The Karaits of Eastern Asia :

By D. M. DUNLOP ;

A MONG the peoples of Mongolia at the advent of Chingiz Khan the Karaits |
(o>_^', CsAy) stand out for several reasons. First, we can trace a
them for more than three centuries, roughly A.D. 1000 to 1300. Second, in ji
them we have the unusual phenomenon of a Far Eastern nation professing
Christianity. Third, they have the interest of being connected with the story |
of Prester John, of which the attraction has not altogether vanished. In what •')
follows the attempt is made to give a connected account of these Karaits.
From the nature of the sources it will be confined largely to the history of their
ruling house.
According to Barthold the Karaits were Tartars.1 On his view it was only
after the rise of Chingiz Khan that the name Mongol came into use. This
appears to be based on the account given of the Tartars in the Memoirs of
the Chinese general Meng Kung (ob. A.D. 1246) and, evidently in dependence
on the general's Memoirs, in the History of the Five Lesser Dynasties.2 Accord-
ing to this account, the official Chinese view, the Black Tartars to whom
Chingiz Khan belonged were one of four groups—the others being the White,
the Wild, and the Water Tartars—which formed the nation. The Black Tartars
later, i.e. after his conquests, assumed the name of Mongols. On the other hand,
according to the Persian sources 3 the distinction between Tartars and Mongols
goes back long before this time, to Tatar and Mughul their eponymous ancestors,
the two sons of Turk. That is, Tartars and Mongols are alike Turks, and
further according to the Persian sources have from early times been bitter
enemies. Raverty, who assumes that this is in the main historical, adds that
this hostility has continued to be operative down to the present time.1 It will
be observed that while the Persian writers writing subsequent to the conquests
of Chingiz Khan may have set out a view which was acceptable rather than
true, the Chinese account appears to depend entirely on the solitary authority
of Meng Kung. Wherever the truth lies, the Persian sources state that the
Karaits were Mongols belonging to the Durlukin or " common ", as distinct
from the Nlrun or " pure ",5 division of the race. This distinction indeed
looks as if it dated from the time of Chingiz Khan, for evidently his own " pure "
1
E.I. art. Cingiz-Khan.
2
Klaproth, Asia Polyghtta, Paris, 1823, p. 206.
3
Cited by Raverty in his translation of the Tabaqat-i Nasiri of JuzjanI, pp. 873 n., 876 n.,
881 n., 883 n., etc. Unfortunately Raverty rarely gives the name of his authority, never an
exact reference.
* Ibid., 884 n.
* Following V. Minorsky, E.I. art. Sulduz.
 THE KAEAITS OF EASTERN ASIA 277

Mongols were before this subordinate to the "common" Mongols called

Karaits, as we shall see.
There is also uncertainty as to the seat of Karait power before it was over-
thrown by Chingiz Khan. Their territory was doubtless considerable. The
half^iozen tribes into which they were divided are named in one place.1 Else-
where the Karait " peoples " (f1_y>l) are referred to.2 We can say with certainty
that latterly at least Karakorum was a main centre of theirs, as earlier of the
Uighurs. This agrees sufficiently with Barthold's locating the Karaits on the
upper courses of the Onon and Kerulen and on the Tula.3 Later still, as we
know from the travellers, the descendants of Chingiz Khan held court at
Karakorum.
Sir H. Yule speaks of the Karaits in these parts as early as the ninth century.4
The reference, if right, would stand alone. But the source from which Yule
drew mentions only the Tartars,5 and it would be very hazardous to suppose
that these were mainly or in part Karaits, even if we allow that the Karaits
were Tartars.
It is not in fact till A.D. 1007 that there is definite mention of the Karaits.
Their conversion to Christianity in that year isfixedby good evidence. Accord-
ing to Abu'l-Faraj (Bar Hebrseus) in the Syriac Chronicle6: " I n this year
(A.D. 1007) the people of a certain nation, the Inner Turks in the East called
Krit (A*;a, <z*my, Karait) believed in Christ, became disciples, and were baptised
because of a miracle performed on their king." Abu'l-Faraj relates the circum-
stances more fully in the Ecclesiastical Chronicle 7 : "At this time (A.D. 1007)
'Abd Ishu', Metropolitan of Marv, one of the cities of Khurasan, sent word to
the Catholicus (the Nestorian Patriarch at Baghdad) that the king of a nation
called Krit (Karait), that is, the Inner Turks in the North-East, when hunting
in a certain high mountain of his territory, encountered deep snow and lost
his way in the pathless wilderness. When he had given up hope of his life, there
appeared to him one of the saints in a vision, saying to him, If you believe in
Christ, I will be your guide, lest you perish here. When he had promised to
be a lamb in the flock of Christ, he led him forth and set him in the open.
Having returned safely to his camp, he called to him Christian merchants who
were there and inquired of them about the faith. They told him that it is
incomplete without baptism. He received from them a Gospel which he adores
1
D'Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols, i, 48.
2
Raahidu'd-DIn, ed. Blochet, p. 199 ; Juwaini, ed. Mirza Muhammad, i, 26, speaks of " the
tribes of the Karaits" ( ^ J ^ ' j . U ) .
3
Loc. cit.
* Cathay, iii, 24. '
5
Klaproth, ibid., p. 204.
6
Budge's facsimile, fo]. 65v, col. 1, 1. 5.
7
Ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, iii, 279. The translation given by Budge, Monks of Kublai Khan,
pp. 34-6, has several mistakes. The form " Kayreth " cannot be right. The number of the
Karaits is not " two thousand ". His tr. " A man cannot be perfect except through baptism "
(see below) may be right.
278 D. M. DUNLOP— 1

