Интервью по телевидению. Но при этом, в отличие от других прославленных имен в национальной науке, его биография, наугад повторяемая многажды в газетах и журналах, на самом деле неизвестна

1 The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, translated by E.S. Forster (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), 55.

2 Iskender-Name Ahmadi (ed.), Ismail Ünver (Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari,
1983). For a detailed study of early Ottoman historiography see Halil Inalcik, “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography”, and V.L. Ménage, “The Beginning of Ottoman Historiography”, in Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holt (eds), Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 152-167, 168-179.

3 For a study of national character see Ali Banuazizi, “Iranian ‘National Character’: A Critique of Some Western Perspectives”, in L. Carl Brown and Norman Itzkowitz (eds), Psychological Dimensions of Near Eastern Studies (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1977), 210-239.

4 The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, 76.

5 Arminius Vambery, Travels in Central Asia, being the account of a journey from Teheran across the Turkoman Desert on the Eastern shore of the Caspian to Khiva, Bokhara, and Samarcand (London: John Murray, 1864), 288.

6 John Malcolm, The History of Persia from the Most Early Period to the Present Time (London: John Murray, 1815), vol. 2, 621.

7 Karl R. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957), 27.

8 For a detailed study of the failure of these models, see Homa Katouzian, “The Aridisolatic Society: A Model of Long-Term Social and Economic Development in Iran”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 15 (1983), 259-281, and Homa Katouzian, “Arbitrary Rule: a Comparative Theory of State, Politics and Society in Iran”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 24, no. 1 (1997), 49-73.

9 Karl A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), 257-258.

10 E.J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 102.

11 Karl Renner, Staat und Nation (Vienna, 1899), 89, quoted by Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 101.

12 Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for ‘Indian’ Pasts?”, Representations, 37 (Winter 1992), 1-26.

13 Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History”, 21.

14 Robert Roswell Palmer and Joel Colton, A History of the Modern World since 1815 (London: McGraw-Hill, 1992), 657.

15 Willem L. Cleveland, A History of the Modern Middle East (Oxford: Westview Press, 2000), 103.

16 Ervand Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 52.

17 For an alternative approach to the study of essentialism in Marxism, see Scott Meikle, Essentialism in the Thought of Karl Marx (London: Open Court, 1985).

18 See for example Fazlur Rahman, Islam and Modernity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

19 For a critical study of Islamicizing school textbooks in Iran, see Sussan Siavoshi, “Regime Legitimacy and High-school Textbooks”, in Saeed Rahnema and Sohrab Behdad (eds), Iran after the Revolution (London: IB Tauris, 1996), 203-217.

20 Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?, 100.

21 Anna Marie Smith, New Right Discourse on Race and Sexuality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 129.

22* I would like to thank Sylvia Wu Golden, as always, for assistance with the Chinese texts.

^ The name/title kül has also been read as köl. Clauson, 1972:715, noting the uncertainty of the vowel and citing the Chinese “k’üe” (闋 Pinyin que] opted for ü, hence Kül (see also User, 2010: 138-139). Kempf, 2004: 45 and Berta, 2005: 89ff., prefer Köl. The Chinese data is not conclusive. For the Türk era (eastern empire: 552-630, 682-742/3, western empire: 552-657-59, 690s-766), reconstructions of Middle Chinese (MC), for which there are several systems, are most appropriate. Chronologically, MC may be defined as covering the period from the late Han (202 BCE-220 CE, the Later Han are dated to 25-220 CE) to the late Tang (618-907) eras (Wilkinson, 2000:26). Reconstructions of Old Chinese (OC), dating from the Shang oracle bone inscriptions (ca. 1250-1050 BCE) to the Han era (ca. 200 BCE-200 CE, see Schuessler, 2007: xi-xii) are noted when relevant. Of the two commonly used reconstructions, Schuessler, 2009 (a reworking of Karlgren, 1957/1996) defines MC as reflecting the language ca. 600. Pulleyblank, 1984, 1991, divides MC into Early Middle Chinese (EMC, before 601 CE, i.e. the language that had taken shape by the Sui, 581-618) and Late Middle Chinese (LMC, seventh-eighth centuries, i.e. the language that had taken shape by the early Tang eras). Modern que = MC k^hiwet (Schuessler, 2009: 277 [26-10k]), EMC k^huat, LMC: k^hyat, (Pulleyblank, 1991: 263).

23 On the dating, see Kempf, 2004: 44-45.

24 A name that is probably of Iranian origin from: *būmī̆ “zemlja,” Aryan * bhūmī̆ “zemlja,” Old Indic bhū́́mī̆ “zemlja, strana,” Middle Pers. būm “zemlja, strana” (Rastorgueva, Edel’man, 2000-ongoing, 2:134-135; Harmatta, 1999:396) and hence “Lord of the Earth” (Dobrovits 2004b: 111). This is not unlike the ethnonym Tabğač MC t^hâk băt (Schuessler 2009, 69 [2-17m], 237 [21-31h]) = *takbat/takbać reflecting either the native (ProtoMongolian/Para-Mongolic) form of this ethnonym, *taγβač or one that came to Turkic via Rouran intermediation, see Beckwith 2005: 9-12, who also suggests that it meant “ruler (βač < Indic pati) of the Earth.” In Chinese his name is given as Tumen 土 門 (Liu 1958, II:490,n.18) “earth-door;” which does not transcribe but appears to hint at the meaning of his name. For objections to this interpretation, see Beckwith, 2009: 390,n.17. Bumın’s Türk title was “İl(l)ig (or El(l)ig Qağan,” i.e. “The Qağan (Emperor) possessed of the el/il” (“realm” see Clauson, 1972 121-122), which gives some sense of the Turkic rendering of Bumın, but see discussion in Rybatzki, 2000:206-218, regarding some of the complications.

