T Ü R K O L O G I Y a № 4 2017

Home , Afshar people, Kazakh alphabets, Nushibi, Pechenegs, Salur (tribe)

TÜRKOLOGİYA № 4 2017

KLASSİK İRS – PORTRETLƏR КЛАССИЧЕСКОЕ НАСЛЕДИЕ – ПОРТРЕТЫ CLASSICAL HERITAGE – PORTRAITS

PETER GOLDEN (USA)∗

THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ

The discussion of ethnicity and the shaping of ethnic identities is much on the minds of medievalists, especially those focusing on Europe of late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages1. The classical, Graeco-Roman ethnographic literature world in its presentations of the “Other”, provided paradigms for shaping the images of the “tribal” peoples that emerged from the Great Völkerwanderung (at ﬁrst largely Germanic and subsequently Slavic). The Arabo-Muslim geographical traditions played a somewhat similar role in creating a “proﬁle” for the Turkic peoples that were a presence on the borders of the newly expanding Arabian Caliphate from the mid-7th century onwards2. The category of “Turk” as an ethnic generic for a gens3 that was sub-

∗ USA , Prof.Dr., E-mail: [email protected]

1 Cf. Geary 2002; Gillet 2002; Garipzanov et al. 2008; Smith 2004. The discussion has also been underway in recent studies of the Ancient World, see Gruen 2011. 2 On the “Turk” theme, see Miquel 2001–2002, II, 203–255. For Arabo-Muslim views of the European “Other”, see Hermes 2012. 3 Byzantine Greek ἔθνος (pl. ἔθνη) “nation, people” and γένος “race, stock kin” (Liddell/Scott 1996, 344; 480) more or less matched Medieval Latin gens, gentes, natio, nationes. The ongoing debate on gens has focused on whether these communities, often “polyethnic” in origin, were “primordial” or “constructed” to varying degrees by the literary traditions of those observing them. The volumes edited by Gillet (2002) and Garipzanov, Geary and Ur- bańczyk provide excellent overviews of the question (Garipzanov et al. 2008). The “constructionists” appear to be prevailing, but the debate is ongoing and some are recognizing elements of their opponents’ arguments. Connected with gens is the modern concept of the ethnie (a group with “shared ancestry myths, histories and cultures […] a specific territory and a sense of solidarity”, see Smith 1986, 22–32 – the sources of these categories may be “pri- mordialist”, “constructionist” or often some combination of the two). A specific territory among nomads was not as central a criterion to them as the territories of pastoralist groupings could and did change. Muslim authors, early on, however, associated them broadly with territories. Thus, Ibn Khurdâdhbih (Ibn Khurdâdhbih/de Goeje 1889, 31) writes of the buldân al-Atrâk “countries of the Turks”. Kâshgharî, who was certainly thinking along lines that Graeco-Roman authors writing about gentes et al. would find familiar, rendered these notions in Arabic – but not consistently – as qaum (Lane 1863–1893, I/8, 2996, “a people, or body of persons composing a community […] kinsfolk […] tribe”; Kazimirski 1860, II, 840, “Peuplade, tribu, peuple”; Dozy 1968, II, 432, “certain nombre de personnes réunies, qui sont du même rang, groupe”; Polosin 1995, 408, “liudi, plemia, sorodichi”; Sarı 1980, 1271, “kavim, topluluk, millet, eş dost”) and in Old Turkic as bonδu /boyun (Dankoff 2008d, 59, and see below). Γένος was borrowed into Arabic: jins “kind, sort, variety, species […] race; nation” (Wehr/Cowan 1994, 167; Polosin 1995, 95, “rod, sort, kategoriia”; Lane 1863–1893, I/2, 470, “genus, kind, or generical class, comprising under it several species”) and is used largely to describe a “variety” or “sort” of a thing or grouping. Thus, Ibn Khurdâdhbih (Ibn Khurdâdhbih/de Goeje 1889, 154) notes the Rûs as a jins min aṣ-Ṣaqâliba. Ibn Rusta (Ibn Rusta/de Goeje 1892, 142) calls the Pre-Conquest Hungarians (Magyars, Majghariyya) a jins min al-Turk. Often mistranslated as “tribe”, 12 PETER GOLDEN divided into various “tribal” entities became a commonplace in the Arabo-Irano- Muslim historical and geographical literature that emerged in the 9th and 10th centuries. Although these “tribal” groupings were not static, their names often persevered for long periods of time. The Arabic macro-ethnonym “Turk”, from the ethno- and politonym Türk, had a history that antedated the Turko-Islamic encounter by more than a century and an independent existence that continued well after the encounter (Golden 2001; 2008/2009). The inculcation of a sense of “Türk”-ness was certainly one of the functions of the Orkhon inscriptions (see below)4. An early example of the Turko-Muslim cultural, intellectual and ideological encounter can be found in the Dîwân Lughât at-Turk (Compendium of Turkic Dialects) of Maḥmûd al- Kâshgharî, a treasure trove of information and one of our most important sources about the Turkic-speaking world of the transformative 11th century5. The author, a scion, it has been argued, of the Qarakhanid ruling house (992– 1212) was born perhaps ca. 1029/1038 and died probably in the last quarter of the 11th century6. “Qarakhanid” is a modern scholarly convention, the “Ilek Khans” (< Turk. elig/ilig or ellig “ruler, king”; < el “realm”; Clauson 1972, 141– 1427) of an earlier generation of scholars. It is based on the Qarakhanid practice of using qara (lit. “black”, but also denoting “north” and “great, chief, leading”, hence Qarakhan “Great King of the Northlands”) “as a name for the Khâqânî kings” (Kâš γarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 265, “buğra qara χâqân”; Pritsak 1954, 377–378; jins really renders “kind” or “sort”, i.e. a kind/variety of the Turks (used here to denote Central Eurasian nomads) and those sharing a similar lifestyle and appearance. Ṣaqâliba (a term most often referring to “Slavs”) could also be broader, sometimes indicating peoples of northeastern Europe in general. Ibn Faḍlân (Ibn Faḍlân/Togan 1939, [Ara- bic] 2, [German] 1–2 [commentary] 104–105), calls the Volga Bulğar ruler malik aṣ-Ṣaqâliba, “king of the Ṣaqlabs”,i.e. a ruler in the Middle Volga over Turkic, Finnic and other populations. On the complexity of this generic, Ṣaqâliba, see Mishin 2002 and Meouak 2004, esp. 18–68. 4 On the role of “myths, especially genealogies, belief systems, ideologies” in the development of nomadic states, see Kürsat-Ahlers 1996, 136. 5 References will be to the Dankoff edition and English translation (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, which notes the ms. pages as well) with mention made of the Auézova (Kâshgharî/Auezova 2005) and Rustamov (Kâshgharî/ Kormushin 2010) editions (with Russian translations) only when there are important divergences in the readings. I have checked all references with the facsimile edition of the ms. (Kaşgarlı 1941). These are noted when needed. The Auézova translation gives only the transliteration of the Turkic terms, but does not reconstruct their Turkic pronunciation. All Turkic forms are given here in a unified transcription system (e.g., δ for ḏ/dh, ğ for γ, ı for ï, etc. Dankoff does not distinguish between ı and i. Where justifiable, on the basis of other Middle Turkic text editions, I have used ı for i). 6 Our information on his life comes solely from his Dîwân Lughât al-Turk, see Pritsak 1953a; Dankoff (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 4) is a trailblazer in modern Kâshgharî studies, see his excellent essays collected in Dankoff 2008a; Genç 1997, 1–2, and discussion by Kormushin in his introduction to the Russian edition of the Dîwân (Kâsh- gharî/Kormushin 2010, 28–30). He was probably a descendant of Hârûn (al-Ḥasan) b. Sulaymân Qılıč Buğra Khan, a grandson of Satuq Buğra Khan (d. 955), the founder of the dynasty. Hârûn/al- Ḥasan took Bukhara from the Sâmânids in 992. His line later came to be associated with the Eastern Qarakhanids. Genç 1997, 1–6, notes that Kâshgharî knew much about Qarakhanid regal traditions and could not have come from an ordinary family, but urges caution in attributing to him membership in the royal house. Kâshgharî’s burial site in Opal (cf. Kaşgarlı 1941, 49; Kâšγ arî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 112, ’bul “[n]ame of one of our villages”), some 45 km west of Kashghar (Chin. Kashi 喀什), was discovered in 1981 (see Barat 1994, 78). 7 Tenishev/Dybo 2006, 524, suggest *yel as the earliest form in Turkic, surviving in Chuvash yal (see also Fedotov 1996, II, 497–498, “obshchestvo, liudi, narod”) and Uzbek dialect yel, cf. Khazar, yilig/yeleχ (< yeleǧ), the lower ranking king, noted in 10th century Byzantine and Muslim sources (Golden 2005b, 210–211). THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 13

1955). By the 1040s, following a period of internal strife, the Qarakhanids had effec- tively split into eastern (Eastern Turkistan/Xinjiang) and western (Western Turkistan) Qaghanates, with Farghâna alternately falling under the jurisdiction of one or the other (Pritsak 1953b, 34–37; Necef 2005, 325 pp.). Such an east-west division was not un- known in earlier Turkic history (e.g., the Eastern and Western Türk Empire). Kâshgharî was probably born in Kâshghar8, as his nisba implies (Genç 1997, 2), but had ties to the city of Barsghan/Barskhân, associated with his father, Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Čağrı Tegin, who probably ruled it at some point. Kâshghar was one of the centers of the Eastern Qaghanate, second to Balasaghun9. Barsghan was a town with earlier Qarluq and Uyghur associations on the shores of the Issyk Kul (İsig Köl in Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 217) in modern Kyrgyzstan, not far from Kâshghar10. He makes a number of pointed comments about his ancestral town and its populace, including the remark that they are “the worst of people” (bodun yawuzı Barsğân; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 331; II, 217). This is left without further explanatory remarks, as are other such characterizations, pointing, perhaps, to political difficulties his father faced in that city. Kâshgharî provides many brief notices on places that are close to Barsghan, an area with which he was obviously intimately familiar, far more so than with other, in particular more westerly parts of the Turkic world11. The city of Barsghan, despite fanciful tales of its origin, was probably associated with a Turkic people of that name noted already in the 10th century by al- Mas‘ûdî (al- Mas‘ûdî/Pellat 1966–79, I, 155). It was in Chigil territory (Köprülü 1966, 114–115; Hunkan 2008–2009, 19). At some, undated point in his career, probably after leaving Kâshghar, Kâshgharî was “associated for a time” (ṣâḥabtuhu ḥinâtan) with “an emir” named Qumuq. We know nothing further about this figure or the nature of Kâshgharî’s connection with him12.