daily. Now he has sent asking me to come to him, or to send him a priest 1
who can baptise him. With reference to fasting also he asked me, saying, 1
Apart from flesh and milk we have no other food. How then shall we fast ? I
And he said further that the number of those who believed along with him ;
amounts to 200,000 persons. The Catholicus wrote to the Metropolitan saying s
that he should send two persons, a priest and a deacon, and with them what 1
was needed for an altar, and that they should go and baptise all those who j
believed, and teach them the ways of the Christians. During the principal fast j
they should abstain from the eating of meat. They might be permitted to ;
drink milk alone, if lenten food is not to be found in their country, as they say." !
In the main this account is acceptable. The statement of the Karait that \
his country produced only flesh and milk as food is no doubt exaggerated. I
We read at a later date at all events of the use of flour among the Mongols.1
But we may accept, as Abu'l-Faraj the Jacobite did without reserve, that the
Nestorians did convert a Karait ruler at the date fixed by 'Abd Ishu"s letter.
The importance of the Nestorian Metropolitan of Marv has been mentioned
before now.2 It is natural that he should be regarded as an authority in religious
matters by Christians from the West resident in Mongolia. The number of the
Karaits is fixed at a reasonable figure. There are indeed no internal grounds
for doubting the account.
We have another version offering the letter of 'Abd Ishu' in a somewhat
different form. It comes from the Kitabu'l-Mijdal, or Book of the Tower, by
Marl b. Sulaiman, a Nestorian of the twelfth century, who wrote in Arabic.
Whether the text 3 is from the original edition of this work or a later recension
is not clear. Though there is some repetition, it seems worth while to translate
what is probably an older account than that of Abu'l-Faraj. In an unnamed
year a letter of 'Abd Ishu', Metropolitan of Marv, came to the Catholicus 4
to say inter alia that " a certain king of the Turks had become a Christian with
about 200,000 other persons. The reason was that having lost his way 5 when
he went out to hunt, in his difficulty he had seen a person who promised him
safety. Having asked his name, he was told, I am Mar Sergius (jL-^**), and
was ordered to become a Christian, Being told to cover his eyes, he covered
them, and when he opened them, found that he was in his own encampment.
He was astonished at that, and asked about the Christian religion and prayer
and the book of the Law, and was taught certain prayers. The Metropolitan
related that the king had written to him to come to him, and said that their
customary food was flesh and milk. The king had made a tent * (°fc£i-) to
1
The swaddling of JuchI in dough, Raverty, ibid., 1102 n.
2
Barthold, Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Mittel-Asien, p. 31.
3
In Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, iv, 484.
* Apparently Marl b. TobI (Howorth, The Kirais and Prester John, JBAS., 1889, p. 372)
who was the predecessor of the Catholicus Johannan (Assemani, ibid., ii, 443 ; iii, 584 n.).
D'Ohsson, ibid., i, 49, calls the Catholicus Joseph.
5
Read J±,.
6
Assemani translates " tabulam ".
 THE KARAITS OF EASTERN ASIA 279

serve as an altar, with a cross and a Gospel therein, and had dedicated it in
the name of St. Sergius. He had tethered mares 1 §j*s>-, a collective) whose
milk he took and placed before the Gospel and the cross. Saying such prayers
as he knew over it, he signed it with the cross, then took a draught, as did
the rest of the congregation. The Metropolitan asked permission of the
Catholicus for what the king and his people were doing, as they had no corn,
and the Catholicus ordered him to supply enough for the Paschal feast, and
also wine. It would be sufficient for them to abstain from meat during the
fast and restrict themselves to milk. If they were accustomed to sour milk,
let them use sweet, for the amelioration of their manners." 2
The additions here are interesting. We see the Karait ruler exercising
priestly functions, with an acceptable reason annexed for this : he had not
yet come in contact with Christian clergy, whose office he thus in ignorance
usurped. Later he or his successors may have abandoned the practice. At
any rate there is no further evidence for it. But generations after this we shall
more than once meet a tent used as a chapel in the entourage of Karait
princesses.
It is not till the first half of the twelfth century that we pick up the traces
of the Karaits.3 In a battle with the Tartars their chief Marquz Buyuruq was
taken prisoner and sent by his enemies to the Kin Emperor.4 Having been
handed over to the Chinese, the Karait was dealt with in the terrible manner
of the place and time by being nailed alive to a wooden ass.6 When the news
reached his people, the widow prepared to avenge her husband. A feast was
arranged and suitable provisions—ten oxen, a hundred sheep, and a hundred
skins of kumis—were got ready. But in the course of the feast, when the
Tartars were off their guard and unsuspecting, they were suddenly attacked
by armed men who appeared from the milk-skins and slew their unarmed
enemies till they had taken an ample revenge for their leader. Is this an episode
in the secular enmity of Mongols and Tartars, or rather in a little war between
the Karaits and certain (other) Tartars ? In any case the story makes clear
the primitive character in those days of the Karaits and their neighbours.
We are here shown the reality in contrast to the legend. Compare what we
read, for example, in the so-called Letter of Prester John to the Emperor of
Constantinople 6 : " When we go to war we have carried before us fourteen
1
A. has " saxum etiam alligavit". * Read J U | for ; U | .
8
So Howorth, History of the Mongols, i, 546.
* E. H. Parker in As. Quart. Rev., Jan., 1904 (quoted by Cordier, Ser Marco Polo, p. 56),
says that the K'eh-lieh or Karaits are mentioned in the Yiian Shi as holders of a patent under
the Kin dynasty, but are not mentioned in the annals of the Kin. But cf. Barthold, E.I. art.
Cingiz-Khan, col. 857a.
6
Cf. description of Chinese tortures in the Bodleian MS. Elliot 422, fol. 401a-fol. 402a,
referring to a rather later time, c. A.D. 1420. The MS. contains part of the last volume of Hafiz-i
Abrii's Zubdatu't-Tawarifch.
6
Translated by Sir Denison Boss in " Prester John and the Empire of Ethiopia ", ch. ix of
Travel and Travellers of the Middle Ages, pp. 174 seq.
280 D. M. DUNLOP