25 Read, most recently, as İstämi (cf. User, 2010:134). The Middle Chinese and East Roman/ Byzantine Greek renderings of the name are not conclusive: Chin. 室 點蜜 / 密/ Shidianmi, MC: śjet tiem mjiet/mjet (Schuessler 2009: 299 [29-15j], 350 [3612n], 304 [29-41p and r]), EMC: ɕit tɛm mjit, LMC: ʂit tiam’ mjit (Pulleyblank, 1991: 285, 77, 213). His name appears in Byzantine sources (Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1972: 257, see also Moravcsik, 1958, II: 291) as Στεμβισχάγαν. With its initial İst-/İšt- in the Turkic forms (an initial İ- is absent from the Chinese and Greek renderings of the name, pointing to St- or Št-), it is clearly not Turkic. It is perhaps of Iranian origin, cf. Khotanese Saka sthaimä = sθämi < Old Iran. stâna “place, country,” i.e. “King of the Land” (as suggested by Harmatta, 1999: 396, Dobrovits, 2004b: 112 and Dobrovits, 2008: 67-78). His rank, as Yabğu Qağan, was slightly lower than that of his brother Bumın, as this etymology of his name (or title) might indicate, i.e. “king of a specific place or country” rather than a universal monarch. This is reminiscent of the Turkic title posthumously accorded to Joči, Činggis Xan’s oldest son and ruler of the Qıpčaq steppe and lands later conquered further to the west: Uluš İdi “Master of the Country,”see Boyle, 1956:148-152.

26 On the Rouran, the “Asian Avars,” later derisively termed Ruanruan蠕 蠕, 蝡 蝡 “creeping/ crawling creepers/crawlers” i.e. “insects”, see Taskin, 1984: 267-295; Kljaštornyj and Savinov, 2005: 48-59, 62; Kyčanov, 2010: 91-95. On their proposed connection with the European Avars, see Kollautz and Miyakawa, 1970; Pohl, 1988 and below.

27 KT = inscription of Kül Tegin, E= East, line 1, BQ = inscription of Bilge Qağan, E(ast) lines 2-3: (Tekin, 2000: 24/25,50/51, Berta, 2004: 139-140: üzä kök täŋri asra yağız yer qılındwqδa ekin ara kiši oğlı qılınmıš kiši oğlında üzä äčüm apam bwmın qağan ištämi qağan olormwš olorwpan türk boδwnwŋ elin törüsin tuta bermiš etü bermiš… “When the blue heavens above and the brown earth below were created, humankind was created between the two, my ancestors Bumın Qağan and İštämi Qağan sat upon (the throne), when they sat (upon the throne), they organized the realm of the Türk people and established the law and put (it) into order.”

28 Törü “traditional, customary, unwritten law” (Clauson, 1972: 531-532); “tören, merasim;” “toplumsal yasalar bütünü, tore” (User, 2010: 300, 301-302). For a discussion of the contradictions in the Chinese, Türk and Byzantine sources in situating İstämi/İštämi as an imperial founder, see Dobrovits, 2008: 68-70.

29 The name Ašina is not recorded in the Turkic-language inscriptions of the Türks, but is frequently mentioned in the Chinese sources, Ashina 阿 史 那 (EMC *ʔaʂɨ’na’, Pulleyblank, 1991: 23, 283, 221), MC ʔâ ṣɨ^B na^C (Schuessler, 2009: 211 [18-1m], 103 [4-52a], 215 [18-12a]) and is probably from Khotanese Saka âṣṣeina/âššena “blue,” implied by Bailey, 1985: 104 and affirmed by Kljaštornyj, 1994: 445-447. Recent readings of the Soġdian-language Bugut inscription of 582 (tr-ʼwkt ʼ(ʼ)šy-n’s), one of the earliest official monuments of the Türk state, appear to note it as well, Moriyasu, Ochir, 1999: 123, although this reading of the poorly preserved monument has not gone unchallenged (Beckwith, 2005: 13-15). Moreover, Beckwith, (1987: 206-208 and Beckwith, 2009: 138, 410-412, nn.71, 72), maintains that this name is Arśıla, ultimately of Tokharian origin (cf. the Tokharian A (Qočo) title ârśilâńci), noted in Menander, 1985: 172/173 as Ἀρσίλας “the senior ruler of the Turks” at the time of the Byzantine embassy to the Türks in 576 (see below).

30 Written in Soġdian as mwχ’n with an “unclear” etymology, but Turkic seems most unlikely (Lurje, 2010:252-253). Rybatzki, 2000:218-219, suggests Old Pers. magu-, Middle Pers. magû [mgw], môg, Soġdian mwġ “magus,” which, while in keeping with the apparently Iranian names/titles/throne names of the early Türk Qağans, does not seem likely here as the Türk Qağans did not perform any Mazdaic priestly functions.

31 Yıš (Clauson, 1972:976) denotes a “mountain forest, the upper parts of a mountain covered with forest, but also containing treeless, grassy valleys;” User, 2010: 150, 226 “orman, ormanla kaplı dağ.”

