“The Thirty Tribes of the Turks” — Mihály Dobrovits (2004)

THE THIRTY TRIBES OF THE TURKS

 

Acta  Orientalia  Academiae  Scientiarum  Hung., 2004

MIHÁLY DOBROVITS

 

Department of World History, University of Miskolc, H-3515 Miskolc, Egyetemváros, Hungary.

The present study first investigates the Turkic and Chinese terminology for nomadic tribes and tribal confederacies, then proceeds to analyse the famous passage to be found on the Chinese epitaph  of Princess Xienli Pijia (Bilgä), in which we are informed that the father of the Princess, Gudulu  (= Qutluγ) Mechuo was the Türk Khagan of the Thirty Tribes. Contrary to an older attempt of  K. Czeglédy at interpreting the numerical composition of the Türk confederacy, the author elucidates the question in another way. To his opinion the term Nine Surnames (jiu xing) stands for the toquz oγuz, to which the eleven tribes of the Eastern Turks must be added. These two groups make up twenty tribes, and adding to this amount the ten tribes of the Western Turks (on oq) we get the Thirty Tribes of the complete Türk confederacy.

Key words: Türks, nomadic tribes, confederacies, Inner Asia.

In the Turkic and Chinese sources a wide range of terms describing the Turkic tribal society can be found. In the Turkic terminology the most important expression for ‘tribe’ was bod, singular form of the collective noun bodun ‘tribal confederation, people’ (cf. T. I. W4: türk sir bodun yerintä bod qalmadï). Another term denoting ‘tribe’ was oq. According to the widely accepted view this term is etymologically identical with the Turkic word oq ‘arrow.’[1] The Chinese sources call jiu xing (‘Nine Surnames’) the confederation of the toquz ‘nine’ oγuz. It means that oγuz in itself could also mean ‘tribe.’ [2]

 

As far as Chinese terminology is concerned, we can see many expressions such as buluo, zhong, luo, bu, and xing. It is, however, next to impossible to define their exact meanings. As both H. Ecsedy and B. Csongor pointed out, only the term buluo can be translated in an exact way as ‘tribe.’ All other expressions are usually translated as ‘horde,’ without any attempt at finding out their exact connotations (Ecsedy 1972; Csongor 1993, p. 13). According to Ecsedy, the Chinese sources called the Turks buluo for the first time when their population grew more than ‘some hundreds of families (jia),’ under the leadership of the charismatic clan (xing) Ashina. As to the use of jia, Ecsedy called our attention to the fact that in connection with pastoral nomads the Chinese source generally preferred to use the term zhang ‘tent’ (Ecsedy 1972, p. 249). Otherwise, the most frequently used expression in the Chinese sources is xing ‘a surname, a clan, a people’ which in many ways became interchangeable with buluo. Xing could mean both ‘tribe’ and ‘clan.’ Together with a numeral it could also denote a tribal confederation, such as jiu xing ‘The Nine Surnames’ which stood for the toquz oγuz, shi xing ‘Ten Surnames’ for the on oq, i.e., the Western Türks, and san xing geluolu ‘Three Surnames of the Qarluq’ for the üč qarluq of the Turkic inscriptions. According to Ecsedy xing was the basic unit of any nomadic society. There were also many ways to speak about the Turkic society as a whole: in his letter, written to the Chinese Emperor Sui Yangdi (605–617) Qimin khagan (599–608) used the Chinese term tujüe bai xing ‘Hundred [i.e., All] Surnames of the Turks.’ In some cases guo ‘country’ also was in use.[3]

We have only one description of the tribes of the Eastern Türks at our disposal, namely the one to be found in the Tanghuiyao in which their tamγas and dwelling places were also fixed (Liu 1958, pp. 453–454; Zuev 1960). These were crucial pieces of information for the Chinese who were trading in horses with the nomads.[4] According to the Chinese source, the tribes of the Eastern Türks that lived to the north of the Gobi Desert were the following: Ashina, Helu, Ashide, Da Ashide, and Bayan Ashide.

The following tribes lived to the south of the Gobi Desert: Enjie (Sijie), Fuliyu, Qibi, Xijie, Huxie, and Nula.

The most interesting fact one can learn from these is that the tamγa of the tribe Ashina is completely different from that of the charismatic dynastic clan Ashina. The tamγa of the Ashina dynasty has its well-known shape of a mountain goat. The tamγa of the Ashina tribe resembles a horse-neck with mane, or perhaps a wolf-head.

 

Although many of these tamγas are resembling Chinese characters (but apparently none of them is identical with any of the real Chinese characters), they are undoubtedly original ones. Klyashtorny relied on them indicating that the tamγas of the Ashina dynasty and the tribe Ashide appear together in the inscription of Choyr (Mongolia) (Klyashtorny 1971).

