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

Professor Emeritus of History,

The word oq (“arrow”) in the Türk and Uyğur sources is, aside from the politonym On Oq, used only in its primary meaning to denote the weapon/implement.³⁴ Similarly, in the Old Qırğız runiform monuments it appears only in the meaning of “arrow” (Kormušin, 2008: 132, Qızıl-Čiraa I, Tuva, inscription).

Our knowledge of the demographics of the Volga-Ural region and eastward is somewhat limited for this period. Were these names that were given to what we have deduced were tümen units? Were these previously existing tribal names? This is unclear. One may well wonder if the author of the Jiu Tangshu, in his aside on İstämi/İštämi, had projected into the past a structure which his sources actually attest as coming into being some sixty years after İstämi/İštämi’s death? It should be added that the KT and BQ inscriptions also date to well after the events surrounding the foundation of the first Türk Empire and only briefly allude to them.

Kljaštornyj and Stark understand oq (“arrow”) in the KT and BQ passages pertaining to oqsız as designating a tümen (Kljaštornyj, Savinov, 2005: 93, Stark, 2008: 61), a not unreasonable assumption, even if relating to a period prior to the organization of the On Oq. Stark rendered the passage as “the master- and oq-less [i.e. ‘unorganized’] Kök Türk” and suggested that İstämi/İštämi Qağan, as KT, E1 and BQ, E2-3 state, “organized the clans and tribes” into the On Oq. He sees these divisions as originally military in nature, producing military units that “gradually turned into tribal groups,” thereby transforming On Oq into an ethnonym (Stark, 2006/2007: 170).

İstämi/İštämi Qağan, undoubtedly, carried out organizational activities consolidating the Western Türk tribes that had come with him and other Turkic (or nomadic) tribes that had come under Türk sway, into some kind of structured military union. His immediate successors, all Ashinas, undoubtedly carried out similar organizational activities ­– when they could. As a member of the founder family of the Empire, İstämi/İštämi would have had the right to organize such large-scale military-political entities. The Jiu Tangshu notice (see above), if not an anachronism, would point to the creation or reorganization of tümen-sized units. Were they termed oqs at that time? Was oq (“arrow”) conflated with the kinship – social grouping term uq ~ oq ? (see 5.a below). We have no other Old Turkic sources that indicate that the word oq (“arrow”) was used with this specific military, socio-political meaning, except for the politonym On Oq.

The inscriptions, it should be reiterated, were written some 175 years after the events, reflecting a very different era. Stricto sensu, they merely note, in broad strokes, that Bumın and İstämi/İštämi created a state out of what they imply was an unorganized, leaderless mass, lacking a central ruler until they came under Ašina rule (the inscriptions were in part res gestae with a strong political propaganda component). KT, E2-3, BQ, E3-4 do not say that İstämi/İštämi Qağan created the On Oq as such, although we cannot rule out such a possibility (or other organizational activities among the Türk and newly subjugated peoples), but the Byzantine reference to an eight-fold rather than ten-fold division raises some important questions as to the actual political organization of the Western Türks during the era of İstämi/İštämi and his immediate successors. The people who were iδi oqsız are identified as the Kök Türks, i.e. the whole of the eventual union of thirty tribes that formed the Türk people (Dobrovits, 2004a: 257-262). The implication is that this ordering of the Türk tribes, in essence state formation, extended to the entire union, east and west. The Chinese accounts, as we shall see, overall, point to a later time at which the On Oq system was created (see 2 below).

In sum, although Clauson (1972:76) defines oq as coming to be used to denote “sub-tribe,” the Türk and Uyğur inscriptions use oq in this sense only with reference to the On Oq.

Kâšġarî also mentions oq yılan “a viper” (yılan) “which hurls itself at a man” (Kâšġarî, 1982-1985, I: 89), oqluq kirpi, lit. “a hedgehog with arrows,” i.e. a “porcupine” (Kâšġarî, 1982-1985, I: 316), clearly stemming from the sense of “arrow.” None of these sheds further light on oq in terms of socio-political vocabulary. The one exception might be oq in the sense of a “lot used in dividing up lands or shares of property.” If such is the usage here and it is not a calque from Persian, then On Oq might also mean the “Ten Appanages,” a reference, seemingly, to lands, but very possibly including people, in particular military forces. In this regard, it would bear some resemblance to the Činggisid Mongol qubi “share” which, although in a Chinese (Yuan) setting, could denote “fief” was not limited to land, but could include people (including slaves) and livestock. There are numerous examples of Činggisid qağans assigning military forces to members of the royal house.⁴⁵ Oq, then, in this secondary meaning noted by Kâšġarî, may also have denoted an allotment of military forces. Initially, these were given to members of the Türk royal house, the Ashina, bearing the title šad (see 2 below). The Činggisids, as noted, made similar allotments of people to members of the ruling house. Later, the leadership of these oqs came to be held by chiefs bearing much lower titles than šad – and hence probably of non-Ashina origin. The Chinese accounts clearly tell us that the allotments/divisions were of “people.” Interestingly, the Old Qırğız inscriptions in Tuva use the word bağ to denote a “lot, allotment/appanage,” within the Qırğız polity, cf. altı bağ bodun (“the people of the six lots/appanages” (Kormušin, 2008: 91 [E-1, Uyuk-Tarlak, Tuva, line 2], 140-141 [E-49, Bay-Bulun II, Tuva, line 4]). Clauson (1972:310-311) notes the primary meaning of this word, “bond, tie, belt” and thence “something tied or fastened together.” He further comments that “[i]n early political terminology, bāğ also seems to mean ‘a confederation’, that is a number of clans united by contractual arrangements as opposed to bōδ ‘clan’, a number of families united by ties of blood.” He renders the altı bağ of the Old Qırğız inscriptions as the “six confederations.” Bağ appears to have had this socio-political connotation only in Old Qırğız.

In sum, we cannot say that the use of the word oqsız in the passage in KT and BQ noted above provides definite evidence for the existence of an On Oq organization in the latter half of the 6^th century. As understood in the 8^th – 9^th century sources, however, On Oq meant “Ten Arrows” and referred to tribes or most probably tribalized military units.

1.e. In an account from the latter half of the eighth century (probably more towards the end of the century) written either in Tibetan or translated from Uyğur into Tibetan giving a description of the “northern peoples,” mention is made of a grouping of “about ten alluded tribes” (Venturi, 2008:5-8, 29). No mention is made of the On Oq and the “ten tribes” to in an otherwise relatively detailed account, may not necessarily have meant the former. If the account dates to before 766 the date at which time the Qarluqs took Sûyâb and subsumed the now enfeebled Western Türk (Chavannes, 1941: 85; Golden, 1992: 141, 196), it might be a reference to them. Nothing is said about their origins.

1.f. İstämi/İštämi and the Western Türk realm. İstämi/İštämi, who had the title Yabğu Qağan, a rank slightly below that of his brother Bumın, the El[l]ig Qağan, was also called Sir Yabğu (< Śri Yabğu) rendered into Pahlavî as sr/nčypw/yk (Sinjêbîk)⁴⁶ and as Σιζάβουλος, Σιλζίβουλος Διζάβουλος in Byzantine accounts (Moravcsik, 1958, II: 118,

275-6) and as سِنْجِبوا Sinjibû in aṭ-Ṭabarî’s History (al-Ṭabarî, 1967-1969, II: 100⁴⁷). It was probably the title used by İstämi/İštämi Qağan’s Iranian subjects (Dobrovits, 2008: 70-78, who also suggests that Bumın and İstämi/İštämi were posthumously bestowed names/titles).

The Western Türk ruling house stemmed from İstämi/İštämi’s branch of the Ašinas. During his lifetime, the Qağanate, east and west, remained a united polity. In the quarter century or so after his death, the two branches, functionally divided from the outset into Ašina-led eastern and western wings, as was typical of Eurasian nomadic polities, were coalescing into connected but distinct and often independent entities. The eastern wing consisted of Mongolia and the western wing comprised the urban city-states of Transoxiana and East Turkistan/Xinjiang as well as the steppes to the west of Mongolia. The east wing was considered higher in status. Given their different theaters of operation, the eastern Ašinas largely focusing on China, while their western kinsmen were dealing with Iran (and its Arabo-Islamic successor state, the Umayyad and early ‘Abbâsid Caliphates) and Byzantium, it is hardly remarkable that the two grew somewhat apart. The dating of the formation of two de facto Türk states has been placed between 581 and 603 (see Wang, 1982: 139-141, Pan, 1997: 101, Ôsawa, 2006: 477-478, Stark, 2008: 17 who favor the earlier period and Kljaštornyj, Savinov, 2005: 97, who opt for 603). Western Ašinas (such as Tardu, r.575-603, a son and successor of İstämi/İštämi, Golden, 1992:131-133) made attempts to gain control over the whole of the realm and conflicts in East Turkistan /Xinjiang were not unknown. The Sui early on (Bielenstein, 2005: 397-398; Xiong, 2006: 209-214) and the Tang (Pan, 1997, Skaff, 2012) were always ready to promote feuds among the often factionalized Ašinas. This is an important aspect of the pre-history and history of the On Oq.

2. The Chinese Accounts. There are several Chinese accounts of the formation of what they termed the Shi Xing 十 姓 (“Ten Surnames/Clan Names”) and sometimes the Shi Jian 十 箭 (“Ten Arrows”, Maljavkin, 1989: 168,n.248, 175, n.262). Chinese xing “surname, clan name” derives from terms denoting “what is inborn,” “nature” > “surname, clan name” < “birth, offspring” see Schuessler, 2007: 541 – this is another indication that we are dealing with groupings of people, at least putatively related by kinship). It is one of the few instances in which the Chinese accounts translate rather than transcribe a Turkic ethnonym or politonym (see Toquz Oğuz in 5 below). Interestingly, both of the possible meanings of On Oq are translated.

The “oldest” account is found in the Tongdian (“Encyclopaedic History of Institutions”⁴⁸) written by Du You (735-812) that appeared in 801 (Wilkinson, 2000: 525). Contemporary with the Tongdian and in a sense a conservative response to it, is the Tang huiyao (“Important Documents of the Tang,” or “Gathering of the Essentials of the Tang”) first compiled by the brothers Su Mian (?-805) and Su Bian (ca. 760-805) in 804 and later edited in 961 by Wang Pu (922-982), who updated it to the late Tang era (Wilkinson, 2000: 52; Ng and Wang, 2005: 131-132; Kamalov, 2001: 32-35). These two works are followed by the Tang dynastic histories, the Jiu Tangshu (“Old Standard History of the Tang,” compiled 940-945 by Liu Xu et al.) and the Xin Tangshu (“New Standard History of the Tang,” by Ouyang Xiu et al. appearing in 1060, both covering the period 618-906, see Wilkinson, 2000: 504, 525-526, 819-821; Ng and Wang, 2005: 114, 136-138,146-147). The accounts although written well after the events they describe stem from a common source or sources⁴⁹ and have some variant material, their information is essentially similar.

The information can be summed up as follows: during the reign of Išbara Dielishi⁵⁰ 咥 利 失 (r. 634-639,⁵¹), the Western Türk realm, following periods of intermittent discord, self-inflicted but encouraged by China,⁵² was “suddenly” divided into ten subdivisions/ tribes (Chin. bu 部⁵³), each led by one leader. The Jiu Tangshu places this event after 635; the Tang huiyao dates it to 638 (Chavannes, 1941: 27; Kjuner, 1961: 191-192). They were called the Ten Šads, each of whom was presented with an arrow,⁵⁴ hence their name the “Ten Arrows.” They divided the “Ten Arrows” into left and right “sides” (Chin. xiang 廂, i.e. subgroupings). Each “wing/side” (xiang 箱⁵⁵) was arranged as five arrows. The left “side” (i.e. wing) was named the Five Dulu 都 陸 (MC tuo ljuk, EMC tɔ luwk, LMC tuə liwk (*Tölük,⁵⁶? Schuessler, 2009: 53 [1-38e’], 188 ]14-16f], Pulleyblank, 1991: 81, 201) “tribes” (部 落 bu luo ), each (Dulu) “arrow” was headed by a čor.⁵⁷ The Dulu⁵⁸ were located east of Sûyâb. The right “side” (i.e. right wing) was named the Five Nushibi 弩失畢 (MC nuo śi pjiet, EMC nɔ çit pjit, LMC nuɔ šit pjit, Schuessler, 2009: 58 [1-56z], 279 [26-19a], 304 [29-42a], Pulleyblank, 1991: 228, 282, 34),⁵⁹ located west of Sûyâb.⁶⁰ The five “arrows” of the Nushibi, in turn, were each led by an erkin (or irkin, Clauson, 1972: 225, a title of tribal chiefs) or kül erkin. One “arrow” was called one “tribe” (bu luo). The “Great Arrow Head” (da jian tou 大 箭 頭) became the Great Leader/Commander. They were all named the “Ten Surname Tribes” (shi xing bu luo, Taşağıl, 1999, II: 93 for the Tongdian cap. 199, see also http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/通典/卷199; Chavannes, 1941: 27-28 [Jiu Tangshu], 56 [Xin Tangshu]). Soon after this division, Dielishi was attacked by his own officials and fled to Yanqi焉 耆 (Tokh. Agni, Old Turk. Solmı, today Qarašahr), returned, reassumed some of his authority but was then forced to flee to Farġâna where he ended his days. The dates for these events differ slightly in the sources. What is important is despite his attempts at reorganization, Dielishi was unable to retain power.

The names and titles ([kül(i)]čor and [kül] erkin, respectively), of the Dulu and Nushibi tribes are recorded in the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu (Chavannes, 1941:34, 60, 270-273; Beckwith, 1987: 209-210; Taşağıl, 1999: 71, Taşağıl, 2004a: 119, see discussions in Dobrovits, 2004: 101-109; see Dobrovits, 2012, for the most recent explanations) in a notice dated to 651. The On Oq took on the profile described to us in the Chinese accounts in the period 635-650 (Dobrovits, 2004: 1008). Given the fact that the leaders of these ten tümen originally held the title šad, virtually reserved for the kinsmen of the qağan, it may be that initially these commands were given to members of the Ašina ruling clan. The titles čor and erkin/irkin are well below that of šad and may indicate that after the initial organization under Ašinas, the leadership of the Dulu and Nushibi subdivisions came from the local tribal aristocracies.

The pre-On Oq history of these tribes remains little known. The Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu list the Dulu and Nushibi among the mix of tribes in the western regions that submitted to the Türks. It would appear that these tribes (or many of them) were already in the region by the mid-sixth century. Did these names that we encounter antedate the Türk conquest? Or, were they created with the organization of the On Oq? We cannot say. We do know that the tribes had the same or similar customs as the Türks and spoke languages that only slightly differed from that of the Türks (Chavannes, 1941:21, 47).

Gumilëv (1967: 154-157) dates the “complete collapse” of the Western Türk Qağanate to 604, but notes the “restoration” of the preexisting authority under Toŋ Yabğu (r. 618/619-630). There were compelling reasons for such a re-organization. In 630, the Eastern Türk realm had fallen to the Tang and in 634-635 the latter had launched a series of campaigns against a regionally powerful people of Xianbei origin in the Kokonor region of Qinghai, called in Chinese the Tuyuhun 吐谷 渾,⁶¹ as the Emperor Taizong sought to strengthen China’s access to the “Western Regions” (East Turkistan/ Xinjiang) and beyond.

Although the western Türks under Toŋ Yabğu had been effective allies of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641) in his wars against the Sâsânids in the late 620s, fissiparous tendencies within the polity were already evident. After the assassination of Toŋ Yabğu, who had greatly expanded Western Türk power, the uncertain unity of the Western Türk realm crumbled further. Internecine strife continued after the death of Dielishi as well (Chavannes, 1941: 24-27, 265-266; Golden, 1992: 135-136).

By 651, yet another Ashina bearing the title Išbara Qağan⁶² who had been in and out of submission to the Tang since 648, briefly achieved preeminence among the Western Türks (the start of his reign as Qağan is often placed in 653). By 657-659, he, too, had been defeated and died in Tang captivity (Chavannes, 1941: 28-40, 59-67, 267-268; Pan, 1997:139-141, 176-179, 193-196; Bielenstein, 2005: 402).

A further sign of the deterioration of Western Türk authority following the demise of Toŋ Yabğu was the breakaway of the more westerly tribes, which formed (ca. 630-ca. 650) a new state, the Khazar Qağanate, under Ashina leadership (Novosel’cev, 1990: 88 places the rise of Khazaria slightly earlier, to the 620s, but see Golden, 2000a: 291-294; Zuckerman, 2007: 401ff.). Thus, an attempt in the 630s and perhaps ongoing until mid-century to tighten internal control and organization had been very much in order. The Dulu – Nushibi strife, however, was never resolved and remained an ongoing problem. If the purpose of the creation of the On Oq structure was to preserve unity in the Western Türk realm, it must be viewed as largely a failure.