32 A similar campaign is noted several lines later (KT, E21, Berta, 2004:152) that extends from the Qaδırqan Heights to Käŋü Tarman/Tarban (the region of Tarband, i.e. Otrar, see discussion in Kljaštornyj, 1964:155-179). The Iron Gate(s), Tämir Qapığ, is a term used for a number of regions, from the North Caucasus to Transoxiana and Balkh. Here it is used to denote a specific area, the Pass of Buzgala in modern Uzbekistan, on the route from Samarqand to Balkh, some 90 km. south of Šahrisabz and as Kljaštornyj (1964: 76-77, 143, Kljaštornyj and Savinov, 2005: 92, following Thomsen, 1896: 137-138/Thomsen, 1993: 168-169), suggests it is probably a calque into Turkic of a local term, see also Giraud, 1960: 29, 45, 182 and User, 2010:153 (a pass west of the Syr Darya, on the Balkh-Samarqand route). It was associated with Alexander the Great and his (legendary) building of great iron gates to keep out the barbarous hordes of Gog and Magog, see Van Donzel and Schmidt, 2010: 9 et passim.

33 See texts in Berta, 2004: 55, 61, 62, 67, 133, 137, 185, 250, 284; citations in User, 2010: 163.

34 It is not to be confused with the enclitic particle oq/ök, see Clauson, 1972:76; User, 2010: 201, 312.

35 OC: dan/tân wa, Late Han: dźan/ tɑn wɑ, Schuessler, 2007: 255 [24-21az, a], 50 [1-23, 97a]; Karlgren, 1957/1996: 59 [147a, a’], 44[97a] *tân/tân, *d͑i̯an/źi̯än gi̯wo; Pulleyblank, 1991: 48, 381 EMC dʑian wuă. Chan has alternate pronunciations: dan, shan. Dybo, 2007: 105-106, suggests Western Han tân-wa. Usually rendered Shanyu previously, Chanyu is now the accepted modern reading of this title. There have been a number of attempts to decipher the Inner Asian title masked by the Chinese characters. The most recent is Beckwith, 2009: 386,n.7 who sees *dar-γa or *dan-γa here and suggests a connection with the Mongol title daruġa(či) “a high-ranking official with various functions.” See Golden, 1992: 65 for the literature on earlier readings, e.g. δabġu (> yabğu), darχan/tarχan etc.

36 OC: gâ, Late Han: gɔ < ga, MC γuo (Schuessler, 2009: 46 [1-1a’], Schuessler, 2007: 281, with the meaning of “dewlap of an animal [which hangs down from the chin]” > “beard” and “steppe nomads” with an unknown etymology) a term that denoted the northern nomadic neighbors of the Chinese, then came to be associated with the Xiongnu and eventually the Iranian peoples of Central Eurasia, see Pulleyblank, 1983:449, 450, 460, Liu, 1958, II: 490-491,n.22, 584,n.786:, Abramson, 2008: viii, 19-20, 87. The Eastern Hu (Dong Hu 東 胡 ) probably had Altaic affiliations, embracing a number of Mongolic or Para-Mongolic peoples (Taskin, 1984: 39ff.; Janhunen, 1996: 183-184).

37 Xing “surname, clan name, offspring,” Schuessler, 2007: 541. Ecsedy, 1972:249, n.6, 251-252 remarks that xing is “traditionally etymologized as a ‘matrilineal clan’ which “was not characteristic for China” in “historical times.” She renders xing as “clan”, but “with restrictions and attributives where possible.” She further notes that it was frequently used to denote “the natural units of thekinship structure of nomads, irrespective of the degree and nature of the actual political organization” and could also mean “sub-tribe.”As Ashina power grew, xing referring to the original “charismatic clan” (the Ashina) also came to mean tribe, Dobrovits, 2004:258.

38 Clauson, 1972: 507-508. Cf. BQ, E 25 (Berta, 2004: 163-164, Tekin, 2006: 58/59), which makes reference to the “five tümän (= 50,000) man army of the Chinese commander, Ong Totoq (taβğač wŋ twtwq beš tümän sü). Pritsak, 1985: 208 rendered Chin. xing as denoting “Old Turkic oq ‘organized polity able to supply 10,000 soldiers’.”

39 Németh, 1991: 63 and Haussig, 1975: 98-99, among others, suggested *Türk-Šad. In the Turkic world, titles used as names are not unknown (šad is a high rank just below that of Qağan and usually given to Ašina kinsmen, Clauson, 1972: 866); the ruler here may have been a younger son of İstämi/İštämi (Chavannes, 1941: 227, 239-242) and brother of Tardu (r. 575-603) who succeeded İstämi/İštämi as supreme Qağan of the Western Türks. Accordingly, Šad of the Türks may have been his title/status, not necessarily his name. Gumilëv, 1967: 111, identifies him with Tanhan Qağan, an active figure in Türk internecine strife (cf. Liu, 1958, I: 49, II: 522,n.235, Taşağıl, 1995: 33, 38, 41, 43-44, 46, 130, 155, who do not make such a connection).

40 The superior of Τούρξανθοϛ, the “senior” Türk ruler was Ἀρσίλαϛ, see above, n.8. Gumilëv, 1967: 48-50, 58, 106, places Τούρξανθοϛ’s territory on the lower Volga-North Caucasus-Ural zone and correctly points to the chill in Byzantine-Türk relations because of Constantinople’s recent treaty with the Avars and truce with Iran. This truce, he implies freed up Sâsânid forces to deal with the Türks. The truce, however, was uneasy and negotiations were still ongoing at the time of the death of Khursaw I (r. 531-579, see Frye, 1984: 328-329).

41 For its Altaic connections, see Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, 2003, II: 1046: *ŏ̀kʻà “sharp point, notch,” Proto-Tung. *ok- “arrow with wooden head,” Proto-Mong. *oki “top, tip, edge,” Proto-Turk. *ok “arrow” etc.

42 Lit. “root, origin,” Clauson, 1972, 708-709, notes the “great difficulty in determining how many early Turkish words of this general form there were and what were the qualities of their vowels and final consonants.” Cf. in addition kök “thong,” “seam”, kȫk “the sky, sky-coloured, blue, blue-grey” etc.

43 It is not related to Osm. huğ “a hut made of reeds or rushes,” as Clauson, 1972: 76, tentatively suggests, as huğ appears to be a loanword in Turkish from Arabic kûχ or Armenian χuġ, the former perhaps coming from the latter? (Tietze et al. 2009: 332 under hu).

44 Kâšġarî, 1982-1985, I: 166 records oğulmuq “a straight piece of wood supporting a beam,” the etymology of which is not clear. Clauson, 1972: 87, was uncertain, deriving it “apparently” from oğul [“son”] “but with no obvious semantic connection.” A connection with oğ/uğ “beam” seems more logical.

45 On qubi, see Farquhar, 1990: 17, 58,n.3; Allsen, 2001: 45. My thanks to Thomas Allsen for noting the resemblances of oq, if it is indeed being used in this sense, to the Činggisid qubi.

46 The Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, composed in “late antiquity” and last redacted early in the ‘Abbâsid era (see Daryaee, 2002: 1) records (Daryaee, 2002:13/17) the Yabbu χâgân, Sinjêbîk χâgân and Čôl χâgân. Yabbu χâgân and Sinjêbîk χâgân are probably a conflation of Yabğu Qağan and Sir Yabğu (Jabğu) Qağan. Daryaee, 2002: 36, identifies Čôl Qağan with Chuluo (Daman Chuluo 達漫處羅 MC: dât mwâ tś^hjwo^B lâ, Schuessler, 2009: 233 [21-14b], 263 [24-56n], 49 [1-18,85a], 215 [18-10a) Qağan (r. 603-611, Chavannes, 1941:3, 14-22, 51). His reign was filled with strife. It might also be a reference to the steppe ruler beyond Darband (Pers. “barred gate”), the Arabic Bâb al-Abwâb “Door/Gate of Doors/Gates”) and Armenian Čʻor/Čʻoł/Čʻoła, the city that guarded the entry way into Caucasia into the steppes, on Darband, see Kettenhofen, 2011; Ananias of Širak, 1992: 57, 122-123, nn.105-106. It is unlikely that it represents Turkic čöl “desert” (according to Clauson, 1972: 417, 420, a loanword from Mongol, but see Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, 2003, I: 450-451).

47 Al-Ṭabarî describes him, clearly İstämi/İštami, as the “most mighty” (aʻzz) of the Turks, the victor and slayer of the Hephthalite king (see also Marquart, 1938: 147).

48 Also rendered as “Comprehensive Compendium,” see Ng and Wang, 2005: 128-133, a private, rather than court-sponsored work of historical scholarship.

49 On Tang historiography see Twitchett, 1992 and Ng and Wang, 2005: 114, 108-134. The Tang, based on a number of earlier precedents, created a “History Bureau,” a distinct institution within the central government/palace aimed at organizing along more formal lines the various documents (and persons or agencies that produced them) that would make up an official dynastic history. It also gave them more control over the contents.

50 Išbara is a Türk title of ultimately Indic origin (Sanskrit îśvara “lord, prince”) that probably was borrowed into Turkic via Tokharian (Kljaštornyj, 1964: 113, n.174; Clauson, 1972:257). The character (咥) die has two distinct meanings (“to bite” and “to laugh, giggle”) and two pronunciations, die and xi respectively. Karlgren, 1957/1996: 116 [413-m] had *d’iet/d’iet/tie “laugh” and “bite,” noting “an alternate reading” ?/χji-/hi. Taşağıl, 1999: 93 (see Tongdian: 199-1078a in facsimile at the back of his book) in transcribing this name used “hsi” (xi), while Chavannes (in his translations of the passages in the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu) preferred die, which is a better fit from the onomastic perspective.

51 MC diet li śjet (Schuessler, 2009: 299 [29-15m], 280 [26-24ab], 300 [29-17a]) = *Täriš (“gather,” Clauson, 1972: 554, cf. the later Eltäriš Qağan, “Gatherer of the realm,” r. 682-694, i.e. reviver of the Eastern Türk state).

52 The relatively successful reign of Toŋ Yabğu (r. 618/619?-630), who was assassinated by a kinsman, was preceded and followed by ongoing dynastic strife. In 634 there were two competing Western Türk qağans, each vying for Tang commercial and marital ties. Dielishi had failed in his bid for a Tang bride, certainly a blow to his prestige.

53 Ošanin, 1983-1984, II: 776 [3487] bu “čast’, razdel, department, podrazdelenie…oblast’, rajon, okrug…”, buluo 部 落 “plemja, rod…stanovišče, poselenie.” Ecsedy, 1972: 249, 254-255: “a term used for foreigners who were mostly characterized as a patriarchal group led by a chief, and generally translated as ‘tribes’” and “the biggest unit of the Turk society…showing no kinship-concern…tribe.” Wittfogel and Fêng, 1949: 47, 84, n.1, note that bu can serve as “an equivalent” for buluo; Taskin, 1984: 16-17. Buluo, often used interchangeably with xing, usually entailed substantial numbers (at least several hundred family units), see also Dobrovits, 2004: 257-258.

54 On the technology and rich terminology regarding the arrow and bow in Central Eurasia, see Kőhalmi, 1956: 109-162.

55 Ošanin, 1983-1984, II: 619 [2735] “jaščik, čemodan, sunduk…ambar, sklad” etc. and used also for廂 xiang “fligel’ (“wing of a house” see above), clearly the sense in which it is used here, see also Kjuner, 1961: 192.

56 Clauson, 1972: 498, notes tölük, a word, “of obscure etymology,” attested in Uyğur denoting “vigour, violence,” cf. DTS: 579-580 (“sila, mošč’”). This would fit into the semantic grouping of Turkic tribal names and ethnonyms that denote “military valor, force, attacking,” see Németh, 1991: 87-92.

57 Čor is an old Turkic title, probably of Iranian origin (Aalto, 1971: 35, Bailey, 1985:99), “perhaps head of a small confederation” (Clauson, 1972: 427-428) in particular coming from the comitatus or personal retinue of the ruler (Sims-Williams and Hamilton, 1990: 82).

58 Given the MC forms of Dulu, it is highly unlikely that it has any association with the ruling clan of the Bulğars, the Dulo (Доуло) of Qubrat, the founder of “Magna Bulgaria,” noted in the Bulgarian Prince List. This was suggested by Artamonov, 2002: 180-181 (notions largely prompted by L.N. Gumilëv as noted in Artamonov’s footnotes and implied in Gumilëv,1967: 202-203). Pritsak, 1955: 64, in his study of the Bulgarian Prince List, attempted to connect the Bulğar Dulo with a late ruling clan of the Xiongnu, the Tuge 屠各 (OC dâ krâk, Late Han dɑ kak, Schuessler, 2009: 54 [1-38i’], 65 [2-1a]), which he, following the earlier, 1940 ed. of Karlgren, 1957/1996: 30-31 [45i’, 202 [766a], 202 , reconstructed as *d’o klâk, “Altchin. *d’uo-klo.” Simeonov, 2008: 108-113, after a thorough overview of other speculations, put forth his own hypothesis regarding a Dulu~Bulğar Dulo connection. He identifies the Tiele/Toquz Oğuz tribe Pugu 僕骨 (Kjuner, 1961: 36, 38, 40; Hamilton, 1955:2; Liu, 1958, I:108, II: 558.555; Maljavkin, 1989: 139) with Bulğar. The Pugu were in the northern sector of the eastern Tiele tribes. Pugu in MC is buk/buok kwǝt (Schuessler, 2009:160 [11-23b], 311 [31—1a]). Final –t in MC is often used to render final –r, *Buqır? *Buqur = Bulğar? However, according to Hamilton, 1955: 2, n.7 and Hamilton, 1962:45, Pugu rendered *Buqut, plural of Buqu? Within the Toquz Oğuz union, the *Buqu[t] were the second highest-ranking tribe after the Uyğurs. Simeonov further suggests that the Pugu and Dulu had merged into a tribal union (cf. also the partial, but succinct summary in Ziemann, 2007: 42). Simeonov derives Dulu from Turk. dul/tul “big, powerful, giant” (goljam, silen, velikan) and “war horse” (the latter recorded in Räsänen, 1969: 497 “ein zum Kampf ausgerüstetes Pferd,” but only attested in Čağatay, not Old Turkic). Dulo he views as a later, partly Slavicized form. *Dullu, he derives from “Old Hunnic” dul + -lu, i.e. “mounted, horseman.” All of this is highly speculative. No such “Hunnic” world is attested. Tul in Old Turkic denotes “widow” (or perhaps “widower” as well, Clauson, 1972: 490). Qubrat formed his state (630s) in a critical period of fragmentation of the Western Türk realm (leading also to the foundation of the Khazar state), but a Dulo-Dulu connection, however appealing as a legitimating source for Bulğar kingship, cannot be established on the basis of our current data.

59 Harmatta, 1992: 257-258, reconstructs this as *nu śi piɺ, *nu śipir and views it as Iranian *nu < Old Iran. naiba, Middle Pers. nêvak “outstanding, hero” + aśśaβâra (aśva-bâra or * aśśaβârya, cf. Saka aśśa “horse,” Old Indic bhârya, “servant, soldier” > *śȧβir ~ *śäβir in the language of the Western Türks and ultimately Russ. Sibir’ (Siberia). This became, with Turkicization, Sabir (Sabır). Harmatta (1992:266) concluded that the Nushibi were largely derived from the Sabirs. Beckwith, 1987: 209-210, identifies the Dulu with the Tarduš. The former is a tribal grouping under the Türk; the Nushibi, he suggests, is composed of Nu (?) + a title Šadpıt (šadapıt, seemingly a compound title consisting of šad, a title of Iranian origin, designating a rank just below that of the Qağan (see above) + apıt “entourage of the šad”? Clauson, 1972:866, 867; User, 2010: 267-268). On the tribal composition of the Dulu and Nushibi, see, in addition to Beckwith, 1987: 209-210; Maljavkin, 1989: 39, 164-165 (nn.239, 241, 243), 168,n.248. Ligeti found the majority of the On Oq names obscure, deriving, perhaps, from some unknown language (Ligeti, 1986: 329-330).

60 An important link in the Silk Road, today the ruins at Ak-Bešim on the Ču River in Kyrgyzstan, near Tokmak. This was an area of Soġdian colonization (de la Vaissière, 2005: 114-116). Dosymbaeva, 2006: 253-157, locates the Dulu between the Ili and Ču Rivers and the Nushibi between the Ču and Talas Rivers. The Western Türk urban centers were in the Ču River region, as was also an important sacral site at Merke.

61 MC: t^huo kuk γwǝn (Schuessler, 2000: 53 [1-36d], 158 [11-14a], 335 [34-13b]) = *Togon and ‘Aža in Tibetan, see Beckwith, 1987: 17, Beckwith, 2009: 128-129; Pan, 1997:4, 235-236.

62 Ashina Helu 賀 魯 MC: γâ ljwo^B, Schuessler, 2009: 212 [18-4j], 57 [1-52a].

63 Turan bases himself on BQ, E28 and the much-debated form of oqwğalı kälDi (see Berta, 2004: 165n.1735 for the numerous variant readings), which he reads as oqığlı kelti and renders as “okunmuş, ok gönderilmiş olanlar yâni çağrılan imdat kuvvetleri geldi.” Berta, 2004:99, has: “the person[s] came from the city to talk.” Tekin, 2006: 60/61 and 110, n. 210, has ok(ı)g(a)lı k(e)lti = “..davet etmek için geldiler,” (see also User, 2010: 392, who places oqığalı under oqı- “çağırmak; davet etmek”). Clauson himself was troubled by the passage and did not accept the reading oqığlı kelti. He suggested with some hesitation (“probably something like”) *[uts]uqığlı kelti which he left un-translated.

64 Räsänen, 1969: 496, derives it from Persian (cf. tuġrâ, ṭuġrâ, Steingass, 1970: 311, 815 “an emperor’s sign manual,” “the imperial signature”), but in light of the Oğuz form tuğrağ this seems unlikely. Nonetheless, there is no Turkic root to which one can point.

65 Connected to this perhaps is his entry (Kâšġarî, 1982-1985, II: 182) in which tuğrağ is mentioned in a poem in the meaning of “mounted messenger,” without any indication of dialect – perhaps the bearer of an arrow-message? See also see Clauson, 1972: 471.

66 Šukjurova, 1987: 99,n.22 is citing here the manuscript (Istanbul, Süleymaniye, No.523: 202a-b) of Dawâdârî’s Durar at-Tijan wa Ġurar Tawârîχ az-Zamân.

67 < Standard Turkic buz- “to destroy, damage,” but also boz- (e.g. in Oğuz Turkic), see Clauson, 1972: 389-390, Sevortjan et al. 2003: 113-115 < *poz-, but in Kâšġari, 1982-1985, I: 391: boz-“to tear down,” see also Old Anatolian Turkish: Kanar, 2011: 140-141: boz olmak, bozdurmak, bozılmak, bozmak etc.

68 The Dede Qorqud tales were written down in the fourteenth century, but are based on epics, which are believed to date back to the early eleventh century, Anikeeva, 2005:6-8.

69 Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, 2003, II: 1020, derive it from Altaic *ńóro “arrow, harpoon,” which also produced Mongolic ǯoruγa “arrow with bone head.”

70 The Khalkha Mongols, hard pressed by their local foe, the Jungar Oirat Mongol ruler, Galdan (r. 1644-1697), drew close to the Qing and were incorporated into the banner system in the late 1680s (Perdue, 2005:150-151).

71 Lessing, 1995: 2; Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, 2003, I: 512-513; Sevortjan, 1974:62-64. Although Manchu has wa, vâ deriving from a Proto-Manchu-Tungusic *êbâ < Altaic *ḗpo “to hunt, kill,” Starostin, Dybo and Mudrak do not note Manchu aba under the Tungusic terms, but following earlier studies mark it as a loanword from Mongol.

72 The whole confederation was termed an il, a Turkic (el) term originally denoting “realm” (Clauson, 1972:121-122), but had taken on this meaning in post-Činggisid Iran. Among the Bâṣerî, il means “tribe” (Barth, 1986:50), indicating the wide range of usages of one and the same word among and within the various nomadic peoples of Iran.

73 See, in particular, the studies on lexical, areal, convergence and copying phenomena, in the Irano-Turkic area in Johanson and Bulut (eds.), 2006.

74 Cf. Mod. Turkish ova “plain, grassy plain” and Turkish dial. ova “nomads’ pasturage” (Sevortjan, 1974: 400-401, 403-404).

75 Among the more workable descriptions is: an entity that is “flexible, adaptive and highly variable.” “Tribalism” was and is a “dynamic” not a “static social form;” one, which “undergoes and generates a range of social transformations over varying time scales” (Szuchman 2009: 4-5).

76 The Greek form is generally viewed as a corruption of Ὤγουροι, ie. Oğurs. Róna-Tas, 1999: 210, reads this as Uğur (cf. Moravcsik, 1958, II: 227: Οὔγωροι) and associates it with the family name of the founder of the Asian Avars/Rouran: 郁 久 閭 Yujiulü reconstructed in MC, as ʔjuk kjǝu ljwo (see Schuessler, 2009: 96 [4-17a’], 95 [4-13a], 57 [1-54g]) or EMC as ʔuwk kuw’ lɨǝ̆ and as ʔiwk kiw’ liǝ̆/lyǝ̆ (Pulleyblank, 1991: 384, 161, 204). Róna-Tas, 1999: 210-211, reads this as rendering *ugur(i) and thence Uğur. He considers the latter a “secondary” form coming from an original Oğur.

77 This passage and the Oğuric peoples are discussed in Németh, 1991:138-143, 146-149 (on the Onoğurs); Ligeti, 1986: 341-343; Golden, 1992:92-104; Róna-Tas, 1999: 209-212.

78 Menander, 1985: 50/51, 174/175 has Οὐνίγουροι.

79 Theophylactus Simocattes, 1972: 257, also citing the two forms, correctly equates the two, indicating that two forms of this ethnonym were known in East Roman/Byzantine circles.

80 Nicephorus died in 828, His Short History covers the period 602-769 and was probably written in the 780s, cf. Mango’s comments in Nicephorus, 1990:8-12.

81 Pulleyblank, 1956: 38-40 provides the passages on this eastern grouping of the Tiele from the Tang huiyao and the Jiu Tangshu, the latter based on the former. See also Kjuner, 1961: 36-39, who cites the accounts on the Tiele found in the Tang huiyao and the Wenxian tongkao by Ma Duanlin (1254-1323) another encyclopaedic institutional history, see Wilkinson, 2000: 524-525.

82 Pulleyblank, 1956:35-36, Pulleyblank, 1983: 448,455, *tägräg in a suggestion going back to a 1951 article of Boodberg, 1979: 354, 356, conjectured an association with Mongol telegen, terge, tergen “cart,” which is semantically connected with another name of this confederation the 高 車 Gaoche “High Carts,” see Pulleyblank, 1990a: 21-26. See also Schuessler, 2009: 227 [20-09b], 110[5-21f ]: OC lhêt rǝ̌k, Late Han t^het lǝk, MC t^hiet lǝk. The tegreg reconstruction fits well semantically, but is not without problems. Mong. terge(n) has been derived from an Altaic *t’i̯̯árko, producing Proto-Tung. *turki “sleigh” and Proto-Mong.*terge “vehicle,” but not attested in Turkic (Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, 2003, II:1433-1434). The Old Turkic might be tegrek (Clauson, 1972:485) “the rim of anything, ring, circle,” cf. also Üşenmez, 2010: 279). Middle Qıpčaq (Toparlı, Vural, Karaatlı: 2003: 275, 282) has” tigrek “toka” (“buckle”) and tögerik “değirmi, teker” (“round, circular,” “wheel”), cf. also Turkish teker “wheel,” tekerlek “wheel of a vehicle” (Redhouse, 1974: 581, Redhouse, 1997: 1128).” See the lengthy discussion of Hung. teker “to wind something round, to twist” from Western Old Turkic *täkir-, Eastern Old Turkic *tägir- (Róna-Tas, Berta, 2011, II: 877-882). Earlier renderings in Chinese of this people are: Dingling 丁靈 (OC têŋ rêŋ > Late Han teŋ-leŋ Schuessler, 2009: 137 [9-11a], EMC tejŋ-lejŋ, Pulleyblank, 1983:448), Tele 特 勒 (OC: dǝ̌k rǝ̌k, Late Han, MC dǝ̌k lǝ̌k, Schuessler, 2009: 98 [4-26h’], 110 [5-21f]. Pulleyblank, 1983: 448) et al.

83 Schuessler, 2009: 49 [1-17h,], 231 [21-1n], 51[1-28a], 231 [21-1n], reconstructs these as OC: hâ/hâh gat/kat Late Han: ha(^c) gɨat/ kɨat MC(^c) xuo gjät/kjät, Late Han: ʔɑ gɨat/kɨat, MC ʔuo gɨat/ kɨat.

84 Németh, 1991: 143, already made this suggestion in the first edition of his A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (Németh, 1930: 114-115), see also Kafesoğlu, 2011:60. Senga, 1980: 103, pointed to the “insuperable difficulties” with this identification

85 Oğur is not the source of the Mongol tribal name Oyirad (*oğir > *oyir) which stems from Turk.*ōy “dun” (horse color, see Clauson, 1972: 266) + g/ğir (> yir) + collective suffix –(A)n = Oyiran, pl. Oyirad, see Kempf, 2010/2011: 191-192, 195.

86 The Oğuz, per se, were originally located between the Tola and Selenge Rivers in Mongolia, see Giraud, 1960: 168-173; Sümer, 1980: 6, User, 2010: 161

87 So Sümer, 1980:3, citing earlier editions of the Yenisej Barıq inscription, but see Kormušin, 2008: 95-96 (E-5, Barıq I, Tuva) who has the reading altı oğuš bodunda (“u naroda Šesti plemën”).

88 Czeglédy (1983: 112) placed the separation of the Oğur and Oğuz groupings from one another as early as the 3^rd century BCE. Physical separation would have most probably preceded their linguistic differentiation.

89 See Schuessler, 2009: 355 [37-5gf], 233 [21-14b] MC ʔǝp dât; Maljavkin, 1989: 112, 379, 425.

This is a reference to the Türk pursuit of what became the European Avars.

90 Menander (Blockley, 1985: 120/121) in his account of the Byzantine embassy of Zemarchus in 568 to the Türks, mentions “a female slave, a war-captive from the people called Χερχίρ.” The use of this Oğuric/West Old Turkic form at a Türk court is enigmatic. Dobrovits, 2011: 396-399 (citing Pulleyblank, 1990: 98-108, whose discussion of the Chinese renderings of this name clearly point to *Qırqır), notes a range of Chinese transcriptions of this ethnonym and suggests a plural form that entered Chinese via Proto-Mongolic Xianbei: Qırqud > Qırqır with the *-d > -r/-z shift in Turkic. This is certainly a possibility, but it still does not explain why Zemarchus’ report has this Oğuric form. In the Old Turkic of the Türk, Uyğur and Qırğız inscriptions, the name is given as Qırqız (User, 2010, 160, Kormushin, 2008, 76-77) probably from Old Turk. qır “gray” (horse color) + suffix –q(X)r/ğ(X)r ~ qk(X)z/ğ(X)z, see Kempf 2010/2011, 192, 200-201.

91 Taşağıl, 1995:97. Xihai is perhaps the Etsin Gol (in Gansu and Inner Mongolia), Liaohai is the northern part of the Yellow Sea (Taşağıl, 1995: 95, n.553, 97, n. 562; Maljavkin, 1989: 9, 124 who notes the wide range of geographical entities ranging from the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf eastward for which the Chinese sources employed the term xihai.

92 See discussions in see Boodberg, [1938, 1939] 1979: 265-285; Haussig, 1953; Czeglédy, 1983:107ff.

93 Menander, Blockley, 1985: 174/175, quotes a Türk ruler who berated the Byzantines “for making a treaty with the Οὐaρχωνῖται (Uarkhonitai), our slaves (he meant the Avars) who have fled their masters” and then compared the Avars to ants who would be trampled under the hooves of Türk horses, see also Moravcsik, 1958, II: 223.

94 See Czeglédy, 1983: 99-120, who argues for War-Hun components among both the Asian Avars/Rouran and Hephthalites. Tremblay, 2001: 185-187 argues for the Eastern Iranian origins of the Hephthalites. Pohl, 1988: 27-37, 215-225, points to the complex origins of the European Avars – a migration westward would have inevitably brought the addition and subtraction of new elements.

95 Golden, 1980, I: 224-229. Theophylactus Simocattes confused Oğur with Uyğur (an identification made also by Chavannes, 1941: 247 and others) and jumbled peoples, chronology and geography in this passage, see Czeglédy, 1983:107-121, Whitby, 1988:315-317.

96 On the dispute between the “Altaicists” and “anti-Altaicists,” cf. Janhunen, 1996: 237ff., Greenburg, 2000-2002, I: 11ff., Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, 2003, I: 11-236 (critical review in Kempf, 2008: 403-408), Beckwith, 2004: 184-194; Robeets, 2005 (see Miller, 2007: 274-279 for a very critical review, yet in Miller, 1971, he accepted such a relationship), Vovin, 2005: 71-132. Antonov and Jacques, 2011:151-170, present evidence that may be interpreted as strengthening the “Altaicist” position. Subsequently, Oğuric/Old West Turkic had an important impact on Hungarian (see Róna-Tas and Berta, 2011).

97 The dating of the -z > -r shift in West Old Turkic may be placed ca. 1^st century BCE/1^st century CE (Róna-Tas, 1999: 101-104, Róna-Tas, 2011: 226-227), noted above.

98 Bazin, 1953: 315 pointed to the problems with the sonorization of q- > -ğ-, but limited it to Oğuz Turkic. His attempt (pp. 315-318) to identify oğuz as signifying “jeune taureau” and thence “valeureux” must be judged incorrect in light of the Chinese rendering of oğuz as xing.

99 See discussion of oğul in Erol, 2008: 119-123, 407-411, 732-734, who connects it with oq “tribe” (boy). Çağbayır (2007, IV: 3588) also notes og “çocuk” (but without any indication of sources). Kâšġarî, 1982-1985, I: 152 records the clearly related oğla “young man” in the Arğu dialect and oğulčuq (I: 166) “womb of a woman,” Osm. oğulduruḳ “womb” (Redhouse, 1974: 257), cf. also Clauson, 1972: 85 oğulluq “adoption, an adopted son.” Clauson also derives oğlağu “gently nurtured, delicate, pampered, brought up in luxury” from *oğla- < oğul. Çağbayır, 2007, IV: 3588-3589, gives a range of words derived from oğul.

100 Of possible interest here is uğan/oğan “God, the one who creates” from u- (or o- see Clauson, 1972; 2 (u- “to be capable”), 87, Toparlı, Vural, Karaatlı, 2003: 203 (oğan “Tanrı”), 291(uğan “Yaratıcı, Allah”), or o- *oğ- > *oğğan > oğan ?

101 Lane 1968,I/5: 2053 “a man’s kinsfolk or his nearer or nearest relations, next of kin…small sub-tribe…smallest subdivision of a tribe.” The Arabic points to blood-relations.

102 See extensive citations in Róna-Tas, Berta, 2011: II: 638-641, under Hung. olló which derives from Oğuric/West Old Turkic *oğlağ, but they note that “the base of ogul is obscure” and point to unspecified problems with oğ-/oq- “roždat’ and other etymologies.

103 Self-designation Šalğannu, consisting of two sööks (< Old Turk. süŋük “bone”, Clauson, 1972:838-839), now in many Turkic languages, under the influence of Mongol yasun (“bone, race family, clan, descent,” Lessing, 1995:430) denoting a socio-political subgrouping, often rendered as “clan”: the Šalğannu and Šaqšılu, earlier called Quu Kiži or Lebedincy in Russian, a subdivision of the northern subgrouping of the Altay Turkic people (Altay Kiži, see Ageeva, 2000: 40-41; Funk, Tomilov, eds., 2006: 463, 466-469.

104 Cf. the frozen form ŭqım-tŭqım “ürim-butağı” (“descendants”) Žamıqaeva, Maχranov, 2007: 663.

105 A form Ulu[o]ğundur is probably reflected in the Ողխոնտոր Բլկար Ołχontor Blkar, of the Armenian Georgraphy of Ananias Širakex’i (ca. 610-685, composed before 636, but with later entries by other hands, Marquart, 1903/1961:57, Ananias of Širak, 1992: 15, 33-34

106 Pritsak, 1952/2007:77/97 [39] suggested Unno + gun + dur (the latter two collective suffixes, see ~k^on~g^on, q^on~ğ^on Pritsak, 1952/2007: 75/94 [36]) but does not explain Unno.

107 They stemmed from the tribes brought westward with or attached by the Avars/War-Huns into their union (Theophylactus Simocattes, 1972: 260, Moravcsik, 1958, II: 128; Pohl, 1988: 80-81).

108 A fifth-century “Hunnic” (perhaps Chionite or Kidarite) seal from Samarqand written in Bactrian records: βαγοογλαργο/βαγοολαργο or ογλαργο υονανο þαο (“king of the Oġlarġo Huns”?). The question as to whether this personal name contains the term *oğ/oğlar (see discussion in De la Vaissière, 2008: 129-130,n.11, Sims-Williams, 2010:105), requires further data and analysis.

109 Выражаем благодарность Валерию Йотову (Региональный исторический музей – Варна) за предоставленную нам возможность опубликавать находку.