This also means that a clear differentiation between the dynasty and the tribe Ashina existed among the Eastern Türks. The Chinese epitaph of Princess Xienli Pijia (Bilgä), the daughter of the Türk Qapγan/Mechuo khagan (691–716) provides us with a clear evidence of this situation. [5] According to this source, the second husband of the Princess held the title “The Heavenly Born (tianshangde = täŋridä bolmis)  Wise (pijia = bilgä) šad (sha) Khagan of the Thirty Tribes (sanshi xing tianshangde pijia sha kehan). [6] We are also informed that the father of the Princess, mentioned here as Gudulu (= Qutluγ) Mechuo khagan was the khagan of Thirty Tribes. At the beginning of his career, the father of the Princess ruled over the left wing of the Empire, then the Nine Surnames (jiu xing) were under his rule. Afterwards he became the ruler of twelve surnames (shier xing), and at least thirty surnames were under his overlordship. Thus, he became the lord of all who ‘button up their garment to the left,’ i.e., all of the Northern Barbarians. [7] This is a rather correct description of Mechuo khagan’s rise to power. 

 

Czeglédy (1972) was the first to try to identify these thirty tribes. According to him, if we identify the ‘Nine Surnames’ (jiu xing) of the text with the toquz oγuz, and there can be no doubt about this identification, the “Twelve Tribes” cannot be other than the confederation of the Türks. He was, however, misled by the famous Tibetan source referred to as Pelliot Tibétain 1283. This text—based on the relation of five Uighur explorers of Inner Asia after 750—often makes mention of the Türks as dru-gu. The text also mentions those twelve tribes that lived between the Copper City, legendary capital of the Western Türks (Tib. Pa-ker pa-lig = Tu. Baqïr balïq), and ’Bug-čhor. The names of these tribes were as follows: the tribe of King Ża-ma-mońan, then Ha-li, A-ša-ste, Šar-du-li, Lo-lad, Par-sil, Rńi-ke, So-ni, Jol-to, Yan-ti, Hebdal, Gar-rga-pur (Bacot 1956, p. 145). As to the Copper City, it was Czeglédy (1960) who identified it with Bešbalïq (Chinese Beiting, Iranian Panjikath) in Eastern Turkestan. As far as ’Bug-čhor is concerned, Louis Ligeti identified it with the Tibetan name of Mechuo khagan, and also with the land that formerly belonged to him, i.e., the realm of the Eastern Türks. Ligeti warned that Czeglédy’s attempt to identify the twelve tribes mentioned in  the Tibetan source with the Türks was wrong (Ligeti 1971, pp. 177, 178–179). Czeglédy (1982) also failed to prove his second idea according to which the number of the tribes of the toquz oγuz together with the ten tribes of the Uighurs were eighteen. [8] Czeglédy, however, was quite near the solution. The term Nine Surnames (jiu xing) really stands for the toquz oγuz. No further emendation is needed. The eleven tribes of the Eastern Türks together with the nine tribes of the toquz oγuz make up twenty. Adding to this amount the ten tribes of the Western Turks (on oq) we get the thirty tribes (xing) we were looking for. 

 

The last question left is the following: Who were then the “twelve tribes” (shier xing) mentioned by the epitaph of Princess Xienli Pijia? We can respond very easily: the twelfth xing was the dynasty itself. It was not a tribe, but an independent unit that had its own tamγa and also the term xing fit for it.

References:

Bacot, J. (1956): Reconnaissance en Haute Asie septentrionelle par cinq envoyés ouigours au VII^e siècle. JA, pp. 137–153.

Bazin, L. (1953): Notes sur les mots «Oguz» et «Türk». Oriens 6, pp. 315–322 = reprint in: Bazin, L.: Les Turcs : Des mots, des hommes. Budapest–Paris 1994 (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica XLI), pp. 174–176.

Bombaci, A. (1971): The Husbands of Princess Hisen-li Bilgä. In: Ligeti, L. (ed.): Studia Turcica.

Budapest (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica XVII), pp. 103–123.

Chavannes, Éd. (1912): Épitaphes des deux princesses turques de l’époque des T’ang. In: Festschrift Vilhelm Thomsen. Leipzig, pp. 78–87.

Clauson, G. Sir (1972): An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford.

Csongor, Cs. (1993): Kínai források az ázsiai avarokról [Chinese Sources on Asian Avars]. Budapest (Történelem és kultúra 8).

Czeglédy K. (1960): A Rézváros [Copper City]. Antik Tanulmányok 7, pp. 211–216 = reprint: Czeglédy K.: Magyar Őstörténeti Tanulmányok. Budapest 1985 (Budapest Oriental Reprints A3), pp. 354–359.

Czeglédy, K. (1972): On the Numerical Composition of the Ancient Turkish Tribal Confederations. AOH 25, pp. 275–281.

Czeglédy, K. (1982): Zur Stammesorganisation der türkischen Völker. AOH 26, pp. 89–93.

Dobrovits M. (2003): A türkök harminc törzse [The thirty tribes of the Turks]. Eleink. Magyar őstörténet 2003/2, pp. 23–28.

Doerfer, G. (1962): Zur Beziehung der Westtürken. CAJ 7, pp. 256–263.

Ecsedy, H. (1972): Tribe and Tribal Society in the 6th Century Türk Empire. AOH 25, pp.  245–262.

Golden, P. B. (1992): Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Ethnogenesis and State Formation in Medieval and Early-Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz (Turcologica, Bd. 20).

Hamilton, J. R. (1962): Toquz oγuz et on Uyγur. JA, pp. 23–63.

Klyashtorny, S. G. (1971): Руническая надпись из Восточной Гоби. In: Ligeti, L. (ed.): Studia Turcica. Budapest (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica XVII), pp. 249–258.

Ligeti, L. (1971): A propos du «Rapport sur les rois demeurant dans le nord». In: Études tibétaines dédiée à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou. Paris, pp. 166–189.

Liu, Mau-tsai (1958): Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Gechichte der Ost-Türken (T’u-küe). Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz (Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen 10).

Marquart, J. (1914): Über das Volkstum der Komanen. In: Bang, W.– Marquart, J.: Osttürkische Dialektstudien (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Neue Folge XIII/1). Berlin 1914.

Németh, Gy. (1921a): On ogur, hét magyar, Dentümogyer. MNy 17, pp. 205–207.

Németh, J. (1921b): On ogur, hét magyar, Dentümogyer. KCsA 1, pp. 148–155.

Pelliot, P. (1912): La fille de Mo-tch’o Qaghan et ses rapports avec Kül-tegin. T’oung Pao 13, pp. 301–306.

Pritsak, O. (1985): Old Turkic Regnal Names in the Chinese Sources. JTS 9, pp. 205–211.

Pulleybank, E. (1956): Some Remarks on the Toquzoghuz Problem. UAJb 28, pp. 35–42.

Rybatzki, V. (2000): The Titles of Türk and Uigur Rulers in the Old Turkic Inscriptions. CAJ 44, pp. 205–292.

Sinor, D. (1950): Oğuz kağan destanı üzerinde bazi mülâhazalar. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi 4, pp. 1–14.  

Sümer, F. (1999): Oğuzlar (Türkmenler). Tarihleri – Boy teşkilatı – Destanları. İstanbul 1999, p. 20.

Taşağıl, A. (1995): Gök-Türkler. Ankara (Atatürk Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, VII. Dizi – Sayı 160). 

Turan, O. (1945): Eski Türklerde okun hukukî bir sembol olarak kullanılması. Türk Tarih Kurumu, Belleten 9, pp. 305–318.

Zuev, Ju. A. (1960): «Тамги лошадей из вассальных княжеств» (Перевод из китайского сочинения VIII–X вв. Танхуйяо, т. III, цзюань 72, стр. 1305–1308). Труды Института истории, археологии и этнографии Академии наук Казахской ССР 8, pp. 93–137.

 

---

[1] Németh (1921a, 1921b); Clauson (1972, p. 76); Turan (1945); Gerhard Doerfer, on the contrary, read this expression as uq and derived its etymology from the Mongol uγ ‘Geschlecht, Familie; Herkunft’ (Doerfer 1962).

[2] On the various etymologies of the oγuz see the works of Németh cited above and also Marquart (1914, pp. 37, 201); Sinor (1950); Bazin (1953, pp. 315–322) = Bazin (1994, pp. 174–176); Hamilton (1962, pp. 23–25); Sümer (1999, p. 20); Golden (1992, p. 96).

[3] Ecsedy (1972, pp. 251–254). For the letter of the khagan in the Suishu, see Liu (1958, pp. 60–61); for another version incorporated into the Zizhi tongjian, see Taşağıl (1995, p. 167).

[4] On the horse fairs of the Türks, see Liu (1958, pp. 454–455).

[5] Chavannes (1912); Pelliot (1912); Bombaci (1971); Pritsak (1985, p. 207); Rybatzki (2000, pp. 227–228).

[6] Instead of Bombaci’s mistaken reading (san pu t’ien shang tê p’i-chia sha k’o-han: 1971, p. 117) we follow Rybatzki’s reading (2000, p. 228).

[7] Chavannes (1912, p. 83); Bombaci (1971, pp. 105–106); in a former and shorter Hungarian version of our article, we confused the husband and the father of the Princess, cf.: Dobrovits (2003, pp. 26–27).

[8] On this question, see also Pulleybank (1956); Hamilton (1962).