8 Also called Ordukend in Qarakhanid usage, see Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 148. 9 Now associated with the ruins at Burana, south of Tokmak. On the difficulties in locating it precisely, see Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk 1978, 116–117. It appears under a variety of names: Balasaghun, Quz Ulush and Quz Ordu. It may have earlier been a Qarluq holding (Karaev 1983, 14). Quz means “the northern side of a mountain seldom reached by the sun” (Clauson 1972, 680; see also Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 260; II, 211). Uluš denoted “village” in the Chigil dialect, but “city” in Arghu dialect and in Balasaghun itself (Kâšγarî/ Dankoff 1982–85, I, 105). 10 Isıq Köl in Modern Qırghız. İsig is the Old Turkic form (Clauson 1972, 246). The Ḥudûd/Sutûdah 1983, 82, and Minorsky 1970, 98, report that Barsghan’s “prince” (dihqân) was a Qarluq. The populace, however, was “devoted to the Toghuzghuz”, i.e. the Uyghurs. According to Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 364 (where he notes it as the “city from which came the father of Maḥmûd”), the town was named after its founder, a son of Afrâsiyâb, the legendary lord of Tûrân (hence its close associations with Qarakhanid royalty), but cites another legend that derived its name from a “groom” who tended the horses of the Uyghur ruler. The Pandnâma written by Abu’l-Fatḥ Bustî (d. ca. 1009/1011), a vezir of Sebüktegin, the true founder of the Ghaznavid state, father of Maḥmûd of Ghazna, claims that Sebüktegin came from that same town, see Hunkan 2005, 7; 2007, 30. 11 Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 301; II, 164; 211; 217; 265; 275; Genç 1997, 4; Hunkan 2008–2009, 29 12 Kaşgarlı 1941, 193; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 294. Although he bears a typically apotropaic pagan Turkic name (qumuq means “dung”, in particular “horse dung”), see Clauson 1972, 627, who, however, reads the name as Qomuq. Although Kâšγarî (1982–85, I, 294; II, 322) does specifically associate this non-Islamic anthroponym with the noun for “dung”, Qumuq was most probably a Muslim. Genç 1997, 3, suggests that he was in Qumuq’s entou- rage/comitatus, although our text only indicates that he associated with him (Kaşgarlı 1941, 193; ṣâḥaba can also mean “accompany, keep company”) and does not specify in what capacity. 14 PETER GOLDEN

Kâshgharî appears to have acquired a thorough education that began with his mother Bübi Rabiya, the well-educated daughter of Khoja Sayf ad-Dîn, and continued in Bukhara, Iran, and Iraq. He shows a full command of Arabic and Persian. He was, perhaps, already an old man, when he wrote the Dîwân Luġât at-Turk, in Arabic, start- ing in 464/1072 and most probably completing it in 469/1077 in Baghdad13. He had already written another book devoted to Turkic grammar, but it has not yet been discovered (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 81)14. Perhaps there were plans for yet other works on the Turkic language and Turkic-speaking peoples – we do not know. The Dîwân contains some 7500 entries (Genç 1997, 11). Kâshgharî may have been forced to leave his homeland due to internal strife within the Qarakhanid ruling house in 448– 449/1056/7–1057/8. What role these political events played in shaping the Dîwân remains a matter of conjecture15. Later local (East Turkistanian) documents indicate his return to his native land where he is said to have died in 477/1085–86, perhaps at a very old age (97 years)16. For historians, he is an “insider”, someone coming from the Turkic world and acquainted with its complex array of nomadic, seminomadic and sedentariz- ing peoples, bilingual and Turkicizing populations. While distinguishing “Turks” and “non-Turks”, his presentation of the former is not without ambiguities.

TÜRK AND TURK

Arabic Turk (pl. Atrâk) stems from the ethnonym Türk17 borne by the founding tribal union (ultimately composed of thirty tribes; Dobrovits 2004) of the Türk Empire (Eastern Qaghanate: 552–630, 682–742/3; Western Qaghanate: 552–659, 690s–766). Although it had lost its dominant political position after the mid-8th century, the ethnonym Türk, within the Turkic-speaking world, was occasionally retained

13 Barat 1994, 81, calculates that he was 82 when he began the composition of the Dîwân. See Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 1; 7; 9–10; 23–25; for full discussion by Dankoff of the dating and of the manuscript’s journeys, see also Genç 1997, 12–17, who places the beginning of its writing in 464/1072 and its completion in 466/1074. The original work, begun during the reign of the ‘Abbâsid Caliph al-Qâ’im (r. 422–467/1031– 1075), was completed several years later (the precise dates are in dispute because of inconsistencies in the work itself, see the most recent discussion by Rustamov in Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 32–35). It was then reviewed and revised perhaps four times and was ultimately dedicated to the ‘Abbâsid Caliph al-Muqtadî (r. 467–487/1075–1094). The unique manuscript is now in the Fatih Millet Genel Kütüphanesi in Istanbul. It is a copy made probably in Mamlûk Damascus in 664/1266 from the autograph (probably brought from Baghdad after the Mongol conquest in 1258) and ultimately transferred to Cairo whence it was taken to Istanbul following the Ottoman conquest (1517). See also discussion by Genç 1997 noted above and Rustamov (Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 35–38) in which he questions whether the work was actually written in Baghdad (or perhaps in Nishapur) and whether it reached the Caliphal library, but rather was stalled in some “Oghuz”, i.e. Seljukid center. This scenario, however, would make its transmission to the Mamlûk realm even more complicated. Rustamov (Kâshgharî/ Kormushin 2010, 38) agrees that the copy was made in a Qıpchaq envi- ronment and this would have been the Mamlûk state. 14 This was the Kitâb Jawâhir an-Naḥw fî lughât at-Turk (“The Gems of Grammar of the Turkic Dialects”) perhaps aimed at teaching Turkic to the Arabic-reading world (as Genç 1997, 9, suggests). 15 See discussion by Kormushin in Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 30–32, with suggestions on his education and travels. Genç 1997, 5, among others, questions this sce nario. 16 Kormushin in Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 31; Barat 1994 (who places his birth in 380/990–91). 17 The meaning and etymology of this ethnonym, which, ultimately, may not be Turkic, remain contested, see discussion in Róna-Tas/Berta 2011, II, 939–941 (sub török). THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 15 after their political collapse as a linguistic-cultural denomination18. The Turkic language of the Türk and Uyghur inscriptions was based on an accepted literary koine, although some dialect features (Türk, Uyghur/Toquz Oghuz, Qırghız, and perhaps Tür- gesh) are not absent (Kormuşin 2010, 144). Turk appears in Muslim sources in more ambiguous ways, either reﬂecting what had become a “generic” employed by Muslim historians and geographers to denote Turkic (and sometimes non-Turkic)- speaking peoples of the Eurasian steppes, a “generic” adopted by Islamized Turks or used in the older sense of belonging to or continuity with the Türk-Ashina tradi- tion19. Kâshgharî, in his comments on the term Türk says that this form is used as a singular and plural, i.e. as a collective. He does not get more specific than that. Although he makes frequent references to Turk and Atrâk, he cites Türk only several times in his Turkic passages and definitions, once geographically: Türk “name of a city in the country of the Turks” and twice as an ethnonym: Türk boδun (“tribes of the Turks”) and Türk süsi (“the troops of the Turks”)20 – in all instances without explaining the circumstances. It seems unlikely that he was using it here in the sense of all the Turkic peoples, as they were already in his time divided by religions and often at war with one another. Kâshgharî does cite the interesting colloquy in which in answer to the question: kim sän “who are you”? The person addressed answers Türk män “I am a Turk” (Kâš γarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 274). The context in which such a question might be asked – and answered in Turkic – is not explained. He appears to waver in his usage, often employing Turk to denote his only Qarakhanids, i.e. Türks and at other times to encompass Turkic-speakers in general. As noted, it was the Islamic world that picked up this term, Turk, and applied it as a generic marker for Eurasian steppe peoples (Bartol’d 1968a, 39–40; 1968c, 584; Golden 2001)21. Muslim geographers, as early as Ibn Khurdâdhbih, refer to the buldân al-Atrâk and bilâd al-Turk (“countries of the Turks”), extending to the borders of “Ṣîn and al-Tubbat” (i.e., Tibet; Ibn Khurdâdhbih/de Goeje 1889, 31)22. Linguistically, they were seen as a unit. Al-Iṣṭakhrî, writing in the early 930s

18 On ethnonyms as renewable, sometimes situational and not always stable elements, see Pohl 1991, 39–49; Janhunen 1996, 24–25; Geary 2002, 118. 19 Hunkan 2005, 5–12, concludes that it was the Turkic elite in the “Turkic Qaghanate” that was making itself felt in the Islamic world that used this ethnonym. 20 Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 273–274. Cf. also Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 378, ol mäni türklädi “He considered me a Turk”. 21 Kormuşin (2010) suggests that Türk was used in the 8th century Türk and Uyghur runic inscriptions in both a narrow ethnic sense (i.e., the Türks proper) and a broader political sense (i.e., the peoples of the Türk Qaghanate), because the language of the inscriptions was “a koine, a synthetic literary language” which confused/conflated the two. The language, which Kâshgharî calls “Turk” is based not on the literary, but on the daily spoken language and this he often contrasts with the language of the Oghuz-Türkmen. An example, I would argue, of his putting some dis- tance between his “Turks” and the now powerful, Seljukid Oghuz. 22 The name may also be rendered as Ibn Khurradâdhbih. The dating of his Kitâb al-Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik, in one or two redactions, remains a matter of debate; see Krachkovskii 1955–1960, IV, 147–148. Recently E. van Donzel and A. Schmidt, who have edited and published what survives of the account of the journey of Sallâm the Interpreter (which he dictated to Ibn Khurdâdhbih), sent by the Caliph al-Wâthiq (842–847) to the northlands of Eurasia, argue that there was one edition composed “between 846–47 and 873–74” and then a second, abbreviated version extracted from that 16 PETER GOLDEN and using some earlier sources, says, “the Turks, all of them, such as the Tu- ghuzghuzz [Toquz Oghuz], Khîrkhîz [Qırghız23], the Kîmâk [Kimek/Kimäk], the Ghuzz [Oghuz] and the Kharlukh [Qarluq], have one [common] language and un- derstand one another” (Al-Iṣṭakhrî/de Goeje 1870, 9), a view retained in Muslim geographies of the Seljuk era. Thus, Muḥammad b. Maḥmûd Ṭûsî (writing ca. 1180)24, referring to “Turkistân” (“the land of the Turks”) and the Toquz Oghuz, says that the Qarluq, Kimek (Kimäk), Oghuz, Pecheneg, Qıpchaq and Qırghız “have one language” (zabân-i îshân yakî ast; Ṭûsî/Sutûdah 1996, 427). Although this source comes from the latter stage of the Great Seljuk Empire, its mention of the Kimek clearly shows that it stems from the early 11th century at the latest, if not much earlier. Some early Qarakhanid rulers employed Turk in their coinage (e.g., the coin minted in Farghâna in 381/991–2, of Buğra Khan Abu Mûsâ, termed here Turk Khâqân), as well as some issues and inscriptions dated to Kâshgharî’s lifetime25. Was this simply following the Muslim “generic” tradition or did this point to a consciousness of Türk roots? Kâshgharî uses Turk, but says nothing about the earlier Ashina Türks. The Ötükän, the sacred homeland of the Türk Em- pire is reduced to a vague geographical reference (see below). Similarly, the powerful and extensive empire of the Khazars (of Türk origin, ca. 650 – ca. 965–69) is also a misvocalized, unspecified toponym: Khuzâr “name of a place (mawḍʻi) in the country of the Turks” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 312). Of course, memory of this non-Muslim past may have faded or been completely lost, although such a memory loss might be situational and understandable – at least when addressing a Muslim, Middle Eastern audience (Golden in press). His Qarakhanid qaghans, it has been argued, may have considered themselves the political heirs and possibly the descendants of the Türk Ashina royal house. Their complex system of succes- sion to what became a dual qaghanate, with eastern and western branches, builds on and makes reference to earlier Türk and Toquz Oghuz/Uyghur traditions26. Kâshgharî does not emphasize these “exotic” elements to his Arabic-reading audience. Drawing attention to Turkic origins outside the traditional Irano-Arabo- Muslim world and genealogical traditions was not one of his goals. was made in 885/886 (van Donzel/Schmidt 2010, 121–141 [text of Sallâm]; 142–144). See also Marwazî/Minorsky 1942, 6–7; Zimonyi 1990, 17–18; 2005, 19–20; Bosworth 1998. 23 In the Old Turkic of the Türk, Uyghur and Qırghız inscriptions, the name is given as Qırqız (User 2010, 160; Kor- mushin 2008, 76–77) probably from Old Turk. qır “gray” (horse color) + suffix -q(X)r/ğ(X)r ~ k(X)z/g(X)z, see Kempf 2010/2011, 192; 200–201. 24 See Krachkovskiĭ 1955–1960, IV, 323–324, on Aḥmad Ṭûsî/Muḥammad b. Maḥmûd b. Aḥmad Ṭûsî writing in the time of the Seljuk Toğrul II (573–590/1177–1194). 25 Hunkan (2005, 6–7; 9) suggests that use of this ethnonym was for propaganda purposes, letting the now subject Muslim territories know who their new masters were. 26 Pritsak 1951, 281–285; 1954, 22–24; 1955, 259; Golden 1990, 354–357; Tryjarski 1993, 8–9; Necef 2005, 61 pp.; Köprülü 1966, 114–116. Kliashtornyi and Sultanov give primacy to the Qarluqs and affiliated groupings of Yaghma and Chigil in the question of the origins of the Qarakhanid dynasty (Kliashtornyi/Sultanov 2009, 136). In contrast, Genç (1981, 36–37; 125–128; 1997, 20) derives their ruling house from the Yaghma rulers who had Toquz Oghuz affiliations (the Uyghurs were the dominant group among the latter). Kochnev assigns them ,roots, a tribal grouping that had been part of the Western Türk and then Qarluq unions (Kochnev 1996 (ادﻛﺶEgδiš* 352–357). THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 17

Kâshgharî depicts himself as omniscient in matters Turkic. At the very beginning of his work, he remarks that he has traveled extensively “throughout [… the] cities and steppes” of the Turks and “learned their dialects and rhymes: those of the Turks, the Turkmân-Oghuz, the Čigil, the Yağma and the Qırqız” (Kaşgarlı 1941, 3; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 70). A close reading of the Dîwân suggests, however, that his direct knowledge came from the region bounded by Syr Darya, Upper Ili and Kâshghar regions27, i.e. the Qarakhanid world and its Oghuz-Seljuk neighber. A number of scholars have pointed to the Chigil or “Khâqânî Chigil” dialect, probably Kâshgharî’s native tongue, which preserved many phonetic features of Old Türk-Uyghur speech (retaining, e.g., interdental δ which became z and y in other dialects), as the “norm” for his “Turkî”. Others view “Khâqâniyya” Qarluq (Köprülü 1966, 114–115 and note 20), or more probably a mix of Qarluq, Chigil and other related eastern dialects28, as his control language. All of these, or rather their decendants, would today be classified as “Southeastern” or “Turkî” Turkic (presently represented by Uzbek and modern Uyghur). The Chigil, in any event, were at this time one of the constituent elements of the Qarluqs (see below). These eastern dialects, the descendants of the same dialect groupings that produced “classical” Türk and Uyghur Turkic, were dominant from Kâshghar to modern Uzbeki- stan (Köprülü 1966, 17). The Oghuz and Qıpchaqs were west and northwest of them. The picture is complicated, the Chigil are mentioned in three geographic areas (see below), and specifically Chigil dialect words – presumably distinct from his literary “Turkî” are recorded. Kâshgharî himself comments that the “most correct” Turkic “is that of Yağma and Tuχsi”, along the Ili, Irtysh, “Yamâr” (see below) and Volga (Ätil) rivers, “as far as the country of Uighur”. The “most elegant” speech, of course was that of the Qarakhanid rulers “and those that associate with them”29. Doerfer maintained, correctly in my view, that Kâshgharî did not know all the Tur- kic dialects equally well. Kâshgharî cites Oghuz variants most frequently (some 250 terms). Others receive far less attention, e.g., Qıpchaq (some 51 examples), Chigil (47 examples), Arğu (46 examples) and Yaghma (24 examples) and Känčäk (15 examples)30, a dialect spoken by Turkicized Saka speakers (see below). Several dialects are represented by only a few examples (Yabaqu).

27 Genç 1997, 10, makes this point and highlights his familiarity with the settled Turkic populations who, in his view constituted the majority in this region, rather with than nomadic Turkic peoples. 28 Kormushin in Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 47–48 (Chigil the “living speech” of the author’s native tribe). Na- silov 2011, 254–255, argues that the Turkic language of the Dîwân was a literary supra-dialect based on Qarluq, Chigil, Tukhsi, and Yaghma. 29 Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 50. See Dankoff in Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, 84; Kormuşin 2010, 145, and his remarks in Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 47–49. Chigil Turkic, Kâshgharî appears to suggest, according to Kor- mushin, is the “continuation of the Ötüken-Oghuz-Uyghur branch”. “Similarly”, Kâshgharî observes, “every dot- ted δal in the speech of Chigil and other Turks is changed to zây by some of the Qifčâq, Yemǟk, Suvâr, Bulğâr and those [in the areas] stretching to Rûs and Rûm”. Hence, the “Turks” say aδaq “foot” while the others noted above say azaq or ayaq (in Yaghma, Tukhsi, Qifchâq, Yabâqu, Tatâr, Qây, Chömül, and Oghuz); see Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 85. The Chigil played a prominent role in the Qarakhanid state (Tryjarski 1993, 290). 30 See Kâshgharî/Auezova 2005, 1271–1279, for a complete listing; Nasilov 2011, 257. Doerfer 1987, 106, has 53 Oghuz, 13 Qıpchaq, 9 Arghu and 7 Yaghma examples. 18 PETER GOLDEN

THE CHIGIL, TUKHSI, AND YAGHMA

The Chigil (Chin. 處月 Chuyue, MC tśhjwo ŋjwɐt; Schuessler 2009, 49 [1- 18-85a]; 241 [22-8a]) are noted among the tribes conquered by the Türks as they expanded to form the Western Türk realm. They were perhaps in Eastern Turkistan, and were led by a tarqan (Chavannes 1941, 21; 31 note 3176; note 3; Liu 1958, I, 245; II, 668; 674; Pan 1997, 195; Maliavkin 1989, 175 and 251, who comments that they are first noted in Chinese sources s.a. 635 when they sent an embassy to the Tang court. He also expresses uncertainty about the Chuye = Chigil identification and places them on the Kunges River, part of the Ili River system). Subsequently, they are depicted as divided into three units and neighbors, along with the Tukhsi (Tuχsı, Tuχs?) to their south and east31, of the Qarluqs in the Issyk Kul region and on the Ili River. The Issyk Kul separated them from the Toquz Oghuz (i.e. Uyghurs and related groups). In the 9th century, Qarluq lands, according to the Ḥudûd al-‘Âlam (372/982) touched on Tibet, the Yaghma and Toquz Oghuz (Uyghur) lands to the east and south and the Oghuz lands in Transoxiana. The Ḥudûd includes Barskhan within Qarluq territory (Ḥudûd/Sutûdah 1983, 81–83; Minorsky 1970, 97– 98; 286– 297)32. Whether the Chigil and Tukhsi were part of the original core of the Üč Qarluq (“Three Qarluq [tribes]”) or simply at some point had become units of them remains a contested issue33. It is most likely that they were brought into the Qarluq confederations between 745 and 766. Later Muslim authors, such as Marwazî, af firm that the Chigil constituted a unit of three clans (or sub-tribes?), which were within the “nine divisions” (firq) of the Qarluqs (Marwazî/Minorsky 1942, [Arabic] 19; [English] 31). Kâshgharî divides the Chigil geographically into three groups, one in Qayas, along the Ili River, alongside the Yaghma and Tukhsi, “beyond Barsghan”, another “near Ṭarâz” and a third “in a group of villages in Kâšghar”34. Whether this corresponded to their politico-social divisions is unclear. By the 9th century, according to Kliash-

31 See the Ḥudûd/Sutûdah 1983, 83–84; Minorsky 1970, 98–99; 297–298 (with their “centre on the northern bank of the Chu”). Suyâb in the Chu River valley, today Tokmak, was their commercial center (Nasilov 2011, 255), earlier a Western Türk center. Kâšγarî/ Dankoff 1982–85, I, 320, in his definition of the Tukhsi comments, “a tribe (jîl) of the Turks in Qayâs”, he adds “Tuχsi Čigil”. Qayâs (II, 238) he terms the “name of the country of Tuχsi and Čigil”. Elsewhere (II, 185) he notes a shared custom of the Tukhsi, Chigil and Yaghma who take “one out of twenty of the sheep” of every visiting merchant/guest. 32 Genç 1997, 33–34, locates them south of Issyk Kul extending to Isbîjâb. 33 See remarks of Ecsedy 1980, 35, and discussion in Maliavkin 1989, 168–170; Necef 2005, 71–76 (who views the Tukhsi as one of the core elements of the Qarluq union). Necef’s attempt to make the *Twnis/Twlis … Moun- tain whence the Qarluqs migrated westward into the Buz Dağ [Muz Dağ] of the Dede Qorqud tales, is rather forced as Marwazî clearly says “it is the Golden Mountain (jabal al-dhahab)”, the name of the Altay (cf. Chin. 金山 Jinshan “Golden Mountain”), and Altay/Altan etc. Necef 2005, 92–94, connects the Chigil with the 鐵勒 Tiele, i.e. Toquz Oghuz tribe 思結 Sijie EMC (Early Middle Chinese, ca. 601 CE; see Abbreviations and Wil- kinson 2000, 21–28, for dating), sɨ/si kɛt LMC (Late Middle Chinese, 7th–8th centuries; see Abbreviations) sẓ kjiat, Pulleyblank (1991, 291; 154; 1956, 39) suggests the (unlikely) ethnonym *Sikär. Necef’s contention that the Chigil were early known under the name of İzgil in the Orkhon inscriptions and after their defeat by the Eastern Türks came westward, forming part of the 弩失畢 Nushibi grouping of the On Oq/Western Türks, is not supported by the names of these tribes known only in Chinese transcription; see Beckwith 1987, 210, and his reconstructions of the names of the Nushibi tribes. 34 Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 125; 301; II, 238; Minorsky 1970, 298–299; Necef 2005, 62–63. THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 19 tornyi’s reconstruction (Kliashtornyi/Sultanov 2009, 136–137), it is likely that the Chigil and Yaghma constituted the core of the dominant tribes under the emerging Qarakhanid house of Qarluq origin. The Eastern Qarakhanid qaghans who bore the title Arslan Qara Qağan, with their centers in Kâshghar and Balasaghun, in his view, stemmed from the Chigil. The Western qaghans, the Buğra Qara Qağans, with their centers in initially in Ṭarâz and then Samarqand, had Yaghma afﬁlia- tions. There was a long history of enmity between the Chigil and the Oghuz, which Kâshgharî attributes to conflicts that arose when Dhu’l-Qarnayn built a fort in the land of Arghu, bordering on Oghuz territories (Necef 2005, 62–63; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 301). The story is obviously legend, including a Persian-derived name for the Chigil that Dhu’l-Qarnayn bestowed upon them (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 301) asking: “în čigil ast” (in či gil ast “what is this mud”)? Such etymologies, often Persian-derived and bestowed by Dhu’l-Qarnayn are typical of the Dîwân. In a similar fashion, the cycle of Oghuz Khan tales attributes the creation of peoples and ethnonyms to Oghuz Khan, but in this case the etymologies are in Turkic. Among the Oghuz, Chigil appears to have become a term to designate the mass of Turkic peoples to their east. According to the Mujmal al-Tawârîkh (ca. 1126; Mujmal al- Tawârîkh/Bahâr 1939, 421), their ruler bore the title tügsin35. The Chigil are mentioned in the Qutaδğu Bilig, in the section on “associat- ing with stockbreeders” (igdiščiler), as the biligsiz Čigil lit. “ignorant Chigil” (Ku- tadgu Bilig/Arat 1979, 447 line 4448)36, but understood here as a generic for “ignorant and rude/despicable persons”. There are no clues as to why the Chigil name had become so closely associated with these negative characteristics, especially in light of their politico-military importance in the Qarakhanid realm. According to the Ḥudûd al-‘Âlam, the Tukhsi/Tukhsı or Tukhs (or Tokhsi etc.) consisted of two subgroupings37 and lived west of the Chigil and north of the Qarluq. They were nomads, but several towns are associated with them including Sûyâb (now the ruins at Ak Beshim, near Tokmak in Kyrgyzstan) that had been a center of the West Türk realm (Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk 1978, 94–101; Nasilov 2011, 255). They are not noted in earlier listings of the On Oq/Western Türk tribes. Minorsky considered them as deriving from the Türgesh, i.e. a powerful subgrouping and in the early 8th century that dominated the Western Türks, but we have no firm evidence for this38. As noted above, their Turkic differed slightly from that of the Chigil in that Old Turkic δ, preserved in Chigil, became y in Tukhsi and other dialects (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982– 85, I, 85).

35 Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 329–330 (title of a commoner in the third rank from the king?); Clauson 1972, 487 (possibly of Chinese origin); Hunkan 2007, 98–101. 36 basınğan bolurlar biligsiz čigil. Arat (in Yusuf Hass Hacib/Arat 1974, 322) renders the phrase as “câhil ve haşin insanlar” (“ignorant and rude persons”) and Dankoff (in Yûsuf Khâṣṣ Ḥâjib/Dankoff 1983, 184; 185): “despicable and ignorant bumpkins”. 37 Text: qaum: Kazimirski 1860, II, 840, “Peuplade, tribu, peuple”; Polosin 1995, 408, “liudi, plemia, sorodichi”. 38 Ḥudûd/Sutûdah 1983, 84; Minorsky 1970, 99; see also Miquel 2001–2002, II, 211. The future Ghaznavid ruler, Sebüktegin, spent some time in his youth as a captive among them (Hunkan 2007, 101). 20 PETER GOLDEN

The Qarluqs formed one of the core elements of the Qarakhanid state. Indeed, a number of scholars consider them, or at least their ruling house, the founders of that realm. They had entered the Western Türk lands ca. 745, having fled their erstwhile al- lies, the Uyghurs, with whom they had toppled the Ashina Türks and Basmıl (742– 744). By 766, under their Yabğu, they had supplanted the fading Western Türks as masters in the old On Oq core lands. The Uyghur-Tibetan account of the northern peoples, written in the latter half of the 8th century, notes the events of 742–744 and describes them as fighting the Du rgyas (Türgesh) and Ta zhig (Ta- jik/Tâzik, i.e. the Muslims; see Venturi 2008, 5–8; 28–30). For a time, they appear to have been heirs of the Qaghanal mantle of the Western Türks (Golden 1992, 196–199; Necef 2005, 62–71). By Kâshgharî’s era, important elements of them had become Mus- lim, a process that had been going on for some time. Kâshgharî comments that they, like the Islamized elements among the Oghuz, were also called Türkmen (Kâšġarî 1982–85, I, 353; II, 100), a term that had become associated with Islamized Qarluqs and Oghuz. The Yaghma were another important tribal union (of some 1700 tribes, according to the Ḥudûd – a doubtful figure; Ḥudûd/Sutûdah 1983, 78–79; Minorsky 1970, 95–96), whose role in the shaping of the Qarakhanid state (see above) remains unclear. They stemmed from the Toquz Oghuz union and had migrated westward after 840 (the collapse of the Uyghur Empire, although the Turfan Uyghur state may have continued to dominate them into the latter part of the 10th century). Their ruler, who in the Türk era had borne the title tutuq and later the title Boğra Khan, one of the titles associated with the Qarakhanid system of rul- ership, was said to descend from the Toquz Oghuz royal house. In the pre- Qarakhanid era, they were in northwestern Eastern Turkistan/Xinjiang, on the borders of Kâshghar and their lands extended north of there and between the Uyghurs and Qarluqs39. Kâshgharî records the city of Tartuq as in their lands and also calls them Qara Yağma (Kâšγ arî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 350; II, 165).

THE OGHUZ

Dialect variants are indicated in about 10 % of the Dîwân’s citations and the most frequent juxtapositions tend to be “Turk” vs. Oghuz40. Indeed, Kâshgharî comments that “between the Khâqâni Turks” (i.e. the Qarakhanids) and the “Turkmân- Oghuz […] there is an absolute and consistent dialectal cleavage” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 75–76). These Oghuz are not the Toquz Oghuz (the 九姓 Jiu Xing “Nine Surnames”41) of the Chinese sources who ﬁgure so importantly in the history of the Türk state and as the tribal union from which the Uyghurs derived and with whom they fought after their assumption of the Qaghanate42. The Oghuz here are linguistically

39 Hamilton 1955, 94–95; 160; Golden 1992, 201; Necef 2005, 120–121. 40 See comments of Kormushin in Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 49. 41 Chin. 姓 xing “surname, clan” semantically derives from a word associated with “birth, what is inborn” (Schuessler 2007, 541) and is a precise rendering in all respects of the Turkic Oğur~Oghuz; see Golden 2012. 42 Pulleyblank 1956, 35–42; 1999, 170; Kamalov 2001, 58–68; 75–96. THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 21 distinct from the latter and do not appear to have any connection with them. Oghuz is clearly the Common Turkic equivalent of Old West Turkic/Oghuric Oğur with the regular alternation of z and r. As the Chinese translation implies (and the Chinese sources always translate Toquz Oghuz rather than giving it in transcription), Oğur- Oğuz is a political term deriving from kinship usages (cf. oğuš “unit smaller than a tribe, or a clan […] extended family, family”), oğul (“offspring, child, son”) and de- notes a tribal grouping presumably stemming from a common ancestor (real or ﬁctive)43. Kâshgharî comes to his audience with an agenda – and a rather triumphalist tone – trumpeted in his opening lines: “God Most High” has given rule to the Turks, “making them kings of the Age, and placing in their hands the reins of temporal au- thority; appointing them over all mankind […] every man of reason must attach himself to them, or else expose himself to their falling arrows” (Kâšγ arî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 70). Now that the “Oghuz Turks”, i.e. the Seljuks, have emerged, a ḥadîth is adduced urging the reader to “learn the tongue of the Turks for their reign will be long”. Learning it is, thus, a “religious duty”, but Kâshgharî also notes that even if this ḥadîth is “not sound, still Wisdom demands it” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 70). Turk, he remarks, is a God-given name and an appropriate ḥadîth is noted according to which God “has a host whom I have called at-Turk and whom I have set in the East; when I am wroth over any people I will make them sovereign above them […]” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 274). The Dîwân, an outstanding work of scholarship, is also a work with a political slant: the Turks were now the dominant political-military force in the Muslim world. The Oghuz Turkic Seljuks had become the military arm of the ‘Abbâsid Caliphate several decades earlier (since 1055). Kâshgharî, in part, presents his work as an introduction of the Turkic world, their new masters, to the Arabo-Persian literate public (especially the ruling and bureaucratic elite). Behind this show of “Turkic” national feeling and solidarity, there were con- tradictions. While the only internal enmity he mentions within the Turkic world is that of Muslim vs. Non-Muslim, in reality, the Seljuks and the Qarakhanids, both (at least nominally) Sunnî Muslims, in the 1070s were not on the best of terms. The Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslan had died (1072) while en route to campaign in Turkic Central Asia. In 1074, his son and successor Malikshâh (1072–1092) forced the Western Qarakhanids to accept the Seljuks as their overlords. Subsequent cam-

43 Clauson 1972, 83–84; 96. See discussion in Golden1972, 45–48; Kafesoğlu 1997, 144 (not an “ethnic name”, but a term denoting Turkic tribes). W. Bang (1918, 297–298), viewed oǧul as a diminutive form from *oǧ. Sevortian 1974, I, 414–417; 582–583) with possible connections with oğ-, uq- “porozhdat’, sozdavat’” and uq “rod, poroda, potomstvo, imia”. Tenishev 2001, 313–314, and Starostin et al. 2003, I, 612, take it back to Altaic *i̯ uga > PMong. *öγele ~ *oγala (“stepbrothers”) PTurk. ogul (“son”). The latters’ etymologies remain uncertain. “Tribe”, “clan” and associated terms have all become contested territory in anthropological literature. Some would abandon these terms altogether; see discussion in Szuchman 2009. The nomads, although using the idiom of kinship for political purposes, ma- nipulated and constructed genealogies as needed for political ends; see Khazanov 1984, 138–144.

22 PETER GOLDEN paigns would confirm Seljuk hegemony and extend their orbit to the Eastern Qa- rakhanids as well44. Kâshgharî is careful in his comments about the Seljuks. The accounts of Seljuk origins and their relationship, in their pre-imperial stage, with the Khazars and the Oghuz Yabğu (the nominal supreme chieftain of the Oghuz union) contain contradictory elements (see the most recent and thought- ful discussion in Peacock 2010, 27–35, who argues for Seljuk origins in the Khazar realm). Kâshgharî, chronologically close enough to these events, mentions Selčük45, the dynasty’s eponymous founder, only once and his ruling descendants not at all. The Oghuz, the grouping from which they emerged, are not always pre- sented in the best light, although Kâshgharî devotes more attention to their various sub-groupings than to those of any of the other Turkic peoples he discusses46. Kâshgharî, expectedly fulsome in his praise of the excellence of the Qarakhanids, in his silence on the Seljukids may have also been subtly suggesting that the Ca- liphs could find better Turkic partners to the east. Kâshgharî, as we noted, was hardly immodest about himself, claiming that he knew the dialects of all the Turkic peoples, that he was among the “most elegant among them in language, and the most eloquent in speech, one of the best educated” of a distinguished lineage and – for good measure – “the most penetrating in throwing the lance” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 70). His Dîwân, he informs us, has “attained the utmost of excellence, and the extreme of refinement” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 72). Although ostensibly covering the Turkic world, its primary focus is on those Turkic peoples, Islamized or not, who were within the immediate Islamic orbit. Thus in re- cording topographica in general, he remarks that he will rarely stray from names that are not within the Islamic world and with which people are familiar. Names that are found in the “lands of Polytheism” are largely “avoided […] since there is no profit in mentioning them” (Kâšγ arî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 82). Again, he is shying away from too close an analysis of the Non-Muslim Turkic world. According to Kâshgharî, the Turk, “in origin”, numbered twenty “tribes” (qabâ’îl, sing. qabîla; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 82)47. Kâshgharî uses a variety of Arabic terms to describe these politico-social groupings. They are derived, following

44 Agadzhanov 1991, 93–95; Kafesoğlu 1953, 19–20; 119–123; Golden 1992, 222; Kochnev 2001, 50. 45 Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 356 (“name of the grandfather of the present Sultans. He was called Sälčük sü bāši”). Whether he was the sü bašı (“army commander”) of the Khazar Qaghan or Oghuz Yabğu is one of the conflict- ing elements in accounts of Seljuk origins. 46 Dankoff, in his prefatory comments (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 47), notes Kâshgharî’s “ambiguous attitude toward the Oγuz”. 47 “Tribe” is the usual translation of qabîla (pl. qabâ’il), used in this sense since Qur’ânic times (see Penrice 2004, 114); see also Polosin 1995, 383 “plemia”; Kazimirski 1860, II, 668 “tribu (chez les peuples nomades)”. When referring to a specific subgrouping within a tribe Dankoff renders qabîla as “subtribe”, see discussion in Dankoff 2008d, 58–70, where he notes it is used “synonymously” with baṭn “branch” (see below). Actually, there is some fluidity in these usages. Arabic jîl “nation, people, race, tribe, or family of mankind […] such as the Turks and the Greeks and the Chinese” (Lane 1863–1893, I, 2; 494), “tribe” (Polosin 1995, 383), “race of men, coevals, generation” (Wehr/Cowan 1994, 178) is the term Kâshgharî uses most commonly for the distinct groupings of the Turks, a “tribe”, except for the Oghuz (to whom qabîla is applied), while the Chigil, perhaps even more important to Kâshgharî, are termed a qaum; see Dankoff 2008d, 63–65, who also remarks that Kâshgharî does not note a Turkic equivalent for jîl. THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 23 the Biblical genealogical tradition, from “Turk”, a son of Japheth, the son of Noah48. Each “tribe” (qabîla) in turn subdivides into “branches” (buṭûn49) the numbers of which are beyond reckoning. Kâshgharî remarks that he will only note the “great ones” (lit. “the principal tribes”, ummahât al-qabâ’il). These obviously entail the sub- branches of the “Oghuz-Türkmen” and “the brands of their cattle (simât dawâb- bi- him) since people need to know them”50, because of the political supremacy of the Seljuks. Why people would need to know the brands of Oghuz herds is never really spelled out. Perhaps the large-scale presence of the Oghuz tribes – with their herds – in the Middle East, cheek by jowl with local Iranian and Arab populations, was reason enough. Elsewhere, returning to this “tribal” or “subtribal” theme, Kâshgharî, repeat- ing his earlier “people need to know” argument, enumerates the Oghuz sub-groupings. “These are the [‘principal’] subtribes”51, and “each subtribe has divisions (kullu qabîlatin minhâ firaq52) and branches (wa buṭûn ‘clans’ or ‘clan groupings’53) the sub-branches (furû‘54) of which I have omitted for the sake of brevity. The names of these sub-tribes are the names of their ancestors who gave birth to them in olden times. They trace their ancestry back to them, just as among the Arabs one says ‘Banu Sal- im’ or ‘Banu Khafâja’”55. Each branch (baṭn) has its own brand56. These are known in Turkic as tamğa57. The tamğas would seem to indicate the most basic (but not smallest) politico-economic subdivision. Kâshgharî even provides samples of the Oghuz tamğas. This is our earliest listing of the Oghuz sub-tribes or subdivisions. They are first noted as twenty-two in number and their names are given in the following order: Qınıq (“the chief of them [surratuhum] to which our present sultans belong”), Qayıgh, Bayundur, Ewä58, Salghur, Afshar, Bäktili, Bügdüz, Bayat, Yazghır, Äymür, Qara Bölük, Alqa Bölük, İgdir, Ürägir or Yürägir, Tutırgha, Ula Yondlugh, Töger,

48 This was common to Arab historiography since the 9th century, as were also ancient Iranian genealogical traditions connecting the Turks to Ṭûj, son of Afrîdûn; see Kalinina 2007, 184–185. 49 Lane 1863–1893, 220–221, baṭn: “A tribe below that which is termed qabîla”. Kâshgharî/Auezova 2005, 68, trans- lates buṭûn (pl. of baṭn) as vetvi (“branches”). Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 73, renders it as rody (“clans”). 50 Kaşgarlı 1941, 20; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 82; Kaşgarlı Mahmut/Atalay 1939–1941, I, 20. 51 Kaşgarlı 1941, 41 [Arabic]: uşûl qabâ’ilihim “lineages/ roots/descent” of their tribes. Here, he refers to the primary subcomponent of the Oghuz as qabîla, which Dankoff here renders as “subtribe”, but other translators have as “clan” or retain “tribe”: Kâshgharî/Auezova 2005, 94 (“osnovnye rody”); Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 97 (speaking of “osnovnye plemena”). 52 Arabic sing. firq “portion, group”, cf. Lane 1863–93, 2384–2386: firq “piece, or portion, that is split from a thing […] a great flock or herd”, firqa “party, portion, division, sect or detached body or class”. 53 Kaşgarlı 1941, 41; Kâshgharî/Auezova 2005, 94,“branches” vetv; Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 97 (clan groups rodovykh grupp). 54 Lane 1863–93, 2379, far’, furû’, “branch of anything, subdivision”. 55 Kaşgarlı 1941, 4. My translation differs slightly from that in Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 102. 56 Kaşgarlı 1941, 41; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 101–102; Kâshgharî/Auezova 2005, 92–94; Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 96–97. 57 Clauson 1972, 504–505, “originally a ‘brand’ or mark of ownership placed on horses, cattle, and other live- stock”,subsequently used “like a European coat of arms or crest” on “funerary monuments”. 58 I have usually followed Dankoff’s transcriptions, but Kaşgarlı 1941, 26–27, and Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 85, .produced between the points of articulation for Arabic fâ’ and sound bâ’ (i.e“ ڨ note that the Oghuz regularly change w) in genuine Turkic is changed to vâv by the Oghuz and those who follow them”. Thus, äw “house” becomes äv in Oghuz. Notice “genuine Turkic” is juxtaposed with Oghuz Turkic. In Oghuz, then, this name would be Evä or in its variant (see below) Yevä. 24 PETER GOLDEN

Bächänäk (Pecheneg), Chuvaldar, Chäpni, Charuqlugh59. The order in which they are given probably has political significance in terms of seniority and rank. This is somewhat further amplified in the later lists of Oghuz tribes, in which they number twenty-four, found in Rashîd al-Dîn (d. 1318) and Abu’l-Ghâzî Bahadur Khan (d. 1663). The lists do not completely correspond. Some fluidity in tribal composition is to be expected. Rashîd al-Dîn produces the tamğas as well, many of which remained unchanged despite the centuries separating the two reports60. It is highly unlikely that Rashîd al-Dîn had access to Kâshgharî’s work. In addition to this complex tribal structure, Kâshgharî also mentions a series of Oghuz “cities”. Urban associations do not figure prominently in earlier sources on the Oghuz. Whether they founded these towns or as is more likely simply became associated with them for trading and other purposes, awaits further investiga- tion. Islamization undoubtedly played a role here. The cities are listed in the order of their appearance in the Dîwân: Sabran, Sitkün (often noted elsewhere as sütkend “milk city”, clearly a Turkic folk etymology), Qarnaq, Sughnaq, Qarachuq (Fârâb, later Otrar)61. He does not add details. Curiously absent is any mention of Yaŋı Känt (Pers. Dih-i Nau, Arabic Madînat al-Jadîda or Qaryat al-Ḥadîtha), now the ruins of Dzhankent, the onetime winter quarters of the Oghuz Yabğu62. Settled Oghuz had a lower social status. Kâshgharî explains the word yatuq (< yat- “to lie down, sleep, [of nomads] to settle in one place”; Clauson 1972, 884) as “a class of Oghuz, in their own land, who never nomadize or go on raiding expeditions; they are called yatuq meaning ‘lazy ones, ones left behind’” (Kâšγarî/ Dankoff 1982– 85, II, 153)63. At the very end of his Dîwân, Kâshgharî, under the heading of Türkmän, a term often synonymous with Islamized Oghuz (but denoting Islamized Qarluqs as well), associates their early history, before “cities and settlements”, such as “Ṭirâz, Isbîjâb and Balasaghun” had been built, with a tale about Dhu’-l Qarnayn and his wars with the legendary “king of the Turks”, Shu. The latter, having been defeated,

59 Kaşgarlı 1941, 40; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 101–102; Kâshgharî/Auezova 2005, 92–94; Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 96–97. 60 Rashîd al-Dîn 1373/1994, I, 54–61 (with the divisions into Bozoq and Üčoq) – here the Qınıq of the Üčoq appear last and the Qayı of the Bozoq are first. They all stem from the six sons of Oghuz Khan. The groupings/peoples/tribes (aqwâm) are the Bozoq, Kün Khan’s sons, Qayı, Bayat, Alqa İwli (Äwli), Qara İwli (Äwli), Ay Khan’s sons, Yazır, Dögär, Dudurgha, Yaparlı, Yulduz Khan’s sons, Avshar, Qızıq, Bigdili, Qarqın and Üchoq, Kök Khan’s sons, Bayun- dur, Bechänä, Chavuldur, Chäpni/Chipni, Tagh Khan’s sons, Salur, İmür/Äymür, Ula Yontlu, Örägir/Ürägir, Tiŋiz Khan’s sons, İgdir, Bügdüz, Yiwä [Yivä], Qınıq, and the variants of Abu’l-Ghâzî Bahâdur Khan with virtually the same order and names, see Abu’l-Ghâzî Bahadur Khan/Desmaisons 1970, [Turkic] 27–28; [French Transl.] 27–28 (with Ala Yontlı for Ula Yondlugh), and Abu’l-Ghâzî Bahadur Khan/Ölmez 1996, 152–153 (with Yasır for Yapır/Yaparlı). On these tribes and the distribution (remnants of some are still to be found today), see the encyclopaedic work of Sümer 1980 and the briefer discussion in Genç 1997, 31–32. On the tamğas, see Divitçioğlu 2003, 44–45. 61 See Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 329; 333; 352; 353;362; Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk 1978, 108–112; Sümer 2006, 87–88. 62 Ḥudûd/Sutûdah 1983, 123; Minorsky 1970, 122. See Golden 1992, 209; Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk 1978, 110. 63 Cf. Kazakh žataq “poor people who do not go out to the summer pastures because of a lack of pack animals” (see Syzdyqova/Khūsaĭyn 2008, 310), Qırghız jataqčı “a poor person who, not having cattle, was forced to spend the summer in the winter quarters” (Iudakhin 1965, 239). THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 25

“left twenty-two men behind” these were the ancestors of the Oghuz. Two men were added to the group, the ancestors of the Khalaj (Qalač) and thus the whole group consisted of twenty-four. Previously considered an aberrant branch of Oghuz Turkic, Khalaj (now in Central Iran, earlier there were substantial numbers of them in Afghanistan and dispersed elsewhere in Central Eurasia; Inaba 2005), today, is considered a distinct or “autonomous” sub-grouping of the Turkic languages, one that underwent considerable areal influence with Oghuz, in particular its western branches, but retains a number of archaic features64. Kâshgharî, commenting further on the Oghuz, remarks “[i]n origin they are 24 tribes, but the two Khalajiyya tribes are distinguished from them in certain respects and are not counted among them” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 363). King Shu was pursued by Dhu’l- Qarnayn and finally managed to defeat the latter’s vanguard in the area near “Uyğur” at a mountain called Altun Qan. Peace followed and Dhu’l-Qarnayn built the Uyghur cities (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 363). There are many interesting elements in this account (including how Dhu’l-Qarnayn gave the Oghuz the name Türkmän based on a Persian popular etymology: Turk-mânand they “look like Turks”), which will not be discussed here, but it is interesting to point out that Al- tun Qan (“Golden Khan”) may perhaps indicate some distant historical memory of the Altay Mountains (< altaň “gold”65), called in Chinese 金山 Jinshan (“Golden Mountain”), an ancient homeland of the Turkic peoples66. Aside from his first listing, Kâshgharî only mentions the Bayat, Charuqlugh, Qayıgh and Yewä/Ewä [Yevä/Evä] in other notices in the Dîwân67. The Bächänäk are also noted, but here a different branch, actually the main body of the Bächänäks, is meant68. Kâshgharî does not clearly distinguish them. In this regard a few words about the listing are in order. The Bächänäk (Печенҍгъ, pl. Печенҍзи), Pechenegs of the Rus’ accounts69, the Πατζινάκοι, Πατζινακῖται of the Byzantine sources (Mora- vcsik 1958, II, 247–248), Be ca nag in an Uyghuro-Tibetan source (probably from the latter half of the 8th century)70 are Pecheneg elements that had been brought into the

64 Bartol’d 1968d; Schoenig 1997a, 120; 1997b, 272–274; Doerfer 1987; 1998, 276–281; 2006, 110; Johanson 1998, 82. Others (cf. Shcherbak 1997, 470–471) view it as Oghuzic, but containing some distinct elements. On its connection with Arghu, see below. 65 Cf. Turk. altın/altun, Mong. altan “gold”, Manchu aisin “metal, gold” (< al’sin < altin); see Sevortjan 1974, I, 142– 143; Tsintsius 1975–1977, I, 22–23. 66 On the Türk ethnogonic tale that brings them to the Altai, see Liu (1958, I, 5; 40) and Golden (2008/2009, 73–112). 67 Kaşgarlı 1941, 570; 248; 517; 454; 455; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 236 (Bayât “name of a clan [qabîla] of Oghuz”); I, 369 (Charuq “a clan of the Oghuz”); II, 234 (Qayıgh “A clan of the Oghuz”); II, 158 (Yewä “a subtribe of Oghuz” also pronounced Yevä); 160 (Yevä “Dialectal variant of Yewä – A subtribe [qabîla] of Oghuz”). It is once noted as Ewä (Kaşgarlı 1941, 57, baṭn min al- Ghuzziyya; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 124, “a branch of the Oghuz”); see also Dankoff 2008d, 66. 68 Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 262, notes both, “a tribe of the Turks dwelling near Rûm” and “a clan of the Oghuz”. 69 PSRL 1841–2004, I, 65; first notice s.a. 968. 70 Venturi 2008, 31. The account reports that the Be ca nag war with the “Hor” by which the Oghuz are most probably meant. The Uyghurs, on occasion, used Tibetan for religious (Buddhist) and chancellery purposes. Turkic texts were also written using the Tibetan script; see Róna-Tas 1991, 95 pp. Venturi 2008, 5–8, dates it to the late 8th century. It was either written in Tibetan or translated into Tibetan from Uyghur oral sources. 26 PETER GOLDEN

Oghuz union after most of the Pechenegs had fled to the Pontic steppes. Their arrival there probably began in the first third of the 9th century and by the last decade of that century they had become a powerful force there, elements of which may have accepted some degree of subordination to the Khazars (Golden 1972, 57–63)71. Others posed a threat, reflected perhaps in the construction by the Byzantines of the Khazar fort of Sarkel/Sharkil on the left bank of the lower Don in 840–84172. It is unclear if the Charuqlugh have any relationship with the Charuq, a Turkic tribe, which inhabited the city of Barchuq (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 292)73, perhaps an element added on to the Oghuz, like the Pecheneg grouping. The Ula Yondlugh are probably the Ala Yondlugh “possessors of piebald horses”. This latter reading finds support in the 8th century Uyghuro-Tibetan report on the peoples of the North (see above) which notes the Ha la yun log Turks “and this great tribe is happy; therefore they are called the piebald horse Turks” (Venturi 2008, 31 and note 102, located them in southwestern Siberia). The Qayıgh, ranked second in this listing immediately after the Qınıq (from whom the Seljuk ruling house descended), were viewed subsequently as the ancestors of the Ottomans, a claim that was promoted most clearly beginning with 15th century Ottoman historical writings74. These dislocations, described by al-Marwazî (a Seljuk court physician, d. after 1120) pushed into the lands of the (Qarluq) “Türkmen” and the Oghuz (Marwazî/ Minorsky 1942, [Arabic] 18; [English] 29–30)75. As a consequence, the appearance of tribes or elements of tribes from the former Kimek union among the Oghuz of Kâshgharî’s era is not surprising. In short, the composition of the Oghuz as we find it in Kâshgharî may have only relatively recently taken on this profile. In subsequent eras (e.g., the descriptions in Rashîd al-Dîn and much later in Abu’l-Ghâzî’s works), while many elements remained in common, others changed. The Bayındır would become the “paramount clan”of the Aq Qoyunlu ruling house, rivals of the Ottomans, with competing origin tales set in the glory days of the Oghuz (Woods 1999, 11 et pas- sim). Kâshgharî notes two Turkic terms, both associated with Oghuz Turkic that Dankoff has rendered as “subtribe” or “branch”: oba and boy (in other dialects boδ, usually rendered in English as “clan” or “lineage”76). With regard to oba, Kašġarî

71 Newly subordinated elements were often placed in the front ranks of the army; see Németh 1991, 37–38; 262. On the Pecheneg union; see Pritsak 1975; Golden 1992, 264–270. The Ḥudûd al-‘Âlam (Ḥudûd/Sutûdah 1983,190–191; Minorsky 1970, 160; 443–444) mentions the “Khazarian Pečenegs” (Bajanâk-i Khazar). It is unclear if these Pechenegs were merely groups that had settled in Khazar lands or were under Khazar control, as other Pechenegs were under Oghuz control. A great many of the “Khazar slaves” (bardah-yi khazarî, mainly captives taken in war) brought to the Islamic lands, according to the Ḥudûd, came from them. 72 On the dating, see Zuckerman (1997, 212–214; 221), who views the Hungarians, whom the Pechenegs drove ahead of them and ultimately out of the Pontic steppes ca. 895, as the primary cause for the building of Sarkel. 73 Barchuq = Maralbashı, west of Aqsu (western Xinjiang); see Minorsky 1970, 280. 74 On this complex topic, see most recently Lindner 2007, 24–34, and İnalcık’s supplement on the background of Osman Beg in İnalcık et al. 2010, 117–124. 75 On the various actors in these migrations, see Golden 2006/2007, 21–42. 76 Clauson 1972, 296–297: bôδ (“prob. originally ‘stature, the size of a man’; but from the earliest period it also clearly means ‘a clan’ […]”). Similarly, Tenishev/Dybo 2006, 525, who suggest that boδ/boy in the meaning of “plemia, narod, THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 27 comments that it means “tribe” (qabîla) in the Oghuz dialect (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982– 85, I, 122; Kâshgharî/Auezova 2005, 118 [plemia]; Kâshgharî/Kormushin 2010, 117 [plemia])77. The term although not noted in the Mamlûk- Qıpchaq dictionaries, can be found in the names of the tribes, sub-tribes and clans of the Cuman- Qıpchaqs reported in Rus’ and Arabic sources (e.g., the Altunopa, Ayopa, Chenegrepa [Ченегрепа: *Čenegir-opa], It-oba, Qitan-opa et al.; Golden 1995–1997, 108–122). Kâshgharî has rather more to say about boy. He cites the customary greeting employed when two Oghuz meet who do not know each other meet: boy kim “who you are your people/clan”?78 He provides a number of definitions of boy79 indicating the range and depth of this term: rahṭ (“a man’s people, and tribe, consisting of his nearer relations, his near kinfolk”, or “family, clan tribe”80), qabîla81 (“tribe”), ‘ašîra (“friend, clan, tribe, patrilineal kinsmen”)82 and qawm (“people, tribe, nation, fel- low kinsmen”, “folk, nation, people, tribe”83). The language used is that of the idiom of kinship, regardless of the political realities it may have hidden. Indeed, as Dankoff concluded, actual “kinship identification does not extend beyond the subtribe or branch, at least in the case of the Oġuz”84. Kâshgharî’s travels had clearly brought him into rod” (“tribe, people clan”) is a secondary development from the original meaning of this word as “body, trunk, torso” (telo, tulovishche). See also Starostin et al. 2003, I, 365. If the latter are correct, the earliest sense of the Altaic *bòdà from which they derive these and other terms is “body; intestines, belly’” > Proto-Turkic *bod “body, stature, self, kin, tribe, counter for persons, length”. 77 Clauson 1972, 5–6, “small social unit, possibly, ʽclan’, but prob. even smaller, ‘extended family’ etc.”. This came to be associated with the physical habitation of this group and hence subsequently denoted the “dwelling place of such a unit; small encampment or large tent, and thence more generally ‘tent, hut’” etc. Starostin et al. 2003, II, 1059, associate it with Mong. obuġ “clan, family” from presumed Altaic *ṓpV. See also discussion in Tenishev/Dybo 2006, 526, noted in Old Turkic and Old and Middle Qıpchaq, Čağatay, Uzbek, KazanTatar, Qazaq, Modern Uyghur as well as Modern Oghuz tongues, and with the primary sense of “clan, tribe, people”, perhaps first meaning “a pile, heap, collection of stones”. Cf. also Sevortian 1974, I, 399–401, which does not exclude the possibil- ity that this was “an old borrowing” in Oghuz and Old Uyghur, in the form opa (the source is not indicated). 78 Kaşgarlı 1941, 170 boy kim (man al-qabîla); 505; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 267; II, 219; Kâshgharî/ Aue- zova 2005, 329 (rendered as sorodichi “kinsmen”); 844 (rendered as obshchina, plemia, rod “community, tribe, clan”). 79 Tenishev/Dybo 2006, 525, suggest that boδ/boy, in the meaning of “plemia, narod, rod” (“tribe, people clan”), is a secondary development from the original meaning of this word as “body, trunk, torso” (telo, tulovishche). 80 Lane 1863–1893, I/3, 1169; Polosin 1995, 201; Kazimirski 1860, I, 938, “Famille, tribu d’un home, de trois à sept, compose d’hommes seuls”. 81 On this term, see above. 82 Polosin 1995, 325; Lane 1863–93, I/5, 203 “a man’s kinfolk or his nearer or nearest relatives or next of kind by descent from the same father or ancestor, small subtribe or smallest division in subdivision of a tribe […] or a tribe (synonymous with qabîla)”; Kazimirski 1860, II, 262 “Proches parents du côté paternal, Famille (subdivision d’une tribu)”. Dankoff 2008d, 68, cites ‘ašîra as meaning “clan” in Kâshgharî, the translation of Turkic oğuš (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 104), see DTS 1969, 365 oğuš “rod, plemia”, oğuš bodun “rodovye podrazdelenija i narody”; Ten- ishev/Dybo 2006, 526; 527 “rod, plemia, kasta” < oq/oğ “os’, stvol (dereva), serdtsevina”, and variant uquš “rod, plemia, narod, pokolenie, potomstvo, rodstvenniki, poroda, klass”; User 2010, 292–293 oğuš “boy, kabile”. Dankoff 2008d, 68, adds in his definition: “that group of kinsmen who answer to the call for help of one of their number, usually to do battle with a rival group”. Clau- son 1972, 96, reads it as uğuš: “in the early period a popula- tion unit smaller than a tribe, or a clan, but larger than a single unitary family, ‘extended family’, or less precisely, ‘family’” and subsequently “generation or degree of relationship”. 83 Polosin 1995, 408; Kazimirski 1860, 840 “Peuplade, tribu, people (y compris les deux sexes)”; Wehr/Cowan 1994, 935. 84 Dankoff 2008d, 67–70, who also cites there a range of smaller kinship terms (which need not detain us here) and the Oghuz and Qıpchaq usage, köküŋ kim? lit. “who is your root?” which Kâshgharî (Kâšγarî/ Dankoff 1982–85, I, 28 PETER GOLDEN direct contact with Oghuz tribal groupings. Curiously, he does not tell us if the Qarak- hanids et al. employed similar interogations regarding affiliations. From boδ, which had become boy in Oghuz and some other branches of Tur- kic (δ > z > y change), the collective noun boδun was formed. This was the earliest Turkic terms we have for “an organized tribal community, a people in the sense of a community ruled by a particular ruler”85. It was used with reference to other Turkic- speaking peoples (e.g., Toquz Oğuz boδun86) as well as non-Turkic (e.g., Tabğač/Tavğač boδun “the Chinese people”87). In Kâshgharî, as Clauson points out, it appears as boδun and bodun and is usually translated as “tribe(s)” (al- qawm, al-aqwâm, al-qabîla) or “people” (al-nâs, see also Dankoff 2008d, 68). In one phrase, bodunluğ boqunluğ kiši: “[o]ne who has kinsmen” (dhû rahṭ wa-‘ašîra)88, it continues to point to the kinship associations of bodun. In the Chigil dialect of his era, bodun denoted “[s]ubjects, commoners” (ar-ra‘îya wa-‘awâmm an-nâs; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 304). In the Qutaδğu Bilig, written in 1069 by Kâshgharî’s contemporary, Yûsuf Khâṣṣ Ḥâjib of Balasaghun, bodun signifies both “people as a community” and (more frequently) “individuals”89. Kâshgharî does not use it in the sense of a national community, a connotation associated with the term in the Türk and Uyghur inscriptions. However, it was still employed in its original sense in the Uyghur translation of the biography of the noted 7th century Chinese traveler/Buddhist pilgrim Xuanzang by Shıŋqo Sheli Tutuŋ (ca. 1000 – ca. 1050) of Beshbalıq in the Qocho Uyghur state90. The fragmentation of the Eurasian steppe world following the collapse of the Türk Empire (743–44 in the east, 766 in the west) and the rise and fall of separate states and loosely configured polities since then may have made the term bodun less associated with a specific people.

104) renders as “From whom is your origin and to which tribe are you related?” He also mentions other terms that express “kinship loyalties” largely pertaining to “smaller groupings”. 85 Clauson 1972, 306 “lit. ‘clans’ in practice a semi-tech- nical term”; Zimonyi 2003 “Gentilverband”; Teni- shev/Dybo 2006, 523 “narod, naselenie, poddannye”, which might be connected with bodu- “prikrepliat’, prilepli- at’, pritsepliat’”; User 2010, 286–291 “kabile, boylar, halk; maiyet” and all its attestations in the Türk and Uyghur inscriptions; see also Giraud 1960, 67–69. The term continued on in Old Anatolian Oghuz in the sense of “nomad encampment, tribe, nomadic tribe, village”; Kanar 2011, 138 “oba, kabile, aşiret, köy”. 86 Rivals and uneasy vassals of the Türks, a tribal union in which the Uyghurs, the eventual successors of the Turks, played the dominant role; see Golden 1992, 145; 155–158; Kamalov 2001, 58–68. 87 Cf. the Tonyuquq inscription (726, W1) in which Tonyuquq, speaking of himself, says bän özẅ m taβγač eliñä qïlïndïm “I myself was born in the Tabghach state” (Berta 2004, 43). 88 Kaşgarlı 1941, 249; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 370. Clauson, 1972, 316, views boqun as a “jingle” word ac- companying bodun. 89 Clauson 1972, 306; see also Kutadgu Bilig/Arat 1979 and Yûsuf Khâṣṣ Ḥâjib/Dankoff 1983; Bombaci 1969, 88; 101–112. Kaşgarlı 1941, 519; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 237, once notes the form boyun “people” (qawm) for those dialects with the shift δ > y. 90 See discussion in Xuanzang/Tugusheva 1991, 17–22; 132; 133. On the dating of Shıŋqo Sheli Tutuŋ, see Xu- anzang/Barat 2000, xi-xiv, and Xuanzang/Tugusheva 1991, 24. It is found here in the phrase türk yočul bodun a translation of the Chinese Xiongnu, their designation for the Asian Huns, used here probably in the generic sense of a “Turkic nomadic people”. THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 29

A TURKIC LITERARY CULTURE

In Kâshgharî’s time, the Turkic-speaking peoples were not all – or for the most part – organized into a single state as had been the case in the Türk era. Substantial numbers were stateless, belonging to acephalous confederations, such as the recently estab- lished, sprawling Qıpchaq realm (the Dašt-i Qifčâq of Islamic authors and the dikoe pole “Wild Steppe” of the Rus’ sources), which extended from the Danubian zone to Western Siberia, Kazakhstan and the lands north of the Qarakhanid state, or the small non-Muslim Uyghur statelet of the Tarim and Turfan regions with centers in Bešbalıq and Qočo ruled by the Idıqut/Iduqqut91. There were three Turko-Islamic states, two of them within or contiguous to the Muslim Middle East: the Seljuk Empire, centered in Iran-Iraq, expanding into the Mediterranean littoral and Anatolia and exer- cising varying degrees of power over its eastern neighbor, the Qarakhanid state in Central Eurasia. The third Turko-Islamic state – and the first of them to embrace Islam (in the early decades of the 10th century) was that of the Bulghars centered on the Mid- dle Volga. Kâshgharî knows the city of Bulghar, which he calls a “well-known city of the Turks” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 343)92. The Volga Bulğars were a commercial presence, but not an important military force. Their ancestors, who arrived in the Pontic steppelands with or just after the first wave of Oghuric tribes, ca. 463 CE, had been among the subject peoples of the Türk and then Khazar Qaghanates. From the latter part of the 7th – or more probably the 8th century into the early 10th century – Oghuro-Bulgharic tribes had been migrating to the Middle Volga region where the Volga Bulghar state had taken shape by the late 9th century (Zimonyi 1990, 82–83; 156–157; 175–183). There are some examples of runiform writing on objects dating to the 11th–12th centuries, i.e. a period after their Islamization. These appear to be connected with the runiform script attested in the Kuban’ region, an area from which their forebears had migrated (see Kyzlasov 1994, 15 pp. 74 fn. 13)93. To what extent they participated in the “Türk” culture that extended from Mon- golia to the Volga-North Caucasian steppe zone remains little explored. We do not find Arabic-script inscriptions until after the Mongols conquests – and these are grave inscriptions, written in a mixed Arabic and Bulgharo-Turkic tongue. They date to 1281 and continue into the mid-14th century94. The Oghuz-derived Seljuks, and the tribes that constituted the Qarakhanids, stemmed directly from the dislocations caused by the collapse of the Türk Empire. Despite subsequent Islamization in the 10th and early 11th century, they had continued to use the “Turkic writing system” (kitâbat al-turkiyya), i.e. the Sogdian-

91 For overview see Golden 1992, 163–168. 92 Medieval Rus’ sources called it Великий город “the great city”. Its location, probably on the confluence of the Volga and Kama, has been debated. Recent scholarship associates it with the ruins of Bilyar (Biliar) on the Malyj Cheremshan River in Tatarstan; see Khuzin 1997, 51. 93 There are also runiform inscriptions from Balkan Bulgaria (see Rashev 2007, 238–239), whither other Bulghar groups migrated in 679 CE. 94 Tryjarski 1985; Tekin 1988; Erdal 1993. 30 PETER GOLDEN derived (ultimately Aramaic-based) Uyghur script95, as did also the non-Muslim Uyghurs. We can be certain of this with regard to the Qarakhanids and it may have been true of some of the Oghuz as well. Kâshgharî says the Turkic script was used “for all documents and correspondence” of the Qaghans and Sultans, the former certainly a reference to the Qarakhanids and the latter perhaps to the Seljuk rulers (although Seljuk Uyghur-script documents have not been found), “from ancient times to the present,” but then defines the area of usage as “from Kâšġar to Upper Ṣîn, encompassing all the lands of the Turks” (muḥdiqan jamî‘ diyâr al-Turk; Kaşgarlı 1941, 8; Kâšγari 1982–85, I, 78). Kâshgharî’s notices on Ṣîn (generally understood as “China”) are not always clear. The area of “Upper Ṣîn” is associated with “Mâṣîn” (Pers. Mâčîn) “which is also Tawġač”96, from the Old Turkic term for the 北魏 Northern Wei or 拓拔魏 Tuoba97 Wei/Tabghach dynasty (386–534) that ruled in Northern China and a name that figures in Qarakhanid titulature98. In his era, it denoted China proper, i.e. the area with a predominance of ethnic Han Chinese. His comments seem to restrict the “Turkic” (i.e. Uyghur) to the non-Seljuk world. The oldest Turkic documents in Arabic script stem from the 13th century (Scharlipp 1995, 56–58; for Old Anatolian Turkish see Köktekin 2008). Kâshgharî adds some interesting details. Immediately after his entry on Tawghach as a geographical region, he says that it is “the name of a tribe of the Turks who settled in those regions”. From this comes one of the terms used for the Uyghurs (who were not held in high regard because of religion): Tat Tawğač (Kâš γarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 341: “meaning ‘Uighur [which is Tat] and Ṣînî [which is Tawğač]’)”. Tat was a Turkic term for “stranger, alien” usually with pejo- rative associations. Kâshgharî uses it in particular for “Uyghur infidels” and “Per- sians”99. His explanations of the proverb, tatsız türk bolmas bašsız börk bolmas (“there is no Turk without a Tat [just as] there is no hat without a head)”, is particularly

95 See comments of Sims-Williams 1981, who views the Uyghur script system “as a natural development of the Sogdian, the unpremeditated outcome of the attempt to write Turkish by people familiar with the Sogd. alphabet and its associated conven- tions”. In some respects this is similar to the development of Cyrillic among the Bulgarians who used Greek uncials to compose inscriptions in Greek, but with some Bulğar Turkic words. 96 Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 341, under the entry on Tawğač, he says that the latter, in his day, is the “name for Mâṣîn” which is four months journey from Ṣîn. The latter, in turn, originally had three components, the “Upper” part in the east, called Tawğač, the “middle” part, Khiṭây (presumably the Liao state [916–1125] and now “known as Ṣin”) in the center and “Lower Ṣîn” which is the Barskhân-Kâshghar region, here, obviously, a reference to the eastern lands of the Qarakhanid state. Tawğač/“Upper China”/Arab. Mâṣîn/ Pers. Mâčîn, in Kâshgharî’s time was the region ruled by the Chinese Song dynasty (960–1279, occasionally an opponent of the Liao). See also Bartol’d 1968a, 87; 1968b, 206. Marwazî (Marwazî/Minorsky 1942, [Arabic] 2; [English] 14) also presents a threefold division of Ṣîn, Qitay/Khitây and Uyghur (Yughur). 97 MC: thâk băt (Schuessler 2009, 69 [2-17m]; 237 [21- 31h]) = *probably *takbat/takbać reflecting either the native (Proto Mongolic/Para-Mongolic; see Janhunen 2003, 392) Tabghach form of this ethnonym, *taγβač or one that came to Turkic via Rouran intermediation. See discussion in Beckwith 2005, 9–12, who also suggests that it meant “ruler (βač < Indic pati) of the Earth”. 98 Genç 1981, 133; 136–137. The Northern Wei split into the Eastern Wei (534–550) and Western Wei (535–556). 99 Clauson 1972, 449; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 88 (“Uyghur infidel”); 341; 388 (“unbeliever”); II, 103 (specifically in the Yaghma and Tukhsi dialects); 111 (“Uyghur infidel”); I, 273; II, 70 (“Persian”). In I, 388, Kâshgharî quotes the saying čomaq tat boynın čapdı “The Muslim (čomaq) struck the neck of the unbeliever” and tells us that this is Uyghur dialect. In I, 292, he notes explicitly that čomaq, literally “cudgel” (a loanword, perhaps, for this weapon not usually associated with Turkic warfare, but retained in a number of Middle Turkic and modern Turkic languages, as Clauson 1972, 422–423, notes) is used specifically by the Uyghurs and other non-Muslim Turkic peoples to denote a Muslim (cf. also čomaq äri, “a man of the Muslims”). However, it is also used in decidedly Muslim works, e.g., the ersig čomaq (“manly Muslim”) of the Qutaδğu Bilig (Kutadgu Bilig/Arat 1979, 471 line 4701; Yûsuf Khâṣṣ Ḥâjib/Dankoff 1983, 194). THE TURKIC WORLD IN MAHMÛD AL-KÂSHGHARÎ 31 interesting. He offers two translations: “a Turk is never without a Persian [Fârisî] (just as) a cap is never without a head” – the more literal one – and “There is no Persian except in the company of a Turk (just as) there is no cap unless there is a head to put it on” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982– 85, I, 273; II, 103). The first puts the Turks in a position of dependency on the Persians; the second reverses that dependency. He cites another proverb, playing on the homonym, tat (“rust”): qılıč tatıqsa iš yunčır är tatıqsa ät tınčır “when rust overtakes a sword the condition (of the warrior) suffers, (just as) when a Turk as- sumes the morals of a Persian his flesh begins to stink”. “This is coined to advise a person to be steadfast and to live among his own kind” (Kâš γarî/Dankoff 1982– 85, II, 103). An- other saying is: tatığ közrä tikänig tüprä “(Strike) the Persian on the eye (cut) the thorn at its root” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 103). Even the Oghuz, whom Kâšġarî views as the Turkic grouping which most closely associated with (and was hence corrupted by) the Persians, referred to the latter as suqaq, literally “white antelope” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 105), undoubtedly used in a derogatory sense. Clearly, the Turk-Persian “symbiosis” in Central Eurasia had its strains. The Qarakhanids also used the more neutral ethnonym täžik to denote the Persians proper (Fârisî; Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 296; II, 323). Yûsuf Khâṣṣ Ḥâjib held the Persian literary tradition in high esteem, commenting that if the Täžiklär had not written down the tales of Afrâsiyâb (with whom the Qarakhanid Turks identified the mythic Turk hero Alp Er Toŋa) “in books – who could have understood it if it were not written down?” (Kutadg u Bilig/Arat 1979, 42 lines 280; 289; Yûsuf Khâṣṣ Ḥâjib/Dankoff 1983, 48). Non-Turks, or more precisely persons who did not speak Turkic were held in some disdain. They were called Somlım, a term unattested outside of Khâqânî Turkic (Clauson 1972, 829). Thus, a Somlım Tat was a “Persian who does not know any Turkic” or anyone who does not speak Turkic. Non-Turks usually do not “speak” (sözle-) but somlı- “jabber”: tat qamuğ som- lıšdı: “the Persians all jabbered”, which Kâshgharî renders as “the Persians jabbered in their own tongue. Also for any who jabber in a non-Turkic language” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, I, 244; II, 70; 302; 136 (somlıt- “to make someone speak in a non-Turkic tongue”). Unlike the Arabic ‘ajam “barbarians, non-Arabs” a‘jamî, a label, which remained attached to non- Arabic- speakers even after they had acquired Arabic, when a non-Turk learned to speak Turkic, the term somlım “leaves him” (Kâšγarî/Dankoff 1982–85, II, 136). In short, Turkicization brought assimilation/acceptance. For Kâshgharî, language was a key component of Turkic identity.∗

∗ Məqalənin davamını növbəti sayımızda oxuya bilərsiniz.