E D I T O R I A L B O A R D
P
rof
.
D
r
. H .
H
offmann
P
rof
.
D
r
. K . H .
M
enges
P
rof
. D
r
. I. L
aude
-C
irtautas
P
rof
. D
r
. E. A . D
aw id o w itch
Seattle
Moscow
E D I T O R I N C H I E F
P
rof
. D
r
. K . J
a h n
, Wien
CONTENTS
A. M. Cirtautas, Nicholas Poppe Bibliography 1977-1982 ....................HU
A. Berta*, Die Terminologie der Siedlung und des Hausea boi don gotauf-
ten Tataren im Wolga-Gebiet ............................................................ I
(17
B. Brentjes, M ansur-Depe............................................................................... IM
Ch. Ch’en, A study o f the Manchu posthumous titles of tho Ch'ing
e m p e r o r s ................................................................................................... g
7
K. H. Menges, Das neue lamutische W o rte rb u ch ....................................... 10H
A. MolnAr*, The plough and ploughing among the Altaic peoples . . . 2 1 5
G. Schopen, Hinayana texts in a 14th century Persian chronicle . . . 225
H. Serruys, The silver cup for medical treatment and divination in
M o n g o lia ...................................................................................................23(1
I. H. Siddlqui, The Afghans and their emergence in India as ruling
elite during the Delhi Sultanate p e r i o d ............................................... 241
A. van Tongerloo*, The structure o f the Manichaean community in the
light o f the Middle Iranian loanwords in O ld-T urkish....................202
I. Vasary*, A contract o f the Crimean Khan Mangli Giray and tho in
habitants o f Qlrq-Yer from 1 4 7 8 /7 9 ................................................ 289
N. Yiico*, Neu festgestellte Worter im Choresm turkischen................... 301
* Communication to the X X IIIrd PIAC in Vienna
Reviews
D. Brandenburg—K. Briisehoff, Die Seldschuken, Baukunst des Islam
in Persien und Turkmenien. By A. von Gabain................................309
H. G. Franz, Pagode, Turmtempel, Stupa-Studien zum Kultbau der
Buddhismus in Indien und Ostasien. By K. Jettm ar...........................311
W . Bauer (Hg.), China und die Fremden ... By E. P i l z ...........................312
D. D. Buck, Urban change in China. By E. P i l z ....................................313
W. Heissig, Oeser Redzia-wu, D. Schroders nachgelassene Monguor-
(Tujen)-Version des Geser Epos aus Amdo ... ed. by W. Heissig.
By N. P o p p e ........................................................................................314
St. Elmo Nauman, Jr., Dictionary of Asian Philosophy. By E. Stoin-
k e l l n e r ........................................................................................................
L. W. Moses, The Political role of Mongol Buddhism. By E. Steinkellnor . 316
Address:
P
r o f
.
D
r
. K .
J
a h n
,
Orientalisohos Institut der Universit&t
Wien I (Austria)
Gssamtherstellung i Allg&uor Zeitungaverlag GmbH, Kempten
A CONTRACT OF THE CRIMEAN
KHAN MANGLI G IR lY AND THE INHABITANTS
OF QIRQ-YER FROM 1478/79
by
i s t v
A
n
v a s
A
r y
Budapest
Urban culture has deep roots in the Crimean peninsula. Beginning
with the first Greek colonies, urban cultural centres, though
changing in form and location, have never ceased to exist there.
Owing to its geographical location - favourable for commerce - and
luring richess the Crimea has always been subject to nomadic in
cursions from the North. Political rule often changed, and each
nomadic newcomer tried to find an appropriate modus vivendi with
the then already present urban population. Although senseless
destruction and depredation, typical for all nomads, was not absent
either, peaceful coexistence between the nomads and city-dwellers
was prevalent after the destructiveness o f the Mongol period. In the
age o f the Golden Horde, the Tatar khans promoted urban handi
craft and trade by granting privileges to towns. The Crimean Tatar
khans continued this tradition of urban tutelary politics, and several
documents issued by them testify to this effect. One o f the ancient
towns o f the Crimea was Qirq-yer. It was first mentioned under this
name by Abu’l-fida who states that it was inhabited by Alans.1 The
name Qirq-yer, meaning “ forty places” in Turkic, is probably a folk
etymological form of a distorted Greek name. Later in the 16-17th
centuries it became known as Cufut-qala, “ fortress o f the Jews,”
owing to the preponderantly Karaim-Jewish population o f the
town.2 3
Qirq-yer, which was a heavily fortified place in the vicinity
1 Geographic d’About} eda. Texte arabe publie d’apres les manuscrits de
Paris et de Leyde par M. Reinaud et M. le Bon Mao Guckin de Slane, Paris
1840, p. 214.
