226 chapter four
the underlying political plan kept the same essentially unitary character
once it had been so suddenly revived in 1380. It was also a remarkably
original plan. While the khans’ efforts had for half a century been directed
toward policies aimed against Genoa and obviously favouring the Vene-
tians, toqtamïsh took exactly the opposite approach to ties with the Ital-
ians: he was unprecedentedly generous to the Genoese merchants, and in
another innovative move, did not hold back from putting this into writing
in a series of official treaties. these reflect the political circumstances in
which they were concluded.
the earliest of the treaties was signed on 27th November 1380.329 the
“great commune” of caffa was represented at negotiations by a delega-
tion led by Gianone del Bosco, the consul of caffa and of all Genoese on
the territory of the Golden horde.330 the tartar delegation was led by
cherkez,331 as “lord of Solkhat and of the people of the crimea”332 and as
the khan’s representative.333
329 Sacy, “pièces,” pp. 53–55, published the text of the treaty as it was written in Genoese
and translated it into french (pp. 55–58); the Genoese version represents a translation of
the lost original in lingua Ugaresca (cuman, written in uighur characters), written down
by order of the consul at caffa, Meliaduce cataneo, on 28th July 1383; this is the only
copy of the treaty that has been preserved, and is also published by Desimoni, “trattato,”
pp. 162–166; cf. ciocîltan, “reichspolitik,” pp. 261 ff.
330 these latter are referred to as Franchi conachi; Sacy, “pièces,” p. 55 note 2, interprets
the second word as a calque of the cuman konak, meaning ‘auberge, hôtellerie [.. .] hôte,
étranger à qui on donne l’hospitalité’ with the same connotations as the Latin equivalent
hospes used in central and Western europe. the treaty refers to Franchi conachi [.. .] in
toto imperio di Gazaria, important for the evidence this provides about the usage of this
geographical term: Gazaria is frequently encountered in Genoese documents and referred
not just to the crimea (as some scholars imagine) but to the Golden horde as a whole
unless further specified.
331 Sometimes called Jharcasso in the text and sometimes Zicho. Sacy, “pièces,” p. 56
note 1, supposes that the latter name is a corruption of sheikh, but it is rather the singular
form of Zichi, a name widely used in the Middle ages for the circassians, alongside Jhar-
cassi (cf. also Smirnov, Khanstvo, p. 134); the Zicho of the document is probably the same
as Sichibey, signor de la Tana, mentioned in 1347 (DVL, I, p. 312) and as Ḥajjī cherkez, who
had been governor of astrakhan in Mamai’s day (tiesenhausen, Sbornik, I, p. 391, Smirnov,
Khanstvo, pp. 230–231).
332 Sacy, “pièces,” p. 53: segno in Solcati [= Solkhat] e de lo povo de la ysora de Sorcati
[= crimea].
333 although the khan is not named, we are certainly dealing with toqtamïsh here and
not Mamai, as Brătianu, Mer Noire, p. 274, supposed, or with Konak Bey, as Basso, Genova,
p. 99, assumes on no evidence; the document makes a clear distinction between imperao
and Mamai segno (Sacy, “pièces,” pp. 55, 57). cherkez came to negotiate cum lo paysam de
lo imperao, which S. de Sacy (p. 56) takes to mean “avec les gens du pays,” although paysa
is in act a Mongol term, payza, baysa, meaning a tablet of gold, silver, iron, bronze or
wood, bestowed upon a khan’s plenipotentiary (Grekov, Yakubovskiy, Orda, p. 472).