that "presence at this fragment of the tribe Naiman which at the beginning of the 11th century did not get into Semirechye yet can be explained with the fact that sources of Abulgazi did not know kimak (as is well-known, only the small group of early authors wrote about kimaka), but knew that migration of tribes there began the people sitting on Irtysh and Altai where in the 12th century both naymana, and kangla, i.e. before us the latest interpolation of the events which took place in already lived

XI century" [2, page 188].

Akhinzhanov, referring to Bartold, dates emergence of kidaney-kun in Semirechye 1041 - 1042 [2, page 183-184, 187; 10, page 49]. However in 1043 near Balasagun, kipchaki-spheres which, according to Ibn al-Asira, after the address to Islam dissipated on the neighboring and other areas winter [22, page 5354]. Therefore, they were not under pressure from kidaney-kun yet and time of emergence of the last in Semirechye needs to be defined with a bigger share of care. Perhaps, they already lived in East Pribalkhashye in possession of karakhanid and just did not face about kipchakami-spheres or maybe not yet. In our opinion, proceeding from weakness of istochnikovy base, it is still more expedient to date removement of kun in Pribalkhashye the beginning - the middle of the 40th of the 11th century

According to Ibn al-Asira about the middle of the 11th century in Semirechye the infinite number a tyurok" which faced the governor Bala-saguna Arslan-hanom Karakhanid rushed from Tibet ". It is probable that this resettlement was caused by invasion "from mountains between Tibet and Hotan" to Kashgar 700 thousand nomads [5, page 68]. Abu-l-Faraj reports that in 1046 the Samarkand metropolitan in the message wrote the Catholicos about emergence near Kashgar 700 thousand nomads under command of 7 tsars from whom main thing called "нарадж", "that is meant by the God's military leader (emir) and the governor" [24, page 397].

Due to the described events Mahmoud Kashgarsky left the following record: "Buka - a big snake. In a proverb it is said: "At a snake seven heads". Sometimes by this word call heroes just as called one of prominent people to Booke Budradzh's yabag. God put to flight them that day when Arslan-tegin - the conqueror from 40 thousand Muslims battled against them, and incorrect from Booke Budragem -

Leningrad Region 700 thousand". Mahmoud Kashgarsky also has data that the bass-myly and dzhumula [8, t were a part of newcomers. 3. page 173, 247]. Though between invasion of 700 thousand a tyurok and the moment of completion of work of Mahmoud Kashgarsky over the work there passed a little time, according to Bartold, "around this event the whole cycle of legends managed to develop. Area of a legend treats, of course, and number of kaffirs, as if being involved in battle. Existence of such numerous armies in the steppe under the terms of nomadic life is absolutely impossible" [31, page 86].

Akhinzhanov, agreeing with Bartold, notes: "... of course, figure fabulous, but other descriptions are reflection of the valid events" [2, page 184]. He on the basis of messages al-Marvazi and Matvei Edessky considers that in events of the first half of the 11th century an important role was played by the people of snakes, or Kai. If, according to Mahmoud Kashgarsky, against Arslan-tegin the tribe to a yabag headed by the representative of the people of a snake Buka Budragem, and on Bartolda is at war, to a yabag lived on the Yamar River identified with the modern Ob River [32, Priir-tyshsky kai-kimak were page 586], then their western neighbors. Akhinzhanov believes: "Obviously, Kai at the beginning of the 11th century conquered the tribe to a yabag, also dzhumulam entered into alliance with the basmyla living nearby and moved Semirechya aside. The proverb which is also given by M. Kashgarsky that "at snakes seven heads" being, undoubtedly, by reflection in an allegorical view of really existing seven tribes entering into the kimaksky union is interesting. Important the fact that this union carries the name by the name of a dragon" [2, page 184]. Akhinzhanov's hypothesis is interesting, but on many positions because of weakness of istochnikovy base is unsubstantiated.

S.G. Klyashtorny differently assesses a situation and considers that the prince of the tribe to a yabag to Booke Budradzh whose main ally or the vassal was bek of the tribe of basmyl was the leader of the coalition hostile to karakhanida. Basmyla - one of the most ancient Turkic tribes which in the 60th of the 9th century is forced out by Uyghurs from Dzungaria in Northeast Semirechye (on ancient lands "yellow tyurgeshy) where they were recorded by Mahmoud Kashgarsky on the card. Here, apparently, basmyla mixed up about kipchakami-spheres as al-Marvazi, speaking about the last reports: "They are known for a name of their leader, and he - basmyl" [6, page 19]. Spheres and basmyl in the first half of the 11th century were east neighbors Kai and to a yabag headed by "a great dragon" Budrachem [33, page 11-12].

