the golden horde and the black sea 231
been governor of the peninsula. this would explain why his son Ilyas took
over the office in the autumn of 1380, while Qutlugh Bugha was caught up
in the maelstrom of the war, then surrendered the position to his father
once more in 1382 when he returned to the crimea to take up his function
as ‘lord of Solkhat.’
When Ilyas fought to defend his family’s ancient rights during the events
of 1380–1381, this is revealing of the relations of a nascent local autonomy
with the central power and with the neighbouring coastal Genoese. Like-
wise, when toqtamïsh named cherkez, the leader of the tartar delega-
tion in November 1380, as ‘lord of Solkhat and the people of the island of
Solkhat,’348 this meant that Ilyas, who had been lord in the crimean capi-
tal until that moment, was deposed. though there are no direct references
to tell how Qutlugh Bugha’s son responded to this demotion, his reaction
must have been extremely vehement, since on 20th November, no more
than a week before the treaty was signed with cherkez, the government
of caffa paid a certain teofilatto Segnorita to kill the ‘Saracen of Solkhat,’
described with unusual rancour in the source (a city accounts book) as an
enemy of mankind and of the Genoese.349
the crisis could not be solved there on the spot: Ilyas was unable to pre-
vent the consul of caffa from making the treaty with toqtamïsh, through
cherkez, and the Genoese were unable to eliminate their enemy from
Solkhat. Instead the conflict was solved on a much larger scale, taking in
the whole of the Golden horde, and based on a reconciliation between
the nomad aristocracy of the Western part of the ulus of Jochi and the
invading khan from the east. a ruler from the White horde now sat on
the throne at Sarai, the first such to be recognised by tartars from both
the right and the left bank of the Volga. the emirs who had abandoned
Mamai had not in vain submitted to toqtamïsh, who confirmed their old
privileges and opened for them the path to high state office. the case
of Qutlugh Bugha demonstrates the unifying khan’s conciliatory attitude
toward former adversaries.
had the same name; Spinei, Moldova, pp. 274 ff., suggests that these are one and the same
person.
348 the treaty text records that the appointment was simultaneously with his nomina-
tion as negotiator: Cum [.. .] de lo imperao Jharcasso segno, quando elo fo mandao per segno
in Solcati e do lo povo de la ysora de Sorcati per cercare la amistai e lo amo (Sacy, “pièces,”
p. 53, Desimoni, “trattato,” p. 162).
349 Iorga, Notes, I, p. 17.