golden crosses ornamented with precious jewels, in the place of banners, and
each of these is followed by ten thousand mounted troopers and a hundred
thousand infantry. . . . The tables on which our courtiers eat are of gold and
some of amethyst. The standards supporting the tables are some of ebony and
some of amethyst. In front of the palace is the court in which our justice is
accustomed to watch the combatants. The pavement is of onyx, in order that
by virtue of the stones the courage of the combatants may be increased, etc."
It is generally agreed that the first piece of evidence for Prester John is in
the Chronicle of Otto of Freising.1 This prelate was a man of note. He was
a brother of the Emperor Conrad III, and is said to have been the first to
bring manuscripts of Aristotle in Greek north of the Alps.2 He relates that
while in Rome in 1145 he met the Bishop of Gabala (Jablah in Syria), who had
come on state business to Pope Eugenius III. In conversation with him Otto
had heard about a certain " Presbyter Joannes ", a Nestorian, described as
" a king and priest who lived in the Far East beyond Persia and Armenia ".
There is no reason to doubt the good faith of the German bishop. We may
assume that he had met the Bishop of Gabala in the circumstances indicated,
and that the latter, who may be expected to have been well informed on
Oriental politics, talked about a Nestorian ruler called John. But apparently
Otto retained only an imperfect impression of the details of his information.
He goes on to offer an account of an enterprise of Prester John which brought
that potentate as far west as Mesopotamia, where he is represented as wintering
for several years. This of course is unhistorical. We know of no such expedition,
and could not fail to have some account of it if it had taken place. Probably
Otto of Freising had been informed about Gur Khan (in Chinese records,
Ye-lti Ta-shi),3 who advancing from North China defeated the Saljuq Sanjar
in 1141 and founded the Qara Khitai power. But Gur Khan apparently was
a Buddhist,4 not a Christian, though he may have had Christian elements in
his army.5
This first reference to Prester John takes us to a date which may be within
the lifetime of the Karait chief Tughrul Tigin, a grandson of Marquz Buyuruk
already mentioned. Tughrul Tigin had his full share offightingin youth against
members of his own family. On one occasion we hear that he was dethroned
for a time by his paternal uncle, who had been in retreat among the Naimans,
but now assumed headship of the Karaits. Tughrul Tigin had recourse to the
father of Chingiz Khan, and the combined forces of these two inflicted such
1
Quoted by Asaemani, ibid., iv, 488.
s
Jocher, Gelehrten-Lexicon.
3
Ye-lu is the family name, Ta-shi is a personal name (Bretsohneider, Med. Researches, i, 211)
so not Ye-lu-ta-shih, as in " Prester John and the Empire of Ethiopia ", p. 182. Barthold,
E.I. art. Qara Khitai. says that" Gur is reproduced by Ye-lu ". Perhaps rather Ye-lu is reproduced
by Gur, as the Qara Khitai chief was Chinese. Gur Khan traditionally is the name of one of the
sons of Mughul b. Turk (Raverty, ibid., 875 n.).
4
Raverty, ibid., 927 n., says he was a Manichsean, but his wife was a Christian.
6
Barthold, Christentum, p. 56.
 THE KARAITS OP EASTERN ASIA 281

a severe defeat on the uncle, Gur Khan, that he fled for safety to the Tanguts,
and Tughrul Tigin resumed control of his people. It has already been mentioned
that the leader of the Qara Khitais who defeated Sanjar was also called Gur
Khan. Is it possible that the uncle of Tughrul Tigin is the same ? It will be
observed that if the identification is made Otto of Freising's statement about
a Christian ruler advancing victoriously to the West becomes plausible, for
Gur Khan the Karait was doubtless a Christian like other members of his
family. Mongols are mentioned in the armies of the Qara Khitais.1 The fact
that two of the Gur Khans, their rulers, were women (? regents) is quite in
keeping with a Mongol origin of the dynasty, for among the Mongols women
were not debarred from the highest places in the state. But in spite of .these
considerations the evidence is decisively against identifying the Karait and
the leader of the Qara Khitais 2 and giving the latter a Karait dynasty. Ye-lii
Ta-shi, Gur Khan, was an educated Chinese,3 not a nomad. The period during
which he might have been involved with the Naimans and other peoples of
Mongolia, i.e. before the foundation of his kingdom about 1128, appears to
fall before the time of Tughrul Tigin (who died hardly more than seventy years
old in 1202 or 1203) and perhaps also the father of Chingiz Khan (died c. 1170).*
further, it is not possible to identify Gur Khan, the son of Marquz Buyuruq
the Karait, with either the son or the grandson of Ye-lii Ta-shi, Gur Khan.
(The grandson, last of the Gur Khans of the Qara Khitais, is the Coir Khan of
some European accounts, who is said to have been succeeded by Prester
John.5 The last Gur Khan was in fact ousted by a Naiman, Kuchliik, and the
date 1098 given in connection with Coir Khan is certainly due to some mis-
understanding.)
Setting aside the view that there was any special connection between the
Karaits and the rulers of the Qara Khitais, we may now return to Tughrul
Tigin, or Ung Khan as he is usually called in later life. Broadly his life-story
is that after the death of the father of Chingiz Khan he was for a considerable
period the enemy of the son, but was later reconciled to him. Thereafter
Chingiz Khan acted for several years as his trusted subordinate, till finally
hostilities broke out again and ended in the complete defeat of Ung Khan.
He fled to the Naimans and was there put to death. The Naiman chief had his
skull encased in silver and studded with jewels, after which it was used as a
ceremonial cup.6 Chingiz Khan was after this left without a rival in Mongolia,
and the Karaits ceased to be an independent power.7
1
Raverty, ibid., 154 n., 264 n.
1
Rashldu'd-DIn expressly distinguishes the two. Quoted by Howorth, The Kirais and
Prester John, JBA8., 1889, p. 389.
* Bretschneider, loc. cit.
4
Yuan Chao, p. 92 (Howorth, JRAS., 1889, p. 375) gives 1171 ; Barth, E.I. Cingiz-Khan.
1167; Rav., ibid., pp. 899, 938, gives 1167 also.
s
Rubruquis, and following him Roger Bacon, Opus Mains, ed. Oxford, 1897, i, 367. The
- game account is given by Pagius on the authority of William of Tripoli in the notes on Baronius,
- s. ann. 1177. Notes 6 and 7 see page 282.
282 D. M. DUNLOP—•

What we learn of Tughrul Tigin, XJng Khan, from the Persian sources makes
clear that he had been " a man of war from his youth ". Nothing is said of
religious activities of his of any kind. Yet he is regarded by writers as the original
Prester John.1 This view is based partly on Marco Polo's identification of the
two names, partly on another passage in the Syriac Chronicle, where Abii'l-
Faraj speaks of " tJng Khan, that is, John king of the Christians, reigning over
a certain nation of Hun barbarians who were called Krlt (A*p, c* J>)"
(fac. fol. 125v, col. 1, 1. 18). Elsewhere (fac. fol. 142v, col. 1, 1. 4) he refers
again to " king John ", evidently meaning tJng Khan. But considering what
we know of Tughrul Tigin, Ung Khan, it is difficult to think of him in the
role bf priest-Mng, certainly not as the priest-king who caught the imagination
first of those Nestorians who may have seen him, then of the whole of
Christendom.
When Otto of Freising wrote of " Presbyter Joannes ", we have offered
the opinion that he did so after hearing of a Nestorian ruler of that name from
a reliable source. Then there was such a person before 1145, who can hardly
have been Tughrul Tigin because of the date. The name Johannan was perhaps
hereditary in the Karait ruling family. If it was assumed by the first Karait
chief to adopt Christianity in honour of the then Catholicus, as Barthold
suggested,2 derivations from Gfir Khan,3t3ng Khan,* etc., become superfluous.
An interesting question is raised by the tradition found in several Occidental
writers according to which there was a Christian ruler in the East about this
time called David. Vincent of Beauvais says 5 : " Anno Domini 1202 secundum
quosdam Tartari post occisionem domini sui exierunt in populorum destruc-
tionem . . . contra regem David dominum suum videlicet Presbyteri Joannis
quondam dominatoris et Imperatoris Indiae filium conspiraverunt." The
reference here is clearly to Tughrul Tigin, tJng Khan, who is represented as
a son of Prester John, i.e. presumably the potentate mentioned in Otto's
account of A.D. 1145. As there is no reason to suppose that Ung Khan was not
called Johannan, we may allow that Abu'l-Faraj, who> gives him this name,
was right. Now he appears as David. It is possible that, among the Christians
presumably, he had some such designation as Johannan David, like Khusrau
Anushirwan. It may be possible to see in the name of his grandfather Marquz
Buyuruk the Christian name Marcus ((j-*^-*, •£DQo£o). But the facts are
against assuming David as a name of Tughrul Tigin, ting Khan. It is mentioned
only in European sources. And, further, we seem to be able to trace the source of
6
Howorth, ibid., i, 62. Gibbon mentions that the skull of Cunimund, king of the Gepidse,
was similarly treated by his Lombard conqueror.
7
The mark of a " tarkhan "—a high officer among the Mongols—was a piece of cloth-of-
gold from the tent of Cng Khan worn hanging from the headgear (Raverty, ibid., 943 n.).
1
Browne, Persian Lit., iii, 11, for example.
* Christentum, p. 57. But see above, p. 278, n. 4.
9
Oppert's view, discussed by Barthold, loc. cit., who finds it possible.
* Or from " Cng " simply, as Abbeloos and Lamy, loo. cit.
' Quoted by Assemani, ibid., iv, 498.
 THE KAEAITS OF EASTERN ASIA 283