3 On these names and the history of Qirq-yer see V. D. Smirnov, Krymskoe
chanstvo pod verchovenstvom otomanskoj porty do nafala X V I I I veka, Sankt-
poterburg 1897, pp. 102-115; W. Barthold: MI I, pp. 584-585.
290
IS T V A N V A S A R Y
o f the later residence o f the Crimean khans, Bahcisaray, had a mixed
population already in the 15th century. Three religious communities
were represented, namely the Muslims, the Armenians and the
Karaite Jews. The Muslims were Tatars, and the Karaims must have
also spoken the Tatar dialects o f the peninsula. The inhabitants o f
the town were given privileges, which were confirmed by each sub
sequent khan. The first immunity charter given by Hajj'i Giray, the
first Crimean khan to Qlrq-yer, is dated 1st safar 804, i.e. November
27, 1459,3 although there is a reference in it to a former diploma
given to the inhabitants o f Qirq-yer (line 7: Qirq-yer halqina
tarhanliq yarlig berip). The privileges were confirmed by Mangli
Giray, son o f Hajji Giray, in a diploma issued on 20 du’l-hijja 872/
July 11, 1468.3
4 These immunity charters state that the inhabitants
o f the town should be considered tarhans. For the definition o f what
being a tarhan meant, it is sufficient to refer here to Juvaim’s most
concise statement: “ Tarkhan are those who are exempt from
compulsory contributions and to whom the booty taken on every
campaign is surrendered.” 5 Besides being exempt from taxation,
the diploma assured that the inhabitants o f Qirq-yer must not be
vexed by state clerks and couriers. The same stereotype formulas
occur in other immunity charters o f the Golden Horde and its
successor states.
This time I would like to present a third document concerning
Qirq-yer which, similarly to the above two, have boon hitherto un
published. This document which contains a contract, or more pre
cisely an affidavit o f Mangli Giray and the inhabitants of Qirq-yer, is
uniqely interesting in several respects. On the one hand, it offers
valuable hints concerning the historical events o f 1478/79 and it
represents a hitherto unknown genre o f documents, on the other.
It is a contract, as was indicated above, but o f a special sort.
3 The document which is presorved in Leningrad, is not publishod. For its
description see M. A. Usmanov, Zalovannye akty Diudeva Ulusa X I V -X VI
vv, Kazan’ 1979, p. 32. Its Russian translation was publishod by V. D.
Smirnov, Tatarsko-chanskie jarlyki iz kollekcii TavriCeskoj Ufenoj Archivnoj
Kommissii: I T U A K 54 (1918), pp. 8-9. Together with other documents I
shall publish this diploma in my book treating the chancellory documents of
the Goldon Horde and its successor states.
4 This document, similarly to the above one, has also not been publishod.
For its Russian translation see Smirnov, op. cit., pp. 10-11, for its description
see Usmanov, op. cit., pp. 33-34.
3 J. A. Boyle, The History of the World-Conqueror by 'Ata-Malik Juvaini,
Manchester 1958, vol. I, pp. 37-38.
291
Contracts confirmed by oath are well-known in the Crimean K ha
nate, they were referred to by the Arabo-Persian term sartnama.
A sartnama was a contract between two parties, in which each party
promised to stick to certain conditions which were acknowledged as
binding on both.
This primary meaning o f contracts is expressed by the Arabic
term Sart, the original meaning o f which is “ condition.” The word
Sart first appears in Turkic in the 11th century in the Qutadgu Bilig,
in the above-mentioned original meaning,6 and later, as a juridical
term it came to mean “ fulfilment o f certain conditions by oath;
oath.” In the latter meaning it entered into Russian in the 15th
century, and was used exclusively in connection with the Crimean
Tatars. The first occurence o f the word we find in March 1474, in a
Russian translation o f a draft o f a Tatar diploma. Mangli Giray han
declares that he swore an oath to the Russian Grand Prince Ivan
Vasil’evic to live in peace with him in accordance with the condi
tions laid down in the diploma (Serf esmi dal).7 8
The Russian equiv
alent o f the sartndmas was Sertnaja gramota, and even a word
Sertovaf “ to take oath to the Koran” was formed from the word
Serf * The act o f swearing an oath was expressed by the phrase ant
Sart
q'il-
or Sart 'ahd
qil-,
in both cases another word was added to
Sart to form a hendiadyoin, meaning simply “ oath,” ant being the
Turkic and 'ahd being the Arabic term for “ oath.” 9
Crimean Sartndmas have been known to historical scholarship in
great numbers, beginning with the above-mentioned diploma o f
Mangli Giray from 1474, both in the original, and in a contemporary
Russian translation.10 For more than two hundred years, until the
* QB, verso B36 and 5997 in R. R. Arat’s edition; see also D T S , p. 520.
7 G. F. Karpov, Pamjatniki diplomatifeskich snoSenij Moskovskogo goau-
darstva s Krymskoju i Nogajskoju ordami i Turciej. I (1474-1505). S. Petor-
burg 1884, pp. 5, 6.
8 For the Russian occurences o f the word serf and sertnaja gramota seo G.
E. Kocin, Materialy dlja terminologiSeskogo slovarja drevnej Rossii, Moskvo-
Leningrad 1937, pp. 397, 76. For the word Serf in Russian see Vasmor, REW
III, p. 393 and E. N. Sipova, Slovar’ tjurkizmov v russkom jazyke, Alma-Ata
1976, pp. 418-419.
* E. g. in Muhammad Giriiy’s sartnama from 1520, we road: b/ing ant Sarf
q'ildiq “ we swore an eternal oath” (V. V. Verjaminov-Zernov, Materialy dlja
istorii Krymsleogo chanstva, S. Peterburg 1864, p. 3). - In tho document which
is the subject of this paper we find in lines 8-9: Sart 'ahdi q'ilip "taking tho
oath.”
10 For these documents see VePjaminov-Zornov, op. cit.; Karpov, op. cit.;
F. LaSkov, Pamjatniki diplomatiieskich snoSenij Krj/mskogo chanstva «
Moskovskim gosudarstvom v X V 1 i X V II v. v., Simferopol' 1801.
A C ONTRACT OF T H E C RIM E A N K H A N M A N G L I G IR A Y
292
IS T V A N V A S A K Y
end o f the 17th century, these contracts were the regular form of
diplomatic correspondence between Muscovy and the Crimean
Khanate. On the condition that the Russians gave regular “ pre
sents,” i.e. taxes, to the Crimean Tatars, the latter promised not to
harass the Russian borderlands by their constant marauding cam
paigns. Though several o f these documents have been preserved in
Russian translation from the 15th century in the so-called posol’skie
knigi “ book o f the envoys,” the first original iartnamd that has
come down to us is dated 1520. This diploma was given by Muham
mad Giray han to the Polish King Sigismund August, and the latter
assured him by oath to live in peace and friendship.11
The document to be treated here differs from the above Sartnamas,
in one essential respect. All contracts o f the Crimean khans known
up till now have been concluded with foreign sovereigns, primarily
with the Russian ruler and the Polish King. The document treated
below is a contract between Mangli Giray han and his own subjects,
the inhabitants o f the town o f Qi'rq-yer. Resides, it is the first
sartnama at all preserved in the original language. The document is
preserved in the Manuscript Department o f the Leningrad Branch
o f the Institute o f Oriental Studies o f the Soviet Academy ( Ruko-
pis’nyj otdel Leningradskogo otdelenija Instituta Vostokovedenija A N
SSSR), under the signature T. 307.12 It is small in size (20 ~ 2 0 .5
X
32.5 cm) consisting o f 23 lines. The first line is severely damaged,
the 2nd and 4th lines are slightly damaged at the ends. The docu
ment is glued on another piece o f paper, so no water mark can be
detected. The text is written with black ink, the parts written with
golden ink and the seals are missing. The text is written with the
nash-type o f Arabic script, with carefully placed vocalic and other
signs (haraka). The document in its present form is either a draft or
a later copy. The lack o f validating signs (seal and golden ink), its
small size and the absence o f traditional initial and closing formulas
support the former possibility. I see no reason why it should be
defined as a copy from the 17—18th centuries, as M. Usmanov
11 Vel’jaminov-Zernov, op. cit., pp. 2-5.
12 For a description o f the document see Usmanov, op. cit., pp. 35, 71-72.
In March 1980 I had the opportunity to study the document personally in
Leningrad. Here I would like to express my gratitude to the Leningrad
Branch o f the Institute o f Oriental Studios of the Soviet Academy for giving
permission to publish this document, and personally my thanks go to M. P.
Volkova and N. V. Eliseeva who were always ready to help me with my work
in the Manusoript Department.
thinks.13 After giving the transcription, translation and linguistic
commentaries to the text, I shall try to elucidate a few further
questions raised by this important document.
A C ONTRACT O P T H E C R IM E A N K H A N M A N G L I G IR A Y
293
T E X T
1
Ba'd'iil-hamdi li-waliyyihi [ ...............................J lihi afma'in
[ ....................] 'ahdi [ ......... ]
2
turur kim tahrir qilindi bu ma'nd uzara Mm, iqrar qildi Q'irq-
yerning ahi a[galari]
3
Mavldna
’
Abdullah hatib, HaJjfi Hoja Mahmud, Hdffi Mahmad
Qdsim, Hajfi Ahmad Mansur,
4 H of a Ahmad, Hwjfi Bahadur, Hajj'i ' Omar Muhammad, Pir
Hasan, Mustafa Yaman [ ............... ]
5 Muminalca Tdfiddin, Hdffi Suldyman, Muhammad Qdsim, Sdyh
Muhammad baslig muslimanlari
6
taq'i
yahudildrdan mu'aUim Solama,
Baba Davdn, ilci Ittiya paSa
Huldni, Mdsi, Illiyds, Ishaq,
7 Mosl bey ata Ibrahim Babu yahudilari, ermdniddn Tatkd, Bubas,
Barun Kirkor, Kdncili
8
Marddn, Ulu-bey, Sari-bey, Qutlu-bey, LuJean baslig erm,dnildri
barcalari birld sart
9
'
ahdi qilip ayturman: bu aytilgan Qirq-yerning muslimanlari,
yahudilari,
10
ermanilari baslig barca elgd '‘bi'lldhi’t-tdlibi’l-gdUbi’l-mudriki’l-
muhlilci'
11 l-hatta’lladi Id yamutu abadan” barcalaringa ziydn sagin-
magayman. Mallarina baslarina
12 ziydn saginmagayman taq'i amanliqda kirip Sahdr halqina ziydn
zahmat qilmagaymdn.
13 Sn fdzira ankdh sizldr taqi dzgaga baqmagaysiz, bu aytilgan
14 sartlardin hata qilur bolsam tdngri haqqi iicun, yiiz ming yigirmi
tort ming
13 Usmanov, op. cit., p. 71 and p. 69, fig. IV/2. Usmanov thinks that, the
vocalization of some words (Mahmad, ermdniddn, ermanilari, mudimanlari,
hurmdti-(iin) is typical o f 17-18th-century Ottoman orthography, first,
these are not typical Ottoman features, secondly an increasing Ottoman
influence in the language o f the Crimean documents can be pointed out from
the second half ot the 15th century onward, so an Ottoman name like
Mdhmdii is quite natural in a 15th century Crimean text.
294
IS T V A N V A S A R Y
15 artuq dksiik anbiyd vd rusullar haqqi hiirmati-cun buzmagaymdn,
vd agar buzar
16 jaqli bolsam tangridan paygambarlarddn, yiiz dart kitabdan,
'ald’l-hususi
17 Qur'andan bizar bolgayman. Taqi ba’du nakah-i Sar'i birla algan
halalim m.andin u6 talaq
18 haram bolgay. Basa sizlar taqi mandin dzgaga Hajji Girdy ogli
tep ydhud
19 Sayyid Ahmad ogli tep qal’dgd kirgizmagayldr tep iqrar q'ildim.
20 Bizlar taqi aytilgan sart'i vd 'ahdini buzar bolsaq tangri haqqi
iicun, yiiz tning yigirmi dort ming
21 artuq aksiik anbiyd vd rasullar haqqi vd hurmati-6un buzmagay
man, vd agar buzar jaqli bolsaq
22 tangridan paygambarlarddn, yiiz dort kitabdan, 'ala’l-hususi
Qur’andan bizar bolgayman. Nakah sar'i birla algan halallarimiz
23 bizlajrydan iic talaq haram bolgay, iqrar qilduq. Tdrih sakiz yiiz
saksan iic, sand 883.
TRANSLATION
(1-2) After praising the saint [...............................] everybody
[....................] oath [........... ] that it was written down in the sense as
it was confessed by the guildsmen o f Qirq-yer (3-5) Mavlana
'Abdullah hatlb, Hajji Hoja Mahmud, Hajji Mahmad Qasim, Hajji
Ahmad Mansur, Hoja Ahmad, Hajji Bahadur, Hajji 'Omar Muham
mad, Pir Hasan, Mustafa Yaman [............... ], Muminaka Tajiddin,
H ajji Siilayman, Muhammad Qasim, Sayh Muhammad who re
present the Muslims; (6-7) from among the Jews by Master Solama,
Baba Davan, the two Illiya pasas from Hulan, Mosi, Illiyas, Ishaq,
Mosi bey whose father is Ibrahim B abu; from among the Armenians
by Tatka, Bubas, Barun Kirkor, Mardan o f Gandzak, (8-11) Ulu-
bey, Sari-bey, Qutlu-bey, Lukan who represent the Armenians. All
these took the oath and I [Mangli Giray] sa y : “ By Allah, the vic
torious and desirous, who reaches and destroys [everything], who
never dies” I will not contemplate any harm to the inhabitants of
Qirq-yer who are under the leadership o f the [above-]mentioned Mus
lims, Jews and Armenians. (12) I will not cause any harm to their
property and their person, and entering in peace I will not do any
harm or troublo to the townsfolk. (13-16) You must not obey others.
I f I should deviate from the [above-]montioned conditions, let me not
break [the contract] for the sake o f God’s justice and for the sake o f
approximately one-hundred-and-twenty-four thousand prophets’
and envoys’ justice and respect. And if I am the violating party, let
mo be separated from God and the prophets, and from the one-
hundred-and-four books, especially (17-18) the Koran. And let my
wife, taken in a legal marriage-process, be discharged from me with
the threefold talaq [-formula]. And you, saying to others “ [this is]
Hajji Giray’s son” or “ [this is] (19) Sayyid Ahmad’s son,” do not let
them into the fortress. [This way] I made my oral declaration.
(20-21) And if we break the [above-]montioned conditions and oath,
I will not break [the contract] for the sake o f approximately one-
hundred-and-twenty-four thousand prophets’ and envoys’ justice
and respect. And [yet] if we are the violating party, (22-23) I will
be separated from God and the prophets, and from the one-hundred-
and-four books, especially the Koran. Let our wives, taken in a legal
marriage-process, be discharged from us with the threefold talaq
[-formula], [This way] we made our oral declarations. Date: eight
hundred eighty-three, the year 883.
A CON TRA C T OF T H E C RIM E A N K H A N M A N G L I G IR A Y
295
COMMENTARY
5 The word basl'ig (also in lines 8, 10) often occurs after a personal
name or names in the documents o f the Golden Horde and its suc
cessor states, its meaning is “ at the head o f sg; under the leadership
o f X .” E.g,, in Tohtamis’ immunity charter from 1381, line 3:
Q'ir'im tumanining Qutlu-Buga basl'ig daruga begldringa “ To the lord
governors o f the Qirim province, with Qutlu-Buga at their head.” 14
6-7 This is the first document where Qirq-yer Jews (here evi
dently Karaites) are mentioned. Most o f the names are well-known
Jewish names, some o f them are in their Arabicized forms (Ilyas by
side o f the Hebrew form Illiyd; Ishaq for Hebrew Yichaq; Ibrahim
for Abraham). Solama and MoSi represent the Hebrew Selom5h and
Moseh. Baba is a less well known Jewish name,15 as for Davdn I
14 I. Berezin, Tarchannye jarlyki Tochtamyfa, Timur-Kutluka i Saadet-
Gireja, Kazan’ 1851, p. 13.
ls For a Baba ben Buta soo Encyclopedia Judaica III, Berlin 1029, noli.
842-843. But it is not excluded that llaba in this mime is identical with
Turkio Baba often oeeuring in Turkic names.
296
1ST V A N V A 8 A R Y
cannot find an explanation. Hulani is evidently formed from a
place-name. The only place I could find is Hulwan in Babylonia
where a Jewish settlement can be pointed out.1
6
1
7
18 Paia and bey are
Tatar-Turkish names o f rank, which, in our case are worn by
Crimean Karaims.
7-8 Kirkor, Marddn and Lukan are well-known Armenian names,
the former two being o f Persian origin. The word barun is a French
borrowing in the Cilician Middle-Armenian, in addition to other
French words which had found their way into Armenian, similarly
in the 12-14th centuries.17 Later the word often occurs as a proper
name in Armenian colophons o f the 15th century.18
Ulu-bey, Sar'i-bey, Qutlu-bey are Turkish names used by Arme
nians.
13 Su jdzira inkah. This part is difficult to understand, obviously
the text is corrupt. The Arabic word fazira meaning “ island; Meso
potamia” is out o f place here, although in Ottoman it may stand for
the Arabic word zajr, meaning “ oppression, tyranny, cruelty.” 19
The Arabic word inkah “ a making or letting a woman marry” is
again out o f place here. I thought it appropriate not to give any,
even a tentative, translation o f this passage.
15 buz- is the verb used to express “ to break/violate a contract”
(also in lines 20, 21). It occurs both with sart and 'ahd. In Qutb’s
Husrdw u Sirin: bozuhnasun bu sart'im “ let not this condition of
mine be violated,” 20 or in Sayf-i Sarayl: hatd sozni eSitip duSmaning-
dan kerdkli dust ’ahdin'i buzupsdn “ Having given an ear to the bad
words o f your enemy you break the necessary contract with your
friend.” 21
16 For Hulwan see J. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien, Frankfurt am
Main 1929, pp. 10, 93, 107, 110, 147; J. Mann, Studies II, p. 16, n. 29. My
thanks go to Professor A. Schreiber for helping me identify the Jewish names
o f the document.
17 J. Karst, Historisehe Grammatik des Kilikisch-armenischen, Strassburg
1901, pp. 30-31.
18 X V dari hayeren dzeragreri hisatakaranner, edited by L. S. Xac'ikian,
Jerevan, vol. I : 1955, pp. 370, 427, 484, 518, 524; vol. II: 1958, pp. 379, 407;
vol. I l l : 1967, pp. 437, 179, 242. For these data I am grateful to Dr. B.
Scliiitz.
19 J. W. Redliouse, A Turkish and English Lexicon, Constantinople 1890,
pp. 660, 1005.
20 A. Zajaczkowski, Najstarsza wersja turecka Husrav u Sirin Qutba III,
Warszawa 1961, p. 36.
21 A. Bodrogligoti, A Fourteenth Century Turkic Translation of Sa'di’s
Gulishin, Budapest 1969, p. 236. Hero Turkic buz- is the rendering o f Porsian
*
t f &
p j P * ' * * , F
* ? ' ■ j
• ' ' '
.
S i *
5 ^ a * V
j
^
* * ' &
•
. .
i& X tilS # i& *4%
< # * * > ^
K*
-
■
* JB^
: ..,: ■
lif
" ' V' ^ •
4tf
-i-wiwife--.. -^5fc---
g^s;.S3®(iSlitPMti^^
’
Jiig,
;:,
^ ^
v " C’^
^
£ * r - & < &
J + ' £ $ ~ j * > < ^ v ' P i t y ^
^
v ^ S r - V
_J
*J,^_ f '
**' *
.
4
* c , a t £ ./* jc
ft? * % » &
**'«*'
a u
V
^
*
! ^ * * c ^
'
*
.,
i ' ■' ’ *' i'Y. Vl!rf»‘l ’ i
.
^
« « » S
* ^ * * * ^ * ?
•**»V ■—• > " f 5 ( j < » “ - •' « “ ■ ■ f " - ' ^ ^ . , v £ ^
'
* * :'* :$ :
■*. * / > : * *# * c ' * !• '* ' •%:*. : •
'
'
i * i 'A 't r
a
* r
15-16 buzar jaql'i (also in line 21), meaning “ the violating party,
the party that violates the contract.” The word yaq is typical of
Kipchak tongues, it can be attested in Nog., Kum., Karaim, Kaz.
Tat., the form faq occurs in Karakalpak, Kirgiz and Kazak. For
yaqli see Kumykt/otj'fi “ -storonnij, im ejuscij. . . storon, napravlenij,”
Kaz. Tat. yaqli “ storonnik, zascitnik,” Nogay man durisliq yaqli
“ ja storonnik pravdy.” *
22
On the whole the language o f the document presents no partic
ular difficulties, it is written in the literary language o f the 14-15th
centuries, the so-called Khwarezmian Turkic. No traces o f strong
Ottoman influence can be detected.
In the following, I shall dwell on three questions concerning the
document: 1. The historical background o f the text (issuer and date),
2. Guildsmen in the Crimea, and 3. Formulas o f oath and curse.
1. There is no direct indication in the text as to the issuer o f the
document. But there are two hints that may be o f help to us. First,
the date is 883 A. H., i.e. April 1487 - March 1479 A. D. Secondly,
in lines 18-19 two persons are mentioned as opponents o f the issuer
o f the document, and the inhabitants o f Qirq-yer are prohibited
from paying homage to these persons who, unfortunately, are not
called directly by their name, but are referred to as Hajji Giray’s
son and Sayyid Ahmad’s son. These are the bare facts we must
confront with the historical events o f 1478-1479 in the Crimea in
order to precisely define the person o f the khan who made a contract
with the town of Qirq-yer. After the capture o f Kaffa in 1475, the
Ottomans placed Mangli Giray on the Crimean throne, but he could
not enjoy his rule for long, because in 1476 the khan o f the Great
Horde, Ahmad, and his son, attacked the Crimea. Mangli Giray was
ousted from the throne, fled to Turkey and Ahmad’s son became the
new khan.23 As in the Russian “ posol’skie knigi” the Crimean khan’s
name in 1477 was Janibek (Russian Zenebek), he must have been the
son o f Ahmad.24 Janibek seems to have been an old rival o f Mangli
A CON TRA C T OR TH E C RIM E A N K H A N M A N G L I G IR A Y
297
iikastan “ to break.” See also fi. Fazylov, Starouzbekskij jazyk I, TaSkont 19(50,
p. 271.
22 Kumyksko-russkij slovar’ , Moskva 1969, p. 389; Tatarsko-russkij slovar’ ,
Moskva 1966, p. 703; Nogajsko-russkij slovar’, Moskva 1963, p. 458.
23 In the Russian chronicles: PSRL VIII, p. 183; X II, p. 168; X X IV ,
p. 195. See also B. Spulor, Die Ooldene Horde, Leipzig 1943, p. 1979; H. I).
Grekov-A. Ju. Jakubovskij, Zolotaja Orda i ee patlenin,
M
oh
U
vu-Lmiingrml
1950, pp. 423 424.
11 Karpov, up. eit., p. 13.
298
IST V A N V A S A R Y
Giray’s as the latter had asked the Russian Grand Prince Ivan
Vasil’evic as early as 1475 to take Janibek to him for service.25 2
6
Mangli Giray obviously wanted to have his rival far away, because he
was a constant danger to his rule. In these troublesome years o f 1476-
1478, with Janibek on the throne and Mangli Giray in exile, a third
pretender also appeared and he was seemingly successful in seizing
power in the Crimea. According to the Polish historian, Dlugosz, in
1478 there was a Tatar envoy to King Kazimierz from the Crimean
Khan Nur-Davlat ( Nurdulab).20 One cannot be sure whether Nur-
Davlat and Janibek were simultaneously at rule, their spheres of
power being divided, or, Nur-Davlat became the only lord in the
Crimea. This Nur-Davlat was Haj j! Giray’s son, i. e. the blood brother
of Mangli Giray.27 Historical sources keep silent as to how Mangli
Giray regained the Crimean throne for the second time. At any rate,
in April 30, 1479 we see him again as sovereign as he accepts an
envoy coming from the Russian Grand Prince. From the instruc
tions given to the Russian envoy we learn that formerly Mangli
Giray had sent two envoys to the Grand Prince whose task was to
announce that Mangli Giray had occupied again his father’s throne.28
The time o f this event can only be suspected, but it could not be
later than January 1479, since a minimum o f three months were
needed for two embassies (Crimea-Moscow and return). Again from
this report we learn that the Russian Grand Prince, agreeing to
Mangli Giray’s repeated request, took the banished Janibek to him
for service.29 In autumn 1479, the other expelled khan, Nur-Davlat,
also appeared at the Muscovite court, and together with his younger
brother, Aydar, they were accepted for service by the Grand Prince.30
The simultaneous appearance in 1479 o f the two Crimean ex-khans
at the Muscovite court makes probable the supposition that their
power in the Crimea must have been divided, and that Mangli
Giray expelled both o f them. This idea gains new evidence by the
25 Karpov, op. cit., p. 9.
26 Dlugossii Historia Polonica, vol. V, in: Opera omnia X IV , p. 670.
27 Concerning Nur-Davlat who was the Crimean Khan from 1466-1469, and
later the Khan o f Kasimov, see V. V. Vel’jaminov-Zernov, Izsledovanie o
lcasimovskich carjach i careviCach I, S. Peterburg 1863, pp. 91-148. In this rich
collection o f sources detailed information can be found on the 1470s, espe
cially p. 97 sqq.
28 Karpov, op. cit., p. 15.
28 Karpov, ibid.
20 PSRL III, p. 243; IV, pp. 133, 152; VI, pp. 34 109, 223; V III, p. 205.
Soo also Vol’jaminov-Zornov, Izsledovanie I, pp, 91-93.
above document. The two persons mentioned in the diploma as
Hajji Giray’s son and Sayyid Ahmad’s son must have been Nur-
Davlat and Janibek. The document was written at the historical
moment when Mangli Giray regained power, between April 1478 and
January 1479. His renascent power presumably badly needed the
support of the important town o f Qi'rq-yer, and he promised to
secure the immunity o f the town in return for the fidelity o f the
townsfolk. The eminent danger o f the return o f the recently
banished pretenders is clearly shown by the fact that the inhabitants
o f the town are emphatically prohibited from letting them into the
fortress, i.e., to acknowledge and obey them as rulers.
2. The persons who represent the different communities o f the
town are called ahi a[galari], i.e. guildsmen or guildsmasters. A
representative o f the Karaim community (line 6) is called mu’allim
Solama “ master Solama” which again points in the direction o f
guilds. The origin o f the term ahi is disputed, either it goes back to
the Arabic ahi “ my brother,” or to the Turkic aqi, ahi “ noble,
knightly,” or the two terms inextricably coalesced.31 In any case,
from the 11th century onward it designated members o f brother
hoods which were organized according to the principle o f futuwwa.
Futuwwa became the organizing principle o f dervish orders and
town guilds as well. In the 13-14th centuries in Anatolia the in
stitution o f ahis, the ahiliq became connected primarily with the
trade guilds. We have a precious account o f the trade guilds in
Anatolia by Ibn Battuta, who travelled through this land in the
1300 s. From Sinop, he took a voyage to the Crimea, and in Azaq he
met an ahi."2 We do not know whether this ahi was a native Crimean
or an Anatolian Turk, but it is sufficient to say that in the 1300 s the
institution o f ahis, probably imported from Anatolia, existed already
in the Crimea.33 Our document is further evidence that organiza
tions o f ahis, the trade guilds, were active later on as well; moreover,
31 See recently F. Taeschner, Ziinfte und Bruderschajten im Islam, Zurich
und Miinchen 1979, p. 232. For any further information concerning ahis cf.
this book.
32 Ibn Batuta, ed. C. Defremery and B. R. Sanguinetti, vol. II, p. 368.
33 For the further development of guilds at the Crimean Tatars see V.
Gordlevskij, Organizacija cechov u hrymskich tatar: Trudy Einografo-archeo-
logiCeskogo Muzeja IV (1928), pp. 56-65. For the term ahi in Central Asia see
A. K . Borovkov, K istorii bratstva “ achi” V Srednej Azii: Sbornik v best’
Oordlevskogo, Moskva 1953, pp. 87-89; idem, Upominanie “ achi” u AliSera
Navoi: Kratkie soobilenija Int-a narodov Azii (Sbornik Bertel'sa) 1964,
pp. 32-39.
A C ONTRACT O F TH E C RIM E A N K H A N M A N G L I G IR A Y
299
300
IS T V A N V A S A R Y
the ahis o f Qlrq-yer were evidently the leading social layer o f the
town who represented the whole population o f the town before the
khan. In the ahis o f Qirq-yer we may see the Islamic equivalent o f
mediaeval burghers in Europe.
3. The contract in question is a legal document, and the promises
are corroborated by oath and curse on both sides. This type of text
is unknown in Turkic and I could not find any equivalents in Arabic
or Persian either. The text o f the oath and curse gives an interesting
insight into mediaeval Islamic oath formulas.
The khan takes his oath by God citing an Arabic passage (lines
10-11). Then, in both texts o f the oath (lines 14-15, 20-21), God and
the one-hundred-and-twenty-four thousand prophets are mentioned.
The same persons are referred to in a Sartnama o f Muhammad Giray
from 1520.34 The 124,000 prophets occur in the oath-formulas of
Ottoman documents as well.35 The forms o f curse are something like
the formulas o f the poena in the text o f diplomas. In the case o f
breaking the contract, the parties accept the punishment o f being
separated from the 104 books, especially the Koran, and from
their wives. These formulas are totally unknown to me. It is to be
hoped that experts on Islamic law will find a clue to these obscure
passages.
84 sizgd bang ant sort etdrmuz Tangrining adi ustimd taqi yiiz ming yigirmi
tort ming paygambarlardan . . . (Verjaminov-Zernov, Materially, p. 4).
** Soo L. Koketo, EinfiXhrung in die persische I ’alaographie, Budapost 1977,
p. 3(1. ! could not find
hiic
I
i
an Ottoman documont.
