In 2013 R.P. Khrapachevsky published a monograph "The Polovtsy-Kuns in the Volga-Ural Interfluve (according to the Chinese sources)". The review outlines all the advantages and disadvantages of this academic work. Two main advantageous moments in the book under review are as follows. Full biography of Tutuq translated into Russian. More extensive argument of the thesis about the correct reading of the name of a distant ancestor of Tutuq (Qu-nien "Kunan" rather, than Quchu). Otherwise, the book

more »

... nder review contains a large number of errors which nullify those advantageous points raised above. It is worth noting that in terms of historiography R.P. Khrapachevsky ignores and does not use a lot of work on the Kipchaks, such as the works of S.M. Akhinzhanov, Ya.V. Pilipchuk, P. Pelliot, etc. Also the hypothesis that the Hunan (tribal chief of Tsubu tribe) is identical to Kunan (ancestor of Tutuq) is very perspective. The hypothesis of R.P. Khrapachevsky that Hunan and Kunan are two different people are not reasoned. In his book R.P. Khrapachevsky put forward the following theses: the real name of the Tutuq's ancestor was not Qu-chu (Kucuk) but Qu-nien (Kunyan in the interpretation of R.P. Khrapachevsky). The name of Kunyan, who was the leader of the tribe of Kuns and ancestor of Tutuq, is translated as a "sample (example) of the Kuns". According to R.P. Khrapachevsky, Inasy, the grandson of Kunyan, was born about 1115–1120 and died between 1208 and 1217. So, Kunyan was born in the middle of 12th century and led the migration of Kuns. The horde of Inasy first encountered the Mongols in 1208–1210 to help Khudu, chief of the Merkit tribe. All theses of R.P. Khrapachevsky contradict the primary sources' information and hypotheses of other authors who have studied the Kipchaks. According to the Yuan-shi and Nasavi, the ruling tribe of Kipchaks was Bayaut but not Kun.