According to Klyashtorny, by the time of wars with a penalty-hanidami of a basmyla and Kai held the subordinated position in relation to a yabag. Matvei Edessky reported about attack of "the people of snakes" on spheres ("yellow"). Proceeding from it Klyashtorny writes: "Only at a yabaka the leader was called as "a great dragon", and "the people of snakes" obviously correlate about a yabaka. At Marvazi the people which subordinated at one of stages of the western migration spheres are called kuna. And this name known already al-Biruni together with a name of Kaya, oddly

it is lowered by Mahmoud al-Kashgari, perfectly knowing an ethnic situation on karakhanidsky border and not forgotten Kaya. If in a situation about spheres Mahmoud calls them by name the predominating tribe of a basmy-lama, then the admission of a name of kun can mean only their designation by other name. In the context of the described events such other name of kun was to a yabak that, actually, is a little contemptuous nickname - so called people or animals with the long and ruffled hair or the confused wool" [33, page 12].

Al-Marvazi mentions that a part spheres and basmy-fishing (and it is possible, and to a yabag) in 1043 left on the East, without having wished to accept Islam, and located in the area of the Edzin-Gol River, at distance in a half-month of a way from the city of Sanzhdu (Shazhou) on the way to kidanyam [6, page 19]. And this territory is located just between possession of Tanguts, kidany and Uyghurs.

New invasion nomadic a tyurok, the incident in 1046, apparently, was caused by the beginning of the next stage first of all Tangut and, perhaps, kidansky aggression on the West. The truth after 1036 the sources about it keep silence. But and after the period of active fighting of Tanguts and rendering them some help kidany against Uyghurs in 1006 - 1010 there came fifteen-year calm. Then from 1026 to 1036 the Tanguts occupy the Gansuysky corridor and destroy the Uigur statehood there then again there comes calm [17, page 146-153; 14, page 71-77]. About 1046 Tanguts, probably, start active fighting in the West over again, fighting for control over the trade ways conducting to Kashgar and Balasagun, and probably throwing rendered them in it a certain help. Tangut approach most likely was developed in two directions - on branches of a trade way around the Takla Makan Desert, on Hotan and I Booze. Otherwise how to explain information of Ibn al-Asira and Abu-l-Faraj about invasion of uncountable number a tyurok on the territory of the state of Karakhanidov, comers "from mountains between Tibet and Hotan" under the leadership of seven leaders [5, page 68; 24, page 397].

A part of the Uyghurs running from Tanguts appeared near Hotan and Kashgar, others together with a yabaga, basmylam and dzhumulam moved to Semirechye headed by the leader to a yabag Buka Budragem. Akhinzhanov and Klyashtorny call him the representative of the people of a snake and proceeding from it consider that together with a yabaga also Priirtyshsky ki-poppies-kai [2, page 183-184 were involved in invasion; 33, page 12]. Of course, it is possible to assume such succession of events, but this hypothesis is still unsubstantiated because of weakness of istochnikovy base. Equally well it is possible to say that the Uyghurs receding in Semirechye, a yabaga, basmyl and dzhumul together with Tanguts pursued also throwing as a part of which there were Kai subject to them. Just kidanyam and Kai Spodruchney would be to pursue these fugitives.

Besides, Kai quite could be also among Uyghurs, they were subordinated seven telessky

the tribes which were entering into the Uigur confederation and created the II Uigur khaganate (744 - 840). After its defeat by the Yenisei Kyrgyz, Kaya's part went to upper courses of Irtysh, another could migrate with Uyghurs on the West, to the Region of Turfan Depression, the third remained on the place and subsequently was subdued kidanyam. The Chinese sources under 611 and 629 among the telessky tribes living in Otyukensky common people near actually Uyghurs mention six tribes among which appear certain white si or as they were called still by tatab. Them kochevya were between Lake Baikal and the western slopes of Big Hingan. Malyavkin believes that white si and si - two different people, the first - telesets, and the second - si (hi, Kai) - syanbiyets [34, page 87; 35, page 121]. This point of view is shared by Klyashtorny [33, page 12-13]. According to L.L. Viktorova: "... a part kidany, connected from a yuyvenyama, lodged west of the southern spurs of Hingan (ridge of Yinshan). They formed the union of tribes of a kumokha, or hi (in Old Turkic sources this group is called by tatab)" [36, page 139]. If white si or tatab have though any attitude towards Kaya's people, then it is necessary to recognize their long and close neighbourhood with Uyghurs. Let's note also that from the ridge of Yinshan through the Alashan steppe a direct exit to the Edzin-Gol River near which basmyla, a part spheres-kipchakov and other tribes which fell in 1046 upon Semirechye lived.

By the way, the Uyghurs consisting of nine childbirth together with six other telessky tribes (to a beech / bukut, hun/kun, a bayirka, a tonr, syogir / pole-axes, a ki-ba) after disintegration of their union from basmyla and karlukam created the confederation known in literature as the II Uigur khaganate [14, page 6, 130; 34, page 87; 37, page 10, 97, 107, 157, note 170]. Therefore, not only the ki-maksky union consisted of seven tribes and to connect as it is done by Akhinzhanov, invasion of a set a tyurok under the leadership of seven leaders in 1046 only with Priirtyshskimi of a kimakami-kaa hardly expediently. E. Pulliblenk, for example, considering a question of the structure of the Uigur confederation, from the very beginning of its existence includes the eighth tribe there - ediz - and believes that division into seven parts has rather political value, than ethnic [38, page 35-42]. Pulliblenk's assumption indirectly is confirmed by data from "Hudud is scarlet - Alam" that to the middle of the 10th century the tsar of kimak had 11 tax collectors, by the number of tribes subject to it [26, page 100; 39, l. 18 b].

As for a name of the leader of the tribe to Buka Budradzha's yabag, it is also not necessary to consider it purely kimak-sky as the first part - Buka, translated by Mahmoud Kashgarsky as a big snake [8, t. 3, page 173, 247], was in quite broad use among tyur-to and mongoloyazychny nomads throughout the entire period of the Middle Ages. For example, one of breeding leaders of telessky (Uigur) confederation who based in 866 g. The tourist's fan principality called to Bouck Chin (to Bug Zun, Pugu Jun, Gu-tszyun) [14]. Among khans of the Golden Horde there is a name Buka (Bug, Tu -

>) also was very popular - Booke-Timur, Tu-@-Timur, Aryk-Bouck, Chagan-Bouck, Il-Buka, Kutlug-Bouck, Timur-Booke, Tulya-Bouck (TV Bug), Tukel-Bouck, the Shed Bouck, the Ulus Bouck, etc. [40, page 29, 41-51].

Consequences of influx of nomad tribes from Central Asia to Dzungaria and Semirechye in 1046 were not slow to affect an ethnopolitical situation in steppes of Kazakhstan and Central Asia. A part of karluk which some medieval authors called Turkmens was otkochevat to lower reaches of the Syr Darya that, according to Agadzhanov, influenced not only the historical fate of priaralsky oguz, but also affected seldzhuksky gains of the 11th century [5, page 69].

Other flow of nomads directed in the steppe of Europe. So, according to Klyashtorny, a komana (Cumana), wandering in the IX-X centuries between Northern Priaralyem and South Ural, having got at the beginning of the 11th century under political impact of kipchak, in the middle of the 11th century made vanguard of the western migration of steppe tribes. Also kuna and spheres were their part. "Among kun and koman the tribe kytan, i.e. kida-it, certainly connected with the earliest and most east stage of this migration remained. It is obvious that in new association of tribes two main groups - kunov-koman and spheres Cumans remained" [33, page 14]. Since 1055 when spheres Cumans left to the southern borders of Kievan Rus', the new European stage of Polovtsian history began.


1. Klyashtorny S.G. Kypchaki in runic monuments//Tyurkologichesky sb. 1986. L., 1986.
2. Akhinzhanov S.M. Kypchaki in the history of medieval Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1989.
3. S.V. Gurkin. About ancestors of kypchak and kimak//the Don archeology (further - YES). 2000. No. 3 - 4.
4. Gurkin S.V. Kypchaki and kimak in IX - the first third

XI century//DA. 2001. No. 3 - 4.

