Part IV

     Desht-I-Kipchak - an Unknown Land?

    What is the essence of a feat? An act not everyone would dare for - not everyone is able for it. For tens and hundreds of years information is being accumulated, which brings up the only one who dares throw down a challenge to the settled opinion of society. And prove his case. Even if hi is not understood by the contemporaries - other generations will come to an understanding. The truth never suffers.
    The baron Vladimir Gustavovich Tisengausen (1825 - 1902) performed his scientific feat imperceptibly for his fellow countrymen. He published a unique work with a prosaic title "Collection of Materials Relating to the history of the "Golden Horde" in which the time obscure not only for Russia is analyzed. As a matter of fact that period in the world history still remains a "blank spot". Was there the Tatar-Mongol yoke? And what was it like?
    "Lack of well-grounded, maybe full and critically analyzed history of the Golden Horde, - wrote Tisengausen in 1884, - is one of the most important and significant blanks in our native way of life description".
    One cannot assert that anything has changed since then; and, however one cannot neglect the fact that nobody has ever performed such a huge work (In this connection we can mention, perhaps, only the works by B.D. Grekov and L.N. Gumilev in which an attempt of deviation from the standard approach to the "steppe" subject has been made.).
    Desht-I-Kipchak is the land unknown in Russia. History of the Turki is an unknown science. As if they've never existed. Why? An idle question. Even if an encyclopedia contains no information about the Turkic nation, its culture and language… The Slavs have existed and the Turki haven't. And is there any reason for astonishment - the book by Tisengausen, published in XIX century, passed by the censor and dedicated to centuries-old non-Russian events was also subject to "repression" in 1937. In the National Library there is only the first volume of the aforementioned work published in 1884, and the second one was reissued in 1941. They reissued it having edited and abridged, and the original was obliterated.
    But Tisengausen wasn't the first one who tried to put together everything known about Desht-I-Kipchak or the Horde as it was often called in Russia… In the 30s of XIX century Russian Academy of Science announced a competition for the book about the Golden Horde. All in vain - nobody wished to take part. They declared about prize money. All in vain again: the competition stipulated very difficult conditions - "to take the Russian sources into consideration in all their volume".
    It is impossible to do that! One cannot bring something evidencing to the point of view of authorities in relation to the south of Russia not sinning against the truth and not calling his scientific honor into question. Their position is too far from the truth! Seizure of a neighboring country is nothing else but a seizure.
    Unfortunately, at those times Europe, being proud of its enlightenment, pronouncedly ignored the results of sciences of other countries - especially from the East. And the Russian science has been strongly affected by the Western one since XVIII century - Europocentrism approved by Rome and its place of the remote area of Europe suited it.
    Hence is emphatic neglect in relation to everything Turkic , i.e. more ancient - in other words, to its roots. Westernization was the reason of that. No one needs another Russia in Europe.
    … At last the only work was put on the table of the head of the jury in Petersburg - it was written by Joseph von Hammer-Purgstal. To tell the truth, the German scientist disregarded the main condition of the competition: he didn't trouble himself with the Russian sources not just because he didn't know the language but because they seemed too discrepant to him. His book was written on the basis of foreign sources - Arabian, European, Chinese and Persian ones.
    But even references to more than 400 historical documents didn't convince the head of the jury of the Russian Academy of Sciences. As one might expect it couldn't approve that research work.
    The proud German treated the suggestion to reconsider his "wrong" position with disdain. In four years his work was published. And what is more, he demanded on the members of the jury to provide the reviews of his off-cast work, published them accompanying with bilious remarks convicting of pettiness of the reviewers. Their names were dishonored in the scientific world and the honor of the Russian science was put into question… However, the word "honor" might be high-flown here - it is not in its right place.
    Broken out scandal resulted in inclusion of Hammer's work into the censored lists so that it has become a bibliographic rarity in Russia; and the interest of the Academy to the dangerous subject has noticeably decreased.
    Time cures. Everything can be forgotten and covered by the mist of forgetfulness - the discomfiture has also been forgotten. Little by little Russian historians were also getting into the "steppe" subject; but they worked under surveillance of the censors. Because of the danger of generalizing they were allowed to take only small episodes of the events. They could deal with only insignificant splits of the past. And they did it with trembling hands.
    For example, one of the scientists thoughtfully marked: "There are unknown dashes and dots on many coins of the Russian princes". And a few lines below he made a discouraging conclusion from his observation: that was ancient Russian writing. And besides he gave a translation of "unknown dashes and dots" adapting it to the known "Vladimir on the table and here is his silver…"Academician B. Rybakov also contributed his priceless share by translation of the inscriptions from ancient Russian stack-stands. To tell the truth, in contrast to the said "translator", the academician, as usual, reconstructed the text adding the "missing" letters.
    Looking at this science one could only sigh with sorrow. "Ancient Russian" texts made with "unknown dashes and dots" often turned our to be the Turkic runic writing. It is impossible to translate them not knowing the ancient Turkic language.
    Real (without politics!) scientific works relating to the history of the Steppe and of the Turki have never been written, although there are theses on this subject. From time to time unassuming articles and short translations appeared but scientists simply weren't allowed to reconstruct the course of events. Their "small works" were basically added to the works by the eastern and western authors having visited the lands of the Golden Horde: Plano Carpini, Marco Polo, Ibn Battutu, William Rubruk and others. In the Steppe the Russians were allowed to search for remains just of the Slavic settlements or Scythian ones at worst.

    Authorities forced even the big scientists - V.N. Tatischev and N.M. Karamzin - to invent new "fundamental" histories of Russia (The Kipchak, the native of the noble Crimean family, N.M. Karamzin kind of imitated the destiny of another Kipchak historian, Jordan. His comments are also the key for the keen; sometimes they are in evident contradiction with the main text written by the tsar's order.). So can we have a grudge against S.M. Solovyev or V.O. Klyuchevskiy - their followers? They were given the base for their works (like Monomakh's teaching) and they were choosing vivid details proving an opportunity to discuss several small items and to take the reader away from the main point - the base itself with its disfigured "official" architecture.
    Architects of the history of Russia have always been sitting in the offices of the censors, their names have always been unknown, but they were the only ones laying down the conditions. They made Russia the country of "double standard" and its science of "double morals"…
    Since XV century the foreigners have become regular visitors at Moscow, they left interesting and instructive notes fixing the things which could be used by the West in its policy in them. Inaccuracies are seldom met in them. A part of those notes was, of course, of entertaining character and certain were written by those willing to flatter. They remained! And according to that evidences independent from Moscow authorities another impression about Russia and its look is made as compared with what "double" Russian science says.
    Almost every foreigner visiting Russia in XVI century marked slyness and mendacity of its inhabitants. "People in Moscow, they say, are more sly and crafty than anywhere else and are especially treacherous while performing obligations…" - one of the guests wrote. "Concerning their keeping of the word the Russians mostly ignore it as soon as they can gain something by deceit or breach of their obligations", - wrote another.
    "… Neither Russian believes anything and he would never say something one can rely on. These features make the Russians contemptible in the eyes of their neighbors", - J. Fletcher marked in XVI century.
    Bondage or slavery are the only explanations of the unexpected turns in Russian Historical works at which reasonable people only laugh. There are too many examples. The most significant is the book by marquis Astolph de Quistine who thoroughly examined the work by Karamzin translated into French in XIX century… Who was it who needed that translation?
    The French scientist wrote about the "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin as follows: "If only the Russians knew everything an attentive reader can find in the book by that flattering historian whom they glorify; they should have hated him and begged the tsar to prohibit reading all the Russian historians and first of all Karamzin so that the past remains in the beneficial dark of oblivion for the welfare of the despot and happiness of the nation".

    That's a good advice! "If only they knew…" But how could they know? The society is slowly rotting "for the reason it believed the words of no meaning", wrote de Quistine about Russia. Controversies are about to kill the society "in order to feed on its corpse". He was a real soothsayer, that self-assured French.
    In XX century Russia has become the country "which one leaves with great pleasure and returns to with great sorrow". It has become a bad country for its nation! But, de Quistine draws a conclusion, "Providence gathers these inactive forces in the east of Europe not in vain. Sometimes the sleeping giant is to awake and the force will put an end to the kingdom of the words".   
    Thus it would be since a lie is not eternal.
    We have already mentioned mythical Slavic Russians of which a part of the Russians was formed under unclear circumstances… A real absurd… But it has become a part of the academic science. The new "change" has begun in XVIII century - the Turki were officially becoming the Russians. The number of the Slaves in certain Russian settlements increased hundreds and thousands of times. Not genocide but something else was performed in the country; there isn't even a name for it. An entire nation was proclaimed non-existing - that was the Turkic nation!
    Another part of the Russians appeared from the Tatar-Mongols. That was the whole Southern Russia lying to the south from the Moskva River to the Caucasus! Tens of millions of people! The term "Tatar-Mongols" was introduced. They frightened the children in schools with it calling them a monster which destroyed the wellbeing of Russia and is the reason of all its troubles and sufferings. But what kind of a hybrid is it - the "Tatar-Mongols"? And who has invented it?
    For the first time that absurdity was formed by P.A. Naumov, the schoolteacher, in 1823. He wrote in his brochure as follows: "… All the historians agree that those mighty conquerors were not the Tatars but the Mongols", - the aforementioned author described the events of XIII century, while the Mongols "approaching to the boundaries of our country and the countries of the Western Asia became stronger on account of the local Tatars, i.e. the nations of the Turkish tribe". Thus a stunning idea came to Naumov's mind: to call them Tatar-Mongols. The schoolteacher had neither knowledge nor imagination to do something else.

    But the scientists of Petersburg liked his logics and the label stuck to the Turki was introduced to the scientific lexicon in 1823. "Tatar-Mongol" yoke was also suitable for Moscow authorities due to its terrifying vagueness… It borne something really ominous and frightening.
    Did anybody except Karamzin think about the fact that the nation "Tatars" didn't exist in XIII century. "Neither of modern Tatar nations calls itself the Tatars", - the great Russian historian marked in XIX century.
    So who are they, the Tatars?
    The word "Tatars" was borrowed from the Kipchaks and the latter borrowed it from the Chinese. Thus one of the nations of the Central Asia was called in antiquity; it lived on the border between China and Mongolia. That nation was closer to the Mongols in its culture. Later the word "Tatars" had a collective meaning for the Chinese the same as it happened with the "Huns" and "Barbarians" in Europe. In III century B.C. the Chinese fenced off the Tatars with the Great Chinese Wall. But according to the late Chinese conceptions the Tatars were divided into white, black and wild; in other words nobody has ever seen ethnic unity in them.
    After China was conquered by Chingis-Khan the word "Tatars" obtained another meaning there and related only to the Mongols who have headed the Horde.
    There was no difference between the Mongols and the Tatars for the Russians, both were the people form the East for them. The Russians started to call the Tatars everybody coming from the East and the Germans everybody coming from the West.
    The destiny of the real Tatars was tragic: at first they were pressed by Yesugey-Batagur, the father of Chingis-Khan, the Tatars poisoned him for that, but the son fittingly avenged. Temuchin wrote in the "Secret History of the Mongols": "We defeated the hated enemies - the Tatars, those murderers of our fathers and grandfathers when we annihilated the whole Tatar nation as a deserved punishment for their murderous deeds". Only a few managed to save form the mighty revenge.
    That's because it is incorrect to talk about the union between the Mongols and the Tatars. There was no union! And there could never be. There was a subjection of remaining Tatars to the Mongols. These two words cannot stand together even in theory… And it is especially incorrect to call the Kipchaks with that curse knowing they've "been never concerned with the Mongol Tatars from the Central Asia". The Kipchaks were formerly called "Polovtsyans" in Russia, and in Europe they were called "Kumans".
    Why did Russian rulers need to humiliate and split Kipchak nation into small Turkic nations, invent the names and nicknames for them? In order to rule dividing? To divide and to rule!
    The merit of Vladimir Gustavovich Tisengausen was that he tool the risk to make that misunderstanding clear. A misunderstanding, indeed! Carefully, without any comments, he proposed the facts. But "bare" facts, as it turns out, tell more than thick books.
    Baron Tisengausen took only the documents, they follow one another being mutually complementary - this is what his book is notable for. It might be that the author did it that monotonous not by accident; recurrence of the subjects really tires; a man in the street would never come through it… Wasn't that the way to muddle the church censors up?
    If one manages to surmount those obstacles, the book opens the wonderful world of the great country described by the foreigners to a keen reader. Tisengausen provided the extracts from the ancient manuscripts which were saved by a miracle and the past days came alive! Desht-O-Kipchak started to fuss, the steppe was agitated full of the absinth smell. One could even hear the songs having read the notices by Ibn-Battuta.
    Collected manuscripts are unique; main force of the book is in their polyphony. For example, Shapfi chronicle is kept in Paris National Library; there is the single copy of it.
    Each author, as far as we know, has its own style and methods of working: Tisengausen preferred historical documents. One should simply read this book - read and think about it. Because the travelers wrote what they saw, they had no time for fantasies which are usual for historians; a traveler sees the world in a different way every day, and he has a road to go. The only thing to do is to write.

    The first volume of "Collection of Materials Relating to the history of the "Golden Horde" is rather thick; it remained as it was issued by the author. Practically everything "extracted from the Arabian works" is gathered in it. Many pages of the volume are speckled with elegant Arabic characters; interlinear translation is given near. Authenticity of the facts cannot be called into question: the work has been done with academic formalism, any word contained in it can be checked.
    "The second volume of the collection, - as it is written in the preface, - will include the extracts from the works by Persian, Tatar and Turkish writers". But one can only guess which of those extracts were crossed out by the Soviet censors and which remained.
    Tisengausen's story begins with the chronicle by Ibn al-Asira, the competent person who used to question the eyewitnesses, visit the places of events before he started his difficult story "about the invasion of the Tatars to Muslin countries".
    "For several years I objected to announcement of that event, - he begins his joyless story with a real eastern tact, - considering it horrible and having aversion to expound it; I used to start and stop several times. Is it easy for anyone to tell the world about death of Muslins and pleasantly to remember about it?" And then frightful description of invasion into the Middle Asia and all destructions caused by the Tatars to the East is set forth. The trouble was "as a cloud blown by the wind".
    Having defeated the Lezghins and conquered Transcaucasia, as it is written in the chronicle, the Tatars turned to the Northern Caucasus where the Alans lived in the foothills. They knew about an unavoidable storm and were ready for it. They entered into the union with the Kipchaks and accepted the battle together. Pressing Tatars - that cloud blown by the wind - could do nothing and in a little while asked for a break…

    Here we shall interrupt the story by Ibn al-Asir in order to finally clarify the question - who were the Tatars?
    For the West natives ethnic accuracy is of great importance. The Mongols are the Mongols, the Tatars are the Tatars and the Turki are the Turki; one shouldn't mix them up. There's no reason. They are different!

    The word "Mongol" is known since X - XI centuries, that is reported by the Mongols themselves. It is not known what that nation was formerly called. Its history was connected with the Turki and Altai, apparently, - neighborhood of two nations cannot leave without a trace. It is very likely that the Turki, having arrived to the steppe from Altai, borrowed certain things from the Mongols - those steppe nomads (Of course they used to communicate earlier. The Mongols wandered to the south of Altai. The tribe ongutam was notable among them. The Chinese called them "the white Tatars"; they were close to the Chinese in appearance and culture. There were also the "black Tatars" who lived in the forests and were different for other cultural traditions… "The Mongols", as we can see, is a complicated subject of ethnography - they are many-sided regardless of similarity in their appearances… But they are not in question now.). They took the lessons of life in the plain… The neighbors!
    That was the Mongolian army moving from the Central Asia to the west, although the Turki led the war for the most part: the Turkic speech dominated in the army. But that was the Mongolian army! For example, Baty had 330 000 warriors and only 4000 Mongols among them… There is a secret rule in the world: the army belongs to the one under whose flag it wages a war. The one who pays them, who makes the plans of the conquers, who is defeated or keeps the loots. He is the master.
    On this point everything seems to be clear.
    And is it correct to call Temuchin a Mongolian? It is another question. Chingis-Khan, they say, had blue eyes and a red beard. He headed the Mongol troops, he waged a war under the Mongolian flag, his victories belong to the Mongolian Empire (By the way, the army of the emperor Napoleon was headed by the marshal Murat, the Kipchak by birth, but nobody has hit upon an idea to call the French the Kipchaks. Although inhabitants of certain provinces of France should be called the Kipchaks who have forgotten their kinship.). So what? His father and mother were the Turki… But when and how has their son turned into the Mongol? Known portraits of the great commander with narrow eyes is nothing more than imagination of the artists - the Mongols paint all the people of the world with narrow eyes. They just cannot do it in a different way.
    Here is another question (painful and instructive for the Turki!) - how did Temuchin, who was nicknamed Chingis-Khan appear in the camp of the Mongols? Why did he lead a war against his nation? It seems the answer is obvious and very annoying… By God's will Chingis-Khan was born a genius of the military art, his talent belonged not to him, not to the Turki but to the whole world. Talent of a human is a God's gift. The great commander created his great masterpieces - new battle tactics, new methods of siege of fortresses and other things. Hence are his victories… But could the commander show his talent remaining among the Turki who were fighting between each other? Never! His fellow countrymen would have annihilated him as they have annihilated dozens of less gifted persons. That's why the Turki should be grateful to the Mongols who gave an opportunity for another genius to live… The brilliant neglected by one nation ornamented the crown of another!
    Temuchin was recognized as the man of that thousand years. The man of the previous thousand years was another Turki - Attila.
    S.M. Solovyev was willing to explain the absurdity with the "Tatar-Mongols", but what he has written didn't clarify most things. "It might be, - Solovyev wrote in XIX century, - someone would reproach me on account of that name which leads to the mixture (bold provided - M.A.) of different nations since the nation known as "the Tatars" nowadays belongs to the Turkish tribe. One cannot deprive the Russian history of the word with which our ancestors called their enslavers; ancient and modern Russian people don't know the Mongols but only the Tatars".
    Excellent! That's true. Let the Russian people call their enslavers as they wish. But should the swearing be extended to the Turkic nation which has already suffered from those "Tatars"? Why should the Bulgarian nation and nations of other chaganats of Desht-I-Kipchak be nicknamed and why should other Turkic "nations" be called with those nicknames?
    National discord between two suffered nations - the Kipchaks and the Russians - has been rousing in Russia for centuries. National policy which is humiliating for everybody is carried out. One nation is set off against all other ones (And meanwhile Kazan khan was oppressed to a greater extent as compared with Moscow prince under the Mongols. Both, the price and the khan, as we know, bought the right for power from the Great Khan in Sarai-Berk, but in contrast to Moscow prince Kazan khan would never recover the costs… He had no profits due to levy taking.).
It has been forgotten that the Slavs and the Turki are the inhabitants of one country, and the more they hate each other the weaker Russia is. Only a third party can gain advantages on account of hostility - the party that sets on to fight. At first these were the Greeks, and later - many others.
   
    … It is evident from the splendid story by Ibn al-Asir that the Mongols and the Kipchaks - two different nations - faced each other in a battlefield in the Northern Caucasus for the first time!
    The break asked by the Mongols was suddenly over for the Alans. Their allies, the Kipchaks, refused to wage a war. "Both of us have the same roots", - said the Mongols having sent the Kipchaks from their army for negotiations. The Caucasian Kipchaks believed them, they accepted the gifts from their brothers and turned round the horses listening to the assurances in everlasting friendship.
    As soon as they were out if sight, the Mongols attacked the Alans and easily won the victory. Then they ran after the Kipchaks and attacked them also. "They took twice as much as they have brought them (the Kipchaks)", - the Arabian chronicler reports. So there was blood everywhere…
    One would think what was reprehensible about the fact that the Turki refused to lead a fratricidal war? Well, they were deceived by the Mongols, so does it mean anything? But the Russians interpreted that fact being tragic for the Turki just as betrayal of the Kipchaks… Whom did they betray? Themselves?    
    In the book "The Polovtsians" professor S.A. Pletneva writes about "the first betrayal" of the Kipchaks. A serous accusation for the nation suffered from the Mongols!
    But as it comes clear, there wasn't either the first or the second betrayal; they were invented by Russian historians in order to slander Desht-I-Kipchak and the whole Turkic nation once again. Nobody has ever checked the authenticity of the stories about "the betrayals"( It should be mentioned that expressions like "betrayal", "cowardice", "treachery" etc., which are almost obligatory for the Russian historical works about the nation of the Great Steppe do not belong to the scientific lexicon. These are the political definitions! They were suggested to the German Hammer so that he becomes the winner of the competition of the Russian Academy of Sciences… As we can see, although the scientific scandal of 1835 has been forgotten, it didn't teach anything: deception lasts until now.).
    In the chronicle by Ibn al-Asir, to which Pletneva also refers, there is no even a hint at the betrayal of the Kipchaks who, maybe, showed themselves too credulous, too artless but they were not the betrayals… It seems this is the time to restore the unbiased truth about the Great Steppe. It is enough to swear them - there's no reason!
    On May 30th, 1223 the Kipchaks led the next battle against the Mongols together with the Russians. Ibn al-Asir told about the favorite method of the Mongols who, as though they were hastily stepping back, stretched the enemy's troops and promptly defeated it (Here it is, the wisdom of Chingis-Khan, his military talent! New fighting tactics which was never seen in Russia.). Thus that happened again. The troop which was "stepping back" lead the pursuers to Kalka where main forces of the Mongols were waiting for them. There the fighting commenced… "Those who saved themselves returned to their native land having a sorry sight due to the long way and defeat", - wrote the wise Arab.
    The Russians represent everything in a different way once again: they blamed the Turki for the result of the battle of Kalka. And only them! And they were called the betrayals again… A surprising permanency. Even Karamzin expressed his opinion: "Craven Polovtsians couldn't resist the Mongols: they were mixed up, they opened their rear…" But any reasonable man, having read it, is entitled to ask: what rear could have a pursuing army stretching for dozens of kilometers? It was the pursuit!
    And is this the "cowardice" of the Kipchaks being the reason of the defeat? Considering the fact that even Karamzin writes that two Russian princes - Kiev and Chernigov - didn't even take part in the fight. They were afraid. They were waiting in the shelter with their retinues, and Mstislav Galicius, heading the battle, turned out to be a good-for-nothing commander: that commander-in-chief was defeated for the reason of his own lack of talent.
    Aforementioned Pletneva surpassed Karamzin and his "betrayal" having invented "the second betrayal" and "the flight from the battlefield" for the Kipchaks. But that is enough! There must be a place for justice in the deceptions. Firstly, there was no battlefield. And secondly, were the steppe inhabitants put to flight?
    John Fletcher, the Englishman already cited by us (of course, not the battle of Kalka is in question), wrote about the Kipchak warriors as follows: "They despise death and they would rather dye than be defeated by the enemy and, having been defeated, they gnaw their weapons in case they cannot fight any longer or help themselves". And he continues: "A Russian soldier, having started to step back, finds his life-saving only in flight".
    So who was put to flight at Kalka? Who opened its rear?
    It turns out that was Mstislav Galicius! That was him. The eyewitnesses saw that commander running away having left his army; he wished to use the "glory of the victory". Having declared himself the Russian leader, having 80 thousand warriors, he was defeated by the Mongols who had only 20 thousand. He didn't manage to make the most of the fourfold superiority!
    Mstislav Galicius is also guilty in death of thousands of Russians after the lost battle. He was running away from Kalka and having crossed Dnepr he "ordered to destroy all the boats so that the Mongols were not able to follow him". That was written by Karamzin who couldn't conceal the truth. And nothing can be added to his words… Only the tenth part of the Russian levies escaped; 6 princes and 70 boyars were killed in the battlefield among others.

    But the "Tatar-Mongol" yoke and disappearance of the Kipchaks as the nation started not with that defeat. As it is fixed by Ibn al-Asir, Allah reward him for his noble truth, the battle of Kalka had a grave continuation: having been left by the Russians, the Turki didn't disappear, they didn't waver but, having waited for a while, they gathered together and shattered the Mongols near Itil. Only a handful of the Mongol army remained safe; khan Sudebei, the conqueror of the Middle Asia and Transcaucasia led it away.

It is strange, isn't it? "Craven", "cowardice", "running away from the battlefield" Kipchaks defeated the invincible Mongols… And poor Russians didn't know about that?
    Or they did but kept it secret through their old habit? By the way, the Mongols prefer not to mention that continuation of the battle of Kalka regarding it as a casualty. It might be so… But khan Sudebei returned from the Great Steppe with light luggage.
    Now it seems clear why de Quistine offered to "prohibit reading all the Russian historians and first of all Karamzin". It is really better to stay in the dark than to live close to a lie presented as the truth. The words of Karamzin sound like a mockery: "History is the sacred book of the nations, the mirror of their lives, the tablet of their revelations and rules, the testament of the ancestors to the descendants".
    Unfortunately, the Russian "tablet of revelations and rules" has been written according to the traditions of the Greek historiography where a lie is necessary. And isn't it the reason Russia has no "testament of the ancestors" due to the authors?! Let us not forget that, as a matter of fact, the memory of the nation, its culture and enlightenment are in question. An ignorant nation is a crowd. Ignorance provoked by science is treason.

    People have been often playing with purity of Turkic souls. They believed when they were deceived… In XIII century the Mongols succeeded in that: Chingis-Khan headed their army and at first the Kipchaks didn't regard the Mongols as the enemies. But after the battles in the Caucasus and at Kalka they recognized duplicity of the Mongols and thus they defeated them without mercy. The defeat at Itil was like a cold shower: even Chingis-Khan understood he would never succeed in an open fight with the Great Steppe.   
    Everything was decided by accident as it has already happened in the history of nations.
    Once Mangush, the son of Kotyan-khan, was hunting in the steppe. He met Akkubul-khan in the fields; he was an old rival of their family. They'd better pass one another!.. History could have taken another way. But they didn't, they faced each other. In a word, Akkubuk killed the young fellow in the fight. As soon as the sorrowful news reached Dnepr - the lands of Kotyan-khan - he gathered the army in Zaporozhye and moved it to Don, to the lands of Akkubul-khan. Zaporozhye troopers had a really good time at Don.
    Wounded Akkubul hardly saved himself and, having found no strength for the riposte, sent Ansarar, his brother, to ask the Mongols for assistance. He brought the Mongols to Don.
    That wasn't an invasion but an INVITATION of 1228 - in five years after Kalka - that was fatal for Desht-I-Kipchak. The Mongols deceived again, they didn't forget anything to the quarreling Kipchaks, they didn't have mercy on Akkubul - it was too late for the Turki to gather the army.
    Desht-I-Kipchak got the new name under the Mongol government in Russia - the Golden Horde. It turned in the remote region of the Mongolian Empire from the flourishing country; and the Empire was acting basically due to the Kipchaks. And that was another absurdity in the Turkic history - they always have the keys of their manacles in their own pockets (Some time ago, serving to Rome and Byzantium, the Kipchaks killed Attila's empire themselves. And then were the Mongols. Everything repeated… History hasn't taught the Turki anything.).
    Two and a half centuries of the Mongol slavery broke down the Truki as the nation: many things were forgotten by themselves; many things were forgotten by force. Fear and desire to gain favor were becoming the part of the character of the steppe nation. Like a dog stretching to his master's hand, they were stretching to the Mongol-Tatars, and they started to lick Moscow boots.   
    … After all, it is good that the word "Desht-I-Kipchak" was deleted from the European maps - there was less of shame. And it just disappeared… To tell the truth, independent Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan appeared - legal successors of Desht-I-Kipchak, its history and culture… But will the people there remember the Great Steppe, their "disappeared" Motherland?
    Power of the Mongols covered almost all the Turkic lands. Persian author Djuvaini excellently described that in the 50s of XIII century in the book "History of the Conquest of the World". No doubt, baron Tisengausen read that book; he was interested in everything relating to Desht-I-Kipchak.
    People have been often playing with purity of Turkic souls. They believed when they were deceived… In XIII century the Mongols succeeded in that: Chingis-Khan headed their army and at first the Kipchaks didn't regard the Mongols as the enemies. But after the battles in the Caucasus and at Kalka they recognized duplicity of the Mongols and thus they defeated them without mercy. The defeat at Itil was like a cold shower: even Chingis-Khan understood he would never succeed in an open fight with the Great Steppe.   
    Everything was decided by accident as it has already been happening in the history of nations.
    Once Mangush, the son of Kotyan-khan, was hunting in the steppe. He met Akkubul-khan in the fields; he was an old rival of their family. They'd better pass one another!.. History could have taken another way. But they didn't, they faced each other. In a word, Akkubuk killed the young fellow in the fight. As soon as the sorrowful news reached Dnepr - the lands of Kotyan-khan - he gathered the army in Zaporozhye and moved it to Don, to the lands of Akkubul-khan. The troopers had a really good time at Don.
    Wounded Akkubul hardly saved himself and, having found no strength for the riposte, sent Ansarar, his brother, to ask the Mongols for assistance. He brought the Mongols to Don.
    That wasn't an invasion but an INVITATION of 1228 - in five years after Kalka - that was fatal for Desht-I-Kipchak. The Mongols deceived again, they didn't forget anything to the altercating Kipchaks, they didn't have mercy on Akkubul - it was too late for the Turki to gather the army.
    Desht-I-Kipchak got the new name under the Mongol government in Russia - the Golden Horde. It turned in the remote region of the Mongolian Empire from the flourishing country; and the Empire was acting basically due to the Kipchaks. And that was another absurdity in the Turkic history - they always have the keys of their manacles in their own pockets(Some time ago, serving to Rome and Byzantium, the Kipchaks killed Attila's empire themselves. And then were the Mongols. Everything repeated… History hasn't taught the Turki anything.).
    Two and a half centuries of the Mongol slavery broke down the Truki as the nation: many things were forgotten by themselves; many things were forgotten by force. Fear and desire to gain favor were becoming the part of the character of the steppe nation. Like a dog stretching to his master's hand, they were stretching to the Mongol-Tatars, and they started to lick Moscow boots.   
    … After all, it is good that the word "Desht-I-Kipchak" was deleted from the European maps - there was less of shame. And it just disappeared… To tell the truth, independent Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan appeared - legal successors of Desht-I-Kipchak, its history and culture… But will the people there remember the Great Steppe, their "disappeared" Motherland?
    Power of the Mongols covered almost all the Turkic lands. Persian author Djuvaini excellently described that in the 50s of XIII century in the book "History of the Conquest of the World". No doubt, baron Tisengausen read that book; he was interested in everything relating to Desht-I-Kipchak.
    In Djuvaini's story one can find admiration for trustful Kipchak "losers" who underwent terrible ordeals sent by fate, and they held out with dignity arising Djuvaini's delight. The author of the Chinese work "History of the First Four Khans of Chingis-Khan Family" also said many good words.
    Russia was the only country where truthful words concerning its southern neighbor that suffered a terrible in trouble in XIII century have never been heard. Under the Mongols Eastern-European steppes have become "ancient Russian". That is asserted by Russian science (For example, professor Pletneva interprets invasion of the Mongols into Desht-I-Kipchak as the "seizure of the southern Russian steppes"!!! And nothing else. It goes without saying she's not the only one adhering to that official Russian position.).
    But how long have the Turkic steppes belonged to them? In what war and against whom have they been conquered?
    Invasion of the Mongols to Russia was of peculiar character. Here is the text confirming that: "Before the Mongols came numerous Russian principalities of the Varangian origin that recognized the power of the Great Kiev Prince only theoretically, in fact didn't form the united state, and the name of the united Russian nation cannot be applied to the tribes of the Slavic origin that lived there.
    Those tribes were united due to the impact of Mongolian dominion and formed the Moscow Principality which has become the Russian Empire afterwards (bold provided. - M.A.)". These are the words of the famous Mongolian historian Kharadavan.
    It turns out those were the Mongols who created Moscow Principality, strengthened it and introduced into its political sphere of influence. They needed an ally in the north of Europe being the enemy of the Great Steppe at the same time. The union between the Mongols and the Russians is also evident for another reason - there has never been a single(!) Mongol ruler in Russia. Russians princes have been always governing themselves… Alas, these are the facts evident from the Mongolian and the Russian chronicles.
    The Mongols were interested in levy in Russia; they would come for it twice a year. And they collected it skillfully!
    The Church was exempted from paying levy. In 1270 Mengu-Timur-Khan issued an order which started with the words: "No one should dare disgrace the churches and offend the metropolitans in Russia…" Uzbek-Khan expanded the privileges of the clergy introducing the death penalty for the infringers not considering the fact "whether they are the Russians or the Mongolians".
    The Mongols needed Moscow Principality to collect levy; thus they created it by XIV century. Tver princes were rarely allowed to perform that procedure. So the horrors about the Tatar-Mongol yoke proceeded not from the mythical "Tatars". The Mongol khan presented the insignia - the hat - to his "deputy" in Russia.
    Hence is an expression "Heavy Monomakh's hat"… It was presented to the Moscow Prince in XIV century when the town has become the collector of levy. The Great Khan presented it to his deputy in the Russian lands for faithful service. The hat has become the symbol of autocracy in Russia (In the end of XV - beginning of XVI centuries the Greeks invented a legend according to which that symbol of autocracy was supposed to be sent by the Byzantine emperor Constantine II Monomakh to Vladimir, the Kiev Prince… But that is another absurdity.). The Great Khan and other khans had the same hats.
    At the same time the neighbors invented the word moscal - thus they called the "Moscow collectors".
    Moscow notably prospered under the prince Ivan I (? - 1340), who was nicknamed Kalita (The word "Kolita" is Turkic. "Kol" means "hand", "iti" means "to collect". Thus it means "collector".). He was the great man, the real politician, the collector of the whole Russia who has made political and economic bases of the Moscow State. A metropolis was opened in Moscow during his reign.
    However, 1472 was the main year in the history of the Moscow Principality when they brought the late bride Sophia Paleologus, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor. The marriage of Ivan III opened the doors to Europe for Moscow making the principality a successor of non-existing Byzantium… A very promising diplomatic act; it gave Moscow delivery of power of the Horde!
    Russia was rising not due to trade, not due to a war, but due to humility towards the Mongols and cruelty towards the Russians. That completely suited the Greeks who were intending to take the place of the Mongols in Russia… Moscow Principality was growing rapidly adding the lands of their neighbors to it. Nothing could stop it. Luxury and debauchery stroke all the visitants. The town lived "on the corpse of society", as marquise de Quistine has mentioned.
    Climent Adams, the Englishman, who visited Russia in 1553, was dazzled with magnificence of the prince's chambers: "There was a small table in the middle of the chamber… A great many precious items, vases, bowls, cups made of the best gold lay there…"
    To tell the truth, splendor embarrassed those having seen other starving Russian principalities. Certain princes couldn't even buy clothes, and the people used to "walk from one village into another in order to get some coal"… Foreigners marked that also.
    Formerly just a part of levy collected in Moscow was transferred to the Horde. Something was due to it for its work, something was simply theft, and something was collected over excessively. The town had the money. And after that the whole levy collected in Russia usually appeared in the Kremlin cellars… That made them think about defence of the Kremlin. About their own army!

    Paying levy, the Moscow Principality formerly bought defence for itself. However humiliating was that procedure, it was the payment for guarding of the borders. For example, Alexander Nevsky would have never gained a victory on the ice of the lake. Russian foot (not an army!) were winning under the hooting of the "beastly knights". Cavalry was dominating in the ending of the battle of April 5th, 1242; the steppe inhabitants left not a ghost of a chance to the enemies of Russia (This is a lie what is ascribed to Alexander Nevsky; it doesn't comply, for example, with history of Sweden and modern Finland. Those two countries were the parties in the battle of Neva. And the Russians didn't take part in it. The Russians saw its ending from the other bank of Neva. Alexander with his patrol was among the observers (about fifty riders); he wasn't heading the Russian army since Russia couldn't have one. It paid levy to be defended.).
   
    In the beginning of XIV century the Mongols demanded on the Russians to pay levy in silver. But silver wasn't extracted in Russia. They had to get it from abroad. Thus Russia joined international trade. Moscow Russia knew only fairs before - not trade but exchange of goods (Of course somebody may find author's estimation of establishment of trade relations in Moscow Russia subjective. One can remember Sadko, western merchants who used to visit ancient Novgorod and Kiev… That's right. But that is not Moscow Russia! Moscow Principality cannot be regarded as the historical successor of Kiev Russia or White Russia. Thus their history cannot be ascribed to them - these are different nations and different countries. They might be Slavic according to the terminology of Russian historians, but still they are different. For example, coins have existed in Kiev Russia for ages; and Moscow learnt about the money only due to the Horde. Its first rubles were the cut pieces of a silver wire; they also cut small coins - kopecks - from it. By the way, "kopeck" is the Turkic word, it means "small things" in figurative sense.).
    In Sarai-Berk, the capital of the Golden Horde, the Russians established a big trade colony and started the trade being protected by the Mongols. The fact that Russian trade was established with assistance of the Great Steppe is witnessed by the list of words relating to trade, finances, goods, storage and transportation. The whole merchant trade has Turkic roots.
    There were no Russian "trade" words. It is evident even from the notes by Athanasius Nikitin. Of course he wasn't the first Russian merchant who has seen the foreign lands, but he was the first one who wrote about them. It seems all other merchants were undereducated. Turkic words stand near the Russian ones in his notes. But academic Russia stubbornly rejects the evident calling bilingual writing "macaronic language". They say "Turkic slang was the spoken language among the merchants"… Even the evident is presented with slyness.
    But here is an extract from the text by Athanasius Nikitin: "And in India "pachektur, a uchyuze-dzer: sikish ilarsen iki shitel; akechany ilya atrsenyatle zhetel ber; bulara dostor: a kul karavash uchyuz char funa khub bem funa khubesia; kapkara am chyuk kichi khosh". In what language was this text written? Where are the Turkic slang and Russian spoken language?
    And here is the translation: In India "women are considered to be cheap and inexpensive: if you want to get acquainted - that would cost two shetels; want to give money for "nothing" - you'll have to give six shetels. That is their custom. Slaves, both male and female, are cheap: four funs - good, five funs - good and black…".

    In the notes by Athanasius Nikitin Turkic and Russian words stand near each other; they are like the hands of one person. Because two nations lived close to each other; bilingual speaking was normal for communication between a learner and a teacher.
    We can take other examples. It's the same everywhere: examples of cooperation between the Kipchaks and the Moscovites. For instance the word "treasury" is a direct borrowing, money and customs come from the word "tamga" which meant a state seal put on the goods as a sign of customs payment. Tchervonets is from "shirvana" (golden coin). Goods (articles of trade) meant "cattle" or "property". Comrade means "business partner", "assistant". Share, suitcase, trunk, bag… The same can be said about the words relating to clothes of a traveling merchant - pocket, trousers, hat, cap, caftan, boot, heel and dozens of others. The same is with the words relating to transport and communications of those times: driver, post, cart, tilt cart, hut, tarantass. Even the word "book" was borrowed when drowsing Russia, having taken off its bast shoes, was ready for international examination.
    That's what the Russians have got due to the "Tatar-Mongol yoke". And prosperous Moscow in addition!

    In fact, was there the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" in Russia? And what was it?
    Speaking about that hard period one shouldn't forget about another important circumstance - Moscow acted as Horde's agent among the northern principalities. Its western neighbors wrote about its customs as follows: "That nation (the Moscovites) is sly and treacherous, insincere and inconstant; having returned to its motherland and having become (our) rulers there, they impudently devastated our regions". But Russia had the reasons to act in that way: it was protected by the Mongolians, which gave confidence to it. The Moscovites had to show themselves. And they did.
    Hence - from the support of the Horde! - are all the successes: remote small town of Vladimir principality turned into an important and expanding town of the Mongolian Empire. Governing methods used there were absolutely the same as those the Mongols had. As a matter of fact, it was created in accordance with it and with assistance of the Mongols… Horde's traditions have become strongly established there for centuries. The town was supposed to collect levy and suppress the neighboring nations.
    In order to rule, suppress, collect, take away Moscow needed new people - the officials. They were formed of the nobles - serving, intelligent, nimble - enticed from the Horde for the most part.
    These were not the wages but unrestricted opportunities of personal power that made the nobles willing to be engaged in Moscow bureaucracy. They made their living not with a plough or a saber but stealing and taking bribes. Bureaucracy is normal for Russian life; it survived everyone and everything. It is over the nationalities and out of politics - and thus it is eternal.
    In case of each change of the rulers the Moscovites solemnly swore an oath: not to attempt tsar's life, "not to wish somebody else in the Moscow State", not to get in contact, not to betray, to suppress, to denounce… And many other things included the secret ritual fixed in the formulas of Russian allegiance.    
    It originated in XVI century. Under Alexei Mikhailovich it reached its climax and under Peter it was perfect which hasn't changed in future: serving people were changed in Russia but their habits remained the same.
    No one has ever taught a Russian bureaucrat anything bad or nasty, he gained an understanding in everything by himself demonstrating excellent self-organization. He could disfigure any undertaking so that good becomes evil; but the evil which is advantageous for the Moscovite. And that is another peculiarity of the Moscovites. As a matter of fact it is a profession of execution of orders and regulations which reach the remote corners of the country and cover them with the Kremlin's power.
    Authorities have always estimated service higher than nationality or parentage of the officer. "History of Russia is the history of nobility", - historians would say about that epoch… In a word, the Turki had a longing to come to Moscow - certain were invited, and certain came themselves.
    "That is a sly person, - thus was written bout Ivan the Terrible in the treatise "About the Customs of the Tatars, Lithuanians and the Moscovites", - he granted an award to returning deserters, even the empty and useless ones: freedom to a slave, nobility to a commoner, forgiveness of debts to a debtor, remission of fault to a scoundrel". They simply had to serve to the tsar… But it is hard to call a service what the deserters were doing: they didn't get wages for their deeds! What kind of service is that?
    At first it was important for them to please the prince - to learn to serve, endure any offences. "And if they do everything according to his wish they are awarded not with money but with an office of a master…" Fantastic slyness! There are no limits for actions of an "office personnel". Two candidates were appointed to one office at the same time: one hade to displace another through eagerness and denunciation. And in case of suit, it was settled by fisticuffs. There was a clublaw. They fought for an office in Moscow. A looser paid a penalty to the treasury…
    Expanding capital of Russia enticed many Kipchaks. First of all they became "the Moscovites" - they went to serve, abase themselves and fight for the right to abuse others. A good half of Russia nobility are the Turki, the natives of the Steppe. Which is witnessed by academic researches, for example "Russian Family Names of the Turkic Origin" by N.A. Baskakov.
    Horde's traditions appeared in Moscow together with the Turki. Appearance of the city was changing rapidly: Turkic architecture was becoming firmly established there.
    To tell the truth, similarity in architectures is not surprising: the migrants, according to a tradition of all the colonists of the world, took the names of left abodes and their appearance to new places. Moscow borrowed many Mongolian institutions it didn't have: tax authorities, communication, repression instruments.
    Repression instruments were a prison, manacles, servitude and others. Those words also came from the Golden Horde…
    Considering the position of Moscow as an agent of the Horde in Russia, the whole Russian history should be read otherwise. For example, why was Ivan the Terrible willing to defeat the Kazan khanate? Why did he conquer the Astrakhan khanate which had nothing to do with Russia and the Slavs? As well as the Western Siberia? Or why did he choke the metropolitan Philip? Why did he appropriate the name "tsar"? Many things are put into their right places.

    Just because the Greeks suggested the Moscow prince should regard himself as an heir of the Mongol khan! No, that wasn't by accident when Sophia Paleologus and her numerous suite appeared in Moscow. The West started to act. And it succeeded… Ivan the terrible was so enamored he completely lost his head, he didn't wish to be the heir of the Byzantine emperor although he could have been with a certain reserve. But he saw himself only a new khan. He was attracted not by mythical power in dead Byzantium but actual one in living Steppe.
    According to contemporaries he "hatched out of the Mongol khan like a baby bird out of shell". "Baby bird" regarded Kazan and Astrakhan as his patrimonies that didn't pay levy to him - their master. Preparations for the campaign against Kazan began.
    In 1545 the Russians, having no military experience, were beaten. After that they were beaten several times again. Finally, having hired Don Cossacks, they took Kazan by storm and drowned the town in blood. Mutilated bodies of women, children and old men were floating down Itil which has been already called Volga - the great Russian river - to frighten.
    It seems Kharadavan, the Mongolian historian, discussing Mongolian political culture in this connection, is right asserting that it has played a "wholesome part in Russian history". In pre-Peter Moscow the "way of life" had a mark of Horde s impact while "that was what old Russia was based on, what gave steadiness and strength to it", the author draws a conclusion.
    Gregory Kotoshikhin, the officer of Moscow Embassy Department, who has escaped to Sweden, also left some information about political culture in Moscow State when Ivan the Terrible called himself "the white tsar", i.e. the tsar who has accepted the crown from the Mongols.
    Why was he "white"? Here is another simple story. Giving the lands "up to those places which Mongolian horses can reach" to his elder son Dzhuchi, Chingis-Khan ordered to rise a white flag, to call Desht-I-Kipchak Dzhuchi s Kingdom and its master - the White Khan.
    Russian rulers, following that tradition, started to call themselves white tsars or white khans in the beginning of XVI century, which was directly connected with "white bone" (Twist of fate. The expression "white bone" is the word-for-word (loan) translation from Turkic: "ak" means white, "suek" means bone, which means "grateful".). In other words, they boasted about cognation with Chingis-Khan! Moscow emphasized its domination in Russia even in that way.
    And Moscow demonstrated its domination, it was gathering an army of officials - its main and terrible force. As Kotoshikhin marked, before he started his service there were about one hundred of clerks and about a thousand of their assistants, by the end of the century their number increased up to 4657 persons. About three thousand of them had offices in Moscow departments. They used to stir up trouble. They had the force everybody was afraid of. This Moscow army would confuse anyone with its paper maelstrom.

Moscow copied Sarai-Berk - the capital of the Horde - not only in its deeds but also in its architecture. Radial planning was made there - each street began from the Kremlin and reached the remotest building not missing anything big or small. The streets led from the city turning into the roads connecting the capital with remote areas… There were no obstacles for a look cast from the Kremlin. Bureaucratic cobweb covered the city and the whole country.
    The stone Kremlin was built in a Turkic style widespread in Desht-I-Kipchak (By the way, the word "kremlin" could also be interesting for toponymy. In Turkic it means "fortress", "fortress wall". And in Russian?.. However, it isn't unlikely that the word appeared in the Turkic language from Mongol.). And that wasn't by accident either. Moscow of that time had almost no differences from Kazan or any other big city of the Steppe: its hip (!) architecture was the same with one described by the Byzantine messenger Prisk in Attila s times.
    However, they didn't think about architectural look of Moscow those days: they didn't have time for it and it was formed by itself, by analogy with the known. And the arrived Turki knew only Turkic, "Desht-I-Kipchak" methods. And they built according to them. Departments, boards - that's what city authorities were interested in. Not their appearance, but their inside essence. Everything was like that - anxious and rapid at the same time.
    The Kremlin wanted to apply new "control and compulsion methods" in Russian territories; it wanted to tie everything to Moscow. It was important to strengthen in the position of the ruler at any cost, to show its force and necessity.
    Notes by Possevino, Pope s ambassador with Ivan IV, are indicative. The tsar was sure, wrote the ambassador, that he was "the most powerful and wise ruler in the whole world", "the heir of the Mongolian Empire"… (Moscow was regarded as an heir of the Mongols before the tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, i.e. from almost one hundred years) (That historical fact hasn't been considered in Russian historiography, apparently, while it contains an answer to the question why Rome has started to meddle in Russian policy. Or rather why did the dynasty of Ryurikoviches was that unexpectedly over and the dynasty of Romanovs, who turned to the West and not to the East, began. Apart from the Church problems Rome had several other ones: Europe didn't want Russia to be strengthened, it was afraid of new invasion from the East and did everything in order to tame the possible conqueror and chain it… And it succeeded in it completely.).
    At that time that humiliating name - "Tatars" - was assigned to the Turki not to mix them up with "white Mongols". There was a great deal of the Tatars - Volga, Tula, Crimean, Siberian, Ryazan, Don, Belgorod, Caucasian and others. All the Kipchaks were called "Tatars". Or rather not all of them but those not willing to serve Moscow, those hoping to keep their faces and retain the honor of their ancestors. Deserting Kipchaks were called in another way - "the Russians". They are those Russians into whom the Tatar-Mongols have turned.

    Jerome Gorsay, the Englishman, wrote as follows: "The tsar and his cronies, unmerciful Tatars…" New Russians led a free life in Russia, they were the robbers and the judges simultaneously.
    And the Russians, having proclaimed themselves the Slavs some time, were openly turning into the Mongols. And again they "succeeded" in it. Especially under the new tsar Simeon Beckbulatovich, when even Ivan the Terrible (New Russia tsar Simeon Beckbulatovich (? - 1616) was the son of the Kazan khan. Ivan the Terrible invited him supposedly to divide the throne; while actually a swindle was planned - they wrote off the debts and obligations of Russia before other countries at the cost of Sain-Bulat. Moscow treasury was increased by untold wealth. And the new tsar obtained Tver Principality for participation in the swindle. And everyone hated the insidious "Tatars" a hundred times more… Poor Bulats, Akhmats and Murats; they were to remember their Russian names very soon. ) was concealing his routes in 1575. Fyodor turned into Bulat, Peter - into Akhmat, Matthew - into Murat. Family names remind of those reckless days in Russia.

    In "Collection of Materials Relating to History of the Golden Horde" there is the translation of the work by Ibn abdez-Zakhir, the man versed in politics; he was the secretary of the Egyptian sultan Beibaras. So he is supposed to know the rulers Egypt was dealing with.
    However, before analyzing that extract, it is necessary to introduce sultan Beibaras -the sublime person. He is one of those Turkic children who were sold for slavery to the Middle East by the Mongols. There those little slaves were brought up as warriors - the Mamelukes. By the way, the ancestors of marshal Murat were the Mamelukes. Boys were excellent in the military skills.    
    As a result of one of the battles Beibaras got power and proclaimed himself the founder of the Empire of the Mamelukes which reigned over the Middle East for two and a half centuries. As a real Turki, he has been always seeking for relations with his motherland. And only due to nostalgic burst. Once he defeated the Mongolian army which encroached on the lands of the Mamelukes; and at that time he was trying to establish the relations with the Mongols by himself.   
    Notes of the sultan's secretary are interesting due to the fact they lift the veil of secret from spiritual life of the Horde - it troubled the Moslem sultan. He wrote a letter to Berki-Khan who was the first among Chingis-Khan descendants who has accepted Islam.
    It is evident from the reports of Ibn abdez-Zakhir that things were changing rapidly in the Golden Horde in relation to politics. Fear, curiosity and longing for changes shattered peace and quite of the khan. He was rushing about wishing to find a calm bay in the ocean of life.
    Having been dreaming to strengthen himself in the Steppe for centuries, Berki was looking for the way to the souls of the Kipchaks who didn't feel themselves conquered (the army was fully controlled by the Turki and was able to get out of subordination at any time). Baty-Khan, his predecessor, believed that if they accepted the spiritual values of the Steppe inhabitants, the Kipchaks would recognize him as their legal ruler. Also Baty was thinking about Christianity in the Steppe but he didn't know whether it should be Roman or Greek.

    It surprised him that there were several branches in Christianity and they were in contradiction with each other. Who was right?.. That reason was enough not to unite the Great Steppe, not to suppress it. Tengirchilik also had its "inconveniences" in the opinion of the Buddhist Mongols.
    Baty-Khan didn't find a way out. Berke did: to enter Allah's world for both - the Mongols and the Turki. He even founded the capital of the Golden Horde in new place acting with the feeling of "innovation". As a matter of fact, his decision was absolutely right.
    But the Kipchaks wouldn't have given their relics without a fight. The strain in society was increasing - the idea of the sacred war was present. Wise Beibars supported the Mongolian ruler. He induced him to the "sacred war against the infidels, although they were his relatives".
    By sultan's persistence it was evident that he was the first who needed that war. A troop from Egypt was sent to the Horde to help the khan (and for reconnaissance of his forces!). But Beiberas was over-diligent, which, however, is very likely for the Kipchak having no sense of proportion.
    The Mongols estimated the provoking generosity of the sultan in the right way. They subtly felt that Beibar's interest to the Horde lay not only in his love to religion. After all, he is a warrior not a mullah.
    Sultan's gifts surprised with luxury, the main was "the Koran in the cover of red satin embroidered with gold, in a leather case padded with silk; the lectern for it made of ivory and ebony lined with silver". They also sent "arrows of amazing decoration in leather cases; black servants; surprising parrots, wild donkeys, several swift-footed horses, rare Nubian camels, a giraffe" and many other items regardless of loads of jewelry from the sultan's storerooms. That was all accepted by Berke. But, having thought a little, he added that he didn't believe in Islam yet.

    "The sultan again sent the messengers to Berke trying to make him come over to the side of Islam". A political intrigue set in, the Greeks and the Romans were engaged in it for they didn't want Egypt to become stronger and were afraid of "Islamization" of the Western Europe. Once the Greeks even caught up the messengers of Berke-Khan and were inclining them to the Greek Christianity during a long time.
    Everything witnessed of the fact that a conflict between the Bible and the Koran was about to happen. But delay took place due to desperate ignorance of the Mongols. One can judge about it by the following example: during the negotiations Berke asked the Egyptian ambassadors about Nil, explaining: "I heard that a human bone is put over Nil and people walk on it". Well-educated ambassadors exchanged glances and politely said they hadn't seen it.
    Also observant ambassadors didn't notice any signs of Islam with the Mongols. Following ambassadors didn't notice them either. There were mosques in the town but those were the people from Persian and Arab quarters who went there…
    Information collected by baron Tisenghausen convince of the fact that attempts to turn the Kipchaks to the new belief were successful in part: in the Crimea and in some places on Itil (Volga).

    No, that was Baty-Khan who stroke the most terrible blow to the Kipchaks, not the Russians! He ordered to annihilate the nobility. The hunt for human heads began in the Horde in 1243 - the Kipchak nation was to be beheaded. By the highest standards the role of aristocracy consists in increase of sacred relics of society. In keeping society's morals. Baty stroke the blow to the inmost things: the nation was to be turned into a crowd.
    Even aristocracy that physically survived was dying in a spiritual sense having lost its position in society. This is the regularity of life… It is felt, for instance, in modern Karachai, Dagestan, Tatarstan where communities with ancient and formerly highly respected families remained. But… materialistic conduct is the feature of their modern representatives. They are not ready for an act, for a feat in the name of the nation any more.
    Degenerated aristocracy is the same as nothing.

    Formerly the Kipchak society was divided into estates. Its highest part had seven levels of estates. Differences were in the conduct above all. By the conduct they judged about nobility, position and rights of a person in society. There were adats which it was deemed a shame to breach. The society exiled the people not respecting the adats and their shame was redeemed with blood. Nobility and khans had a lot of obligations.
    When the Mongols annihilated aristocracy of the Kipchak nations, the COSSACKS remained in Desht-I-Kipchak - the free estate. Those were the Cossacks who formed the Mongolian army and acted as its living force. The name "Kazakhstan" appeared those days; it meant "The Cossack Land". It meant that no real Turkic aristocrats remained in the lands conquered by the Mongols. That name keeps a very deep sense… Turkic nobility left for the southern lands beyond the reach of the Mongols - dry steppes of the Middle Asia (modern Uzbekistan), the Northern Caucasus and Europe.
    Considerable part of the Turkic nobility disappeared for its nation forever. Genealogical books of the Russian nobility tell about it rather well: "General Armorial of Noble Families of the Russian Empire", or "History of the Families of the Russian Nobility", or "Russian Genealogical Book". Historical novels are nothing as compared with them.
    For example Ermolovs, the nobles, the family of Alexei Petrovich Ermolov, the hero of the Caucasian War, begin the story of their genealogy as follows: "The ancestor of that family, Arslan-Murza-Ermola, christened as John, as it is shown in the presented family tree, left for the Great Prince Wasil Ivanovich from the Golden Horde in 1506…"

    Russia got rich fantastically at the expense of the Turkic nation; the talents were flowing like water saving themselves from the Mongolian barbarism. Princes Kurakins appeared under Ivan the Terrible in Russia; that is the family of Andrew Kuraka, who was the offspring if the Mongolian Bulgak-Khan, the recognized ancestor of the great Russian princes Kurakins and Golitsins, as well as Bulgakovs noble family.

    Dashkovs, the nobles are also the natives of the Horde. As well as Saburovs, Mansurovs, Terbeevs, Godunovs (from Cheta murza who left the Horde in 1330), Glinskiys (from Mamai), Kolokoltsevs, Talyzins (from Kuchuk Tagaldyzin murza)… It is desirable to discuss each family separately for they have done a lot for Russia. Every Russian patriot has heard about Admiral Ushakov while only a few know about his Turkic birth. That is the family of Redeg-Khan from the Horde.
    Cherkasskiy princes are from the family of Inal-Khan. "As a sign of nationality, - it is written in their genealogy book, - I sent to the sovereign my son Saltman and my daughter Maria, who was then married with the tsar Ivan Vasilievich, and Saltman was christened as Michael and granted the title of the boyar".
    Yushkovs, Suvorovs, Apraksins (from Salakhmir), Davydovs, Yusupovs, Arakcheevs, Golenischev-Kutuzovs, Bibikovs, Chirikovs… Chirikovs, for example, are from the family of Berke-Khan, Baty's brother. Polivanovs, Kochubeis, Kozakovs…
    Kopylovs, Aksakovs ("aksak" means "lame"), Musin-Pushkins, Ogarkovs (Leo Ogar was the first who came from the Golden Horde in 1397 - "a tall person and a brave warrior"). Baranovs… It is written in their genealogical book as follows: "Zhdan murza, the ancestor of the Baranov family, also known as Baran ("baran" means "ram" in Russian) and christened as Daniel came from the Crimea in 1430".
    Karaulovs, Ogarevs, Akhmatovs, Bakaevs, Gogol, Berdyaevs, Turgenevs… "The ancestor of Turgenev family, Leo Turgen, christened as John, left for the great prince Wasil Ioannovich from the Golden Horde…" That family was from the aristocratic community of the Horde as well as Ogarev family (their Russian ancestor - "Kutlamamet murza, also known as Ogar").

    Karamzins (from Kara-Murza), Almazovs (from Almaza, christened and Eropheus, he came from the Horde in 1638), Urusovs, Tukhachevskiys (Indris, the native of the Golden Horde, was their ancestor in Russia), Kozhevnikovs (from Kozhai murza, in Russia since 1509), Bykovs, Ievlevs, Kobyakovs, Shubins, Taneevs, Shuklins, Timiryazevs (there was Ibraghim Timiryazev who came to Russia in 1408 from the Horde).
    Chaadaves, Tarakanovs… and it will take a long time to continue. Dozens of the so-called Russian families had the Turkic ancestors.
    Should one be surprised that the Turki have become the bearers of more than three hundred common Russian names… Breath-taking changes! But that is Russian history where everything is abrupt.
    Observations of Yuri Tynyanov in his "Cannibals" are very expressive; he describes the descendants of Radshi-Khan known in Russia as Pushkins. It turns out not only the Tatars were becoming "the Slavs" but also the Western Europeans. For example, the German Gundret-Markt became Markov, Pagencampf became Pogankov, the Czech Garrah became Gorokhov, the Italian Basco became Baskov, the Dane Cos von Dalen became the Russian Kozodavlev. "Hazy great Russian noble state accepted and expelled people, - Tynyanov writes, - dug in the papers, rustled with true and false documents, observed the order of precedence, rummaged in beds. Because they needed a family tree and the easiest thing in a family tree are the first pages, then it becomes harder and harder." First pages - the indisputable ones - were read in Turkic. Some people succeeded in falsification of the "family trees" usually taken from Prussian or other faraway archives which it was impossible to verify.
    It is difficult to say who is who in Russia. And it is impossible to understand anything.
    What can be said if the family tree of Romanovs, the Russian tsars, begins from the Turki. Broad faces of the tsars with high cheek-bones, eyes color, body proportions convince of their Turkic origin like the documents. As a matter of fact, appearance is the best "document" of a person. And the main thing which makes one believe in the evident Turkic origin of Romanovs is their hatred towards everything Turkic… That is the most reliable evidence.

    In XVIII century the rulers of Russia created the modern ethnographic map; they did it at their discretion, as they wished: the whole provinces were registered as the Slavic ones. Thus Russia has become what was called by a Kipchak from Turgen family: "Russia is for thousands of versts around".
    At that time, in XVIII century - just about two hundred years ago! - inhabitants of Tambov, Tula, Orel, Ryazan, Bryansk, Voronezh, Saratov and other regions were called "the Tatars"… That was the former population of the Golden Horde! They are the Polovtsians. They are the Kipchaks… Isn't it interesting that ancient cemeteries in Ryazan, Orel or Tula are still called "Tatar" (That arouses a protest of anybody who is inadvertently familiar, for example, with the book "Struggle of Moscow State with the Tatars…" by A.A. Novoselskiy. In that book, openly and between the lines, rather interesting information is provided, which, maybe apart from intention of the author who cites historical documents, allowed us to come to conclusions being in contradiction with the official viewpoint about the history of south of Russia. Works by other Russian authors which are on the list of used sources, strengthened our belief in our own conclusions, or rather in their relevancy. ).
    Russian cemeteries appeared there just in XVIII century together with Russian settlements. And "ethnic misunderstandings" followed.
    The face of Desht-I-Kipchak was being changed in a keen manner; it wasn't even always perceptible. Say, in XIX century they proceeded to total plowing of the steppe (In the national cookery of the Kipchaks meat and mild dishes prevail and flour and cereal products take the second d place. And that is not a whim. That is the physiology of the nation: to lead a healthy life an organism of the Turki needs meet, sour milk, yoghurt, cheese, mutton broth at first and then porridge. Plowing the pastures, the colonizers made a blow to health of the nation destroying the originality of steppe inhabitants.). The Kipchaks were deprived if the pastures; they disturbed their way of life, the lands which were common became private property of the new Russians who cultivated them in a new "agricultural" manner… Otherwise their states would be taken away. By the way, that situation was described in "Dead Souls" by N.V. Gogol. Chichikov, the small officer, was buying his souls to take them away to the Steppe.
    Another method was also in use. It is seen in Bashkortostan history - agricultural repartition followed the hostilities there. They began in spring, "scorched earth" tactics was implied - they used to burn the villages. They were gradually depriving the free steppe nation of its districts and villages.
    A lot of military leaders were notable in that quiet "war": the Kipchaks were driven into the mines and designated to the plants as the slaves. The Bashkirs still remember Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov… Allah reward his deserts; he has deserved it.
    A. Donelli, the American professor, issued a sorrowful book "Conquest of Bashkiria by Russia in 1552 - 1740" where terrible facts are provided… Russian historians used to write about how Bashkiria voluntarily joined Russia. And famous rebels in Bashkiria were mentioned in passing.
    Plowing the lands of Desht-I-Kipchak, they "plowed" the monuments of ancient steppe culture - barrows, cemeteries, stone statues, remains of settlements. Not at once, of course, not all of a sudden. However, the time has come and they all disappeared without a trace. And there is nothing to witness of originality of the steppe nation.
    In Orel, for example, on the place of an ancient Kipchak cemetery which graves were destroyed by a bulldozer, a plant has been built. Who can prove now that a cemetery was there? Rumors are alive but they are not the evidence.

    On May 5th, 1997 the president of Russian Federation signed a Decree; that wasn't discussed by the media. It contains the list (of two newspaper pages) "of monuments of history and culture excluded from the list of monuments of history and culture of federal (All-Russian) importance." They were condemned to destruction by the state; and that list contains a great deal of the Turkic monuments! And to make it imperceptible they were placed near flat-museums of revolutionary activists.     
    … An essay by Ibn Battuta, who was called "Arabian Marco Polo" by the Europeans, shines like a star in the book by V.G. Tisengausen. That attentive Arab, skilful observer of life, and (frankly speaking) a gifted scout, made a traveling to the Golden Horde in 1335 and left "The Gift to the Observers Interested in World Countries and Wonders of Traveling" for the descendants. Excellent travel notes! A real dossier.

    While Marco Polo acquainted Europe with the "Book" in which he described the steppe east in 1298, Ibn Battuta did the same for the Arabic countries. They are the two great witnesses of Desht-I-Kipchak. They didn't think about politics, predilections or insincerity: they wrote what they saw. Customs, ceremonies, way of life.
    Ibn-Battuta wrote as follows: "That region where we stopped belongs to the steppe known as Desht-I-Kipchak". Noble-minded Arab retained the name of the land which has never existed according to the Russian "histories". He retained the name of the vanished nation.
    "Desht-I-Kipchak was the country that stretched for eight months of travel lengthwise and for six months of travel in breadth, - Ibn-Battuta continued, - Allah knows it better!" A traveler could see a lot during those eight months of travel - an entire world. Danube, Dnestr, Dnepr, Don, Itil, Yaik, Irtysh, Ob, Yenisei and Lena flew in the land of the Kipchaks which is unknown in Russia.
    Ibn-Battuta and Marco Polo showed there was no Wild Field to the south of Moscow. But there was the country which history was covered with fog. That country was really original.
    For example, here is an extract from Ibn-Battuta: "I saw a church, moved to it, found a monk inside and on the wall I saw an image of an Arab man in a turban, belted with a sword and with a spear in his hand. An icon-lamp was burning in front of it. I asked the Monk: "What image is this?" He answered: "That is the image of Ali the prophet", - I was surprised with his answer…" A good illustration of toleration and wisdom of the Kipchaks, those gentle children of the Great Steppe who, as we can see, bore direct relation to Islam.

    Regardless of everything, in V, in XII, in XVI centuries they kept on living "according to their rules" in the alien European lands - ancient steppe adats were above all for the nation… Steppe inhabitants kind of didn't see the hostility of the world around, they didn't understand their maladjustment to it. It is astonishing. Their number decreased, their lands were vanishing, but they didn't see it. Life has taught nothing those stubborn adherents of the steppe culture being proud of themselves.

    After all, were they able to know a friend from an enemy? Black from white? That question is not unnecessary in the history of the Kipchaks… Especially when their relations with Moscow were in question. Everything was in mist! Just through the prism of the centuries it is evident how Moscow was skillfully demoralizing the Steppe by example of the West - it always got away with it. Steppe inhabitants didn't see anything.
    It is possible that the fact that Moscow policy was led by the migrants from the Great Steppe who have become the Russians is important. Maybe, there is another reason… But in 1570 Ivan the Terrible incited Saryk-Azman (ataman of a little yurt from Don) to rob Polish and Nogai caravans. And the ataman started to do it for money. Don was in great trouble those days… Thus the Cossacks were enticed by an unjust deed. They started to tame them leading the policy of threats and bribery. "Bribery" was delivered through Saryk-Aman, and "threats" - through Nogai khans.
    Moscow lured the Don Kipchaks with generous charities the same as the Greeks dealt with Attila's warriors (the Turkic federates) in their time. The history repeated again. Everything was annoyingly simple and cheap but the policy was led with distant aims in view: again the Kipchaks were needed as "cannon-fodder".
    Ivan the Terrible, having conquered Kazan and Astrakhan, moved to the Caucasus: Moscow had serious plans at that time. Military successes turned its head and, no doubt, that was noticed in Europe. Rome was worried by impossibility to control Ivan the Terrible who was ready to act independently.
    Anxiety became stronger when Russian army turned to the Caucasus which was called a Caspian province (!) of the Roman Catholic Church at that time. It became evident: in the campaigns against the Caucasus Moscow had aims beyond the bounds of the Great Steppe.
    From 1560 to 1600 the Russian organized ten campaigns. But they were defeated ten times and failed to reach the mountains. After that Moscow, which pride was hurt, made a genius move in its foreign policy. In order to crush the minor enemy - as it regarded the Caucasian Kipchaks - it persuaded the Big Nogai Horde from Kazakhstan to come from Asia to Europe for money since the climate was softer and the lands were better there, remembering the main rule of diplomacy: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Later, under Peter, in 1708, according to the advice of count P.M. Apraksin, the Russians brought the Kalmyks to Europe from Mongolia.

    Don and Caucasian Kipchaks quickly sensed the newcomers: bloody wars for survival started in the Steppe. Don and Terek were separated from each other; the newcomers cut their lands from Volga to the Crimea… Everybody waged a war at that time except for the Moscow Prince who took the position of "happy third" waiting for the enemies to become weak.
    Trustful Nogai and Kalmyk leaders didn't even understand how they've become fully dependant from Moscow. Choosing their khan the Nogai would ask for permission of the Russian tsar. And choosing Ishterek-Khan the following instruction came from Moscow: "And later for the Nogai Horde to appoint the prince in Astrakhan before the boyars and the voevodes, according to their law, and not in their yurts, in order to make them act in compliance with the monarch's will and keep them in slavery forever (bold provided. - M. A.)".
    Moscow waged a war with Don, Terek, the Crimea using the Nogai and the Kalmyks; it divided the Kipchaks, it dismembered the steppe nation. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", indeed. But… it waged a war remaining the ally of Don and the Caucasus. Its double "divide and rule" policy was mentioned perhaps only in the Crimea.
    It is not surprising that in the beginning of XVII century building of the Russian fortresses commenced in the Upper Don as though for protection against the Crimean army. And the Kipchaks were promised evident advantages due to those fortresses - at first they used to buy the surplus of the harvest from the Cossacks. That was suitable for them. The distant defence system was being constructed since 1613: Sokolsk, Dobry, Belokolodsk and other Russian towns appeared in the Steppe. And Moscow markets were crammed with "steppe" goods - carcasses, for example, were sold not by weight but by eye.
    By its every action Moscow attracted the Steppe to it enticing it into the range of its interests and immersing it into the bog of its policy.
    In January, 1646 its first "quiet" invasion to Don began. It seemed they went there with peace having released 3205 free men to settle among the Cossacks but near the new Russian towns. But the Russians weren't accepted on Don - their flight from there commenced promptly. The following year they sent another 2367 persons to settle there, but they ran away even faster (This statistics is provided in the book "Attempts of Moscow Government to Increase the number of the Cossacks on Don in the Middle of XVII Century" by V.G. Druzhinin. It is shown with figures there that the Russians would run not to Don but from it.).
    In 1653 the owner of Romanov settlement (and not only him) complained the ataman that the dragoons from Sokolsk caused violence: "They break and steal, beat and rob on the roads, travel having gathered together, take hay away from mowing, seizure the lands by force". They Kipchaks put the impudent guests in their place. But not for a long time. Everything repeated the following year.
    Those settlements are also interesting for another reason: they started to invite the Turki to Russian army there - at first to unit transport, and then as the soldiers. New and new Cossacks left their nation becoming the serving Russian people. In 1671 they were allowed even to swear to the Russian tsar and get generous tsar's wages. Although they remained the nationals of their country… According to the steppe adat one could swear only once during the life and keep the faith to the swear until the end. And that was taken into consideration in Moscow while creating "the fifth column" in the Great Steppe!
    And together with the tsar's wages they obtained the name - a Cossack, which meant not the steppe estate as it has formerly been but a "participant of the Cossack army". And they started to write the word "Cossack" in Russian with the character "a" instead of "o".
    After that everything was predictable… During the Azov campaigns Peter I finally conquered the Don Cossacks with their own hands and introduced appointment of the atamans on Don in 1723. That meant that an ataman was not to be elected as it has always been but appointed by Moscow. That was it. The end of the Cossack freedom - there was no place for bribery any longer; they had only threats… They appointed only Russian atamans to be in command of the Cossacks.
    At first the appointed atamans obliged the Cossacks to learn the Russian language, otherwise nobody could be accepted in the army. And how could a Cossack do without military service? He was deprived of all the advantages and privileges which military service provided. That's why the Cossacks would stick to service.
    In XVIII - XIX centuries there were kind of two Dons on Don - men were obliged to speak Russian (the language of the service) and women still spoke their native Turkic language. It is interesting that the Cossacks still haven't forgotten their native language on Don, Ural; it is called their "home" language but it is hidden now like something improper.
    On September 9th, 1769 an order was issued, which caused the substitution of the Cossack national clothes for Russian uniform. So that they don't look like their ancestors. As though their skin was torn off… History retained the information about how certain Cossacks would fall down naked, wallow beaten on the Earth, freeze in the snow but would never put the Russian uniform on.
    On August 18th, 1801 another order was issued, which obliged the Cossacks to wear Russian uniform both at home and during the service. Later all other Cossack troops were obliged to do the same.
    Was it really like that?.. Russian historiography archly keeps silent on this point inventing the histories of the Cossacks one after another.
    But there are some things which cannot be ignored or concealed, - the archives. National archives where official acts are maintained. Not everyone has access there. And there it is evident that Ivan the Terrible and other Russian tsars (before Peter I) dealt with the Cossacks only through the Embassy Department since Desht-I-Kipchak was a foreign state! And the Cossacks weren't the nationals of Russia!
    In XVII century appeared a version according to which the Cossacks were fugitive Russian peasants. Who has invented that absurdity? There were no enough serf peasants in Russia to settle Don, Volga, Yaik, lower Dnepr, the Caucasus.
    In the course of the years a "scientific theory" concerning the eastern Slavs, whose culture was the copy of the Turkic one, was formed… They were making the Slavs of the Kipchaks in different ways. Some were ascribed to the Cossacks and sent to suppress their brothers with weapons. Disobedient settlements were sent to Siberia and taught to be not just the Russians but obedient Russians under surveillance of the appointed atamans. Thousands of Zaporozhye and Don Cossacks were taken to the morasses of Petersburg and sent to the Caucasus… "Slavic" Mother Russia was rising on bones of the steppe nation.

    The steppe nation was disappearing in other countries in surprisingly the same way. In Georgia, for example, though there was less blood there… The theme of Georgia is very interesting in general: in XI century, under David the Builder, about one hundred and forty thousand of Kipchak families moved there. They formed the core of David's army and united separate principalities of Iberia into a single strong Georgian state… "Gyurdzhi" was the Turkic name of that country of the bleu-eyed Georgians who radiated strength and warmth of the Great Steppe.
    There is no doubt that some facts from relations between the Georgians and the Kipchaks have been forgotten, others have been distorted. But there are untouched original facts. For example, judging by their family tree, Dadishlikiani princes are the descendants of the Kipchaks. And it is evident they are not the only ones. Contacts of the Steppe and the Caucasus really have a very long history. In IX - XIII centuries the Kipchaks sent women, children and the aged to the mountains from the separated Steppe. Gzak-Khan, for example, was hiding his son there - little Konchak. That Konchak who took the Russian tsar Igor prisoner and set Chernigov Principality on fire…
    Did the Kipchaks disappear as a separate nation of Georgia? Of course they did. In the course of the centuries they joined the Georgian culture, became intimate with it; they are called the Georgians or the Svans. Although the roots have been forgotten, the History hasn't, which allows to establish the relations between, say, Azerbaijan and Georgia, in another way - since these are sister nations.    
    The same historical foundation, though covered with Baltic sand, can be seen in Lithuania and Poland where a great deal of Polish and Lithuanian princes also have "steppe" family trees. And they are the Turkic Kipchaks wearing alien masks at a masquerade of life… Emblems and seals are of a great interest for an historian in this connection: Almost every second of them contains a tamga or another symbol pointing to the eastern origin of the family - time has no power over the traditions of armory.
    A tamga gives the key to solution of the family trees of, say, Dzyaduleviches, Tugan-Baranovskiys and other families which are evidently non-Turkic. Attention should be paid… For example, Tugurkan-Khan descendants are called Polovtsian-Rozhinskiys today; they've been living in Lithuania since XIII century.
    The Kipchaks gave "birth" to more than one nation, indeed.
    For instance - to the Caucasian Albania - the mysterious country about which not much is known. Unfortunately, that subject hasn't been seriously investigated. But sooner or later some of the young scientists would wonder why the symbol of the Caucasian Albania copies the tamga of the Turkic Alban family? That family moved to the Caucasus from Altai during the Great Nations Migration. Part of it still remains in Kazakhstan (According to the genealogical book of Alban family, they moved to the steppes of Kazakhstan 150 years before Common Era; they came from the Chuya Valley. It seems they are most ancient and respected family; it relates to the elder group of tribes. Respected (families, apparently?) kyzyl boric, konyr boric, aytbozim, segyz sary, kurman, alzhan, kystyk were among the Albans.)… And how did the Lezghins manage to know about Tengri? (Their Church worshipped Tengri until 1836 following the eastern tradition).
    The Udins (descendants of the Albans living in Azerbaijan) retained the spiritual culture of the Caucasian Albania. They also have another attitude towards Christ as compared with Rome or Moscow. They Church has always been standing on the same positions with the Armenian one… And are the numerous Turkic adoptions in the Lezghin language casual? Why can ancient dialect of the Turkic language be heard in certain Lezghin words and phrases? (A thesis on this subject has been written.) So who are they, those mysterious Lezghins? No doubt, they are a separate nation. And at the same time they are a mysterious nation having answers to many questions of the "Kipchak" history.

    The Turki move in mysterious ways on our planet… For example, certain Kipchak yurts in the Northern Caucasus have became Ossetian by the order of Moscow, and their inhabitants have become the Ossetins although they don't even look like them. A great deal of the Turki has been ascribed to the Chechens, Ingushes, Kabardinians, Circassians… The Kipchaks were assimilated with other nations. And they were assimilating, having been deprived of the Great Steppe.

    Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin is right: history should be the sacred book for nations, the mirror of their life and deeds, the percept of the ancestors to the descendants. Let this book be the beginning of such history for the Turkic (Kipchak) nation which has lost itself having presented a great culture to the world.
    And marquise de Quistine was also right when he wrote after the trip to Russia: "Seeing them and thinking what was existence for those poor things, I asked myself what has man done to God, for what were those people condemned to living in Russia?".
    For not being faith to God! For edification of others…

      Main Sources

Baskakov N.A. Russian Family Names of the Turkic Origin. M., 1993.
[Berberini] The Travel to Moscow of Raphael Berberini. SPb., 1843.
Herberstein S. Notes about the Moscow Acts. SPb., 1908.
Gorsey D. Notes about Moscow of XVI century. SPb., 1909.
Donneli A.S. Conquest of Bashkiria by Russia. 1552 - 1740. Ufa, 1995.
Jovius P. The Book about Moscovite Embassy. SPB., 1908.
Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. Vol. I - V. M., 1989 - 1996.
[Quistine] Notes about Russia by the French Traveler Marquise de Quistine. M., 1990.
Margulan A.K. Ancient Culture of the Central Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1960.
Margulan A.K. From the History of the Towns and Building Skills of Ancient Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1950.
Mekhovskiy M. The Treatise about Two Sarmatians. M.; L., 1936.
Murzaev E.M. Turkic Geographical Names. M., 1996.
[Nikitin] Voyage over Three Sees of Athanasius Nikitin 1466 - 1472. M.; L., 1948.
[Nikitin] Voyage over Three Sees of Athanasius Nikitin 1466 - 1472. L., 1986.
Novoselskiy A.A. Struggle of Muscovy with the Tatars in XVII century. M.; L., 1948.
Possevino A. Muscovy. Historical works about Russia. M., 1983.
Semenov V. Library of Foreign Writers about Russia. Vol.1-2. SPb., 1836 - 1847.
Skrzhynskaya E.C. Barbaro and Contarini about Russia. L., 1971.
Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to History of the Golden Horde. Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. I. SPb., 1884.
Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to History of the Golden Horde. Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. II. M.; L., 1941.
Fletcher J. About the Russian State… SPb., 1906.

	Adji Murad. Asia's Europa. Volume 1 (Europa, Turkic, the Great Steppe)   Author's Preface We are the Kipchaks! Altai Cradle The Great Nations Migration Our Spiritual Wealth European Kipchaks Part One “Moscow Stories” Saint Cyril and Methodius - Who Were They? “Mist” over the Baptism of Russia Rewriting History Kipchak Kiev Pictures on the Pages of the Chronicles Main Sources Part Two The World of the Wild Field Wild Field – The Great Steppe Main Sources Part Three Tengri-Khan and Christ, His Foster Son The Vanished Heritage Splits and Splitters Main Sources Part Four Desht-I-Kipchak – an Unknown Country? Main Sources Appendix Near St. George Spring “Gyurdzhi's Day” Different Georges The Voice of Forgotten Motherland The Mystery of the Cross “Iron Gates” Gregoris - George Diocletian Who Suffered Not Being Guilty Every Nation Has Its Own George Beginning of the Catastrophe The Great Enlightener of Armenia Contradictions Let the Christians Be the Christians again “Where Will this Lead? Where to Go?” Dzhalgan Settlement Spring of the Known Legend Notes and Comments to the Appendix Bibliography