Vincent's story. While he certainly drew some of his information about Mongolia
from members of the Order of Preachers (e.g. his accountx of the Nestorian
" Rabbanta ", i.e. Sauma,2 whose life is now well known), there can be little
doubt that he got the name David from another source. According to the
chronicler Alberic,3 in A.D. 1220 after the capture of Damietta the Papal
Legate, to encourage the Crusaders evidently, caused to be read in public an
old Arabic manuscript. This had been found in a mosque, and its evident age
was seen by the onlookers. It was entitled the Book of Clement, and was alleged
to have been taken down from the words of St. Peter himself.4 Among other
things it contained the prediction that a king David was to come from the
East to the help of the Christians. The story became well known, and the
name David—which would appear to have been selected by the person who
composed this document for its Scriptural associations—was applied later by
Vincent to Ung Khan, the supposed Prester John.
There does not seem ground for regarding Tughrul Tigln as Prester John.
The interpretation suggested is that Tughrul Tigln, Ung Khan, though a
Christian by religion, bearing the Christian name Johannan, and possibly
still on state occasions performing priestly functions, derived all this by descent
from his ancestors. One of these, perhaps the first Christian Karait, rather
than Ung Khan himself, was the original of Prester John. We need not raise
the question of Africa and the Negus of Abyssinia as the source and prototype,
however, in spite of the uncertainty of our conclusion.5 The first documentary
evidence states that Prester John was a Nestorian, so that we can confidently
locate him in Asia, apart from the other evidence.
After the defeat by Chingiz Khan, when the leading Karaits were in danger
of their lives, a brother of Ung Khanfledto Tangut and was honorably received
by the ruler. He was given the title of Jakambu 6 (j5 U-). Some time later
his three daughters were married to Chingiz Khan and the conqueror's sons,
Juchi and Tuti. Of these Karait ladies Sarqutanl7 Begl, chief khatun
of Tub", is much the most important. Her sister Abiqah, who married Chingiz
Khan, was divorced by him some days later.8 Thereafter we hear of her annual
1
Quoted by Assemani, iv, 501.
1
See Chabot, "Histoire de Mar Jabalaha III et du moine Rabban Cauma," in Revue de
VOrient Latin, ii, 612.
* In the Accessiones Historical of Leibniz.
* Some of these details from another account by the Cardinal Oliver in Eccard's Corpus, ii,
1427.
6
Sir Denison Boss, ibid., p. 184. " My own impression is . . . that from the outset it (the
name Prester John) referred to the King of Ethiopia."
« Tibetan Dsambu, Ssanbo, Raverty, ibid., 1092 n.
' The edd. of Raehldu'd-DIn and Juwaini give various forms of the name. Mirza Muhammad
prefers J^y^ which by a slight alteration gives Sarqutanl, the Syriac form (not Sarqutanl,
as Budge). This has been adopted provisionally as the pronunciation is certain.
;.i* 8 Raverty, loo. cit. She is said to have been divorced in consequence of a dream. Cf. the
.Story in Abfi'l-Faraj, ed. Pococke, p. 435, which is wanting in the Syriac version, and seems
apocryphal.
284 D. M. DUNLOP—

visits to her sister Sarqutani, during one of which she and her son were said s
by some to have poisoned Kuyuk Khan. The life of the other sister, the wife
of Juchi, is passed over without even so much notice. On the other hand,
Sarqutani is an important figure. She may have observed how at the death
of Chingiz Khan his chief Matun, Burtah Fuchln, had been regent of the
empire for two years1 until the election of Ugedei Qaan to succeed his father.
It may be that Sarqutani decided she too would rule. As wife of the youngest
son, who by Mongol custom remained in the paternal encampments, Sarqutani
from the time of her marriage was at the real centre of the Mongol world.
After the early death of her husband in 1226, instead of marrying again she
devoted herself to the care of her four sons.2 Bar Hebraeus (Abu'l-Faraj)
mentions the admiration she won by her method of training them. He quotes
a poet who said of her : If I had seen one other such among the race of women,
I should have said that the race of women was superior to men (Syriac
Chronicle, fac. fol. 142v, col. 1). Unfortunately we have no details of how she
managed her brood. Three of them later reached the thrones of Asia. The
eldest, Mongke, succeeded his cousin Kuyuk, son of Ugedei, in the supreme
Khanate of the Mongols. Qubilai became the founder of a new imperial
dynasty in China. In conquered Persia and Iraq Hulagii, the third son, reigned
like an emperor. The grandsons of the brother of Ung Khan thus came to
control in fact a far larger territory than was ascribed to Prester John even
by the imagination of the Middle Ages.
Such greatness could not at once be achieved, even at the epoch when
ancient empires and institutions tottered and fell before the onslaught of her
countrymen. During the reigns of Ugedei and Kuyuk, the older line of the
house of Chingiz Khan, she and her sons remained in the background. The
family became known for rigid adherence to the ydsd or code of Chingiz
Khan.3 On the other hand, the good works of Sarqutani extended to men of
all faiths. Muslims especially benefited from her charity. In Bukhara she built
the celebrated Madrasah-i Khanl, where a thousand students received instruc-
tion, and the best Muhammadan scholars of the age were to be found. At
Bukhara too she gave a large sum in gold for a pious foundation to commemorate
the Shaikh. Saifu'd-Dln al-Bakharzi.4 Though politics rather than religion
would seem to have been her main preoccupation, she earned the praise of
Bar Hebrseus, who in the passage already noted characterizes her as another
Helena. Her support of her Christian co-religionists must have warranted this
high praise.
1
Raverty, ibid., p. 1105 n.
2
tJgedei wished her to marry his son Kuyuk.
3
Juwaini, i, 199.
4
The passage is Juwaini, i, 85, top from p. 84, and reads : Llj ZI£j* & tjv»

E.I. art Bukhara says somewhat inaccurately: " Siyarkukteni . . . built a Madrasa called the
Khaniya in Bukhara . . . Saif al-Din Bakharzi ( ? ) . . . was appointed its mudarris. Mas'udBeg
also built a Madrasa . . . in these two institutions nearly 1,000 students were maintained."
 TJIE KARAITS OF EASTERN ASIA 285

By the time of the quriltai or assembly which elected Kuyuk to succeed

his father, Sarqutani and her family had acquired a leading position. JuwainI
represents their splendid entry in state x and says that they cast their pre-
ponderating weight into the scales to secure the election of Kuyuk.2 Clearly
Sarqutani had no wish for a rupture in the state. It was she who by arrangement
with the new supreme Khan had the task of distributing valuable presents to
the leading personalities on this occasion.3 During the reign her family held
themselves in the background, but are mentioned as before as attracting
attention, and the legality of their actions is duly noted.4 When Kuyuk died
the favourable opportunity at last came. The oldest survivor of the family
of Juchi b. Chingiz Khan and the most influential member of the ruling house
was Batu, who lived far to the West in the old Khazar country. Relations
had not been good between him and Kuyuk, and Sarqutani appears to have
made the most of this. Already before the Khan's death she had been in
correspondence with Batu. Now Batu suggested that the leading princes
should visit him in the Dasht-i Khazar, so that a quriltai might be held
there 5 and a new Khan appointed. He declared that he himself was unable,
through illness, to travel to Karakorum. The other members of the family
were unwilling to comply with this, but Sarqutani saw to it that her own '
son Mongke and apparently also his brothers should act on their uncle's
suggestion and visit him in the West. Batu was greatly pleased with MQngke.
In the event he was elected.
The elevation of her son doubtless meant that the ambition of Sarqutani
was attained. Thereafter we hear little of her.8 At her death in 1251 or 1252,
though a Karait and a Christian, she had raised herself to a position in the
empire comparable to that of Burtah Fuchln earlier. But the one was wife
of the conqueror, who had been his companion from early youth in all his
struggles, and in a true sense was mother of the Mongol people, while the other,
Sarqutani Begi, belonged to the family of a defeated and dethroned rival.
Contemporaries made the comparison, and found that she was superior to
Burtah Fuchln. It was said that, unlike the other, Sarqutani after her husband's
death had a mind elevated above thoughts of marriage. Certainly she was a
remarkable woman, on a par with any which the wild environment produced,
and clearly the careers which she had helped to open before Qubilai and Hulagii,
to say nothing of her first-born Mongke, were not less splendid than those of
tjgedei, Chaghatai, and Juchi, the sons of Burtah Fuchln and Chingiz Khan.
1
Ibid., p. 204.
2
Ibid., p. 206.
» Ibid., p. 209.
« Ibid., p. 211.
6
Howorth, ibid., i, 170, says that Batu called the assembly at " Alaktak ", apparently
'Ala Tagh. Cf. Raverty, ibid., 1178 n.
* The last incident mentioned is that the wives of the chief conspirators against Mongke
were taken to the urdu of Sarqutani, and were there rolled in felts by the other women and
drowned. Raverty, ibid., 1185 n.
286 D. M. DUNLOP

It is said that Tflli afterwards married another Karait lady.1 She was
daughter of a son of Ung Khan called TJnghu, and her name was Duqiiz'
Khatiin. On Tuli's death this niece of Sarqutani Begi became the wife of
Hulagu. Her merits are vouched for by Christian and Muslim sources alike.
When Hulagu set out on his Persian venture which was to destroy not only
the Assassins of Alamiit but also the more venerable power of the Caliphate,
he was advised by his elder brother Mongke to consult with Dflquz at all times
in all things.2 We do not indeed hear about her influence in politics. She is
mentioned as interceding for the Sultan 'Izzu'd-Dln Kai-Ka'fls of Rum at
Hulagu's camp.on one occasion.3 But her influence in religious affairs is very
marked. It is said that Hulagu greatly favoured the Christians on her account,
and allowed churches to be built throughout his dominions.4 The arrangements
which she made for worship as she travelled in Persia and elsewhere recall the
primitive arrangements of that ancestor of hers who is the probable prototype
of Prester John. " At the entrance of the ' urdu ' of this Khatiin a ' kalisah '—
church or chapel (felt tent)—was always pitched, and they used to sound the
' naqus '—a thin oblong piece of wood," so called, suspended by two strings
and struck with a flexible rod called ' wabil', used by Eastern Christians to
summon the congregation for divine service." 5 •
Her interest in religious affairs is illustrated by the Syriac writers. We hear,
for example, of the church which she built at Ala Tagh, then an important
centre.6 She was interested, as was natural, in appointments to high office
in the Nestorian Church. We learn that she resented the manner in which the
high merits of a clergyman called Denha had been passed over, and when the
see of the Catholicus became vacant in 1266 it was she who secured his election.7
It is somewhat remarkable to read of one of the subsequent actions of this
meritorious prelate.8 Having appointed the Bishop of Tus as Metropolitan of
the Nestorians in China, he became irritated against his nominee, withdrew the
appointment, and had him imprisoned at the monastery of Lahqah (CTIOJ*^).9
The bishop managed later to escape from confinement, but was captured and
returned by some mountaineers. A few days later he and his companions were
found dead in their cells. Reports most unfavourable to the Catholicus were
circulated, and it was commonly supposed that the bishop had been poisoned.
We know that Duquz, unlike her relative Sarqutani, was intolerant of the
1
Abu'l-Faraj, Syr. Ohron., tr. Budge, p. 419 ; and the Mu'izzu'l-Ansab quoted by Blochet,
Introduction, p. 200, which says she was the daughter of J£J\> son of Cng Khan.
1
Raverty, ibid., p. 1193 n.
• Ibid., 1262 n.
1
Raverty, ibid., 1193-4.
5
Raverty, loc. cit. Kuyuk Khan had before his tent a chapel, which was seen by Carpini
(How., ibid., i, 165). A very magnificent chapel tent was sent to him (Kuyuk) by Louis IX.
It was of scarlet cloth, and contained chalices, books, etc. (Howorth, ibid., i, 170).
• Budge, Monks of Kublai Khan, p. 202.
' Assemani, ibid., ii, 251.
8
Ibid., ii, 255.
• Budge calls this place " Lakha ", Monks, p. 60.
 THE KABAITS OF EASTERN ASIA 287

Muslims. She is said to have been " a very devoted Christian, employing all
her attention in destroying the mosques of the Saracens, and reducing them
to such a state of servitude .that they no longer dared show face ".* Where
Abii'l-Faraj records the death of Hulagu and herself, it is the husband who is
commended for his " wisdom, magnanimity and remarkable exploits ". Abu'l-
Faraj indeed calls her " the believing queen and lover of Christ ". The Armenian
" History of the Orpelians "—a great family of that nation—speaking of the
deaths of Hulagu and his queen, observes: " The Lord knows that they were
hardly inferior in well-doing to Constantine and his mother Helena " 2—the
same comparison that we .have seen applied to Sarqutanl. The same authority
has it that the Il-Khan and Duqiiz Khatun " were both poisoned by the
artifices of Sahib-Khwajah ", i.e. Shamsu'd-Din Muhammad.3 Abu'l-Faraj,
like the other accounts, says nothing of this. What appears to be his tempered
praise of Duquz Khatun may be due to certain defects or limitations, of which
he was personally aware.
When Hulagu died, Abaqa was raised to the throne of Persia. His baptism
is doubtfully spoken of.4 He was not, as has been said, the son of Dflquz
Khatun, but she was interested in his succession and wrote about it to the
Armenian Vartan. Her influence may probably be seen in the case of the
brother and successor of Abaqa, Ahmad Takudar who was baptized in infancy
with the name Nicholas.6 But at the beginning of his short reign he announced
his conversion to Islam. Ahmad Takudar was succeeded by Arghun, his nephew,
grandson of Hulagu, who also had a Karait lady as wife.
This was Uruk Kha.tun, the third Karait princess who left her impression
on Mongol history. She was niece of Diiquz, the daughter of a brother SarujI,6
and great-granddaughter of Ung Khan. That she inherited the traditional
Christianity of the family is clear from Hayton the Younger, who mentions
her chaplain and chapel, and reports that her son by Arghun, the later Il-Khan
Uljaitu, was also baptised in infancy as Nicholas.7 The rather remarkable
birth of this prince while his mother was travelling between Marv and Sarakhs
is noted by the historians of the period. The chapel mentioned by Hayton is
doubtless the same kind of tent as we have met before among these Karait
Christians.8
Uruk Khatun is mentioned as cultivating the society of the Catholicus
Yab Allaha. This prelate was himself an Uighur and thoroughly conversant
1
Hayton, Oriental History, ch. 27.
1
Saint-Martin, Mimoires, ii, 151.
* The brother of the historian JuwainI is meant.
* E.g. by the Armenian Vartan, ed. Dulaurier in Journal Asialique, 1860, V, xvi, p. 309.
' Hayton, ibid., oh. 37.
6
Howorth, iii, 535, " Sarije." Howorth, JUAS., 1889, p. 425, thinks that this is the George
mentioned by Marco Polo as " of the lineage of Prester John ", or as his grandson.
7
Ibid., ch. 45. Chabot, ibid., 267 n.
8
Vartan, ibid., p. 290, says it was of linen, in the time of Duquz. Probably we should not
i on the primitive tent of felt being retained.
288 D. M. DUNLOP—

with all things Mongol, particularly the language, and it was indeed to these
advantages that he owed his elevation to the headship of the Nestorian Church.
It is thus very natural that while her husband was alive Uruk Khatun and the
little boy Uljaitu went often to see the Catholicus.1 Yab Allaha doubtless had
hopes of seeing the boy enthroned as a Christian king. He was not the only
ecclesiastical dignitary who was interested in Uruk Khatun and her family.
Pope Nicholas IV in 1291 addressed to her a letter of commendation and
counsel and expressed a prayer for the conversion of her husband Arghun.
He also sent a letter to the young Uljaitu.2 The hopes of both Pope and
Catholicus were, however, disappointed, for when Uljaitu began to reign he
favoured the Muslims.
In the same generation we come to practically the last episode in Karait
history—the unsuccessful revolt against the ll-Khan Abu Sa'Id under the
Karaits Qurmishi and Irinjin, the brother of Uruk Khatun. The causes which
led to the outbreak are obscure, but clearly connected with the power of the
Amir Chiiban, on whom Abu Sa'Id depended. It is too much to say that any
feeling of enmity on the part of the insurgents as Karaits against the descendant
of Chingiz Khan led to their revolt. Equally, if they had been successful we
can hardly envisage a Karait kingdom professing Christianity. Irinjin himself
was a Christian, and is mentioned as defending the rights of the church at
Tabriz, where members of the family were buried.3 When the Catholicus
Yab Allaha visited the city towards the end of his life, he was given a splendid
welcome by the Karait and his royal wife, the daughter of Ahmad Takudar.4
But the Christianity of the family was now wearing thin. Certainly Shaikh
'Ah", the son of Irinjin, a personal friend of the sovereign, was a Muslim.
When eventually the opposing parties met in battle, great bravery was
shown on both sides. Abu Sa'Id, determined to make good his sovereignty,
fought boldly in person, afterwards being known by the designation of Bahadur
for his spirited conduct on this occasion. On the rebel side Irinjin was followed
into battle by his wife, who is said to have equalled him in her performance.
Fortune favoured Abu Sa'Id. After swinging this way and that, the battle
ended in his favour. Irinjin was made prisoner and died under cruel torture,
being suspended alive over braziers.5 His wife was also taken and stoned to
death according to the ydsd of Chingiz Khan.6 Other members of the
family were killed before the end, so that, though the other Karait leader-
escaped, the result was disastrous for the old ruling house. Indeed they never
recovered from the debacle, and though a daughter of Irinjin survived, among
the amirs who contended for power after the death of Abu Sa'Id there appears'
1
Budge, Monks, p. 255.
2
These letters in Chabot, ibid., pp. 623 seq. It is usually assumed that " Anichohamini"
is Uruk Khatun.
s
Budge, Monks, p. 257.
1
Ibid., p. 304.
5
For Mongols using torture cf. JuwainI, i, 37.
6
According to d'Ohsson, ibid., iv, 636, she was killed in the melee. Cf. Howorth, iii, 595.
 THE KAKAITS OF EASTERN ASIA 289

no mention of a Karait.1 It is indeed a strange ending for the house of Prester

John. But, as we have suggested, there was now little to distinguish these
descendants of Christian kings from the other Turkish amirs who henceforward
occupy the stage. The wonder is that the old differentiation existed so long.
It remains to mention some earlier activities of other Karaits. The name
of the Hazarahs, a people in present-day Afghanistan, appears to commemorate
the settlement in those parts of certain hazarahs or " thousands " of the
Mongol forces after their conquest in the early days of the empire. One of
these was commanded by the Nuyin Muqah, a Karait, which may have been
the same hazarah of Karaits as was at one time led by Chaghatai b. Chingiz
Khan.2 Some of them also were sent to the frontiers of Khitai by Kuyuk
under the great Mongol general Subutai. But what became of this expedition
we are not told.3 At the present time the descendants of the Karaits are to
be looked for in a branch of the Kirghiz, the Kireis.4
Finally mention should be made of Qaibiiqa, a trusted lieutenant of Hulagu,
who after assisting him in Persia was left in command in the West when Hulagu
himself had to go elsewhere. It is said that as a Karait and a Christian he
favoured his co-religionists, the Christians of Damascus, so that the indignation
of the Muslim population was aroused.5 Later Qaibiiqa met his death in Syria
at the hands of the Mameluke Saifu'd-Din Qutuz.
1
In the Ta'rikh-i Rashldi, however, " Uzbeg TImfir who was of the tribe of the Karait"
and " the men of the Karait " are mentioned in connection with Tlmiir-i Lang (tr. Sir Denison
Ross, p. 39).
2
Raverty, ibid., pp. 874 and 1093, nn.
' Raverty, ibid., p. 1152, n.
4
Cf. Howorth, ibid., i, 558. For his later views, ibid., 696. Later still he argued strongly
that the Karaits were Kirghiz, JRAS., 1889, pp. 378 seq. The Kireis were visited in 1912 by
Mr. Douglas Carruthers. See his book, Unknown Mongolia, London, 1913.
5
Raverty makes him a Naiman (ibid., p. 1277). According to Juwaini, i, 48, most of the
Naimans were Christians. Howorth had found this " almost incredible to suppose " (ibid.,
i, 541).