5. Agadzhanov S.G. Gosudarstvo Seldzhukidov and Central Asia in the XI-XII centuries of M., 1991.
6. Minorsky V. Sharaf al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, Turks and India. Arabic text (circa A.D. 1120) with an English translation and commentary. London, 1942.
7. Chronique de Matthien d’Edesse, trad, par M.E. Du-laurier. Paris, 1858.
8. Mahmoud ibn Hussein al-Kashgari. To Devon lugotit turk. T. 1 - 3. Tashkent, 1960 - 1963.
9. Biruni. Tafkhim//Izbr. proizv.: T. 8. Tashkent, 1957. (Monuments of the past generations).
10. V.V. Bartold. History Semirechya essay//Compositions. T. 2. Part 2. M, 1964.
11. Materials on stories of the ancient nomadic people of group to a dunkh. M, 1984.
12. E Loong-whether. History of the state kidany (guo Zhi's Qidan). M, 1979.
13. Malyavkin A.G. Materials on stories of Uyghurs in IX -

XII centuries Novosibirsk, 1974.

14. Malyavkin A.G. The Uigur states in the IX-XII centuries Novosibirsk, 1983.
15. E.I. Kychanov. Essays of history of the Tangut state. M, 1968.
16. E.I. Kychanov. Tanguts in the West//Countries and people of the East. M, 1971. Issue 10.
17. E.I. Kychanov. From the history of the taguto-Uigur wars in the first half of the 11th century//Tr. Inta stories, arkheol. and ethnographer. AN KAZSSR. T. 15. Alma-Ata, 1962.
18. S.G. Agadzhanov. Essays of history of oguz and Turkmen of Central Asia of the IX-XIII centuries Ashgabat, 1969.
19. Guseynov R.A. Seldzhukskaya subject in a modern historiography//Tyurkologichesky sb. 1970. M, 1970.
20. R.A. Guseynov. Current state and the immediate tasks of studying a seldzhuksky problem//Tyurkologichesky sb. 1973. M, 1975.
21. V.V. Bartold. About Christianity in Turkestan during the domongolsky period//Soch. T. 2. Part 2. M, 1964.
22. V.V. Bartold. About a trip to Central Asia with the scientific purpose//In the same place. T. 4. M, 1966.
23. Marquart J. Über das Volkstum der Komanen//AKGWG*. Bd. 13. No. 1. Berlin, 1914.
24. V.V. Bartold. New work about Cumans//Soch. T. 5. M, 1968.
25. Kumekov of B.E. Gosudarstvo of kimak of the IX-XI centuries on the Arab sources. Alma-Ata, 1972.
26. Minorsky V. Hudud al-Alam. The Regions of word. A Persian Geography 372 A.H.-982 A.D. London, 1937.
27. Novgorodova of E.A. Kypchakskiye of a sanctuary in the south of Kazakhstan (the Sandyksky pass. To a measure)//УЗ-КИПЦДСВ" M, 1989.
2S. A. Dosymbayeva. To a measure - the sacral earth of Turkic peoples of Zhetysu. Taraz, 2002.
29. A.N. Kononov. Family tree Turkmen: Composition of Abu-l-Ghazi, khan Khivan. M.; L., 195S.
30. Klyashtorny of S.G. Hunna and Turkic peoples//East Turkestan in the ancient time and early Middle Ages. M, 1992.
31. V.V. Bartold. Twelve lectures on history of the Turkish people of Central Asia//Soch. T. 5. M, 196s.
32. V.V. Bartold. Turkic peoples//In the same place.
33. Klyashtorny S.G. Kipchaki, komana, Cumans//Desht-i Kipchak and the Golden Horde in formation of culture of the Eurasian people. M, 2003.
34. Malyavkin A.G. Historical geography of Central Asia. Novosibirsk, 19S1.
35. Malyavkin A.G. Tanskiye the chronicle about the states of Central Asia. Novosibirsk, 19S9.
36. L.L. Viktorova. Mongols: Origin of the people and sources of culture. M, 19S0.
37. Mackerras C. The Uighur Empire (744-S40). According to the T’ang Dinastic Histories. Center of Oriental Studies. The Australian National Uniy. Occesional Paper S. Canberra, 1968.
38. Pulleyblank E.G. Some Remarks on the Toguzoguz Problem//Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. 1956. B. 28.
39. Hudud is scarlet - Alam. A. Tumansky's manuscript. L., 1930.
40. W.G. Tiesenhausen. The collection of materials on the history of the Golden Horde. T. 2. M.; L., 1941.

Rostov state university S of December, 2003

Steven Anderson
Other scientific works: