Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk

An overview of the origin tales of the Türks (Kök Türks) that were recorded in the Chinese dynastic and other historical works written during the Türk era (552–ca. 744) and in subsequent official histories (e.g., the Zhoushu, Suishu, Beishi, Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu), historical handbooks (the Tongdian) and historical collections (e.g., the Youyang zazu [and the Taiping Guangji] and the recent translations of and scholarship on them). Also included is a discussion of a Uyğur-origin Tibetan ‘report’ on the ‘Northern Peoples’. The article focuses on the Ashina-Türk grouping that became the founding and ruling clan of the Türk Qağanate. The shaping of the Ashina-Türk took place in a range of areas extending from the Chinese border zones of Gansu and Xinjiang to Mongolia and Southern Siberia. The Ashina-Türks appear to have been a ‘composite’ of peoples with a variety of ethno-linguistic affiliations. A lupine ancestor figures in most of the origin accounts.

An overview of Turko-Iranian historical and cultural contacts during the Middle Ages - Correction! This is “Turks and Iranians: Aspects of Türk and Khazaro-Iranian Interaction” Turco-Iranica: Language and History, A Workshop within the framework of the Gunnar Jarring Program at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, May 21, 2006.

From the Khan’s Oven Studies on the History of Central Asian Religions in Honor of Devin DeWeese Edited by Eren Tasar Allen J. Frank Jeff Eden leiden | boston For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents Preface: Devin DeWeese ix Allen J. Frank Introduction: Devin DeWeese as a Scholar xiii Eren Tasar and Allen J. Frank Devin DeWeese: List of Publications xxiv Notes on Contributors xxxix 1 Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk 1 Peter B. Golden 2 Aymāq in 16th-Century Persian Sources from Central Asia With a Document of Tax Exemption for the Descendants of Aḥmad Yasavī 51 Jürgen Paul 3 The “Sultans of the Turks” Central Asia’s Vernacular Moment, 1500–1550 77 Ron Sela 4 “A Lover Speaks” The Life and Many Afterlives of a Naqshbandi Schoolmaster in History and Hagiography 101 Nicholas Walmsley 5 Sayyid Muḥammad Iṣfahānī (Shāh Kāshān) The Construction of Biography and Genealogy in Badakhshān 148 Jo-Ann Gross 6 After the Eclipse Shaykh Khalīlullāh Badakhshānī and the Legacy of the Kubravīyah in Central Asia 181 Daniel Beben 7 Saints, Lost and Found: The Discovery of Sacred Graves in Sufi Hagiography With a Translation of the Legend of the Seven Muhammads 212 Jeff Eden For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV vi contents 8 Commentary as Method vs Genre An Analysis of Ismaʿil Haqqi Bursawi’s Commentaries on the Qur’an and the Maṡnawī-yi maʿnawī 237 Jamal J. Elias 9 Sufi Saint or Salafī Reformer? ʿAlī Tūntārī in Fakhreddinov’s Tatar Lineage of Kalām Critique 258 Michael Kemper 10 “On the Importance of Having a Method” Reading Atheistic Documents on Islamic Revival in 1950s Central Asia 284 Paolo Sartori 11 Atheist and Muslim Islamic Dictionaries from the 1980s and 1990s 323 Eren Tasar 12 Holy Virgin Lands? Demographic Engineering, Heritage Management, and the Sanctification of Territories in ex-Soviet Central Asia, since wwii 358 Stéphane A. Dudoignon 13 Sayaq Ata and the Antelopes Game Animals as an Islamic Theme in Qazaq Hagiography 409 Allen J. Frank Index 435 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV chapter 1 Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk Peter B. Golden Ethnicity and the modes or strategies of ethnic identification, both self-identification, identification by others and situational identification, remain a major issue in medieval studies, European and Central Eurasian.1 From an anthropological perspective, Stuart T. Smith has commented that: “ethnic identities are situational and overlapping, constructed and negotiated by individuals in specific social contexts.” Their “surprisingly immutable characteristics … are surprisingly mutable and socially contingent.” Ethnicity, in essence, is dynamic and “ethnic groups are subjectively constructed, derived by actors who determine their own ethnicity …” (Smith, 2008: 343, 346). Underlying ethnicity were the building blocks of kinship, real, imagined and oft-manipulated. Kinship was the “language” of socio-political organization in the Turkic-speaking nomadic world. Much emphasis was (and in some regions still is) placed on genealogical trees purporting to show descent from a common ancestor,2 “who gave birth to them in olden times” (Kāšġarī, 1982–1985, i: 102, in his comments on the Oğuz).3 These trees4 were frequently “revised” or “reformed” to meet political needs (Khazanov, 1984: 138–144). 1 See most recently the cautionary notes sounded by Pohl, 2018: 4, 11–13, Pohl, 2018a: 190–192 and his numerous earlier studies, e.g. Pohl, 2013: 1–64; Pohl, 2002: 221–239 in Gillett (ed.) 2002, a volume devoted to the conflicting notions regarding this critical issue; see also Gat, 2013. 2 Judin, 1992:19, views genealogical myths as the basis of Turko-Mongolian religion and their “picture of the world.” In these conical formations, as one moved from the bottom, in which there were actual direct ancestors, upwards to distant forebears, the greater were the elements of invention or fantasy. On “highly malleable” genealogy used to buttress notions of “common ancestry” and its role in shaping identity and ethnicity, see Edgar, 2004: 6–8, 24– 26, 49 (“genealogical consciousness did not in itself make a nation … it merely provided a foundation for future nationhood,” as the Soviets found in the creation of Central Asian states such as Turkmenistan and nationalities, narodnosti). 3 cf. Németh, 1991: 59–65 on ethnonyms formed from personal names, although many of them stem from the Mongol and post-Mongol era. Ethnonyms, however, do appear as personal names. 4 After Islamization often known as (Arab.) šajara “tree” < šajarat an-nasab “genealogical tree.” Cf. the works of Abū’l-Ġāzī Bahādur Xan, Šäjärä-yi Türk (Abū’l-Ġāzī, 1871/–1874/1970) and Šäjärä-yi Tärākimä (Abū’l-Ġāzī, 1996). © Peter B. Golden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471177_002 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 2 golden Janhunen (1996: 25), underscoring the “instability of ethnonyms,” remarks that they “are easily transferred to and from other levels of ethnic and social organization.” Ethnonyms can be elevated beyond the group bearing them and become imperial politonyms or be reduced to the lower subdivisions of social organization in post-imperial contexts. How a group is perceived by outsiders, its neighbors, near and less near, also “play a part” (Pohl, 2018: 13). A good many peoples are best known by their exonyms, quite distinct from their selfdesignations (e.g. the English and Russian usages: Hungarian/венгр ~ Magyar, German/немец ~ Deutsch, Finn/финн ~ Suomi). Even once associated with a particular ethnic grouping, the components of the group that bore that name could (and indeed did) change over time. As Zuev (2002:7) among others has noted: “there are no pure ethnoses.” Names, ethnonyms, as Geary (2002: 118) remarks, “were renewable resources.” Language or mores specifically “a linguistic label” did not determine ethnic identity (Pohl, 2018a: 192).5 Regardless of how complex, from an ethno-linguistic perspective, a steppe or steppe/nomadbased empire may have been (in the steppe most were polyethnic and multilingual6), it, nonetheless, “required ethnic distinctions and identifications, internally and externally.” The empire “belonged” to “an ethnic group” (Pohl, 2018a: 205). Indeed, the empire or state usually bore the name of the ruling ethnic group. Thus, “the Mamlūk Sultanate” (1250–1517), the common usage in historiography, a realm in which professional soldiers of “slave” origin (mamlūk, pl. mamālik) drawn mainly from Qïpčaq and other Turkic groupings constituted the ruling elite, referred to itself as the “State of the Turks” (Dawlat al5 Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, writing his Dīwān Luġāt al-Turk ca. 1072–1077, differentiated between the different dialects of Turkic, some of which he ranked from “elegant” to inferior. He notes “nomadic peoples” (the Čömül, Qāy, Yabāqu, Tatār and Basmïl) who have their “own” languages, but also “know Turkic well.” He was aware of bilingual groupings that were undergoing linguistic Turkicization (Kāšġari, 1982–1985, i: 82–86; Golden, 2015: 505–537), the most important step, as he often implied, for admission into the Turkic World. He distinguished between bilingual groupings such as the Soġdaq (Soġdian settlers in Balasağun), Känčǟk (see below) and Arġu resulting from those “who mix with the populations of the cities” (which were largely Iranian, i.e. Soġdian or Khotan Saka-speaking in language) who have “a certain slurring (rikka) in their utterances” and groups of Khotan Sakas, Tibetans and Tanguts who had settled in Turkic lands “but do not know Turkic well.” Kāšġarī’s distinctions, of course, were based on Turkic-speaking and Turkicized populations, many of which were being called “Turks” on the basis of Islamic usages that had made Türk, which had become a politonym, into a generic ethnicon. 6 The language of the ruling tribe as a consequence of its status became the “prestige” language and the means of intergroup communication, although, on occasion, the ruling tribe/clan adopted the language of the larger ruled population (Zuev, 2002: 6). The history of the Scandinavo-Varangian Rus’ (see below) and Balkan Bulğars, both of which Slavicized in time, but gave their names to the new ethno-polity, are well known examples of this phenomenon. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 3 Atrāk/Dawlat at-Turk/Dawlat-at-Turkiyya) were fully aware of their Turkic (and Circassian) origins and spoke Turkic. Qïpčaqs, in particular, were aware of and took pride in their specific ethnic origins (see Yosef, 2012: 388–391, 395, who suggests that the name of the state might be best translated as “the rule of the ones who speak Turkish/the rule of the Turkified”). In this instance, language – even if acquired as a non-native-speaker (i.e. Arabs in Mamlūk governmental service) played a role in determining status. Similarly, some contemporary sources called the Seljuk state the Dawlat al-Atrāk wa’l-ʿAjam (The State of the Turks and Persians) reflective of the important impact of Persian culture and bureaucracy on the elite (Yosef, 2012: 393), a circumstance that became increasingly true of Islamo-Turkic states. Sometimes, especially in the “tribal zones” bordering on states, the latter can play a role in shaping polities deriving from tribes (Ferguson and Whitehead, 1992: 3; Ferguson, 1999: 419; Miller, 1993: 277–285). This factor also figures in the formation of ethnicities. The appearance of the Türks on the stage of history takes place in just such a context of tribal societies (of complex origins) coming into contact with a powerful, but fading empire, in this case 拓跋 Tuòbá (Tabġač)-ruled China (386–556).7 The Tuoba/Tabġač were led by a ruling clan/tribe speaking a Middle Serbi-Mongolic language (Shimunek, 2017: 1–35 [offering a critique of the term “Para-Mongolic,” which he replaces with “Serbi-Mongolic”], 52, 121–168).8 Their state, comprised of other “Altaic” sub7 The 拓跋魏 Tuòbá (Tabġač) Wèi / 北魏 Northern Wèi (386–534) and the short-lived 東魏 Eastern Wèi (534–550) and 西魏 Western Wèi (535–556) deriving from them, were “an ethnic minority conquest regime” (Eisenberg, 2018: 369, 384) in Northern China. 8 Tabġač Chin. 拓跋 tuòbá oc thâk bât lh thɑk bɑt mc thâk bwât (Schuessler, 2009: 69 [2–17m], 237 [21–31bc]); emc thak bǝɨt/bɛ:t lmc thak pɦa:t (Pulleyblank, 1991:314 [64:5], 27 [64:5]). Beckwith, 2005: 9–12 thakbat = takbat = *takbar. Turkic tabğač, a metathesized form came probably via Rouran or Tabġač: *taġbač meaning “rulers of the earth”: Tabġač thaʁ “dirt, soil, earth” (Beckwith, 2005: 9–12; Shimunek, 2017:167, 375) + bač < *bat/pat (< Prakrit < Sanskrit pati “lord, ruler,”). Serbi, in turn, is transcribed in Chinese as 鮮卑 Xiānbēi: lh sian-pie, mc sjän pjie (Schuessler, 2009: 248 [23–21a], 177 [7–29a]), mc sjen pjie (Kroll, 2015: 493,11–12), emc sian pjiǝ̆/ pji: *Särbi/ *Širvi/*Särvi (Pulleyblank, 1991:334 [195:6], 31[24:6], Pulleyblank, 1983: 452– 453, Pulleyblank 2000: 71); mc sjen.pije < oc *s[a]r.pe “Särbi” (Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 261– 262, 346). On the Xiānbēi, see Holcombe, 2013: 1–38 and Duthie, 2019: 23–41. The Särbi/Serbi are, perhaps, the later Sabirs > Saviri, Σάβιροι, Σάβειροι, Սավիրք [Savirk’], Սաւիրք [Sawirk’], ‫[ َﺳﻮار‬sawār], ‫[ סאויר‬sāvīr], *Säbir? (Pritsak, 1976: 22,28, 29; Golden, 2015a:15–26). Turkic tağbač, as a place name is recorded in the letter of a Türk Qağan (simply termed “the Qağan,” ὁ Χαγάνος, perhaps Nīri Qağan, r. 595–604, see de La Vaissière, 2018: 316) to the Byzantine Emperor, Maurikios (r. 582–602) dated to sometime in or after 595 (Czeglédy, 1983:197, dates it to 598), preserved in a complicated account of the fall and flight of the Rouran/Avars in 552–555 and internecine strife among the Türks ca. 582, recorded in Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1972: 256–259; Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1986: 188–190, writing sometime in the 630s– For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 4 golden ordinate tribal groupings as well as a majority Chinese population, straddled the borders of the steppe and the Northern Chinese sedentary world. The Tabġač ruling elite maintained their Inner Asian identity until 493 when Emperor 孝文 Xiàowén (r. 471–499, whose mother was Chinese) promoted a “radical program of sinicization” (Graff, 2002: 98; Xiong, 2009: 575) ultimately leading to domestic dissension and the splintering of the dynasty (Graff, 2002: 97– 120). Of the 59 peoples of Inner Asia/Eastern Central Eurasia that came into the purview of the Chinese sources, substantive ethno-linguistic information is given for only 18 of them. Of the 18, only 3 can be identified with confidence and identifications of 3 others may be conjectured with somewhat less certitude (Sinor, 2005:5). The Türks are one of the 3 about which we are reasonably certain. Türk first appeared as a tribal name affiliated with the Ashina (see below). The Türk union ultimately consisted of 30 tribes (Dobrovits, 2004: 257–262), comprising the Ashina (the royal clan and the “tribe” of that same name), 10 other tribes/clans of the inner core of the Eastern Türks,9 the 10 tribes/clans of the On Oq/Western Türks10 and the grouping termed the 九姓 Jiŭ xìng (lit. “nine surnames/family names”), i.e. the Toquz Oğuz. The latter were part of the 鐵勒 Tiĕlè11 union, earlier termed the 高車 Gāochē “High Carts” (Liu, 1958, i:127– 9 10 11 early 640s (Treadgold, 2010: 329–340, especially, pp. 330–332; Neville, 2018: 47–48): Ταυγὰστ [Taüɣast/Taβɣast: *Taẇġač, the Türk form]. In addition to Ταυγὰστ, further local color, i.e. local usages in Theophylaktos’s narrative, gained through contact with the Türks, may be seen in the geographical names Τὶλ (for Atïl/Ätil, usually the Volga), Ὀγὼρ (seemingly for Oğur), but it might be recalled that the family name of the founder of the AsianAvars/Rouran is 郁久閭 Yùjiŭlǘ (Taskin, 1984: 58–59, 267,461) emc ʔuwk kuw’ lɨǝ̆ lmc ʔiwk kiw’ liǝ̆/lyǝ̆ (Pulleyblank 1991: 384 [163:6], 161 [4:2], 204 [169:7]); mc ʔjuk kjǝu ljwo (Schuessler, 2009: 96 [4–17a’], 95 [4–13a], 57 [1–54g]), which Róna-Tas, 1999: 210–211, suggests is a rendering of *ugur(i) > Uğur, which he considers a “secondary” form stemming from Oğur. Another toponym reflecting Türk usage is: Μουκρί = Türk 𐰃𐰠𐰚𐰇𐰋 Bükli kt-E8. bq-E5,8, Aydın, 2017: 53, 81,82], “Korea (? Şirin, 2015: 163–164, cf. Chin. 漠理 mò lĭ emc mak lɨ’/li’ lmc mak li (Pulleyblank, 1991: 218 [85:11], 188 [96:7]), see Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1972: 258 (vii,7.12, 13), The letter and the account of the fall and fate of the Rouran/Avars and origins of the “European Avars” has occasioned a substantial literature, which need not detain us here. The most recent exposition is found in Pohl, 2018: 38–50, who provides a thorough survey of the question. For the names (and tamğa signs used on their horses) see Liu, 1958, i: 453–454; the pioneering study by Zuev, 1960: 93–140 (with the Chinese text and translation of the 唐會要 Tánghuìyào, iii. 72. 1305–1308, a work by 王溥 Wáng Pǔ, 922–982, see Wilkinson, 2018: 717) and Dobrovits, 2004: 258–259. These names merit a full study. On their names see Tišin, 2017: 267–299. emc *thet-lǝk Pulleyblank (1990: 22) revised by Shimunek (2017: 44, n. 32) to: *thɛr-lǝk. He further notes Beckwith’s reconstruction (Beckwith, 2004: 104, the second edition of 2007 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 5 128; Pulleyblank, 1990: 21–26; Dobrovits, 2011: 375–378), and before that the 丁靈 Dīnglíng,12 perhaps a rendering of *tegreg “wagon,” a Tuoba/Tabġač exonym for Tiele (Kljaštornyj, 2010: 162–163; Golden, 2012: 179–180). They were frequent rivals of the Türks proper. The “in-law” clan/tribe of the Ashina was the 阿史德 Āshĭdé.13 All of these groupings, including the Toquz Oğuz, took the politonym Türk. Although the Toquz Oğuz are called “my own people” (kentü bodunum) in the Köl Tegin inscription (kt-N4 Aydın, 2017: 65) and “my people” meniŋ bodunum in the Bilge Qağan inscription (bq-E29); they were also called enemies (toquz oğuz bodun yağï ermiš, kt-E14, bq-W12 Aydın, 2017: 55, 84) in other situations. Accordingly, the politonym Türk was adopted, with what appears to have been varying degrees of willingness, by groupings that came under their rule. Although it seems to have faded as such (except to designate the literary Turkic koine that developed from Old Türk) after the fall of the Qağanate in 743/744, it was picked up by the Muslim historians and geographers as a gentilic generic for all speakers of the closely related Turkic languages/dialects. Thus, Turk/pl. Atrāk, took on a distinctive meaning for the steppe peoples (and some nonsteppe peoples) of Central Eurasia and adjoining zones. The Turkic-speaking peoples, as they were brought into Islam, used the Islamo-Arabo-Persian name Turk to designate themselves (Bartol’d, 1963–1977b, ii/1: 553; Bartol’d, 1963– 1977c, v: 39–40). The Islamized Qaraxanids, in particular, made use of Türk as a self-designation and Turk more broadly as a generic ethnicon (Golden, 2015: 506–507). It retained a somewhat vaguer political-cultural sense among peoples that had been brought under Türk rule and had migrated off, after (and in some instances before) 743/744 to form their own polities, retaining elements 12 13 cited by Shimunek is unavailable to me) of 鐵 tiĕ (“iron”) as oc *thêk. Coblin, 1994: 346 [0756] (鐵) qys (切韻 Qièyùn a “rhyme book”/dictionary compiled in 601 and surviving only in later works, Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 9; Wilkinson, 2018: 27–28, dated ca. 700 in Pan and Zhang, 2015: 80–81 “reflecting the literary pronunciation” of 7th century Luoyang and Nanjing regions; a principal source for Anc. Chin. [= mc] in Karlgren, revised by Li [see Coblin, 1994:16–17] thiet, Old NWChin. thėt stca (Chang’an of Sui-Tang era) *thɨar mtca (Mid-Tang Chang’an) * thɨar > *thiar 勒 (Coblin, 1994: 413 [0984]) qys, Old NWChin. *lǝk = *thiet/ thėt/ thɨar> thiar lǝk. oc têŋ rêŋ lh teŋ leŋ (Schuessler, 137 [9–11a], 140 [9:18i]). Shimunek, 2017: 44, n. 32 slightly revises the alternate form 丁令 Dīnglíng emc tɛjŋ liajŋ (Pulleyblank, 1991: 80 [1:1], 196 [9:3]) to: tɛyŋ-liayŋ. emc ʔaʂɨ’/ʂi’tǝk (Pulleyblank, 1991: 23 [170:5], 283[30:2], 74 [60:8]); *Aštaq? (Zuev, 2002: 33,34, 86–88,168); Old nw Chin. ʔa-ṣǝ-tǝk (Coblin, 1994: 124 [0016], 240–241[0382], 411–412 [0979]) ca. 400. Late Tang Tibet. “a-shi-tig” Tibet ms. Pelliot.T.1283 (Atwood, 2012: 74); Venturi 2008: 21: a-sha-sde’i sde-chig = Ashide. Harmatta (1994: 394–395): suggests oc: â ʂi tǝk < Saka *ăṣṣitak < *ăχṣṣitak < *ăχītaka < Old. Iran. *χšaita-ka cf. Sogd.’χšyδ “ruler.” See Atwood, (2012): 74–75, who suggests A-she-tig or A-shi-teg. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 6 golden of the Türk political tradition as expressed in titles and organization and, with respect to the Qarluqs, in claims of translatio imperii (Golden, 2001: 11–19,44– 45). Subsequently, the ethnonym Türk is found in the “Letter of an Anonymous Khazar Jew” (the “Schechter Letter” from the Geniza Collection) to Ḥasdai b. Šaprūṭ, the Jewish courtier and diplomat of the Umayyads of Spain, ca. 960, which refers to the western Oğuz as the ‫[ טורקיא‬Ṭūrqīa] and as the ‫[ טורקו‬Ṭūrqū] (Golb and Pritsak, 1982:112–115, 120/121), transcribed in a pattern similar to that of earlier Syriac sources (see below). It is unlikely that the anonymous author would have had Christian Syriac models to follow. These forms and the Торки/Торци of the Old Rus’ chronicles (their designation for the western Oğuz who are first mentioned s.a. 1054, pvl, 1996: 70, 87) still await a full explanation. It should also be noted that the Hungarians of the 9th–11th centuries were frequently called Τοῦρκοι in addition to or in place of Οὖγγροι in the Byzantine sources (Moravcsik, 1958, ii: 321–322; Németh, 1991: 63, 185, 240, Róna-Tas, 1999: 275–278)14 and Turks in the Arabo-Persian accounts of the same period (Zimonyi, 2001:201–212; Zimonyi, 2016: 83–102). When we first encounter the Türks, it is very likely that they were not a homogeneous group. As a politonym, the ethnicon Türk denoted a population that was even less so. Recent studies based on dna appear to indicate that the early Turkic-speaking peoples, like most peoples, were of diverse origins (Lee and Kuang, 2017: 197–239).15 With these prefatory comments, we may now turn to the ethnonym~politonym Türk, the name by which this people became known to the larger world. The issue of the origin, earliest attested form and meaning of the ethnonym Türk has engendered a considerable literature (e.g. Sinor, 1963: 234–239; Bazin, 1953: 318–322; Clauson, 1962/2002: 84–88; Doerfer, tmen, ii: 483–495; Németh, 1991: 84–85; Kafesoğlu, 2014: 11–25; Şirin, 2015: 33–34, Róna-Tas, 1991: 10–13; Róna-Tas, 1999: 280–281 and most recently Róna-Tas and Berta, 2011, ii: 939– 942, with a summary of the various etymological attempts). The etymology remains uncertain, with viewpoints depending on whether one considers the ethnonym as stemming from Turkic – or some other language. Such prob- 14 15 Marquart (1903/1961: 45) in keeping with his theory of the “Scythian” origin of this term suggested that the Byzantines took the Τοῦρκοι designation of the Magyars/Hungarians from the Alans. In general, one should speak of “Turkic-speaking peoples” rather than “Turkic peoples.” It is a linguistic designation, the extent of “ethnic” homogeneity undoubtedly varied within the various groups; the larger the group, the less likely its genetic homogeneity. dna studies still have much to tell us. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 7 lems are not unique to Türk; one has only to think of the enormous literature generated by the “Normanist” and “Anti-Normanist” controversy over the ethnonym/term Rus’ (for a sampling of the ongoing 300-year debate, cf. the recent studies of Schramm, 2002; Duczko, 2004; Fomin, 2005; Klejn, 2009; Petrukhin, 2012). It would be useful to review the data chronologically. Attempts have been made to link the Türk with the Ἰύρκαι of Herodotos (iv. 22),16 writing in the 5th century bce, a people placed beyond the Τάναϊς (the Don region) and the lands of the Sauromatians (Σαυρομάται), whose lands begin at the inmost corner of the Maeotis (ἐκ τοῦ μυχοῦ ἀρξάμενοι τῆς Μαιήτιδος λίμνης, i.e. the Sea of Azov). North of the Sauromatians are the Budini (Βουδίνοι), living in a heavily forested zone. North of the latter, some seven days journey across a desert (ἒρημος) eastward, are the Θυσσαγέται, a numerous people, and then the Ἰύρκαι, both of whom live by hunting. Ἰύρκαι, if it was not originally Τύρκαι, it has been argued, became corrupted over time to the Turcae17 of Pomponius Mela (De Chorographia or De situ orbis, i.116, written ca. 44ce, see Podosinov and Skržinskaja eds. 2011: 20–21 [on dating], 50/51). The text follows Herodotus, noting the Budini and not far from them the “great forests” (vastas silvas) which the Thyssagetae and Turcae occupy, living by hunting. Very similar is the text of Pliny the Elder (23–79) in his Natural History vi. 19 (Podosinov and Skržinskaja eds. 2011: 186/187; Aalto and Pekannen, 1975–1980, ii: 230), who places them in the area of Tanais (the Don), where the Sarmatae live. The latter subdivide into many peoples, the Sauromatae, Tindari,18 Thussagetae and Tyrcae among others, “up to the rough, wooded deserted [regions]” (solitudines saltuosis convallibus asperas), difficult of access. The forms Turcae, Tyrcae show the indebtedness of the texts to the Greek sources (the y of Tyrcae is the regular rendering of Greek υ in Latin).19 The location of these peoples has long 16 17 18 19 Herodotos, 1982: 108/109; Sinor, 1990: 285, Sinor, 1997: 165–179. Beckwith (2006/2007):10, n. 30, follows Sinor. Marquart suggested that Ἰύρκαι > Turcae/Tyrcae resulted from a “Konsonantenversetzung,” which took place due to “Pontic-Iranian mediation” and concluded that the “forms Turcae, Tyrcae, Τοῦρκοι belonged to Scythian dialects” (Marquart, 1903/1961: 55–56), a view that has not garnered support. Identified with the “Dandarii” of Strabo (xi.2.11) and Tacitus, (Annales xii.15) and others, appear to have lived in the northern part of the Taman peninsula and on the coast of the Sea of Azov (Podosinov and Skrzhinskaia, 2011: 325, n. 539). Sinor (1990: 285–287) accepted the Latin forms and suggested that it was just as likely that the Ἰύρκαι of Herodotus may have been the corrupted form. There is no textual evidence for this. Greek Upsilon υ was pronounced ü (at least in educated circles) up to the 9th century (Browning, 1983:56) or perhaps as late as the 11th century (Moravcsik, 1958, ii: 35). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 8 golden been debated. While the Thyssagetae/Thussagetae (Θυσσαγέται), viewed as a Volga Finnic people, have been placed in areas ranging from the Don to the Volga, Kama or Urals, the emerging general consensus is that the Turcae/Tyrcae (and hence the Ἰύρκαι) inhabited the western slopes of the Ural mountain range, near present-day Perm’. The Ἰύρκαι, in turn, are viewed as Ugrians and considered by some as the forebears of the Югра of the Rus’ chronicles (Podosinov and Skržinskaja eds. 2011: 104, n. 157, 325, n. 541 and the comments in Herodotus, 1982: 244–247, n. 227). Geographically, we are far away from where we first encounter the Türks, as such, in Inner Asia. As I have concluded elsewhere, we have a dearth of data and “[a]ny connections between Ἰύρκαι and Yugra or Turcae/Tyrcae (< *Τύρκαι) and Türk remain problematic and require much more than a possible phonetic resemblance” (Golden, 2008–2009: 76– 79). Nearly a millennium later, according to a report in aṭ-Ṭabarī, a massive attack of some 250,000 Turks led by “Xāqān” (the Qağan) “king of the Turks” (malik at-Turk), against the Sāsānid ruler Bahrām (Wahrām) v (420–438) took place. The attack ended in failure and is clearly anachronistic in its identification of the foes of Iran as the “Turks.” The notice, very likely, refers to some earlier – and probably much smaller – Eurasian nomad/“Hunnic” attack.20 Strikingly anachronistic is the title Qağan (“Xāqān”) associated with the “Turk” ruler at this time. This title is first attested ca. 265 (Taskin, 1986: 213–218; Kubatin, 2016: 55–56; Shimunek, 2017: 368, n. 443), as the ruler of the 乞伏 Qīfú21 a Xianbei-Serbi people and is subsequently noted among other Serbi-derived peoples.22 Qağan became more consistently used by the Rouran ruler 社崙 Shèlún (r. 402–410)23 and was assumed/taken by the Türks only after they overthrew the Rouran/Avars. 20 21 22 23 Aṭ-Ṭabarī (1967–1969, ii: 75–76, aṭ-Ṭabarī, 1999, v: 95–96 and n. 246) reports that Bahrām v killed “Xāqān” with his own hands and slaughtered his army. Rezakhani (2017: 93–99) suggests that the “Turks” were the Kidarites one of the Chionite/“Hunnic” peoples in the Iranian borderlands. Sinor (1990: 287) in keeping with his view of the Tyrcae et al. does not exclude the possibility that the “Turks” here were, indeed, Turks, a doubtful proposition. lh *khɨǝt buk (Schuessler, 2009: 305 [30–1f], 113[5–36a]), nemc *khɨrbuwk (Shimunek, 2017: 54). Qağan “emperor” was a “widespread culture word … throughout Central Eurasia, but first attested among the Serbi peoples;” Middle Serbi: *qhaʁan [可汗], cf. 吐谷渾 Tùyùhún (Pelliot, 1920–1921: 323: *Tu’uɣ-ɣun or *Tuyuɣun; emc thɔh juawk ɣwǝn lmc thuǝ̆` jywk xɦun Pulleyblank, 1991: 312 [30:3], 385 [150:0], 135 [85:9] = Thogon, Tibet. ‘Aźa/‘Azha, Old Tibet. Thʊgʊn, Beckwith, 1987:17]) and Tabġač *qhaʁan [可寒] kĕhán nemc khaʁɣan (Shimunek, 2017: 162, 167, 188, 367–368). emc dʑia’ lwǝn (Pulleyblank: 278 [113:3], 202 [46:8]); lh dźaBluǝn mc źjaB lwǝn (Schuessler, 2009: 52 [1–36j], 339 [34–24hij). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 9 We are on more certain ground with the first notices on the Türks in Chinese accounts, reporting events of the 540s. The Türks, while still vassals of the 柔然 Róurán/Avars,24 are first noted in the 周書 Zhōushū,25 (chap. 50) in the early 540s when they came to the border seeking to obtain silk goods and establish a relationship with China. Shortly thereafter a series of embassies in 545 and 546 between the Türks and the Western Wei (535–556) followed in which a Soġdian, 安諾槃陀 Ān Nuòpántuó (Nakbanda),26 represented China (Liu, i: 6–7, ii: 490–491; de La Vaissière, 2016: 184–185). Although these accounts were officially noted in the dynastic histories that were compiled/composed well after the 540s, they most probably were based on official records contemporaneous with the events described. In them, we encounter the first references in Chinese to the ethnonym Türk as well as to tales of their origins and early historical encounters. In one of the accounts of Türk origins27 reported in the 周書 Zhōushū (chap. 50), the ancestors of the Türks (突厥 Tūjué) are said to constitute “a particular28 tribe (別種 bié zhǒng) of Xiongnu, their family name 24 25 26 27 28 The ethnonym Avar/Awar (Byzantine Greek Ἂβαροι) has been connected with the 烏桓 Wūhuán ~ 烏丸 Wūwán: mc ′u-hwan < Western Han *ʔʕa-hʕwar < oc qʕa + *ɢwʕar (Baxter and Sagart, 2014:262; Kroll, 2015: 479, 169); emc ʔɔ-γwan < ʔɑ-γwán (Pulleyblank, 1983: 452–454), a branch of the 東胡 Dōnghú grouping of tribes, many of which appear to have been Mongolic/Para-Mongolic/Serbi in speech. In Chinese accounts they usually appear as: 柔然 Róurán: lh ńu ńan, mc ńźjǝu ńźjän (Schuessler, 2009: 180 [13–48a], 258 [24–36ab]); mc nyuw nyen (Kroll, 2015: 389, 383), emc: ɲuw ɲian, lmc: riw rian (Pulleyblank, 1991:267 [75:5], 264 [86:8] with variants – and commonly the derisive 蠕蠕/輭輭 Ruǎnruǎn [Oshanin, iii: 230(#6193), 641(#8478)] “wriggling, crawling (insects/worms)”): lh ńuanB, ńuanB, mc ńźjwanB (Schuessler, 2009: 273 [25–35a]), mc nywen nywen (Kroll, 2015: 392), emc ɲwian ɲwian (Pulleyblank, 1991: 269 [142:14]), see Golden, 2013: 52–53 for discussion of these forms and variants. The relationship of the Rouran and European Avars remains a disputed question. Pohl (2018: 40–47), the foremost scholar of the Avars, considers the Rouran ~ European Avar relationship “plausible,” but complicated as the grouping of people appearing in the western Eurasian steppes under this prestigious “dynastonym” derived from a variety of origins both from and beyond the Inner Asian Rouran. The work of 令狐德棻 Línghú Défēn (d. 666) compiled in 629, presented in 636 (Wilkinson, 2018: 694). emc ʔan nak ban da (Pulleyblank, 1991: 24 [40:3], 228 [149:9], 231 [108:10], 314 [170:5]); de La Vaissière, 2016: 184. Harmatta (1972: 272) suggested Nāhidβand < Old Iran. *Anāhitābanda *Nāhiβand < Nāxβand < Nāɣβand, Northwestern Tang Nâɣ-b’uân-d’â. Lurje (2010: 90 [95], 267–268 [774]), noted the names ʼn’xtβntk: Anāxǝtvande or nβɣβntk: Navɨɣvande (?) and suggested that Ān Nuòpántuó may be “the same name, in a metathetic variant *naɣvvande.” On the origin tales of the Türk, see Erkoç, 2017: 36–75; Golden, 2018: 291–327. On origin tales in Medieval Europe, but with wider applications to Eurasia as a whole, see Pohl, 2018b:192–221. Or “separate,” “distinct” (Kroll, 2015: 23). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 10 golden (姓 xíng29) is 阿史那 Ā shǐ nà.”30 The latter family or clan name has inspired a number of differing explanations/etymologies.31 29 30 31 Also “surname; patronymic family name. Descendant” (Kroll, 2015: 510); “family name, clan … children, descendants” (Oshanin, 1983–1984, ii: 194 [633]). Clearly, the name of the ruling clan is meant here. According to the most recent readings, 阿史那 Ā shǐ nà appears in the Soġdian part of the Bugut Inscription-11 as (’)šyn’s kwtr(’)tt “the family/lineage of Ašinas” (Yoshida, 2019: 98–99, 104; Gharib, 2004: 201 [5061] kwt’r “race, family, lineage”). Ōsawa (2011: 146): tr′-wkt ′(ʼ)šyn′s kwtr′tt ʼxš′y-wnh “land of Ashinas tribe of Turks,” (ʼxš’wn, “ruling, realm,” Gharib, 2004: 82 [2080]), In the Soġdian part of the Uyğur Qara Balġasun Inscription (dated to 821), he reads: ′′šyn′s kwtr wrk ′xš′wnh “land of Ashinas tribe of Turks” (wrk presumably should be twrk, pbg). However, recent publications of the fragmentary text do not show this (Ölmez, 2018: 39–42, based on the reading by Yoshida). The latter (Yoshida, 2011: 80– 81) reads 阿史那 as e shi na (ē is an alternate reading for 阿 ā, emc, lmc ʔa (Pulleyblank, 1991: 86 [170:5]) standing for Ašinas. Ōsawa has also put forward the reading: ašınas köl tudun inisi Altun Tamğan in the Runiform (Xöl [or Xör] Asgat Inscription (dated to 729 or 724 by others), E1, W1, W4 Asgat iia W4, Asgat iib E1, Ōsawa, 2010: 22–23, 24, 26, 28–29, 50–61). Ünal (2015: 273), however, proposes a different reading: kül tud(u)n in(i)si (a)ltun t(a)mg(a)n t(a)rḫ(a)n). 阿史那 āshĭnă (or āshĭnà, āshĭnuò) emc*ʔa ʂɨ /şi’ na’/nah/nah, lmc ʔaʂṛ´na’/na`/na` (Pulleyblank, 1991: 23 [170:5], 283 [30:2], 221 [163:4], 228 [163:4]), ʔa ʃi na ( Jiu Tangshu, 2005: 360, following Wang Li) perhaps renders Khotano-Saka âṣṣeiṇa “blue” < *axšaina (Bailey, 1979: 26–27; Haussig, 1979: 57): < Iranian aχšaena “dunkelfarbig;” for the variants of *axšaina, see Rastorgueva and Edel’man, i (2000–2015), i: 284–286 with the original sense of “dark, dark-blue, blue.” Kliashtornyi (Kliashtornyi, 1994: 445–447; Kliashtornyi, 2006: 446–449; Kliashtornyi, 2010: 191–192) first advanced the Ashina < Khotano-Saka âṣṣeiṇa, āššena “blue” thesis. Kliashtornyi, 2006: 442 also cites Tokh. A āśna “blue, dark” with reference to Bailey, 1979: 26 in the entry on āṣṣeiṇa “blue,” but āśna is not found there, nor is it noted in Carling et al. 2009. Kliashtornyi (2010: 191) notes it as a borrowing in Tokharian from Khotan Saka or Soġdian ‘xs’yn’k (-exšēnē). Borrowings into Proto-Tokharian from a “continuum” of Northeast Iranian languages (starting with pre-Proto-Ossetic, cf. Osset. æxsīn “dark-gray,” Abaev, 1958, i:220) have been dated to starting from ca. 500 bce (Kim, 2003: 67). Kliashtornyi viewed Turk. kȫk “the sky, blue” as its Turkic translation. In addition to kȫk, Clauson (1972: 708–709), the form kök (with ö, not ȫ) is found with a wide range of disparate meanings: “root, origin; thong; seam.” The term kök türk, which has been compared with the Mongol Kökemoŋġol (“Blue Mongols”) recorded by the 17th century historian Sagang Secen in his Erdeni-yin tobci (Pritsak, 1954: 382; a late attestation with other probable origins than the Türk tradition, as noted by Tišin, 2018:10–11), is mentioned twice in the Orxon runiform inscriptions, kt-E3, bq-E3: 𐰜𐰼𐰇𐱅 𐰚𐰇𐰚 kök türü̲ k̲ as the designation of the Ashina-led Türks or perhaps denoting “Ashinas and Türks.” Erdal (2019: 81 and n. 7, 95 and n. 24), however connects kök in kök türk with kök “root” rather than kȫk (the presence of a long ȫ is reflected in Čuv. kăvak). 𐰜𐰜 kök [ükük/ẅ̲ k̲ẅ̲ k̲, perhaps for kȫk? used here as a particle of strengthening (Aydın, 2019: 153, 180)] is noted only in TE4 (Aydın, 2017: 109; Berta, 2004:35). Şirin (2015: 145–146) does not distinguish between kȫk and kök. If kȫk is, indeed, correct, it would have been used in the color-geographical For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 11 In another account in that same source, the ancestors of the Türks are said to stem from the 索 Suŏ32 state that was north of the Xiongnu (Liu, 1958, i: 5, ii: scheme in the Turkic world, “blue” denoted the East (Pritsak, 1955: 245–249; Şirin, 2015: 146). Tišin, 2018: 7–27, in his review of the kök question, dismisses the theories of Pritsak, Kljaštornyj, but views kök “blue” as the “more optimal” rendering of the word, serving as an epithet in an unusual way, without further explanations possible at this time. Returning to āshĭnă, other etymologies have been put forward by Atwood (2012: 68–78), who connects it with Tokh. arši “holy man,” cf. Sanskrit ṛşi, see, however, Tokh. A ārśi “name of the speakers of Tocharian A” (Carling et al. 2009: 48–49), but Tokh. B ārśe “monk (??)” or “Agnean (???”) perhaps from Proto-Tokh.*ārćye (Adams, 2013, i: 57–58); Old NWChinese: ʔa-şǝ-na (Coblin, 1994:124–125 [0016], 240–241[0382], 121 [0005]). A variant is 阿瑟那 Āsènà (Xin Tangshu 221B.6250) emc ʔa ʂit na’ lmc ʔa ʂǝ na′ (Pulleyblank, 1991: 23 [170:5], 273 [96:9], 221 [163:4]). It has also been proposed that Āshĭnă may stand for Ašila or Aršila. Beckwith (2016: 39–46), contends that “all of the previous proposals are problematic” and maintains that āshĭnă reflects Tokh. aršilaš “noble kings,” recalling the name or title of the “senior ruler of the Turks,” Ἀρσίλας, mentioned by Menander (1985:172/173) in his account of the Byzantine envoy Valentinos’s mission to the Türks in 576. Kliashtornyi, (2010: 191) found the argument philologically strained as it does not explain the dropping of -r- and the transmission of -n- with -l-. Chavannes (1941/1969: 240) mistook Ἀρσίλας for Turk. arslan “lion,” the name, he believed, of “le plus ancien des ces chefs” (παλαιτέρῳ) of the Türks who each ruled one of the eight sections (ἐν ὀκτὼ γὰρ μοίραις) into which the Türks had divided the territory of what was most probably the more westerly region under their control. Chavannes further contended (with Blockley, Menander, 1985: 276, n. 222 following him) that the seniority of Ἀρσίλας extended only to the eight Türk rulers of that particular region. He was not, as Marquart (1898:186) claimed, “der oberste Herrscher der Türken.” Rather, he was the senior member or primus inter pares of the Ashina clan ruling in that part of the Qağanate. The passage in Menander is open to a variety of interpretations, but it is not certain that Ἀρσίλας denoted Ashina. Ašinas (’)šyn’s cannot be a plural in Soġdian or Khotan Saka (in vocalic declensions: -a, -ā, -aa, aā, -i, Emmerick, 2009: 384–387). If (’)šyn’s (*Ašinas) is, indeed, a correct reading, it might point to the same plural forms in -s inherited in Türk from a presumed older form of Turkic (?) or from the Rouran/Avar (Mongolic) vocabulary. Erdal (2004: 158) notes this plural in – (A)s only in the word ïšbara, pl. ïšbaras, a Türk title/name/honorific borrowed, ultimately, from the Sanskrit iśvara “lord.” In the Brāhmī-script Mongol section of the Bugut inscription6 ïšbara appears as Ašvar (Vovin, 2019: 189). Another medium of transmission may have been Tokharian, which has a (fem.) adj. plural in -ās (Adams, 1988: 108). Borrowings into Proto-Tokharian from a “continuum” of Northeast Iranian languages (starting with pre-Proto-Ossetic, cf. Osset. æxsīn “dark-gray,” Abaev, 1958, i:220) have been dated to starting from ca. 500 bce (Kim, 2003: 67). It is unclear if the Turkic servitor of the ʿAbbāsid Caliph al-Muʿtaṣim (833–842), Ashinās (Gordon, 2001: 17 [noting the probably fictional account explaining his name as deriving from Pers. šinās mā-rā “know (i.e. “take notice”) of me,” i.e. “I’m your man” uttered to save al-Muʿtaṣim from an attack], 24, 44, 57–58,60, 69,112–113 et passim) is related to Ashina(s). Kliashtornyi (1964:112), however, dismissed this notion long ago. Atwood (2012: 70–71) viewed the explanation as a folk etymology, but considered this anthroponym as possibly connected to Ashina. Ashina(s), thus, remains problematic. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 12 golden 489, n. 8, who points out that Suŏ was an old name for the habitat of the Xianbei union [see above], but cautions that an ethnic connection with the Xianbei should not be drawn from this notice). The 隋書 Suíshū33 (chap. 84), and later accounts, in addition to the legendary ethnogonic tales, provides a more historical narrative, which reports that the “Türks stemmed from the 雜胡 zá hú “mixed Hu”34 of 平涼 Píngliáng (in Gansu). They had the family name Ashina. When Emperor 太武帝 Tài Wǔdì (r. 423–452) of the Northern Wei destroyed the 沮渠 Jǔqú,35 the Ashina with 500 families fled to the 茹茹 Rǔrǔ36 (= 柔然 Róurán37) and lived for generations on the Altay ( Jinshan) where they worked in the preparation of iron implements” (Liu, 1958, i: 40, ii: 519, nn. 207, 208, 209; de La Vaissière, 2016: 185; Taşağıl, 1995–2004, i: 9, 95–96 [taken from the 通典 Tōngdiǎn38 chap. 197], 110, 111 [taken from the 冊府元龜 Cèfǔ yuánguī39 chaps. 956, 958]). Thus, Gansu and then Gaochang, regions of Eastern Turkistan/Xinjiang, became important areas in the shaping of the Türks in a period extending from ca. 265 to 439 ~ 460ce. The Ashina may have migrated to Gansu ca. or after 265, a period in which large numbers of Xiongnu or Xiongnu-affiliated tribes migrated beyond the Great Wall from Central Eurasia and Southern Siberia into regions in which Saka and Tokharian-speaking populations lived and with which the Ashina had close contact, mixed – or from which the Ashina themselves may have sprung (Kljaštornyj, 1964: 110–114; Kljaštornyj, 2003: 420–426 and most recently restated in Kljaštornyj, 2010: 187–189; Golden, 2008–2009: 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 emc: sak lmc: sak Pulleyblank, 1991: 298 [120:4]. Beckwith, 2006–2007: 10, n. 30; Beckwith, 2006: 10, n. 30; Beckwith, 2009: 405, n. 52, argues for the Suŏ~Saka connection and a possible non-Turkic origin for the Ashina tribe/clan of the Türks. Authored by by 魏徵 Wèi Zhēng [d. 643], compiled 629–636, presented 636 (Wilkinson, 2018: 694). oc: gâ, lh: gɔ < gɑ mc ɣuo (Schuessler, 2007: 281; Schuessler, 2009: 46 [1–1a’]), a general term for “steppe nomads” of unknown etymology. Pulleyblank (1983: 449–450) remarks that the term Hú first appears in Chinese accounts of the “Warring States period” (484– 221 bce), which brought parts of China into contact with steppe equestrian-pastoralist peoples. lh dzaʔ gɨa (Schuessler, 2009:58[1–57k], 49 [1–19gh]), emc dzɨǝ̆ gɨǝ̆ (Pulleyblank, 1991: 164[85:5], 260[85:9]), a Xiongnu clan that founded the 北涼 Běi Liáng Northern Liang state (397–439) in Gansu (Liu, 1958, ii: 519, n. 209). lh ńɑ/ ńɑ(C)/ńɑB/ ńɑB/C/ ńɑC/ mc ńźjwo/ ńźjwo(C)/ ńźjwoB/ńźjwoB/C/ńźjwoC (Schuessler, 2009: 57 [1–56r]): ńɑ ńɑ and ńźjwo ńźjwo etc.; emc ŋɨǝ̆ ŋɨǝ̆ (Pulleyblank, 1991: 268 [140:6]). Liu, 1958, ii: 488–489, n. 7. “Encyclopedic history of the institutions of government” authored by 杜佑 Dù Yòu (d. 812, pub. 801, Wilkinson, 2018: 718; Liu, 1958, ii: 498–499), based on earlier sources. “Magical mirror in the palace library” compiled in 1013 by a committee led by 王欽若 Wáng Qīnruò (d. 1025, Wilkinson, 2018: 1081–1082). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 13 94–101). Even earlier, Clauson (1962/2002: 15–16) presented evidence for what he viewed as contact of “the ancestors of the historical Turks” with Sakas to their southwest in southwestern Xinjiang “in the early centuries of the Christian era, but perhaps not too much earlier.” These Turks would have neighbored with Indo-European peoples in their west. It is useful to recall that speakers of Indo-European languages predominated in the steppe zone north of Eastern Turkistan/Xinjiang for a millennium and a half before the rise of the Türk Qağanate (552). Together with Proto-Ugric peoples stemming from the Ural zone and Western Siberia, these peoples were in contact with speakers of ProtoTurkic and others. These contacts were ongoing even before the rise of the Xiongnu polity (Kljaštornyj, 1992: 129–130). Hence, Turko-Iranian interaction has a long history antedating the rise of the Türk Qağanate Writings from the Türks themselves appear in the latter part of the 6th century, but not in Turkic. The earliest of these is the Bugut Inscription40 (dated between ca. 584 and no later than 587), written in Soġdian and containing also some lines written in Brāhmī script that have been identified as “Mongolic,” very likely of Rouran provenance, a language “closely related, although not quite identical to Middle Mongolian of the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries” (Vovin, 2019: 163–164). The Brāhmī writing system,41 from Kušan times onward, was an “international script, read from Samarkand to Benares” (Stark, 2018: 343), hence, like Soġdian, the language of the Silk Road(s), it was intended to reach a wide public, regardless of the language employing it. In the Soġdian part of the inscription we find: Bugut 11: tr-ʼwkt (’)šyn’s [*tur[u]kit [?] ašinas] translated by Yoshida (2019: 104–105) as “Turkish Ashinas”, a reading which is disputed by Beckwith (2005: 14–16) who asserts that Türk/Turk is otherwise written twrk in Soġdian texts. Gharib however, records only the forms noted above.42 Soġdian and Mongolic Rouran/Avar, although both very different lan40 41 42 On the symbolic features found on the Bugut inscription and similar stelae (e.g. Idėr, Boroo) inspired only in part by Chinese models, see Stark: 2018: 334–342. Viewed as “the parent of all of the modern Indic scripts both within India and beyond” (Saloman, 1998: 17), the inception or development of Brāhmī has been dated as early as the 8th–7th centuries bce, with some “geographical differentiation” apparent by the 1st–3rd centuries ce. The script’s precise dating and origins (perhaps Aramaic) remain a matter of discussion (Saloman, 1998: 17–30, 37). It was used in East Turkistan/ Xinjiang to write Tokharian, Khotan Saka, Chinese and Turkic (Clauson, 1962/2002: 91–96; User, 2015: 59– 63). Cf. twrk on the legends of the Western Türk coins (noted above), unknown to Gharib. The Mount Muġ documents (B-9, Verso3, see Livšic, 2008: 187,189) note twrk, but here it is a personal name Tū̆rak. An older reading of the Soġdian part of the Uyğur Qara Balġasun inscription (810 or 821, Kemp, 2004: 45) has: mn wɣyšty prnβɣty R Bkw twrkc’ny ʼɣšywny “der vom Himmel Majestät erhaltene grosse türkische Weltkönig” (Harmatta, For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 14 golden guages, had a plural marker -t, as did Old Turkic: -(A)t, -(U)t. Erdal (1991, i: 78–83), assumes it is a borrowing from Soġdian, rather than Mongol, “if the Iranian origin of the suffix could be proven conclusively” (Erdal, 2004: 158). It is almost always found in words most probably borrowed from or intermediated by Rouran/Avar. Pelliot (1915: 688) viewed them as Mongolisms in Old Turkic. The Mongolküre Soġdian inscription from the Türk Qağanate, tentatively dated to the late 6th–early 7th century, is not helpful in our quest as it does not contain the term Türk (Ōsawa, 2006). Oğlït (𐱃𐰃𐰞𐰍𐰆) “sons,” a plural from oğul, in kt-E4–5, bq-E5 appears to be one of the few “native” Turkic exceptions (User, 2010: 252; Şirin, 2015: 128; Kononov, 1980: 147: oğlït “potomki”). Clauson (1972; 83–84) notes: oğul “offspring, child, son” and oğlan “son, boy,” an earlier plural in –(A)n, but not oğlït.43 One school of thought contends that Chin. 突厥 Tūjué reflects Soġdian Twrkyt = Turkit/ Turkīt/ or Turkēt Harmatta (1972: 263–272, see also comments of Bailey, 1982: 85). The Soġdians were the principal intermediaries between the Türks, China, Sāsānid Iran and East Rome/Byzantium. Indeed, Bugut 11: tr-ʼwkt (*tur[u]kit [?]44) (’)šyn’s and Bugut 12 trwkc [trukč] (Gharib, 2004: 389 [9635: trwkt, turkt “Turks”], 391 [9682: trukč]), an adjectival form (noted by Gharib as Bugut-B12, but not found in Yoshida, 1999: 123–124, Yoshida, 2019: 104–105, nor Ölmez, 2012: 67–70) hint at a form with -ŭ-. Bugut 11: tr-ʼwkt (’)šyn’s (*tŭrūkit [?]) ašinas is translated by Yoshida (2019: 104–105) as “Turkish Ashinas.” 43 44 1962: 149, citing Hansen, 1930: 15) with twrkc’ny as an adjectival form of twrk (cf. also Sims-Williams and Durkin-Meisterernst, 2012: 194). The recent readings by Yoshida lack these words (Moriyasu and Ochir, 1999: 215–219; Ölmez, 2012:225–229). Some of the problems with the poorly preserved Qara Balġasun inscription and some variant readings are noted by Yoshida, 2011: 77–86, see also his entry in the Encyclopedia Iranica: http://www .iranicaonline.org/articles/karabalgasun‑the‑inscription. Tekin, 1968:122; Tekin, 2003: 102 also cites: yïlpağut “champion warriors” < *yïlpağu ~ alpağu and qanat “wing,” but these are problematic. Róna-Tas, 1999: 279, reads this as trkwt = türküt with Soġd. plural -t or Soġd. adjectival ending -kut: “turkkut” > “twrkut or türküt.” Tišin, 2017: 287–288, offers the suggestion that the twrk in the legends on the Western Türk coins (twrk xʼɣʼn, see Babayarov, 2017: 615–635; Kubatin, 2017:119) can be identified with the trʼkwt of Bugut and with the Western Türk sub-union of the 𐰸𐰣𐰆 [on oq] On Oq known as the 咄陸 duō lù mc twǝt ljuk (Schuessler, 2009: 314 [31–16h], 188 [14–16f]) mc twot ljuwk (Kroll: 97, 285), tuǝt ljuk Old nw Chin. tot luk > Mid-Tang Chang’an tor luk (Coblin, 1994: 355 [sub 0785], 459 [1171])/dūo/dūlù 都陸 emc tɔ luwk lmc tuǝ̆ liwk (Pulleyblank, 1991: 81 [163:9], 201 [170:8])/都六 dūo/dūliù emc tɔ luwk lmc tuǝ̆ liwk (Pulleyblank, 1991: 81 [163:9], 198 [12:2]) and 咄六 duōliù mc twǝt ljuk (Schuessler, 2009: 314 [31–16h], 188 [14–16a]), mc twot ljuwk (Kroll: 97, 279), tuǝt ljuk Old nw Chin. tot luk > Mid-Tang Chang’an tor luk (Coblin, 1994: 355 [sub 0785], 459 [1171]) “with the characteristic metathesis -ur > -ru.” This is an interesting conjecture, which would appear to favor the readings of the mc forms as *türük. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 15 A closer examination of the Chinese form 突厥 Tūjué is warranted.45 Its mc reconstructions vary: emc dwǝt kuat, lmc tɦut kyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 311 [116:4], 168 [27:10]), mc t’uǝt/d’wǝt ki̯wɐt (Karlgren, 1996: 134 [489q], 90– 91[301c]), updated as thwǝt, dwǝt kjwɐt (Schuessler, 2009: [31–12a], 240 [22–2a]), mc thwot-kjwot (Kroll, 2015: 459), and much more rarely 突闕 Tūquè: emc dwǝt khuat, lmc tɦut khyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 311 [116:4], 263 [169:10]), mc t’uǝt k’i̯wɐt (Karlgren, 1996: 134 [489a], 91 [301h]), updated as thwǝt, dwǝt kjwɐt khjwɐt (Schuessler, 2009: [31–12a], 240 [22–2h]), thwot khwet, khjwot (Kroll, 2015: 459, 382), and 突屈 Tūqū emc: dwət khut, lmc: tɦut khyt (Pulleyblank, 1991: 311 [116:4], 269 [44:5]); mc t’uǝt k’i̯uǝt (Karlgren, 1996: 134 [489a], 135[496k]), updated as thwǝt, dwǝt khjwǝt, kjwǝt (Schuessler, 2009: [31–12a], 314 [31–16k]), thwot khjut (Kroll, 2015: 459, 375), duɐt kịuɐt ( Jiu Tanghsu, 2005: xiv, 345, the reconstructions noted in the latter are based on the work of 王力著 Wáng Lì Zhù, 汉语语音史 Hànyǔ yǔyīn shǐ, Beijing, 1985 [1986], reviewed and improved by one of the editors of the Turkish edition/translation, Gülnar Kara). To these we may add 突厥 Tūjué: Northwestern Tang t’oɹ-kyɹ (Harmatta, 1972: 263). Old Northwest Chin. *dot kuat (Coblin, 1994: 355 [sub 0785], 339 [0733]). Pulleyblank (1965: 122, 124), while noting the possibility that 突厥 Tūjué could render Türküt, comments that the latter form is nowhere attested and concludes it is simply a rendering of Türk. Beckwith (2005: 13) concurs, remarking in his rejection of Türküt and readings based on “a hypothetical Sogdian *twrkyt [turkīt]” that “there are no transcriptions like *Türküt or *Turkīt in any language, including Sogdian.” However, the most recent study of the Chinese transcriptions of Old Turkic by Kasai (2014: 103–110) concluded that 突厥 Tūjué is, indeed, a rendering of Türküt, a reading first proposed by Marquart in 1914 (Marquart, 1914/1970: 71–72, n. 4) and shortly thereafter by Pelliot (1915: 687–689) a form mediated, perhaps, by the language of the 柔然 Róurán/Avars, who have long been thought to have spoken Mongolic, a conclusion, which appears now to be confirmed by the Khüis 45 A Turko-Chinese dictionary, 突厥語 Tūjué yŭ, was already available in the Tang era (Liu, 1957: 198–199; Liu, 1958, i: 465–466; Schaefer, 1963/1985: 29, 285, n. 175). Other evidence for the presence in the Chinese court of persons with a knowledge of Turkic even earlier than the Sui-era can be seen in the request of the Türk Qağan Tatpar Chin. 佗鉢 Tuóbō emc: tha pat lmc: tha puat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 313 [9:5], 40 [167:5]), who had become interested in Buddhism, in 572 for a translation into Turkic of a Buddhist text carried out by Chinese monks (Liu, i: 43; Lung, 2008: 182, 184; Tišin, 2019:117). Lung’s conclusion that “a written Türkic language was already in use by the mid-sixth century” remains speculative. The question of which script system was used for these Turkic texts is far from clear and the text has not been found. The Zhoushu (cap. 50) comments that the writing system of the Türk was similar to that of the Hu (Soġdians), but the Suishu (cap. 84; Liu, 1958, i: i: 10, 41; Lung, 2008: 178) reports that the Türks lacked a written language and carved marks on wood. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 16 golden Tolgoi inscription (see below). Before turning to the new reading of the Khüis Tolgoi inscription, other data should be explored. It is with the appearance of the Türk runiform inscriptions46 from the Orxon, written in Turkic and composed during the Second Türk Qağanate, that we first find the ethnonym Türk in Turkic. The dating of a number of the Orxon runiform Türk texts remains disputed, although all stem from the Second Türk Qağanate (682–743/744). The earliest of the Orxon Türk inscriptions, Küli/Köli Čor Inscription, 4,6,8 (720–725, or 722–723, after 732?, see above), has 𐰚𐰼𐰇𐱅 türk/ tẄrk and 𐰜𐰺𐰇𐱅 türü̲ k̲ (Aydın, 2017: 134, 135; Berta, 2004:5,6, has only tẄrk, with line 8 missing the final letter: tẄr[]). The Ongi Inscription (dated to 720, 731, 740 or even to the early period of the Uyğur Qağanate, Kemp, 2004: 46; Aydın, 2017:121, Aydın, 2018: 164) has: Ongi-E2,3: 𐰚𐰼𐰇𐱅 türk/tẄrk (Aydın, 2017:122; Berta. 2004: 212). The Tonyuquq inscription (726) has both 𐰚𐰼𐰇𐱅 türk/tẄrk/ (T1-W1,2,3, T1-S2,4, 10, E1,3,5, Aydın, 2019:175, 177, 178, 179, 180; Berta, 2004: 32, 33, 34) and 𐰜𐰺𐰇𐱅 = 𐰝𐰼𐰇𐱅: türü̲ k/̲ tẄrẅ̲ k̲47 (T2-S2,6, E4,8, N2,3,4; Aydın, 2019: 186, 187, 189; Berta, 2004: 39, 40, 41, 42). The Köl Tegin (732) and Bilge Qağan (735) inscriptions have 𐰜𐰺𐰇𐱅/ 𐰝𐰼𐰇𐱅 türü̲ k/̲ tẄrẅ̲ k̲ (e.g. kt-S1, bq-N1: Aydın, 2017: 47, 74 et passim, Berta, 2004: 96 et passim). The early Uyğur inscriptions present a similar pattern: Taryat/Terxin-E5,7,8 (dated between 741–753 or 753–756, Aydın, 2018a: 38; see the most recent discussion of the literature in Ölmez, 2018:74–78): 𐰝𐰼𐰇𐱅 türü̲ k/̲ tẄrẅ̲ k̲ (Aydın, 2018a: 41 42; Berta, 2004: 245), Šine-Usu-N4,8,10, S8, W8 (759): 𐰝𐰼𐰇𐱅 türü̲ k/̲ tẄrẅ̲ k̲ (Aydın, 2018a: 52, 53, 61, 65; Berta, 2004: 271, 272, 278, 281). The full listing of citations is given in User (2010: 168–171). In the texts, it usually takes the form of 𐰜𐰺𐰇𐱅 / 𐰣𐰑𐰆𐰉 𐰝𐰼𐰇𐱅 (türü̲ k̲ bo/udun {boδun48}etc.). It is found only once in the Yenisei inscriptions: Uybat iii10: 𐰣𐰴𐰚𐰼𐰇𐱅 türk qan (and perhaps in Podkuninskaya2: 𐰃𐰚𐰼𐰇𐱅 türki: Aydın, 2015: 94–95, 140). The variant forms in the Orxon inscriptions may well indicate a not yet stabilized writ- 46 47 48 The origin(s) and purpose(s) of the runiform script system, known in a number of forms across Turkic Eurasia (Kyzlasov, 1994) remains a matter of debate. For a recent discussion of the question within the context of state formation in the steppe and the development of elements of a historical consciousness among the nomads beyond oral transmission, see the views of Tishin, 2019: 104–127. The Runiform letters 𐰝 and 𐰜 may be read as -ök/-ük and/or kö/kü (Róna-Taš, 1999, 278; Şirin User, 2014: 35), hence the readings türü̲ k,̲ türk̲ü̲. Erdal, 2015: 44–45 remarks that the ẅk ligature does not require that 𐰝𐰼𐰇𐱅 “be read as ‘türük’ only because its last character is sometimes spelled with ẅk,” preferring Türk, “attested since early times in Byzantine or Arabic sources with a final consonant cluster.” Boδun “organized tribal community, a people,” plural/collective of bōδ “clan” (Clauson, 1972: 296–297, 306). Cf. Bod “tribe” in the Mongolic Khüis Tolgoi inscription-13 (Vovin, 2019: 181, 182,191). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 17 ing system, representing, perhaps, oral speech or “somewhat edited” versions of the original texts (Tišin, 2019: 120–121). The different forms in which Türk has appeared in the Turkic texts has resulted in various transcriptions: Türk, Törük, Türük/Türük etc. (Doerfer, tmen, ii: 483–495; Erdal, 2004: 38–39; 293; Kafesoğlu, 2014: 11–25; Ölmez, 2012: 78–79 et passim; Tišin, 2017: 271–272, n. 4 [türĕk, an early form and subsequently türük]; Aydın, 2018a:187). Bazin (1953: 321) suggested an evolution of Törük > Türük > Türk. The form Türkü, “with a short final vowel” was proffered by Clauson (1962/2002: 84–88, who argued that it remained türkü until the 11th century or perhaps shifted to türk “a little earlier”), rejected by Pulleyblank, (1965: 122, n. 4, 124–125), and accepted by Róna-Tas and Berta (2011: 939): eot *türkü and wot *türkü → türkü > türk > türük > török, cf. Hung. török. Róna-Tas (1999: 278–279), in his earlier study also excluded the reading türük, preferring türkü and suggesting that the final -ü had become reduced and atrophied, producing Türk. The form türkü has not otherwise found wide acceptance in the recent editions of the Türk Runiform texts. This brings us to the question of the transcription of this ethnonym in sources written well beyond the Sino-Nomadic border zone, but recorded by peoples in direct contact with the Türks. An important source of data on the Türks who had just made their appearance on the larger historical stage was contained in the Xwadāynāmag,49 (“Book of Kings”), a fundamental source for the history of the Sāsānids and, in the Kārnāmag-ī Ardaxšēr [Ardašīr] ī Pābagān (written in Middle Persian, perhaps in the mid-6th century with later interpolations by 706, Pourshariati, 2008: 46; Cereti, 2012). Elements from the Xwadāynāmag have come down to us in translated fragments, in particular in Arabic.50 An Arab translation of a “biography” or autobiography (Sīrat Anūširwān) or Kārnāmag of Xusrō i Anōšagruwān (Anūširwān) is preserved in the Tajārib al-Umam of Ibn Miskawayh (d. 1030; Grignaschi, 1966: 4–7, 16–45; 49 50 The name Xwadāynāmag is itself a “reconstruction,” albeit one base on various renderings into Neo-Persian and Arabic, e.g. Xudāynāma, Šāhnāma etc. It was probably written down (in Middle Persian) “towards the end of the sixth century,” with a variety of Arabic and Neo-Persian translations, of varying quality, thereafter (Hämeen-Anttila, 2018:1–5). Based on what has come down to us (in altered forms?), the work was a mix of fact, legend, oral traditions and fiction, which underwent a series of recensions and additions from the fifth to perhaps the early seventh century, or even slightly later. Rapp (2014: 191) terms it “a living narrative blending the mythical ancient Iranian history of the Avesta with Sassanian traditions.” A relatively early translation into Arabic by Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ (d. 760) may have existed (Duri, 1983: 58–59), as well as one by Abu Muḥammad ʿAbdallâh Rûzbih (d. 757), an Umayyad official of Persian origin. See Czeglédy, 1958: 21–22; Czeglédy, 1973: 260–261; Latham, 2011; Howard-Johnston, 1995:169–172, Shahbazi, 1990: 208–215; Shahbazi, 2012; Wood, 2016: 407–422. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 18 golden Hämeen-Antilla, 2018: 122–123).51 The Kārnāmag-ī Ardaxšēr [Ardašīr] ī Pābagān (xiv.19) mentions the: Kēsar ī Hrōmāyān šahryār ud Tegin [ī] Kābul ī Hindūgān šāh ud Tōrk [Turk] ⟨ī⟩ xākān “Caesar the ruler of the Romans, the Tegin of Kabul, king of the Indians, the Qağan of the Türks” (Čunakova, 1987: 62–63; Grenet, 2003: 116/117). The Sāsānid ruler Xusrō i (r. 531–579) married a daughter of Sir J̌abğu Qağan/ Ištämi (d. 576), Qâqum/Qâqım [‫]قاقْم‬, the daughter of “the Xāqān of Turkistān.”52 This was part of a larger alliance aimed at the Hephthalites. There were several campaigns of the Sāsānids and Türks that began ca. 557 and were concluded (with the destruction of the Hephthalite state) by 560/561 (see Grignaschi, 1984: 219–248; Felföldi, 2005: 98–132; Rezakhani, 2017: 141–143). Fragments of the Xwadāynāmag point to written communications between the “allies” (Grignaschi, 1966: 24–25), soon to become foes after the Hephthalites were removed. The language used in such written communications most probably was Middle Persian or Soġdian. An important source of elements from the Xwadāynāmag53 that mention the Türks are narratives (semi-mythic and historical) found in Armenian and 51 52 53 Bonner (2011: 42) comments that the Sīra is written in the first-person and hence in style unlike what is known of Sāsānid literature – and most probably “wholly independent” of the sources that went into the Xwadāynāmag. Al-Yaʿqūbī, in his Ta’rīx, writing in the late 9th–early 10th century (he died ca. 908), comments that Hormizd iv (r. 579–590), Xusrō I’s son and successor, was the offspring of this union (al-Yaʿqūbī 1970, i:165; al-Yaʿqūbī, 2018, i: 2–4, ii: 462). Balʿamī, whose Persian translation (with many additions) of Ṭabarī began in 963 (Khaleghi-Motlagh 2012), adds that the daughter given by the Qağan to Xusrō I was the child of the “Great Qatun,” herself a daughter of “one of the Türk kings,” but does not mention her name (Balʿamī, 2012: ii: 306). Al-Masʿūdī, writing in the mid-10th century gives her name as ‫[ ﻓﺎﻗ ُﻢ‬Fāqum] (al-Masʿūdī, 1966–1979, i: 212), but in a much later source (first half of the 12th century), Ibn al-Balxî (1921: 24, 94, 98) it is recorded as ‫ ﻗﺎﻗﻢ‬Qāqum/Qāqïm, but, seemingly, as the name of the Qağan: ‫ اﻳﻦ ﻫﺮﻣﺰ از دﺧﺘﺮ ﻗﺎﻗﻢ ﺧﺎﻗﺎن آﻣﺪه ﺑﻮد‬/ ‫ﻗﺎﻗﻢ ﺧﺎﻗﺎن‬/‫و ﻣﺎدر او دﺧﺘﺮ ﺧﺎﻗﺎن ﻗﺎﻗﻢ ﺑﻮد ﺧﺎﻗﺎن‬ ‫ﺗﺮﻛﺴﺘﺎن‬. In the mid-7th century history attributed to Sebeos (Howard-Johnston, 2016), her name is given as Kayēn, “daughter of the great Khak’an of the T’etals” (Sebeos, 1999, i: 14). From this we can assume that ‫ ﻗﺎﻗﻢ‬Qaqum/Qaqïm, Qayïn (‫ )*ﻗﺎﻳﻦ‬or ‫( ﻗﺎﻳﻢ‬Qāyim, as Mišin, 2014: 467 and n. 647 suggests) was the probable form of her name. Sebeos used the ethnicon Թէտալք T’ētalk’ (also Թետալացիք T’etalac’ik’) to denote the Hephthalites, the Khazars and the Türks, (Sebeos, 1999, ii: 168; Marquart, 1898: 200; Markwart, 1938: 34). Cf. Pahlavî kâkom [k’kwm] “stoat” (MacKenzie, 1986: 48), which could be a calque of her Turkic name: ās “ermine” (?) (Clauson, 1972: 240, Rásonyi, Baski, 2007, i: 78–79). On the use of the Xwadāynāmag in Georgian (where it is termed the C’xovrebay Sparst’a “The Life [History] of the Persians”) and in Armenian sources (e.g. Movsēs Xorenac’i noted it as the Parsic’ Mateank’ “Books of the Persians”), see Rapp, 2003: 114–118, Rapp, 2014: 191, 196–197, 357–359, who expresses caution as to whether the pre-Bagratid historians actually “had direct access to a known written Iranian history or epic.” Nonetheless, in his view, For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 19 Georgian accounts. Both lands were within the sphere of influence and sometimes part of the Sāsānid realm and presented their early history, to some degree, within an Iranian context. In the earliest or oldest parts of the K’art’lis C’xovreba, the Georgian national chronicle,54 the C’xovrebay k’art’velt’a mep’et’a or Mep’et’a c’xovrebay: C’xovrebay k’art’vel’ta mep’et’a da pirvelt’agania mamat’a da nat’esavt’a [“Life (History) of the Georgian Kings: or Life (History) of the Georgian Kings and of the First Ancestors and Relatives,” attributed to Leonti Mroveli, composed ca. 790–813,55 which covers the period from largely legendary Georgian rulers, “before Alexander’s alleged invasion” of Georgia “through the early fourth century a.d.,” i.e. largely the pre-Christian era of Georgian history. The indebtedness to “the Iranian epic tradition,” to the Xwadāynāmag and the importance for the Georgians of “oral traditions shared with the Iranians, Armenians and northern Caucasians” are apparent. These tales/motifs were familiar to Transcaucasian intellectuals (Rapp, 1997: 55–56; Rapp, 2003: 114, 116; Rapp, 2014: 191–198).56 In one instance, specific mention is made of the “book” of the History of the Persians (cignsa spars’ta c’xovrebisasa). In the opening section of the work attributed to Leonti Mroveli, dealing with a 54 55 56 they were “familiar with the Xwadāynāmag tradition” and with the “oral versions of the Iranian epic.” Mention is made in the Georgian national chronicle, however, of a “book” in which the Persian historical tradition was written (see below). The sorting out of the dates (and authors) of the various components that formed the K’art’lis C’xovreba is a daunting task most recently discussed in the works of Rapp (already noted). The oldest manuscript of the K’art’lis C’xovreba dates to “some point between 1479 and 1495.” The oldest manuscript of its Armenian translation, Patmut’iwn Vrac’ [“History of the Georgians”] “was produced sometime between 1274 and 1311” (Rapp, 2014: 173, 380). Under Vaxtang vi (r. 1711–1714, 1719–1723), the whole of the K’art’lis C’xovreba “was comprehensively re-edited.” An expanded version was produced under his son Vaxušti (d. 1778): the Aġcera samep’osa sak’art’velosa [“Description of the Kingdom of Georgia”], K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955–1973, iv (Rapp, 2014: 9, n. 46, 173). In Rapp’s reconstruction, the now lost source, which he terms Hambavi mep’et’a (“Story/Report/News of the Kings”), itself a compilation of multiple authors, was the source for the pre-888, i.e. pre-Bagratid history of Georgia, which was used in the composition/compilation of the K’art’lis C’xovreba. The latter was put together in the period from ca. 800 to the mid-11th century (Rapp, 2014: 359–371, 379–380). Rayfield (1994: 53–55) gives 1072 “as the latest date at which” the elusive Mroveli could have composed this work. The dating of the various parts of the K’art’lis C’xovreba, remain problematic. The dating of (Pseudo-) Mroveli’s section at ca. 790–813 is suggested by Rapp. Mroveli would appear to be an 11th century compiler, “a talented editor,” who put together a number of earlier historical accounts (Rapp, 2003: 157–168, Rapp, 2014: 172–174). Rapp (1997: 56) terms Mroveli both an historian and “a royal propagandist,” with an agenda that was more than historical. K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955–1959: i: 13,14; K’art’lis C’xovreba 2008: 33, 34; Rapp, 2003:114: Esevit’ari cerili ars c’xovrebasa sparst’esa (“such is written in The Life of the Persians”), vit’arc’a For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 20 golden largely remote past a number of references are made to თურქეთი T’urket’i “the land of the Türks,”57 and the თურქი (t’urk’i), noting that the information came from the Life (History) of the Persians, i.e. the Xwadāynāmag (K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955–1959: i:12, 13,14; K’art’lis C’xovreba 2008: 33, 34; Rapp, 2003:114). Filled with a number of anachronistic references to the “T’urk’s” and Khazars (often used interchangeably), these constitute our earliest notices that mention the Türks, however inaccurately, in Georgian historiography. In the section dealing with Alexander the Great’s activities in Georgia,58 mention is made of the “cruel pagan peoples” (nat’esavni sastikni carmartni), the ბუნთურქი (bunt’urk’i59). Rapp (2003: 149–150, 264–265) rightly terms them “enigmatic.” They may have denoted any of the nomadic neighbors of Transcaucasia from the Cimmerians to the Huns or even later groups in the Pontic steppes. Subsequently, Rapp (2014: 132–133) suggested that bun in bunt’urk’i is Middle Pers. bun “base, foundation” i.e. “original,” hence these are the “original Turks.”60 Its absence in the Armenian translation of the K’art’lis C’xovreba may well indicate that it is a later interpolation. Hence, it is unlikely to be a translation of Old Turkic kök (“root, origin” see above). In the Cxovrebay Vaxtang Gorgaslisa [“Life of Vaxtang Gorgasal”] attributed to J̌uanšer J̌uanšeriani (Pseudo-J̌uanšer, writing ca. 790–813)61 in its account of the events preceding the revolt (589–591) of Bahrām Čōbīn (Vahrām Čōbēn), who sought to take the Sāsānid throne, we are dealing with more concrete matters. Following the reign of Bakur iii (d. 580),62 “the king of the Türks invaded 57 58 59 60 61 62 cerili ars cignsa spars’ta c’xovrebisasa (“as is written in the book[s] of The Life of the Persians”), vit’ar cerili ars c’xovrebasa sparst’asa (“as is written in the Life [History] of the Persians”). T’urk’et’i is most probably an anachronistic reference to Tūrān (Rapp, 2014: 192–193, 201– 202), the general term for the nomadic, Central Eurasian, initially Iranian, foes of Iran. While K’art’velian/Georgian historical writing associates the rise of the first Georgian kingdom under P’arnavaz (299–234bce) with Alexander the Great’s destruction of Achaemenid Iran, “any immediate connection of K’art’li and Alexander is fantastical” (Rapp, 2014: 199, 203–204, 355,385). In the K’art’lis c’xovreba, 1955–1959, i: 17, 18 they appear several times alongside the qivč’aqi (Qïpčaqs). In the most recent edition of the K’art’lis c’xovreba, 2003: they appear only once – and without the Qïpčaqs, whose appearance here was probably the result of an 11th century interpolation, as Rapp, 2014: 133, n. 145 suggests. In any event, all references to Türks in Transcaucasia at this time are anachronistic. Pahlavi (MacKenzie, 1986: 20, 86): bun “base, foundation, bottom,” also wan “tree; stock, stem.” Thomson, 1996: 23, 25 rendered bun as “real, original.” The 13th century Armenian translation of the K’art’lis C’xovreba does not mention the bunt’urk’i. See discussion of this source in Rapp, 2003: 115, 197–242; Rapp, 2014: 172–173, 331–332, 380. Toumanoff, 1963: 373–374, 380–381, 383. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 21 Persia” (ševida t’urk’t’a mep’e sparset’s šina).63 Not long thereafter, J̌uanšer, deriving his information from the Xwadāynāmag, reports that: “Baram Č’ubin attacked the Turks … as is clearly described in the Life (History) of the Persians (vit’ar cerili ars ganc’xadebulad c’xovrebasa sparst’a),” defeated them and killed “Saba, the king of the Turks.”64 The account then describes Bahrām Čōbīn’s ultimately unsuccessful revolt (589–591).65 During the protracted Perso-Byzantine war of 602–628, the Georgians remained loyal to Iran. The Byzantine Emperor Herakleios (r. 610–641), allied with the Türks (identified in a number of the sources as Khazars) in the offensive undertaken in 626–628, besieged T’bilisi. (Pseudo-) J̌uanšer comments that Herakleios “brought Turks from the west” miiqvanna dasavlet’it’ t’urk’ni (K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955–1973, i: 223, K’art’lis C’xovreba, 2003: 229), i.e. the Western Türks of Ton (Toŋ) Yabğu Qağan.66 By this time, the ethnicon T’urk’i had been wellestablished in Georgian historical writing. Later interpolations interchanged T’urk’i and Xazari (Rapp, 2014: 199–200) and inserted anachronistic references to the Pečenegs and Qïpčaqs. In early Armenian accounts we find: Թուրբբ T’urk’k’ (pl.) in the Geography of Širakac’i, writing ca. 591–636 with later additions in 640s and subsequent 63 64 65 66 K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955–1973, i: 217, K’art’lis C’xovreba, 2008: 226. Rapp (2003): 228, places this Türk attack during the reign of Bakur iii, however, the K’art’lis C’xovreba clearly places the event after the latter’s death. With Bakur iii’s death, the Georgian monarchy underwent a long interregnum until the reemergence of the Crown under the Bagratids in 888. Guaram i (588–c. 590), under whom this attack most likely occurred, succeeded his father Bakur iii, but not as king (Toumanoff, 1963: 201–203; Toumanoff, 1976: 388–391 [80,81]; Rapp, 2014: 386–387). K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955–1973, i: 220. The recent edition, K’art’lis C’xovreba, 2008: 227, omits mention of Saba (Šaba), noting only that “Baram C’ubini … killed the king of the Turks and put their (military) camp to flight” (mokla t’urk’t’a mep’e da iota banaki mat’i). See the translation of Rapp, 2014: 195, 343, which slightly differs from mine. Bahrām Čōbīn’s defeat and killing of the Türk ruler, Šaba/Saba is generally dated to 589, immediately preceding his revolt (see discussion in Golden, 2016: 31–41). The outlines of the revolt of “Warahrān Raziqāyā” (of Rayy) and mention of the Ṭurkāyē are given in the Syriac Khuzistan Chronicle (ca. 660–680), see Kmoskó, 2004: 140–142 and Dickens, 2008: 59–63 For the most recent discussion of the revolt, see Pourshariati, 2009: 122–130, 397–414 (largely dealing with the symbolic subtexts in the accounts). See discussion in Novosel’cev, 1990: 86–88; Kaegi, 2003: 144–145; Zuckerman, 2007: 404– 417; Rapp, 2014: 345–346. Chavannes, 1941/1969: 3,4, 24–28, 52–55 et passim: 統葉護 Tŏng shè/yèhù emc: thawŋh’ ɕiap/jiap ɣɔh lmc: thǝwŋh′ ʂiap/jiap xɦuǝ̆` (Pulleyblank, 1991: 310 [120:6], 279/364 [140:9], 128 [149:14]); mc thuwngH yep-huH, (Kroll, 2015: 458, 540): Toŋ Yabğu or Ton Yabğu (cf. Soġd. forms: twn cpɣw, twn zpɣu, twn żpɣw x’ɣ’n: Ton J̌abġu, Ton Z/Žabġu Qağan, Lurje, 2010: 394–395; Babayar, 2014: 16; Kubatin, 2017: 117, 120–121). The Yabğu/J̌abğu Qağan was a rank lower than the supreme Qağan. Ton/Toŋ J̌abğu/Yabğu Qağan ruled c. 618–630 (628/29, according to de La Vaissière, 2010: 269). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 22 golden interpolations by other hands (Širakac’i, 1992: 33, 55, 109–110, n. 17; Marquart, 1903/1961: 57), building on Greek and Middle Iranian sources (Greenwood, 2018). Sebeos mentions the “Great Xak’an” as well as Čembux (Ճեմբուխ) and Čepetux (Ճեպետուխ), which seem “to be one and the same title” in a “mangled” form, most probably J̌abğu Qağan, all clearly referring to the rulers of the Türk Qağanate. Sebeos never uses the ethnicon Türk. The nomads of these events (ca. 589, ca. 615–616 and 651) are termed “Hephthalites” (T’etal, see above) and/or “Kušans” (Sebeos, 1999, i: 14–16, 45, 50–54, 135, ii: 187–188). The mangling of the titles, it has been suggested, was the result of its transmission from Turkic to Middle Persian and then to Armenian. In the East Roman/Byzantine accounts, the first mention of the Türks is found in Agathias’s Histories (ca. 532–ca. 580), which covered the period 552– 559 (odb, i: 35–36). He was a contemporary of the founding generation of the Türk Qağanate. In a passing aside (i.3,4) in his account of the Franks, the Türks are mentioned together with the Avars as peoples whose hair is “unkempt, dry and dirty and tied up in an unsightly knot” (Agathias, 1967: 13; Agathias, 1975: 11; Harmatta, 1962: 133). Agathias had knowledge of various Turkic nomadic peoples, generically noted as “Scythians and Huns” (Σκύθαι καὶ Οὖννοι) living “in ancient times” to the “east of the Maeotis” (Sea of Azov) and north of Don river (Τανάϊς) who had crossed into the Pontic steppe and from there raided Europe, appearing and disappearing, some “without leaving any trace of themselves” (Agathias, 1967: 176–177, Agathias, 1975: 146). Curiously, there is no explanatory preface to his comments on the Türks. Theophanes Byzantios (fl. latter half of the 6th century, fragments of his Historika, which covered the period 566–581, are preserved in Photius, odb, iii: 2062; Moravcsik, 1958, i: 539–540, the pertinent text is in Dinsdorf, 1870: 446–447) reports in language that is nearly identical to that of Agathias, his contemporary, that the Τοῦρκοι, “who dwelled in olden times to the east of the Don (πρός εὖρον ἂνεμον τοῦ Τανάϊδος) (and) were previously called the Μασσαγέται,67 whom the Persians call in their own tongue Κερμιχίωνες” (Pahl. Karmīr Xyōn, “Red Huns”) one of the “Hunnic” groupings on the borders of Iran, perhaps to be identified with the 67 An interesting echo of this “classicism” is perhaps to be found in Sebeos’s Mazk’ut’k’ whose “great king” Bahrām Čōbīn (Vahram Merhewandak [Mihrevandak]) attacked and defeated in the area “beyond the great river” (Sebeos, i: 15, ii: 168). This would appear to refer to Bahrām Čōbīn’s victory over the Türks around Herat in 589, but has been conflated with events in the North Caucasus. The identification of the Mazk’ut’k in Armenian sources, however, remains problematic. Marquart (1901: 65, 83–84) viewed this as a reference to the Türks (as also found in Theophanes Byzantios) and the “great river” as the Oxus. The “great king” slain by Bahrām was Šaba. For various views of the problem, see Lewicki (1956–1988, i: 73, 117, n. 117), who identified it with the territory of the “King of Masqaṭ” (‫سق َط‬ ْ َ ‫)ملك الم‬ For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 23 Alxans, although the name Alxan, if they are indeed a Turkic-speaking grouping, is most probably not the Turkic name of the Karmīr Xyōn (Rezakhani, 2017: 107–108). In any event, Theophanes Byzantios is conflating several different nomadic peoples. This notice is followed by a brief account of Türk-Byzantine relations and embassies during the time of Justinian (527–565) and Justin ii (565–578). John Malalas (ca. 490–d. after 565), whose History provides a contemporary account of the reign of Justinian i (r. 527–565; Treadgold, 2010: 235– 256), reports that in July, 563, an embassy came to Constantinople from “Askel, king of the Hermichiones who dwell inland of the barbarian nation near the Ocean” (Malalas, 1831: 496; Malalas, 1986: 304). As the text of Malalas breaks off just before the Hermichion embassy, it is reconstructed from the later text in Theophanes (d. 818), which closely follows him and reports an embassy in 562/563 to Constantinople of Ἀσκήλ, τοῦ ῥηγὸς Ἑρμηχιόνων, τοῦ ἔσωθεν κειμένου τοῦ τῶν βαρβάρων ἔθνους πλησίον τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ “Askel, king of the Hermichions, who dwell inland of the barbarian nation near the Ocean” (Theophanes, 1883– 1885/1980, i: 239, Theophanes, 1997: 351, 352, n. 23; Dickens, 2008: 48; Dickens, 2016: 113). Sinor (1990: 302), among others, believes that “Hermichions” (most probably a variant or corruption of Κερμιχίωνες) were the Türks. Whether the Ἑρμηχιόνες ~ Κερμιχίωνες were the Türks,68 or perhaps some Xiyōn/Hephthalite grouping now subject to them is unclear as is the question of whether this was, indeed, the first Türk-Byzantine contact. The complications of the question are discussed by Pohl (2018: 50–51). The Middle Persian Zand ī Wahman Yasn69 in a listing of non-Aryan (anērān) peoples, records, among others, the xyōn [hyōn], turk and the karmīr-xyōn [hyōn] separately, noting the latter between the hrōmāyīg “Romans” and spēd-xyōn “White Huns” (Rezakhani, 2017: 107–108, 135–136; Cereti, 1995:139). Here, a distinction is made between turk and karmīrxyōn [hyōn]. Cf. also Pahlavi twrk [tu’lkw] (Harmatta, 1962: 132). For our immediate purposes far more certain are the notices in Menander the Guardsman/Protector (προτίκτωρ “palace guardsman”), who composed his History, which has survived in fragments preserved in later works, during the reign of the East Roman/Byzantine Emperor Maurikios (582–602), i.e. 68 69 of Ibn Xurradādbih (1889: 124), located in the North Caucasus; see also comments of Garsoïan in P’awstos Buzand, 1989: 389–390 and of Hewsen in Širakac’i, 1992: 45A, 57, 57A, 75, 121–122, n. 103. Harmatta (1962: 146) affirms that Karmīr Xyōn was the name used by the Persians to denote the Türks and the Persians, accordingly, were the intermediaries who introduced the Türks to the Byzantines. The dating of the Zand ī Wahman Yasn is uncertain with estimates ranging from the late Achaemenid era to the Islamic era, with various hands taking part in the form in which it is found today (Cereti, 1995: 1–2). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 24 golden roughly within the period of the Bugut and Khüis Tolgoi inscriptions. Menander appears to have had access to imperial archives, although this is not absolutely certain. He did not use John of Ephesus’s account (Whitby, 1988: 243– 244; Dickens, 2016: 113, 121–122). His History, meant to be a continuation of the work of Agathias, covers the period 557/558–582 and shows considerable interest in eastern affairs, relations with the Türks and Sāsānid Iran (odb, ii:1338; Menander, 1985:1–30). Already well into his account, Menander, in a comment prefacing his remarks on the embassy of Zemarkhos dispatched by the Emperor Justin ii (r. 565–578) in August, 569 (on the embassy, see Dobrovits, 2011: 373–409; Dickens, 2016: 112–131),70 reports that the Türks “had been formerly called the Sacae” (Ὅτι τῶν Τούρκων Σακῶν καλουμένων τὸ πάλαι …, Menander, 1985: 116/117; Ždanovič, 2014: 10, 13). Moravcsik (1958, ii: 264) considered this an “archaism.” Blockley (Menander, 1985: 263, n. 124) in his commentary to Menander’s text, remarks that Sacae (Σάκαι), already noted in Herodotus, was a “general Persian term for the nomads of Central Asia who lived outside the oases.” Actually, Saka was the Persian term for the Scythians (Frye, 1963: 40–42; Herodotus, 1982: 181–183, n. 37, 392–394, n. 752). However, this usage, Σάκαι, is unique to Menander and may point not to an archaicizing ethnicon, but to an older Türk connection. Menander’s account of Zemarkhos’s embassy notes a number of ethnic designations: τῶν Χολιατῶν, “of the Kholiatai,” most probably the Kwls71 in the passage on the nomads north of the Caucasus of PseudoZacharias Rhetor written ca. 555,72 the Хвалисы “Khorezmians” of the Old Rus’ 70 71 72 The account of John of Ephesus is probably the earliest of the narratives that deal with Zemarkhos’s embassy (Dickens, 2016: 114). A fragment of what remains of the History of John of Epiphaneios, (ca. 550–early 7th century, Treadgold, 2010: 308–310) a relative of Evagrios, briefly notes the embassy of the Τούρκων to Justin ii that resulted in the sending of the reciprocal embassy of Zemarkhos (fhg iv.273–274; Greatrex and Lieu, 2002: 141). His work, probably completed in the early 7th century, was an important source on the wars of Maurikios with Iran and was used by Theophylaktos Simokattes. As a court lawyer and a participant in a Byzantine embassy to Iran in the 590s, John had direct contact with Xusrō ii “and other leading Persians” (Whitby, 1988: 222–227). Kmoskó, 2004: 99 (Kūlas); Dickens, 2008: 28; Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, 2011: 450 (Khulas). “Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor,” an anonymous Syriac “epitome and extension” dated to ca. 568/69ce of the now lost Greek Ecclesiastical History of Zachariah Rhetor (“Zachariah Scholasticus”), which covers the latter half of the 5th century. “Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor,” has a section (an appendix) on the North Caucasian steppe peoples, written, it is noted, in 555, shortly after the rise of the Türk Qağanate (Dickens, 2008:19–20; Kmoskó, 2004: 47–48; Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, 2011: 32). Czeglédy, 1971: 133–148, remains an important study of the problems with this text, which concludes (pp. 139, 141) that its mix of Middle Persian and Greek forms of ethnicons, including those that are a mix of both, point to its source as a Middle Persian translation of a Greek source. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 25 sources73 and hydronyms e.g. Δαΐχ = J̌ayïq/Yayïq (the Ural River), ἐς τὸν Ἀττίλαν “to the Atïl (Volga),” Τάλας (the Talas, a place from which Zemarkhos and his companions, after a sojourn with Sir J̌abğu Qağan, began their return journey to Constantinople, Menander, 1985: 120/121–124/125). These names must have been learned from natives.74 It may also be pointed out that the Türk embassy to Justin ii in 568 was led by Μανιὰχ, a leader of the Soġdians, who had previously been under Hephthalite rule and were now subjects of the Türks. The latter had first sent two embassies to the Sāsānids, one led by Μανιὰχ,75 which had ended unsuccessfully (the last one drastically so with fatal consequences for the representatives of the Türks, see de La Vaissière, 2016: 204–211 for the full context), which induced Sir J̌abğu/Σιλζίβουλος Qağan,76 i.e. Ištämi (Menander, 1985: 44/45, 172/173, 178/179) to turn to Constantinople, perhaps pressed by the Soġdian merchants anxious to maintain their position in the traffic of the Silk Road, following the collapse of the Soġdo-Türk dealings with the Sāsānids noted above (Ždanovič, 2014:8–9). The Türk embassy stands in sharp contrast to the Avar embassy to Constantinople that preceded it by a decade.77 73 74 75 76 77 pvl, 1996: 9: из Руси можеть ити по Волзѣ в Болгары и въ Хвалисы; p. 388: Xvalisy – Old Rus’ name for Xwārazm, cf. Хвалынское море “Caspian Sea.” The embassy reached the Ἐκτάγ, which Menander (1985: 118/119) translates as “Golden Mountain” (χρυσοῦν ὅρος). The location of this site, perhaps Turkic *Aqtağ (lit. “White Mountain”) has long been the subject of discussion. Ἐκτάγ/Aqtağ cannot mean “Golden Mountain,” i.e. the Altay, Altun Yïš in Old Turkic and Chin. 金山 Jīnshān (see below). Dobrovits, 2008: 386–387 suggests that Aqtağ may be any “snowy mountain,” perhaps in “somewhere in the Altai ranges.” Again, we are dealing with toponyms learned in situ from the local inhabitants. A seasoned veteran “diplomat” in the Türk-Soġdian commercial symbiosis, with Soġdians playing a variety of roles, administrative, military and diplomatic, in the Türk Qağanate, de La Vaissière, 2016: 182–184. Harmatta, 1962: 149–150 has Σιζάβουλος (Menander, 1985: 118/119–125/in connection with the account of the embassy of Zamarkhos) and posits a Soġdian form *Siǰaβu or *Sižaβu from Sirǰaβu or *Siržaβu. Dobrovits, 2004: 111–114; Dobrovits, 2008: 75–77 notes the Bactrian form cpi iaπγv ϸaxo sri iapgu šaho, which he suggests was the title used by İštämi’s Iranian subjects. Older mistaken forms were Διζάβουλος, Διλζίβουλος, noted in Moravcsik, 1958, ii: 275–276. He is recorded in Arab historico-geographical texts as Sinǰibū (text: ‫ )سن ْجبو‬Xāqān (cf. Ibn Xurradāḏbih, 1889: 39–40; Ibn al-Faqīh, 1996: 649). The Sinǰēbīk xagan of the Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr: 13 (line 90), an mp text from “late Antiquity.” The Avars who dispatched the embassy of 558 (see below) were, apparently, newly arrived in the Pontic steppe zone “after many wanderings,” i.e. the flight from the Türks (?). In this instance, Σαρωσίος, the “leader of the Alans” (τοῦ Ἀλανῶν ἡγουμένου) served as the intermediary. The Avar ambassador, Κανδῖχ, boasted of the “invincible” power of the Avars and sought an alliance with Constantinople, but only if the East Romans/Byzantines would give them “valuable gifts, yearly payments and very fertile land to inhabit” (Menander, 1985: 48/49); but other accounts remark that they had come as “fugitives” (φυγόντες) from For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 26 golden Μανιὰχ brought with him a letter in “Scythian” (τὸ γράμμα Σκυθικὸν, Menander, 1985: 110/111–116/117), most probably in Soġdian (de La Vaissière, 2016: 182).78 Thus, the latter is the likely source language for the word Τούρκος in Byzantine Greek (Soġd. twrk). It is unlikely that Σκυθικὸν, which was used as a generic for Central Asian peoples (Kaldellis, 2013: 83, 114–115), a term that would also include the Soġdians, who are in the same text noted under their own name, Σογδαῗται, denoted the actual language of the Türks (Menander, 1985:110/111, 263, n. 119). The Türks had not yet developed a writing system for Turkic. The earliest written material from the Türks that is known to us is in Soġdian (the Bugut Inscription, which also contains a section in Mongolic, written in Brāhmī script, see below). Soġdian was the lingua franca of the Silk Road (Foltz, 2010: 14–15). The Türk embassy was led by a Soġdian, accompanied, undoubtedly, by other Soġdians and it would be expected that a translator for a letter in Soġdian could be found in Constantinople. The Türks (Τούρκους) are recorded by Evagrius (Euagrios, d. after 594), roughly a contemporary of Menander, in his Ecclesiastical History (v.1) written in 593/4 (Evagrius, 2000: xx, xxii–xxxiv, on the sources used by Evagrius, which did not include Menander, see p. xxiii, n. 53 and Whitby, 1988: 244–245 for a critique of this author). Evagrius mentions them in his brief notice on the flight of the Avars, “a Scythian race” of “wagon-dwellers” in the steppes who had “fled en masse from their neighbours, the Turks, after being ill-treated by them,” and had come to the Bosporus and eventually “sent an embassy to Justinian” (Evagrius, 1898: 196; Evagrius, 2000: 255 and n. 5, which dates diplomatic overtures via the Alans to Constantinople ca. 558). The Türks are next mentioned (vi.15, Evagrius, 1898: 233; Evagrius, 2000: 307) in connection with “Persian general” Bahrām Čōbīn (Βαράμου στρατηγοῦ περσῶν) who returning from his victory over them, was plotting the overthrow of Hormizd iv (see above). Once again, the Türks are noted, but only in passing and without prefatory remarks. After 568, the Türks were becoming a known entity in Constantinople. Harmatta (1962:132–133), in an early work, argued for a Middle Persian/ Pahlavi transmission of the name Türk to the Byzantines, as this ethnonym was known to the Persians before it became known to the Byzantines. He cites as evidence for his viewpoint notices in Theophylaktos Simokattes (scr. 630s or 78 their own land to “Scythia and Mysia” (Theophanes, 1980, i: 232; Theophanes, 1997: 339– 340). The request for habitable land very probably indicated that the Avars were not yet secure in their habitat of the moment and fearful of the oncoming Türks. Overall, see discussion in Pohl, 2018: 21–22, 37, 47. Lung (2008: 181, 183–184) posits a letter written in Turkic with some Soġdian (“Scythian”) loan words, but we lack the letter, hence such a conclusion is speculative. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 27 early 640s, Neville, 2018: 48) who continued Menander’s History, focusing on the reign of the Emperor Maurikios (582–602) and events thereafter up to 628. Simokattes comments (iii.6.9, Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1972: 121, Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1986: 80): “after the Huns, who dwell towards the north-east and whom it is customary for Persians to call Turks” (τῶν Οὔννων τοιγαροῦν τῶν πρὸς τῷ βορρᾷ τῆς ἕω, οὕς Τούρκους ἔθνος Πέρσαις ἀποκαλεῖν). Elsewhere, Theophylaktos Simokattes (i.8.5) conveys the same information: “These are Huns who dwell in the east as neighbours of the Persians and whom it is more familiar for the many to call Turks” (Οὖννοι δ᾽ οὗτοι, προσκοῦντες τῇ ἕῳ, Περσῶν πλησιόχωροι, οὕς καὶ Τούρκους ἀποκαλεῖν τοῖς πολλοῖς γνωριμώτερον, Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1972: 54, Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1986: 30). Simokattes may well have been aware of the Persian usages, but the word Türk, as we have seen, was already familiar to those conducting foreign affairs in Constantinople. Moreover, his source(s) had direct knowledge of ethnonyms, toponyms and hydronyms used by the Türks (see above). In Byzantine sources, Τοῦρκοι (Moravcsik, 1958, ii: 320–327), in addition to denoting the Türks and the Türkderived, Khazars,79 also encompassed the Hungarians (see above), the Vardariote “Turks,”80 Turkic ġulāms, Seljuks and Ottomans. Roughly contemporaneous with, if not slightly earlier than the first East Roman/early Byzantine accounts to mention the Türks are the Syriac sources in which the Türks appear as: Ṭurqāyē, Ṭurkāyē, Turkāyē, Turqāyē (plural forms, i.e. Turks) and Ṭurqis, Ṭurqios, Ṭuriqi Dickens explains the differing forms of transcription as stemming from the “inherent challenges” that translations from foreign sources pose: i.e. Greek accounts for those living within the political borders of the East Roman/Byzantine Empire (the “Western Syriac” authors) and Middle Persian sources for those living under Sāsānid rule (the “Eastern Syriac” authors), both adjusting foreign terms to the requirements of Syriac phonological changes. Ṭurqis, Ṭurqios he derives from Greek Τουρχίους (Dick79 80 The Türk connection of the Khazars is noted in the rendering of their name in the Tang-era Chinese sources: 突厥可薩 Tūjué Kěsà emc kha’ sat lmc kha ′ sat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 173 [30:2], 271 [140:14]), mc khaX sat (Kroll: 230, 394): Türk Qazar and 突厥曷薩 Tūjué Hésà, emc ɣat sat, lmc xɦat sat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 123 [73:5], 271[140:14]); mc hat sat (Kroll: 156, 394): Türk Xazar, 突厥之可薩部 Tūjué zhī Kěsà bù (the Khazar tribe of the Türk), 突厥可薩部 Tūjué Kěsà bù (the Türk Khazar tribe) see discussion in Shirota (2005): 231–261. The Vardariotai were a kind of “police corps” that formed part of the Byzantine imperial entourage in the later Komnenian era (12th century, if not slightly earlier) into the 13th century. Initially associated with a population settled on the Vardar river, their origins are uncertain. “Persian” (quite possibly Turkic is meant here), Turkic (perhaps Hungarian) descent has been posited. The issue remains unresolved (odb, iii:2153; Bartusis, 1992: 54, 271, 279–281, 283–284). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 28 golden ens, 2008: 32–33, 56; Dickens, 2016: 103, 110, 118, 119). The “Western Syriac” Ecclesiastical History (555) of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor with its catalogue of the nomadic peoples of the “Hunnic Land” (Beth Hunāyē)81 does not note the Türks. The earliest mention of Türk appears to be in the “East” Syriac translation (“late 6th century”) of the Middle Persian translation of Kalilah and Dimnah, a work originally written in Sanskrit, which has: Ṭurqāyē. By this time the Türks figured significantly in Sāsānid military-political calculations (Dickens, 2008: 30–34; Dickens, 2016: 104–105). The similarly named “Western Syriac” Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus (fl. ca. 507–588/9), Part iii (dealing with the period 571–588 and “based largely on his personal knowledge,” Dickens, 2016: 105–107; for critical comments on his account, see Whitby, 1988: 245–248), records (vi.7) the Ṭurqis, (vi.12) Ṭurqios (vi.7; vi.23; John of Ephesus, 1860: 388 and n. 425: Turqis, Turchios; Greatrex and Lieu, 2002: 141; Dickens, 2008: 36–37, 41–45; Dickens, 2016: 118–119; Kmoskó, 2004: 129, n. 571, 132: Ṭūrqiōs, Ṭurqiūs). The notice on the Ṭurqāyē whose possible approach caused the Avar Qağan to retreat to Sirmium from Anchialos in 588 from the lost portion of John’s work has been preserved in the Chronicle of Michael Syrus (d. 1199; x.211, see Dickens, 2016: 111–112). Menander and John of Ephesus, contemporaries who apparently had access to similar information/sources, some based on eyewitness accounts, while viewing the purposes of their accounts quite differently (Dickens, 2016:130–131), provide an interesting point of information in common. John of Ephesus (vi.23) in his account of the embassy of Zemarkhos (569–570) reports that in addition to the “king” (Qağan) with whom Zemarkhos had contact there were “eight other great kings beyond him” (John of Ephesus, 1960: 425; Dickens, 2016: 119). Menander, in his account of the second Byzantine embassy in 576 to the Türks, led this time by Valentinos, an embassy that found a hostile reception from one of the Türks “leaders” (a Qağan or lesser Qağan), Τούρξανθος (*Türk-šad? This title/anthroponym remains a matter of contention),82 who ruled one of the eight territories (ἐν ὀκτὼ γάρ μοίρας) into which the Türks had divided their 81 82 Dickens (2008: 20–30; Dickens, 2016: 104) provides a thorough analysis of the passage which mentions a number of peoples, who were, undoubtedly, Turkic-speaking, as well as the most probably newly-arrived European Avars (Āḇār), but does not mention the Türks, who, very likely, were not yet on the scene; see also Czeglédy, 1971: 133–148; Kmoskó, 2004: 98–100; Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, 2011: 447–451. Pohl, 2018: 26–27, while acknowledging the importance of this notice underscores the complexity of dealing with information that may have been transmitted through the filters of Greek, Middle Persian and Syriac. Beckwith (2006–2007: 9) revises Τούρξανθος (Menander, 1985: 176/177) to Τουρκοάθ *Türkwath. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 29 lands. The “senior ruler” was Ἀρσίλας (Menander, 1985: 172/173; see above).83 We are not otherwise informed of an eight-fold division of the Türk realm (in whole, or just the western part?). It might be further noted in this regard that the Pečeneg tribal union of the 10th century, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus (scr. 948–942) was also divided into “eight provinces” (εἰς θέματα ὀκτὼ διαιρεῖται, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 1967: 166/167). The matter merits further exploration – at another time. Turning to lands more directly adjacent to the Türk core territory, we must look at the data provided by the Saka documents written in Khotan (hvatäna, hvatana, hvatäna-kṣīra, hvaṃ-kṣīra “the country of Khotan,” Bailey, 1979: vii, 501–502; Bailey, 1982: 2–3, also called Udun in Turkic, see al-Kāsġarī, 1982–1985, i:114). Only fragments of Saka spoken in nearby areas, e.g. the Kanǰak Saka of the Kāšġar region, Tumšuq, Murtuq, Kroraina and an Indo-Saka (Gercenberg, 1981: 234, Emmerick, 2009: 377–379) have survived in a few texts and in some substratal words found in the Turkicized population of the region (e.g. Kanǰakī, Tremblay, 2007: 63–76).84 The bulk of the literature in Khotan Saka, believed to date from the 7th–10th centuries,85 with a few possibly a century or two earlier (Emmerick, 2009: 378), consists of translations of Buddhist texts, as well as Indic epics, medical works and didactic tales from Sanskrit and Prakrit. A few of the manuscripts contain some information on the history and sociopolitical organization of Khotan and in the process mention the ethnonyms of peoples who raided or warred with that realm. Most of the documents are written in forms of the “Central Asian Brāhmī” script and present more than a few problems (Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja, 1992: 32–35).86 In Khotan Saka, Türk is writ83 84 85 86 Michael Syrus (d. 1199) in his Chronicle (x.10), which drew extensively on earlier works, simply notes that there were “9 kings of the Ṭurqāyē” at that time (cited in Dickens, 2016: 127–128). Kāšġarī, 1982–1985, i: 357, calls the Känčǟk “a tribe of the Turks,” but notes elsewhere (i:84) that “Kashghar has villages in which Känčǟkī is spoken, but in the main city [they speak] Khāqānī Turkic.” This information is placed in a section that outlines those parts of the Turkic (more properly Turkic-ruled) world in which there were bilingual cities, e.g. Balasağun, Isbījāb, Ṭirāz (Talas) in which Soġdian and Turkic were spoken and in Arğu, a region extending from Isbījāb to Balasağun, in which the population was, apparently, in the last stages of Turkicization. The implication is that the Känčǟk villages around Kāšġar were still speaking Saka or at least were bilingual. Bailey (1970: 67) notes Tibetan Gaḥ ǰag (Ganjag) and kāñcake in a fragment from Murtuq, both probably denoting Känǰǟk/ Känčǟk. Bailey (1982: 2) dates “local Khotan texts” from 300–1000. The documents are dated from the 7th to the 10th century. In the early 11th century, Khotan was conquered by Turkic Muslims (Gertsenberg, 1981: 235, terms them “Uyğur Muslims,” which is inaccurate). The Uyğurs, who were not yet Muslims, were the mortal enemies of For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 30 golden ten ttūrka (recorded only once), or more often ttrūka (according to Bailey, 1982: 81, 84–85, genitive pl. ttrūkāṃ cf. also ttrūki̯, ttūrki̯, Bailey, 1939:86; Bailey, 1979: 132, 433 [ttrūkä bayarkāvāṃ: Türk Bayarqu]), ttrukä in Róna-Tas, 1999: 279–280, which he reads as truka or trükü > truk/trük and considers the “Khotanese data … older and more original”. Turkic, he concluded, “fitted the foreign word truku or trükü into its own system as türkü.” These forms, he argues, are corroborated by Tibetan: dru-gu དྲུགུ་, drug (Bailey, 1982: 85 considered Tibet. -u in dru-gu a suffix, hence he prefers the form drug; Bailey, 1985: 101; Venturi, 2008: 9, 12; Beckwith, 2005:14, 2010: 5; Erkoç, 2019: 133, 135. Uray, 1979: 281 mentions Dru-gu-yul “Land of the Turks” noted in the latter part of the 7th century in the Tibetan Royal annals) and by the fact that Khotanese Saka and Tibetan were perfectly capable of transcribing Türk, if that were the original form, hence the initial consonant cluster tr- as reflected in the Khotanese Saka and Tibetan forms must be the original. Róna-Tas further suggests that the word that became türk in a Turkic linguistic milieu itself may reflect a Khotan Saka word *trukă, which subsequently “was identified” with Turkic türk “strong, strength, ripe.” *Trukă, it is proposed, may stem from Khotan Saka tturakä “cover,”87 which harkens back to the ethnogonic tale reported in Chinese accounts that the 突厥 Tūjué (Türküt) took their name after the “helmet-shaped” appearance of the Altay Mountains 金山 (Jīnshān “Gold[en] Mountain,” Altun Yïš in Türk, see Aydın, 2016: 33–34; Altay <*altañ “gold” [Golden, 1992: 118] or < *paltuñ [Yıldız, 2017: 187–201]) where they had served the Rouran/Avars as blacksmiths (Róna-Tas and Berta, 2011, ii: 940–941; see discussion in Golden, 2018: 294, 297–299). Thus, trükü > türkü was conflated with Turk. türk “flourishing, in full strength,” a suitable ethnonym (Róna-Tas, 1999: 281). Another perspective is offered by Beckwith (2005: 13–18, Beckwith, 2006/ 2007: 5–12, Beckwith, 2010: 5–10), who argues that 突厥 Tūjué mc *turkwar ~ *durkwar renders *türk-wać/*türk-βač/*türk-wač/*türk-watj/*türk-βatj88 “rulers 87 88 the Muslim Qaraxanids, who under Yūsuf Qadïr Xan of Kāšġar, took the city-state ca. 1006 (Bartol’d, 1963–1977a, i: 335, 342–347; Pritsak, 1951: 295 and n. 3; Bailey, 1982: 3; Milward, 2007: 55), becoming a semi-legendary figure (Satuq Buğra Destanı, 2017: 107–198). The complexities of the Brāhmī script system for rendering Turkic are discussed in Róna-Tas, 1991: 63–91; Hitch, 2016. Khotan Saka Brāhmī tt represents an “unvoiced t” and is “consistently written ⟨tt⟩” (Róna-Tas, 1991: 87, 90; Gertsenberg, 1981: 243, 249). Hitch, 2015: 663–687 states (pp. 663, 664, 682) that tt = t and that tt was initially used to write “voiceless double /tt/ and was later adapted to writing voiceless single /t/.” Bailey, 1979: 132 (tturakä), 511 (tturaka) “covering.” Beckwith, 2005: 17; Beckwith, 2006–2007: 8–10: *βač < Old Indic vati~pati “ruler;” Gāndhārī Prakrit wati (vati < pati). Beckwith (2006–2007: 9) revises the name/title of the Türk ruler, Τούρξανθος (Menander, 1985: 176/177) to Τουρκοάθ *Türkwath. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 31 of the Türk”/“Türk Rulers”/“The Royal Türk(s).” The ethnonym of the Türks, he argues, followed a similar pattern to that seen in the name of the 拓跋 Tuòbá (see above). These and other explanations remain matters of contention. Further forms are found in Arabic, Arabo-Pers. texts (Frenkel, 2015: 1–36; tmen, ii: 483–495): ‫ترك‬, ‫ اتراك‬Turk, pl. Atrāk, Pers. ‫ تركان‬pl. Turkān; Indic: turuṣka, Prakrit turukha (Marquart, 1901: 239, n. 6, 240, 254, Markwart, 1938: 112– 113). In a Bactrian document from Gozgan dated to 693, we find: σηρο τορκο “Sēr the Turk.” In the Tang-i Safedak inscription (714), Türk appears as δορκο (SimsWilliams, 2011: 20).89 An important clue is to be found in the recently deciphered Mongolic (Rouran?90) text in the Khüis Tolgoi inscription 1:5,10 written in Brāhmī script, sometime during or just after the reign of Niri Qağan (r. 595–604, see de La Vaissière, 2018: 316), which notes, nīri qaɣan türǖg qaɣan, niri qaɣan türüg qaɣa[n] (Vovin, 2019: 173, 182, 188,191, 192 “Niri qaɣan, qaɣan of Türks”).91 The reading, which may well point to Türük,92 is crucial to our reading of the earliest Türk form of their self-designation. Given the türüg, türǖg of the Khüis Tolgoi inscription, an original *Türüküt with a syncope producing **Türü̆küt/ Türü̆güt > Türküt is not implausible. On the basis of the Soġdian forms in the Bugut and the Mongolic (Rouran) forms in the Khüis Tolgoi inscriptions, I think that we can conclude that Türük was the original Türk self-designation and Türküt reflected in the Chinese sources derives from either an archaic plural in –(A)t or a Rouran plural (*türü̆güt > türgüt/türküt). The influence of Soġdian twrkyt/twrkt, i.e. turkit in shaping the Chinese form cannot be excluded. 89 90 91 92 See Sims-Williams, 2003: 225–242 and Sims-Williams, 2011: 15–26 for an overview of the Bactrian documents and their relevance for Turkic Studies. On the problems of the dating of these documents, see Sims-Williams and Weber et al. 2018. See Vovin, 2004: 118–132 and Vovin, 2011: 27–36 for his earlier thoughts regarding the language of the Rouran. In Classical Mongol, there is türüg and türke, Mod. Mongol. turok (Russ. Турок) “Turk” (Lessing, 1995: 885, 856) and türeg [түрэг] Luvsandéndév and Cédéndamba, 2001–2002, iii: 274. Thus, the Türk Qağan bearing the name Tatpar Qaġan (r. 572–581): Soġd. (Bugut, i.3 22,3– 4,5,6,7,9,11) mɣ’’ t’tp’r x’ɣ’n (Maġa Tatpar Qağan), mɣ’tp’r: Maɣa Tatpar, βɣy mɣ’ t’t(p)[‘r] etc. (Moriyasu and Ochir, 1999: 123; Ölmez, 2012: 67; Rybatzki, 2000: 215; Yoshida, 2019: 99– 105, cf. also Lurje, 2010: 238 [664] for these and other forms, including Chin. 莫賀他鉢 Mòhètābō emc: mak/mɔh ɣah tha pat Qağan and Tābō 他鉢 emc tha pat lmc tha puat Pulleyblank, 1991: 299 [9:3], 40 [167:5] Qağan, also 佗鉢 Tuóbō emc: tha pat lmc: tha puat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 313 [9:5], 40 [167:5]), 達拔 Dábá emc: that bǝɨt/bɛ:t lmc: that pɦia:t (Pulleyblank: 299 [162:9, dá/tà], 27 [64:5]), Kasai, 2014: 130), is recorded as Tadpar muɣan qaɣan in the Mongolic (Rouran?) section of the Bugut inscription written in Brāhmī (BBrāhmī.11, 2, 9,11) Hence, a t > d and k > g might be indicated. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 32 golden The question of whether the original Türks were initially Turkic-speaking remains unsettled. On the one hand, they appear to have come to the GansuEastern Turkistan/Xinjiang region from the Xiongnu93 union in which we find Turkic-speakers (e.g. the Dingling). On the other hand, the name of their ruling clan and tribe (Ashina) and the names of their early rulers are clearly not Turkic (Golden, 1992: 121; Rybatzki, 2000: 206–220; Zuev, 2002: 7). Many of the names (more often titles and honorifics) recorded in the Chinese sources for the period of the First Türk Qağanate eventually clearly evince Turkic terminology and there are indications of works being translated into Turkic for Tatpar several decades after the establishment of the Qağanate. By the era of the Second Qağanate, when we have the Türks writing about themselves in Turkic (the Orxon inscriptions), they are writing in a developed Turkic literary koine. Abbreviations bq emc eot kč kt 93 94 95 Bilge Qağan Inscription (735, Kemp, 2004: 44) Early Middle Chinese East Old Turkic Küli/Köli Čor94 Inscription (720–725, Kemp, 2004:24, 722–723, Ölmez, 2012:198, after 732? Aydın, 2018: 173) Köl (Kül)95 Tegin Inscription (732. Kemp, 2004: 45) The language of the Xiongnu core grouping remains debated, see Pulleyblank, 2000: 62– 65, who proposed Yeniseic, but included other possibilities; Vovin, (2000: 87–104; Vovin, 2003: 389–394) inclined toward Yeniseic; Janhunen (1996: 185–189) considered it “dominated by speakers of pre-Proto-Bulgharic.” Dybo, (2007: 76–82) rendered the Xiongnu couplet preserved in Chinese characters as an ancient form of Turkic. Kliashtornyi (2010:130) concluded that the languages of the Xiongnu and Huns are not known with certainty, but based on the sparse data most probably included “Proto-Turkic tribes” as well as the ancestors of the Mongols, Tungus and Ugrians and Iranians. In Runiform script: 𐰺𐰆𐰲𐰃𐰠𐰇𐰜 kü/öličo/ur/ẅ̲ k̲ẄllčWR (Aydın, 2017: 134 [küli čor]; Aydın, 2018: 171–172 [noting other readings as Köl İč Čor/Kül İč Čor]; Berta, 2004: 5,11 [kẅli čwr]). The name is transcribed in Chinese as: 屈律啜 qūlǜchuò (Aydın, 2017: 129), emc khut lwit tɕhwiat lmc khyt lyt tʂhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 260 [44:5], 205 [60:6], 63 [30:8]), 屈利啜 qūlìchuò, emc khut lih tɕhwiat lmc khy li` tʂhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 260 [44:5], 188 [18:5], 63 [30:8]), 闕啜 quē/quéchuò emc khuat tɕhwiat lmc khyat tʂhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 263 [169:10], 63 [30:8]) and 闕律啜 quēlǜchuò emc khuat lwit tɕhwiat lmc khyat lyt tʂhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 263 [169:10], 205 [60:6], 63 [30:8]), all noted by Kasai, 2014: 126, who opts for the reading as Kül(i) Čor, as does Aydın, 2018: 171. 𐰠𐰇𐰚/ 𐰤𐰏𐰃𐱅 𐰠𐰇𐰜: kö/ül, k̲ö̲/ü̲ l ̲ tign (kt-E26, 27) Berta, 2004: 110: kẄltIgn, ẅ̲ k̲ẄltIgn; Aydın, 2017: 59, 60: köl tėgin Chin. 闕特勤 quē tèqín: emc: khuat lmc: khyat (Pulleyblank: 263 [169:10]). Kasai, 2014: 126 reads 闕 quē as representing köl, see discussion in Sertkaya, 1995a: For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk lh lmc mc oc odb T wot 33 Late Hàn 漢 Chinese (from 1st century ce, Schuessler, 2009: 29–34) Late Middle Chinese Middle Chinese (the language of 長安 Cháng’ān ca. 600ce)96 Old Chinese (ca. 1250–221bce, i.e. pre-Qín 秦 [221–206bce]) The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium Tonyuquq Inscription (726, Kemp, 2004: 47)97 West Old Turkic Bibliography Aalto, Pentti and Tuomo Pekkanen. 1975–1980. Latin Sources on North-Eastern Eurasia, Asiatische Forschungen, 44, 57 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz), 2 vols. Abaev, Vasilii I. Istoriko-étimologicheskii slovar’ osetinskogo iazyka (Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk sssr, 1958–1995), 4 vols. and Index. 96 97 129–133; Aydın, 2017: 43–44 and below. Kubatin, 2017:110 and n. 1, cites Soġd. kwl for kül or köl. He views kül (< kṻ “rumour; fame, reputation” > kṻlüg “famous” Clauson, 1972: 686, 715 [kül “title,” Clauson preferred kül to köl], 717–718) as an epithet used in titles, e.g. kül čor, kül erkin, kül tegin. In Karlgren, 1996, mc is termed “Ancient Chinese.” The dating of mc covers the period from the Late Hàn 漢 (Hàn dynasty: 206 bce–220 ce) to the Sòng 宋 (Běi Sòng 北宋 Northern Song 960–1127). emc refers to the period from the end of the Hàn to ca. 601. lmc is the period of the Táng 唐 (618–907), see discussion in Wilkinson, 2018:23–24; Pul. 1991:1–3; Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 9–32 (with discussion of phonetics etc.). Pan and Zhang (2015: 80– 90): date mc “from c. 5th century ce to 12th century ce,” with discussion of the sources and phonology. There were, of course, regional differences in pronunciation (dialects), some of which can be refined in the reconstructions. All reconstructions are “sets of hypotheses … consistent with observed data” but also predictive “about data not yet seen.” In mc (in Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 5, 7), the forms noted are “not phonetic reconstructions but conventional representations about pronunciation given in Middle Chinese written sources.” See also Schuessler, 2009: 5–10. Reconstructions vary, often only slightly, from scholar to scholar. Nonetheless, when combined with the data from languages using alphabetic systems (with their own sets of problems) they help us to more fully round out the pronunciation of the terms. The process is ongoing. The sources and notation systems for oc and mc are discussed in Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 9–41. The forms recorded in Türk Runiform sources reflect the Turkic version of what appears to be a largely borrowed vocabulary inherited from earlier polities, not always rendered correctly or transformed in earlier transcriptions from the Runiform sources (cf. [h]elitbär ~ eltäbär, Erdal, 2016: 175–177). Hence, it is useful in this study to present the widest range of readings. The monument consists of two stones written, it has been argued, by two different hands. Opinions on the dating are far from unanimous, with arguments having been made for its creation in 716, or after the death of Köl Tegin (732) but before the death of Bilge Qağan (734, Sertkaya, 1995b: 113–128, see the most recent discussion in Aydın, 2019: 86–90). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 34 golden Abū’l-Ġāzī. 1970: Histoire des Mongols et des Tatars par Aboul-Ghazi Béhâdour Khân, ed. trans. Petr. I. Desmaisons (St. Petersbourg, 1871–1874, reprint: Amsterdam: St. Leonards Ad Orientem Ltd.-Philo Press), 2 vols. in 1. Abū’l-Ġāzī. 1996: Ebulgazi Bahadır Han, Şecere-i Terākime (Türkmenlerin Soykütüğü), ed. Zuhal Kargı Ölmez (Ankara: Simurg). Adams, Douglas Q. 1988. Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology. American Oriental Series, 71 (New Haven, CT.: American Oriental Society). Adams, Douglas Q. 2013. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and Greatly enlarged. Leiden Studies in Indo-European, 10 (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 2 vols. Agathias. 1967: Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinqe, ed. Rudolf Keydell, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, ii (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter) Agathias. 1975. The Histories, trans. Joseph D. Frendo, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, ii A (Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter) Ananias of Širak. 1992: The Geography of Ananias of Širak (Ašxarhac’oyc’). The Long and the Short Recensions, trans. commentary Robert H. Hewsen. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) Nr. 77 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert). Atwood, Christopher P. 2012. “Some Early Inner Asian Terms Related to the Imperial Family and the Comitatus” Central Asiatic Journal 56: 49–86 Aydın, Erhan. 2015. Yenisey Yazıtları (Konya: Kömen) Aydın, Erhan. 2016. Eski Türk Yer Adları (Ankara: Bilge Kültür Sanat) Aydın, Erhan. 2017. Orhon Yazıtları. Köl Tegin, Bilge Kağan, Tonyukuk, Ongi, Küli Çor (Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat). Aydın, Erhan. 2018. Taşa Kazınan Tarih. Türklerin İlk Yazılı Belgeleri (Istanbul: Kronik) Aydın, Erhan. 2018a. Uygur Yazıtları (Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat). Aydın, Erhan. 2019. Türklerin Bilge Atası Tonyukuk (Istanbul: Kronik) Babayar, Gaybullah. 2014. “Batı Köktürk ve Orta Asya Bozkır Hanlıklarının Sikkelerindeki Damgalar” Marmara Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, c.i, s. i (Bahar): 9–29. Babayarov, Gaybullah. 2017. “Soğdça Yazılı Türk Kağan Ünvanlı Batı Köktürk Sikkeleri Üzerine” Kerkük Çok Irak Değil. Prof. Dr. Eşref Buharalı’ya Armağan. Türk Tarihine Dair Yazılar, ii, ed. Alpaslan Demir, Tuba Kalkan, Eralp Erdoğan (Ankara): 615–635 Bailey, Harold W. 1939. “Turks in Khotanese Texts” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 1: 85–91. Bailey, Harold W. 1970. “Saka Studies: The Ancient Kingdom of Khotan” Iran 8: 65–72. Bailey, Harold W. 1982. The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan (Delmar, NY: Caravan Books). Bailey, Harold W. 1985. Indo-Scythian Studies, being Khotanese Texts, vii (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Balʿamî. 2012: Tabarî, La Chronique. Histoire des prophètes et des rois, trans. H. Zotenberg (Paris, 1867–1874, reprint: Sindbad, 1984, reprint: Actes Sud). ii For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 35 Bartol’d, Vasilii V. 1963–1977. Sochinenija (Moscow: Izdatel’sto Vostočnoj Literatury), 9 vols. Bartol’d, Vasilii V. 1963–1977a. Turkestan v épokhu mongol’skogo nashestviia in his Sočineniia i. Bartol’d, Vasilii V. 1963–1977b. Ocherk istorii turkmenskogo naroda in his Sochineniia, ii/1: 545–623. Bartol’d, Vasilii V. 1963–1977c. Dvenadtsat’ lektsii po istorii turetskikh narodov Srednei Azii in his Sochineniia, v: 17–192. Bartusis, Mark C. 1992. The Late Byzantine Army. Arms and Society, 1204–1453 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Baxter, William H. and Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese. A New Reconstruction (OxfordNew York: Oxford University Press). Bazin, Louis. 1953. “Notes sur les mots ‘Oġuz’ et ‘Türk’” Oriens 6/2: 315–322. Beckwith, Christopher I. 1987. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Beckwith, Christopher I. 2005. “The Chinese Names of the Tibetans, Tabgatch, and Türks” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14: 5–20. Beckwith, Christopher I. 2006/2007. “The Frankish Name of the King of the Turks” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 15: 5–12. Beckwith, Christopher I. 2004. Koguryo. The Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives (Leiden-Boston, second edition 2007). Beckwith, Christopher I. 2009. Empires of the Silk Road. A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Beckwith, Christopher I. 2010. “A Note on the Heavenly Kings of Ancient and Medieval Eurasia” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 17: 5–10. Berta, Árpád. 2004. Szavaimat jól halljátok … A türk és ujgur rovásírásos emlékek kritikai kiadása (Szeged: JATEPress). Bonner, Michael Richard Jackson. 2011. Three Neglected Sources of Sasanian History in the Reign of Khusraw Anushirwan, Studia Iranica. Cahier 46. (Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes). Browning, Robert. 1983. Medieval and Modern Greek, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Carling, Gerd in collaboration with Georges-Jean Pinault and Werner Winter. 2009. A Dictionary and Thesaurus of Tocharian A. Vol. 1: Letters a-j. Manuscript (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag). Cereti, Carlo G. 1995. The Zand ī Wahman Yasn. A Zoroastrian Apocalypse (Romea: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente). Cereti, Carlo G. 2012. “Kārnāmag-ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān” Encyclopaedia Iranica xv, Fasc. 6: 585–588, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/karnamag‑i‑ardasir. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 36 golden Chavannes, Edouard. 1941/1969. Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) Occidenteaux suivi de Notes Additionnelles (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1941, reprint: Taipei: Ch’eng Wen Publishing, 1969) Clauson, Gerard. 1962/2002. Studies in Turkish and Mongolian Linguistics (Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1962, 2nd ed. London: Routledge-Curzon). Clauson, Sir Gerard. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Coblin, W. South. 1994. A Compendium of Phonetics in Northwest Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Monograph Series, 7 (Berkeley). Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 1967. De Administrando Imperio, ed, J. Moravcsik, trans. R. Jenkins (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks) Chunakova, O.M. (ed., trans.). 1987. Kniga deianii Ardashira syna Papaka. Pamiatniki pis’mennosti Vostoka lxxviii (Moscow: Nauka). Czeglédy, Károly. 1958. “Bahrām Čōbīn and the Persian Apocalyptic Literature” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae viii/1: 21–43. Czeglédy, Károly, 1971. “Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor on the Nomads” in Studia Turcica, ed. Louis Ligeti (Budapest): 133–148. Czeglédy, “Gardîzî on the History of Central Asia (745–780a.d.)” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae xxvii/3: 257–267. Czeglédy, Károly. 1983. “From East to West: The Age of Nomadic Migrations in Eurasia” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 3: 25–125. Movsēs Dasxuranc̣i. 1961. The History of the Caucasian Albanians, trans. C.J.F. Dowsett. London Oriental Series, 8 (London: Oxford University Press). Movsēs Dasxuranc̣i [Kałankatuatc̣i]. 1983. Patmut’iwn Ałuanic̣ ašxarhi, ed. V. Arak’elyan (Yerevan). Dickens, Mark. 2008. Turkāyē: Turkic Peoples in Syriac Literature Prior to the Seljüks. PhD Dissertation, Cambridge University. Dickens, Mark. 2016. “John of Ephesus on the Embassy of Zemarchus to the Türks” in István Zimonyi and Osman Karatay (eds.), Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages. Studies in Honour of Peter B. Golden. Turcologica Bd. 104 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag): 103–131. Di Cosmo. Nicola and Michael Maas (eds.). 2018. Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity. Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Dobrovits, Mihály. 2004. “A nyugati türkök első uralkodójáról” Antik Tanulmányok xlviii: 111–114. Dobrovits, Mihály. 2008. “Silziboulos” Archivum Ottomanicum 25: 67–78. Dobrovits, Mihály. 2011. “The Altaic World Through Byzantine Eyes: Some Remarks on the Historical Circumstances of Zemarchus’ Journey to the Türks (ad569–570)” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 65/4: 373–409. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 37 Doerfer, Gerhard. 1963–1975. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag), Bd. i–iv (4 vols.) = tmen Duczko, Wladyslaw. 2004 Viking Rus. Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe (Leiden-Boston: Brill). Duri, A.A. 1983. The Rise of Historical Writing Among the Arabs, ed. trans. L.I. Conrad (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Nina Duthie, 2019. “The Nature of the Hu: Wuhuan and Xianbei Ethnography in the San guo zhi and Hou Han Shu” Early Medieval China, 25: 23–41. Edgar, Adrienne Lynn. 2004. Tribal Nation. The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan (Princeton: Prince University Press). Eisenberg, Andrew. 2018: “Collapse of a Eurasian Hybrid. The Case of the Northern Wei” in: Di Cosmo and Maas (eds.), 2018: 369–385 Emmerick, Ronald E. 2009. “Khotanese and Tumshuqese” in Windfuhr (ed.) 2009: 377– 415 Erdal, Marcel, 1988. “The Turkic Nagy-Szent-Miklós inscription in Greek Letters” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42: 221–234. Erdal, Marcel. 1991. Old Turkic Word Formation. A Functionary Approach to the Lexicon (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz), 2 vols. Erdal, Marcel. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic (Leiden-Boston: Brill). Erdal, Marcel. 2015. “Did the Old Turkic Writing System have Syllabic Characters?” in: Irina Nevskaya and Marcel Erdal (eds.), 2015. Interpreting the Turkic Runiform Sources and the Position of the Altai Corpus. Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Türkvölker, Bd. 21 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag): 42–45. Erdal, Marcel. 2019. “The Turkic-Mongolic Lexical Relationship in View of the Leipzig– Jakarta List” International Journal f Eurasian Linguistics 1: 78–97. Erkoç, Hayrettin İhsan. 2017. “Türk Mitlerindeki Motifler (vi–viii Yüzyıllar)” Journal of Old Turkic Studies 1/1: 36–75. Erkoç, Hayrettin İhsan, 2018. “Göktürk Boylarının Tespit Edilmesi Çin ve Tibet Kaynaklarının Önemi” Genel Türk Tarihi Kaynakları. Ordu Çalıştayı Bildirileri, ed. Ali Erdal Gülderen, Mehmet Alpargu et al. 2–18. (Ordu: Ordu Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür ve Sosyal İşler Dairesi Başkanlığı Kültür YayınlarI 29): 77–160. Evagrius. 1898.: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London: Methuen & Co.) Evagrius. 2000.: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, trans. Michael Whitby, Translated Texts for Historians 33 (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press). Felföldi, Szabolcs. 2005. “Khronologiia padeniia imperii éftalitov” Biulleten’ (Newsletter).12 Hungaro-Russica ii. Istoriia i kul’tura Evraziiskoi stepi 2-j Sbornik statei Rossiiskikh i vengerskikh vostokovedov (Moscow: iv ran): 98–132. Ferguson, R. Brian 1999. “A Paradigm for the study of War and Society” in War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, ed. K. Raaflaub and N. Rosenstein, Center for For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 38 golden Hellenic Studies, Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press): 389–437. Ferguson, R. Brian and Neil L. Whitehead. 1992. “The Violent Edge of Empire” in Ferguson, R. Brian and Neil L. Whitehead (eds.). 1992, War in the Tribal Zone. Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare (Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press): 1–30 fhg: Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum iv, ed. C. Müller (Paris, 1851) Foltz, Richard. 2010. Religions of the Silk Road, 2nd ed. (New York-Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK). Frenkel, Yehoshua. 2015. The Turkic Peoples in Medieval Arabic Writings (London-New York: Routledge). Fomin, V.V. 2005. Variagi i variazhskaia Rus’. K itogam diskussii po variazhskomu voprosu (Moscow: Russkaia Panorama). Frye, Richard N. 1963. The Heritage of Persia (Cleveland-New York: The World Publishing Company). Gat, Azar, with Alexander Yakobson. 2103. Nations. The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Geary, Patrick J. 2002. The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Gertsenberg, L.G. 1981. “Khotanosakskii iazyk” in Rastorgueva, 1981: 233–313 Gharib, Badr al-Zaman. 2004. Sogdian Dictionary. Sogdian-Persian-English (Tehran: Farhangan Publications, 1996, 2nd printing). Gillett, Andrew. (ed.), 2002. On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages in Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 4 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols) Golb, Norman and Omeljan Pritsak. 1982. Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth century (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Golden, Peter B. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Turcologica, Bd.9 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz) Golden, Peter B. 2001. Ethnicity and State Formation in Pre-Činggisid Turkic Eurasia. The Central Eurasian Studies Lectures, i. Indiana University (Bloomington, Ind.: Department of Central Eurasian Studies). Golden, Peter B. 2008–2009. “Ethnogenesis in the Tribal Zone: The Shaping of the Türks” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 16: 73–112. Golden, Peter B. 2012. “Oq and Oğur ~ Oğuz” Turkic Languages 16: 155–199. Golden, Peter B. 2013. “Some Notes on the Avars and Rouran” in Florin Curta and Bogdan-Petru Maleon (eds.). 2013. The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them. Studies in honor of Victor Spinei on this 70th birthday (Iaşi: Editura Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”): 43–66 Golden, Peter B. 2015. “The Turkic World in Maḥmûd al-Kâshgharî” in J. Bemmann and M. Schmauder (eds.), The Complexity of Interaction along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 39 the first Millennium ce. Empires, Cities, Nomads and Farmers in Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology 7 (Bonn: Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn): 503–555 Golden, Peter B. 2015a. “Étimologiia étnonima Sabir” Chuvashkii gumanitarnyi vestnik, №10: 15–26. Golden, Peter B. 2016. “The Great King of the Türks” Turkic Languages 20/1: 26–59. Golden, Peter B. 2018. “The Ethnogonic Tales of the Türks” The Medieval History Journal 21/2: 291–327. Gordon, Matthew S. 2001. The Breaking of a Thousand Swords. A History of the Turkish Military of Samarra (a.h.200–275/815–899) (Albany: State University of New York Press). Graff, David A. 2002. Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300–900 (London-New York: Routledge). Greatrex, Geoffrey and Samuel N.C. Lieu (eds. and compilers). 2002. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars. Part ii ad 363–630. A narrative sourcebook (LondonNew York: Routledge). Greenwood, Tim. 2018. “Ananias of Shirak (Anania Širakac’i)” Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ananias‑shirak Grenet, Frantz (ed. trans.), 2003. La geste d’Ardashir fils de Pâbag. Kārnāmag ī Ardaxšer ī Pābagān (Die: Éditions A Die). M. Grignaschi. 1984. “La chute de l’empire Hephthalite dans les sources byzantines et perses et le problème des Avar” in: J. Harmatta (ed.), 1984. From Hecataeus to al-Ḫuwārizmī. Bactrian, Pahlavi, Sogdian, Persian, Sanskrit, Syriac, Arabic, Chinese, Greek and Latin Sources for the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia, (Budapest: Akademiai Kiadó): 219–248. Hämeen-Anttila, Jaako. 2018. Khwadāynāmag. The Middle Persian Book of Kings (Leiden-Boston: Brill). Hansen, Olaf. 1930. “Zur soghdischen Inschrift auf dem dreisprachigen Denkmal von Karabalgasun” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 34/3:1–40. Harmatta, János. 1962. “Iranoturcica” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 10/1–3: 131–150. Harmatta, János. 1972. “Irano-Turcica” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25: 263–272. Harmatta, János (ed.). 1979. Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó) Harmatta, János. 1999. “A türkök eredetmondája” Magyar Nyelv 95: 385–397. Haussig, H.W. 1979. “Byzantinische Quellen über Mittelasien in ihrer historischen Aussage” in Harmatta (ed.), 1979: 41–60. Herodotos. 1982.: A.I. Dovatur, D.P. Kallistov, I.A. Shishova, Narody nashei strany v “istorii” Gerodota (Moscow, Nauka) For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 40 golden Hitch, Douglas, 2015. “tt in Old Khotanese” Journal of the American Oriental Society135/4: 663–687 Hitch, Douglas A. 2016. The Old Khotanese Metanalysis. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Holcombe, Charles. 2013. “The Xianbei in Chinese History” Early Medieval China 19: 1– 38. Howard-Johnston, James. 1995. “The Two Great Powers in Late Antiquity: A Comparison” in Avril Cameron (ed.). 1995. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, iii (Princeton: Darwin Press): 157–226. Howard-Johnston, James. 2010. “Sebeos” Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition: http:// www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sebeos (accessed on 20 September 2016). Ibn al-Balkhî, 1921. Fârs-nâma, ed. Le Strange, Guy and R.A. Nicholson (London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series and Luzac). Ibn al-Faqīh. 1996. Kitāb al-Buldān, ed. Y. al-Hādī (Beirut: ‘Ālam al-Kutub) Ibn Xurradāḏbih (Xurdāḏbih). 1889. Kitâb Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik, ed. M.J. De Goeje (Leiden: Brill). Janhunen, Juha. 1996. Manchuria. An Ethnic History Mémoires de la Société FinnoOugrienne, 22 (Helsinki: The Finno-Ugrian Society). Iudin, Veniamin P. 1992. “Ordy: belaia, siniaia, seraia, zolotaia …” in Utemish-khadzhi, Chingiz-name, ed. trans. Veniamin P. Iudin, commentary by Meruert Kh. Abuseitova (Almaty: Gılım): 14–56. Jiu Tangshu, 2005: Çin Kaynaklarında Türkler. Eski T’ang Tarihi (Chiu T’ang-shu), ed. Turk. trans. İsenbike Togan, Gülnar Kara, Cahide Baysal (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu). John of Ephesus. 1860. The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Ephesus, trans. Robert Payne Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kaegi, Walter E. 2003. Heraclius. Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kafesoğlu, İbrahim. 2014. Umumî Türk Tarihi Hakkında Tespitler, Görüşler, Mülâhazalar. (İstanbul: Ötüken). Kaldellis, Anthony. 2013. Ethnography After Antiquity. Foreign Lands and Peoples in Byzantine Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Karlgren, Bernhard. 1957/1996. Grammata Serica Recensa. The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, Bulletin 29 (Stockholm, 1957, reprint: smc Publishing, Taipei) Kasai, Yukiyo. 2014. “The Chinese Phonetic Transcriptions of Old Turkish Words in the Chinese Sources from 6th–9th Century: Focused on the Original Word Transcribed as Tujue 突厥” Studies on the Inner Asian Languages xxix: 57–135 K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955–1973, ed. Simon Qauxč’išvili (T’bilisi: Saxelgami, Sabčot’a sak’art’velo). 4 vols. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 41 K’art’lis C’xovreba, 2008. ed. Roin Metreveli (T’bilisi: Meridiani Artanuji) Kāšġarī. 1982–1985.: Maḥmûd al-Kāšɣarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Luγāt at-Turk), ed. trans. Robert Dankoff in collaboration with James Kelly in Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures, 7, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 3 vols. Kemp, Béla. 2004. “Old-Turkic runiform inscriptions in Mongolia: An overview” Turkic Languages 8/1: 41–52. Khaleghi-Motlagh, Dj. 1989. “Amīrak Balʿamī,” Encyclopædia Iranica, i, Fasc. 9 (1989): 971–972, online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/amirak‑balami (accessed on 30 December 2012). Khazanov, Anatoly M. 1984. Nomads and the Outside World, trans. J. Crookenden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kim, Ronald. 2003. “On the Historical Phonology of Ossetic: The Origin of the Oblique Case Suffix” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123/1: 43–72. Klein, Lev S. 2009. Spor o variagakh. Istoriia protivostoianiia i argumenty storon (St. Petersburg: Evraziia). Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. 1964 Drevnetiurkskie runicheskie pamiatniki kak istochnik po istorii Srednei Azii (Moscow: Nauka) Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. 1992. “Khunny i tiurki” in: Litvinskii, 1992: 116–156. Klyashtornyi, Sergei G. 1994. “The Royal Clan of the Turks and the Problem of Early Turkic-Iranian Contacts” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47/3: 445–447. Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. 2003. Istoriia Tsentral’noi Azii i pamiatniki runicheskogo pis’ma. Otechestvennye issledovaniia (St. Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet St. Petersburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta). Klyashtornyi, Sergei G. 2006. “The Royal Clan of the Turks and the Problem of its Designation” in his collected articles: Pamiatniki drevnetiurkskoj pis’mennosti i étnokul’turnaia istoriia Tsentral’noi Azii (St. Petersburg: Nauka): 446–449. Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. 2010. Runicheskie pamiatniki Uigurskogo kaganata i istoriia evraziiskikh stepei (St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie). Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. and Dmitrii G. Savinov. 2005. Stepnye imperii drevnei Evrazii (St. Petersburg: Filologicheskij fakul’tet SPbGU). Kmoskó, Mihály. 2004. Szír írók a steppe népeiről (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó). Kononov, Andrei N. 1980. Grammatika iazyka tiurkskikh runicheskikh pamiatnikov (vii– ix vv.) (Leningrad: Nauka). Kroll, Paul W. 2015. A Student’s Dictionary of Classical and Medieval Chinese (Leiden: Brill). Kubatin, Andrei V. Sistema titulov v Tiurkskom kaganate: genesis i preemstvennost’ (Tashkent: Yangi nashr, 2016). Kubatin, Andrei V. 2017. “Drevnetiurkskie tituly i épitety na sogdoiazychnykh mone- For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 42 golden takh oazisov Srednei Azii i Semirech’ia épokhi rannego srednevekov’ia” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 23: 103–135. Kyzlasov, Igor’ L. 1994. Runicheskie pis’mennosti evraziiskikh stepei (Moscow: Vostochnaia Literatura). Latham, J.D. 2011. “Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ” Encyclopaedia Iranica, (1997), viii/1:29–43, online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ebn‑al‑moqaffa de La Vaissière, Étienne. 2010. “Oncles et frères: les qaghans Ashinas et le vocabulaire turc de la parenté,” Turcica 42: 267–277. de La Vaissière, Étienne. 2016. Histoire des marchands sogdiens, third revised edition. (Paris: Collège de France, Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises). de La Vaissière, Étienne. 2018. “The Historical Context to the Khüis Tolgoi Inscription” Journal Asiatique 306/2: 315–319. Lee, Joo-Yup and Kuang, Shuntu. 2017. “A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical Sources and y-dna Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples” Inner Asia 19: 197–239. Lessing, Ferdinand D. (ed.). 1995. Mongolian-English Dictionary, 3rd reprint (Bloomington, ind: The Mongolia Society). Lewicki, Tadeusz. 1956–1988. Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny (WrocławKraków-Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Ossolineum) 4 vols. Liu Mau-tsai. 1957. “Kuturelle Beziehungen zwischen den Ost-Türken (= T’u-küe) und China” Central Asiatic Journal 3/3: 190–205. Liu Mau-tsai. 1958. Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T’u-küe) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 2 vols. Litvinskii, Boris A. (ed.).1992. Vostochnyi Turkestan v drevnosti i v rannem srednevekov’e. Étnos, iazyki, religii (Moscow: Nauka). Livshits, Vladimir A. 2008. Sogdiiskaja épigrafika Srednej Azii i Semirech’ia (St. Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU) Lung, Rachel. 2008. “Was it Translated: Turkish Diplomatic Correspondence to China in Medieval Times” ttr (Traduction, terminologie, redaction) 21/2: 163–190. Lurje, Pavel B. 2010. Personal Names in Sogdian Texts in Iranisches Personennamenbuch, ed. R. Schmitt, H. Eichner, B.G. Fragner, V. Sadovski, Band ii, Mitteliranische Personnenamen, Faszikel 8, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 808. Band. Iranische Onomastik, ed. B.G. Fragner, V. Sadovski, Nr. 8 (Wien). Luvsandéndév, A. and C. Cédéndamba (eds.). 2001–2002. Bol’shoi akademicheskii mongol’sko-russkii slovar’ (Moscow: Akademiia), 4 vols. MacKenzie, D.N. 1986. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1971, reprint with corrections) Malalas, John. 1831. Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. L. Dinsdorf, Corpus Scriptorum Aulae Byzantinae (Bonn). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 43 Malalas, John. 1986: The Chronicle of John Malalas. A Translation by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys and Roger Scott et al. Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. Byzantina Australiensia 4 (Melbourne). Marquart, Joseph. 1898. “Historische Glossen zu den alttürkischen Inschriften” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 12: 157–200. Marquart, Joseph. 1903/1961. Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge (Leipzig, 1903, reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung). Marquart, Joseph. 1914/1970. Über das Volkstum der Komanen in W. Bang, J. Marquart, Osttürkische Dialektstudien, Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, n.f. xiii/1 (Berlin, 1914, reprint: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 25–238. Josef Markwart (Marquart). 1938. Wehrot und Arang. Untersuchungen zur mythischen und geschichtlichen Landeskunde von Ostiran, ed. Hans Heinrich Schaeder (Leiden: Brill). Menander. 1985.: The History of Menander the Guardsman, ed. trans. R.C. Blockley (Liverpool: Francis Cairns). Miller, David H. 1993. “Ethnogenesis and Religious Revitalization beyond the Roman Frontier: The Case of Frankish Origins”, Journal of World History 4/2: 277–285 Milward, James A. 2007. Eurasian Crossroads. A History of Xinjiang (New York: Columbia University Press). Moravcsik, Julius (Gyula). 1958. Byzantinoturcica, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), 2 vols. Moriyasu, Takao and Ayudai Ochir (eds.). 1999., Provisional Report of Researches on Historical Sites and Inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998 (Osaka: The Society of Central Eurasian Studies). Neville, Leonora. 2018. Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Németh, Gyula. 1991. A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1930, second, revised edition, ed. Árpád Berta, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó). Novosel’tsev, Anatolii P. 1990. Khazarskoe Gosudarstvo i ego rol’ v istorii Vostochnoi Evropy i Kavkaza (Moscow: Nauka). odb. 1991: Alexander P. Kazhdan et al. (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press), 3 vols. Ölmez, Mehmet. 2012, Orhon-Uygur Hanlığı Dönemi Moğolistan’daki Eski Türk Yazıtları. Metin-Çeviri-Sözlük (Ankara: Bilge Su). Ölmez, Mehmet. 2018. Uygur Hakanlığı Yazıtları (Ankara: Bilge Su) Ōsawa, Takashi. 2006. “Aspects of the relationship between the ancient Turks and Sogdians – Based on a stone statue with Sogdian inscription in Xinjiang” in Ērān ud Anērān Studies presented to Boris Ilich Marshak on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 44 golden (ed.) Gianroberto Scarcia, Matteo Compareti, Paola Raffetta: http://www.transoxian a.org/Eran/Articles/osawa.html, online 2003, revised 2006. Ōsawa, Takashi. 2010. “Revisiting Khöl-Asgat Inscription in Mongolia from the Second Turkic Qaghanate” Studies in the Inner Asian Languages xxv: 1–73. Ōsawa, Takashi. 2011. “A Hypothesis on the etymology of the old Turkic royal clan name Ašina/Ašinas and the transformation process in the early Abbasid period” Chronica. Annual of the Institute of History. University of Szeged: 145–155. Oshanin, I.M. (ed.). 1983–1984. Bol’shoi kitaisko-russkii slovar’ (Moscow: Nauka, 4 vols). Pan, Wuyun and Hongming Zhang. 2015. “Middle Chinese Phonology and Qieyun” in Wang, S.-Y. William and Chaofen Sun (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics (Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press): 80–90. P’awstos Buzand. 1989.: The Epic Histories Attributed to P’awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut’iwnk’), trans. Nina G. Garsoïan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Pelliot, Paul. 1915. “L’origine de T’ou-kiue, nom chinois des Turcs” T’oung Pao, 2nd series, 16/5: 687–689. Petrukhin, Vladimir Ja. 2013. Rus’ v ix–x vekakh. Ot prizvaniia variagov do vybora very (Moscow: forum; Neolit). Podosinov, A.V. and M.V. Skrzhinskaia (eds., trans.). 2011. Rimskie geograficheskie istochniki: Pomponii Mela i Plinii Starshii. Drevneishie istochniki po istorii Vostochnoi Evropy (Moscow: Indrik). Pohl, Walter. 2002. “Ethnicity, Theory, and Tradition: A Response” in: Gillet (ed.), 2002: 221–239. Pohl, Walter. 2013. “Introduction. Strategies of Identification: A Methodological Profile” In Walter Pohl and Gerde Heydemann (eds.), Strategies of Identification: Ethnicity and Religion in Early Medieval Europe (Turnhout: Brepols): 1–64. Pohl, Walter. 2018. The Avars. A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822 (Ithaca, NYLondon: Cornell University Press). Walter Pohl, 2018a. “Ethnicity and Empire in the Western Eurasian Steppes” in Di Cosmo and Maas, 2018: 189–205. Pohl, Walter. 2018b. “Narratives of Origin and Migration in Early Medieval Europe: Problems of Interpretation” The Medieval History Journal 21/2:192–221. Pourshariati, Parvaneh. 2009. Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire. The SasanianParthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran (London-New York: I.B. Taurus) Pritsak, Omeljan. 1951. “Von den Karluk zu den Karachaniden”Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellshaft 101: 270–300. Pritsak, Omeljan. 1955. “Qara. Studie zur türkischen Rechtssymbolik”Zeki Velidi Togan’a Armağan (Istanbul: Maarif Basimevi): 239–263. Pritsak, Omeljan. 1976. “From the Säbirs to the Hungarians”Hungaro-Turcica. Studies in honour of Julius Németh, ed. Gy. Káldy-Nagy (Budapest: Loránd Eötvös University): 17–30 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 45 Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor. 2011: The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor. Church and War in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey Greatrex, trans. Robert R. Phenix and Cornelia B. Horn with contributions by Sebastian P. Brock and Witold Witakowski. Translated Texts for Historians, 35 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press). Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1965. “The Chinese Name for the Turks” Journal of the American Oriental Society 85/2: 121–125. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1983. “The Chinese and Their Neighbors in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times” in: D.N. Keightley (ed.). 1983. The Origins of Chinese Civilization (Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press): 411–466. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1990. “‘The High Carts’: a Turkish Speaking People Before the Türks” Asia Major, 3/1: 21–26. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press) Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 2000. “The Hsiung-nu,” Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta: T.3, Philologiae et Historiae Turcicae Fundamenta, i, (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag): 52– 75. pvl, 1996: Povest’ vremennyx let, ed. D.S. Lixačëv, V.P. Adrianova-Peretc, 2nd revised, supplemented edition (St. Petersburg: Nauka) Rapp Jr. Stephen H. 1997. Imagining History at the Crossroads: Persia, Byzantium, and the Architects of the Written Georgian Past. Volume i, PhD Dissertation, The University of Michigan. Rapp Jr. Stephen H., 2003. Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 601, Tomus Subsidia 113 (Louvain: Éditions Peeters) Rapp Jr. Stephen H. 2014. The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes, Caucasia and the Iranian Commonwealth in Late Antique Georgian Literature (Farnham, Surrey, UKBurlington, VT.: Ashgate). Rasonyi, László and Imre Baski, 2007. Onomasticon Turcicum, Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Studies, v. 172/1–2. (Bloomington, Indiana: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University). Rastorgueva, Vera S. (ed.). 1981. Osnovy iranskogo iazykoznaniia. Sredneiranskie iazyki (Moscow: Nauka). Rastorgueva, Vera S. and Dzhoi I. Édel’man. 2000–2015. Étimologicheskii slovar’ iranskikh iazykov (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura,), 5 vols. – ongoing. From 2011 under the sole authorship of Édel’man. Rayfield, Donald. 1994. The Literature of Georgia. A History (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2017. ReOrienting the Sasanians. East Iran in Late Antiquity (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Róna-Tas, András. 1991. An Introduction to Turkology. Studia Uralo-Altaica 33 (Szeged) For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 46 golden Róna-Tas, András. 1999. Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, trans. N. Bodoczky (Budapest: Central European University Press) Róna-Tas, András and Árpád Bertha. 2011. West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. Turcologica, 24 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 2 vols. Rybatzki, Volker. 2000. “Titles of Türk and Uigur Rulers in the Old Turkic Inscriptions” Central Asiatic Journal 44/2: 205–230. Saloman, Richard. 1998. Indian Epigraphy. A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages (New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press). Satuk Buğra Han Destanı. 2017. ed. Necati Demir (Istanbul: Ötüken). Schaefer, Edward H. 1985. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand. A Study of T’ang Exotics (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1963, reprint). Schramm, Gottfried. 2002. Russlands Anfang. Historische Schlüsse aus Namen, Wörten und Texten zum 9. und 10. Jahrhundert (Freiberg im Breisgau: Rombach). Schuessler, Axel 2007. abc Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press). Schuessler, Axel. 2009. Minimal old Chinese and later Han Chinese: a companion to Grammata serica recensa (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press). Sebeos. 1999. The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, trans. Robert W. Thomson, Historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, assisted by Tim Greenwood, Translated Texts for Historians, 31 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 2 vols. Sertkaya, Osman Fikri. 1995. Göktürk Tarihinin Meseleleri. Probleme der köktürkischen Geschichte. Some problems of köktürk history. Türk Kültürü Araştırma Enstitütü Yayınları 131 (Ankara). Sertkaya, Osman Fikri. 1995a. “Göktürk tarihinin meseleleri: Kül Tigin mi ~ Köl Tigin mi?”Türk Edebiyatı 35 (Kasım 1974): 23–25, reprinted in Sertkaya, 1995: 129–133. Sertkaya, Osman Fikri. 1995b, “Bilge Tonyukuk’un Âbidelerinin Tarihlendirilmesi üzerine” Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi, xxiv–xxv (1986): 347–362, reprinted in Sertkaya, 1995: 113–128 Shabazi, A.Sh. 1990. “On the Xwdây-Nâmag” Iranica Varia Papers on Honor of Professor Ehsan Yarshater, Textes et Mémoires, v. xvi (Leiden: Brill): 208–229. Shahbazi, A.Sh. 2012 “Historiography, ii. Pre-Islamic Period” Encyclopaedia Iranica xii/ 3: 325–330 (2003) see: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/historiography‑ii Shimunek, Andrew, 2017. Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China. A Historical-Comparative Study of the Serbi or Xianbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongolic Language Family, with an Analysis of Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Shirota, Shun. 2005. “The Chinese Chronicles of the Khazars: Notes on Khazaria in Tang Period Texts” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14: 231–261. Širakac’i, see Ananias of Širak. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 47 Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2003. “Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders: Linguistic evidence from the Bactrian documents and inscriptions” in N. Sims-Williams (ed.), Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, Proceedings of the British Academy, 116 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2002, reprint): 225–242. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2011. “Turks and other Peoples in the Bactrian Documents” in Mehmet, Ölmez et al. (eds.) Ötüken’den İstanbul’a Türkȩnin 1290 Yılı (1720–2010) 3–5 Aralık 2010 (İstanbul: Büyüksehir Belediyesi. Kültür ve Sosyal İşler Daire Başkanlığı Kültür Müdürlüğü): 5–25. Sims-Williams, Nicholas and Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst (eds.). 2012. Dictionary of Manichaean Texts, Vol. iii. Texts from Central Asia. Part ii. Dictionary of Manicahean Sogdian and Bactrian (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols) Sinor, Denis. 1963. Introduction à l’étude de l’Eurasie Centrale (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963) Sinor, Denis. 1990. “The establishment and dissolution of the Türk empire” in Denis Sinor (ed.), The Cambrdige History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 285–316. Sinor, Denis. 1997. “Early Turks in Western Central Eurasia, Accompanied by Some Thoughts on Migrations” in Studia Ottomanica. Festgabe für György Hazai zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. B. Kellner-Heinkele and Peter Zieme (eds.), (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1997):165–179 Sinor, Denis. 2005. “Reflections on the History and Historiography of the Nomad Empires of Central Eurasia” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58/1: 3–14. Smith, Stuart T. 2008. “Crossing Boundaries. Nomadic Groups and Ethnic Identities” in: Barnard, Hans and Willeke Wendrich (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility. Old World and New World Nomadism (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at ucla): 343–366. Stark, Sören, 2018. “Aspects of Elite Representation Among the Sixth-Seventh-Century Türks” in Di Cosmo and Maas (eds.), 2018: 333–356. Al-Ṭabarī. 1967–1969. Ta’rīx aṭ-Ṭabarī. Ta’rīx ar-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk, ed. Muḥammad Abu’lFaḍl Ibrāhīm (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif), 10 vols. Al-Ṭabarī. 1999. The History of al-Ṭabarī, vol. v. The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen, trans. C.E. Bosworth, Bibliotheca Persica (Albany: State University Press of New York). Taskin, V.S. 1984. Materialy po istorii drevnikh kochevykh narodov gruppy dunkhu (Moscow: Nauka). Taskin, V.S., “O titulakh shan’iui i kagan” Mongolica. Pamiati akademika Borisa Iakovlevicha Vladimirtsova (1884–1931) (Moscow: Nauka, 1986): 213–218. Taşağıl, Ahmet. 1995–2004. Gök-Türkler (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu), 3 vols Tekin, Talat. 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Uralic and Altaic Series, 69, Indiana University (The Hague: Mouton & Co.) For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 48 golden Tekin, Talat. 2003. Orhon Türkçesi Grameri. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi 9 (Istanbul, 2003), a revised Turkish version Tekin, 1968. Theophanes Byzantios, 1870 in: L. Dinsdorf (ed.), Historici Graeci Minores (Lipsiae): 446–449. Theophanes. 1980. Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: Teubner 1883–1885, reprint: Hildesheim-New York: Olms), 2 vols. Theophanes. 1997. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History ad284–813, ed. trans. Cyril Mango and Roger Scott with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Theophylaktos Simokattes. 1972.: Theophylacti Simocattae, Historiae, ed. Carl de Boer, corrected ed. Peter Wirth (1887, corrected reprint: Stuttgard: Teubner) Theophylaktos Simokattes. 1986.: The History of Theophylact Simocatta, trans. with notes Michael and Mary Whitby (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Thomson, Robert W. (ed. trans.). 1996. Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Tishin, Vladimir V. 1017. “Plemennye gruppirovki Zapadno-tiurkskogo kaganata: Opyt rekonstrukcii nazvanii” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 22: 267–299. Tishin, Vladimir V. 2019. “Sotsial’no-politicheskii kontekst vozniknoveniia drevnetiurkskoi runicheskoi pis’mennosti” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy. 2017–2018 gody: Rannie formy i funktsii pis’ma, ed. T.V. Gimon (Moscow: Russkii fond sodeistviia obrazovaniiu i nauke, 2019): 104–127 tmen, see Doerfer, 1963–1975. Toumanoff, Cyril. 1963. Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1963). Toumanoff, Cyril. 1976. Manuel de généalogie et de chronologie pour l’histoire de la Caucase Chrétienne (Arménie-Géorgie-Albanie) (Roma: Edizioni Aquila) Treadgold, Warren. 2010. The Early Byzantine Historians (Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan) Tremblay, Xavier. 2007. “Kanǰakī and Kāšɣarian Sakan” Central Asiatic Journal 51/1: 63– 76. Ünal, Orçun. 2015. “İhe Ashete Yazıtı: Yeni Bir Okuma ve Anlamlandırma Denemesi” Bilig (Sayı 73): 271–294. Uray, Géza. 1979. “The Old Tibetan Sources of the History of Central Asia up to 751a.d.” in: János Harmatta (ed.), Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó): 275–304. Şirin User, Hatice. 2010. Köktürk ve Ötüken Uygur Kağanlığı Yazıtları. Söz Varlığı İncelemesi (Konya: Kömen Yayınları). Şirin User, Hatice. 2015. Başlangıcından Günümüze Türk Yazı Sistemleri (Ankara, 2006, reviewed ed. Ankara: Bilge Kültür Sanat). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV reflections on the ethnonym türk 49 Venturi, Frederica. 2008. “An Old Tibetan Document on the Uighurs: A New Translation and Interpretation” Journal of Asian History 42/1:1–35. Vorob’ëva-Desiatovskaia, M.I. 1992. “Khotano-saki” in Litvinskii, 1992: 32–76. Vovin, Alexander. 2000. “Did the Xiong-nu Speak a Yeneseian Language?” Central Asiatic Journal, 44/1: 87–104. Vovin, Alexander. 2003. “Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language? Part 2: Vocabulary” in Altaica Budapestinensia mmii, Proceedings of the 45th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Budapest, June 23–28, 2002 (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Department of Inner Asian Studies, Eötvös Loránd University): 389–394. Vovin, Alexander. 2004. “Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Old Turkic 12-Year Animal Cycle” Central Asiatic Journal 48/1: 118–132. Vovin, Alexander. 2011. “Once Again on the Ruan-ruan Language” in Mehmet Ölmez, Erhan Aydın, Peter Zieme, Mustafa S. Kaçalin (eds.). Ötüken’den İstanbul’a Türkçenin 1200 Yılı (720–2010) Sempozyumu 3–5 Aralık 2010. İstanbul. Bildirilier (İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür ve Sosyal İşler Daire Başkanlığı Kültür Müdürlüğü): 27–36. Vovin, Alexander. 2019. “A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language: the Brāhmī Bugut and Khüis Tolgoi Inscriptions” International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics i: 162– 197. Wilkinson, Endymion. 2018. Chinese History. A New Manual, 5th ed. (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Asia Center) Whitby, Michael. 1988. The Emperor Maurice and His Historian. Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Wood, Philip. 2016. “The Christian Reception of the Xwadāy-Nāmag: Hormizd iv, Khusrau ii and their successors” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, ser. 3, 26/3: 407–422. Xiong, Victor Cunrui. 2009. Historical Dictionary of Medieval China (Lanham, MD.Toronto-Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press) Al-Ya‘qūbī, 1970. Ta’rīx (Beirut: Dār Bairūt) Al-Ya‘qūbī, 2018: Mathew S. Gordon, Chase F. Robinson, Everett K. Rowson, Michael Fishbein (eds.) The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī. An English Translation (LeidenBoston: Brill), 3 vols. Yıldız, Hüseyin. 2017 “Notes on the Etymology of the Word altai/altay”Dil Araştırmaları 20: 187–201. Yosef, Koby. 2012. “Dawlat al-Atrāk or Dawlat al-Mamālik? Ethnic origin or slave origin as the defining characteristic of the ruling élite in the Mamlūk Sultanate” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 39: 387–410. Yoshida, Yutaka. 2011. “Some New Readings in the Sogdian Version of the Karabalgasun Inscription” in Mehmet, Ölmez et al. (eds.) Ötüken’den İstanbul’a Türkȩnin 1290 Yılı (1720–2010) 3–5 Aralık 2010 (İstanbul): 77–86 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 50 golden Yoshida, Yutaka. 2012. “Karabalgasun. ii. The Inscription” Encyclopaedia Iranica Vol. xv, Fasc. 5: 530–533, accessed at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/karabalgasun‑th e‑inscription Yoshida, Yutaka. 2019. “Sogdian Version of the Bugut Inscription Revisited” Journal Asiatique 307/1: 97–108. Yoshida, Yutaka and Takao Moriyasu. 1999. “Bugut Inscription” in Moriyasu and Ochir, 1999: 121–125. Zhdanovich, O.P. 2014. “Posol’stvo Zemarkha v stavku tiurkskogo kagana (perevod i kommentarii fragmentov truda Menandra protektora”) Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie No. 2 (4): 6–20. Zimonyi, István. 2001. “Why were the Hungarians Referred to as Turks in the Early Muslim Sources” in Neptörténet-Nyelvtörténet. A 70 éves Róna-Tas András Köszöntese (Szeged): 201–212. Zimonyi, István. 2016. Muslim Sources on the Magyars in the Second Half of the 9th Century. East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450, vol. 35 (Leiden-Boston: Brill). Zuckerman, Constantine. 2007. “The Khazars and Byzantium – The First Encounter” in the World of the Khazars. New Perspectives, ed. Golden, Peter B. Haggai Ben-Shammai and András Róna-Tas (Leiden-Boston: Brill): 399–432. Zuev, Iurii A. 1960. “Tamgi loshadei iz vassal’nykh kniazhestv. Perevod iz kitaiskogo sochineniia viii–x vv. Tankhuiiao t. iii, tsziuan’ 72, str. 1305–1308” Trudy Instituta istorii, arkheologii I étnografii Akademii nauk Kazakhskoi ssr 8: 93–140. Zuev, Iurii A. 2002. Rannie tiurki: ocherki istorii i ideologii (Almaty: Daik-Press). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk

Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk