See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250979560

The Thirty Tribes of the Turks

Article  in  Acta Orientalia · October 2004

DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.57.2004.3.1

CITATIONS READS

5 586

1 author:

Mihaly Dobrovits
Seyh Edebali University, Bilecik, TR
8 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wstern Turks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mihaly Dobrovits on 14 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 57 (3), 257 – 262 (2004)

THE THIRTY TRIBES OF THE TURKS

MIHÁLY DOBROVITS*
(Miskolc)

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

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

*
Mihály Dobrovits, Department of World History, University of Miskolc, H-3515 Miskolc,
Egyetemváros, Hungary, e-mail: [email protected]
1
Németh (1921a, 1921b); Clauson (1972, p. 76); Turan (1945); Gerhard Doerfer, on the
contrary, read this expression as uq and derived its etymimology from the Mongol uγ ‘Geschlecht,
Familie; Herkunft’ (Doerfer 1962).
2
On the various etymologies of the oγuz see the works of Németh cited above and also Mar-
quart (1914, pp. 37, 201); Sinor (1950); Bazin (1953, pp. 315 – 322) = Bazin (1994, pp. 174 –176);
Hamilton (1962, pp. 23 – 25); Sümer (1999, p. 20); Golden (1992, p. 96).
0001-6446 /2004/ $ 20.00 © 2004 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
258 M. DOBROVITS

their exact meanings. As both H. Ecsedy and B. Csongor pointed out, only the term
buluo can be translated in an exact way as ‘tribe’. All other expressions are ususally
translated as ‘horde’, without any attempt at finding out their exact connotations
(Ecsedy 1972; Csongor 1993, p. 13). According to Ecsedy, the Chinese sources called
the Turks buluo for the first time when their population grew more than ‘some hun-
dreds of families (jia)’, under the leadership the charismatic clan (xing) Ashina. As to
the use of jia, Ecsedy called our attention to the fact that in connection with pastoral
nomads the Chinese source generally preferred to use the term zhang ‘tent’ (Ecsedy
1972, p. 249). Otherwise, the most frequently used expression in the Chinese sources
is xing ‘a surname, a clan, a people’ which in many ways became interchangeable
with buluo. Xing could mean both ‘tribe’ and ‘clan’. Together with a numeral it could
also denote a tribal confederation, such as jiu xing ‘The Nine Surnames’ which stood
for the toquz oγuz, shi xing ‘Ten Surnames’ for the on oq, i.e. the Western Türks, and
san xing geluolu ‘Three Surnames of the Qarluq’ for the üč qarluq of the Turkic
inscriptions. According to Ecsedy xing was the basic unit of any nomadic society.
There were also many ways to speak about the Turkic society as a whole: in his letter,
written to the Chinese Emperor Sui Yangdi (605–617) Qimin khagan (599–608)
used the Chinese term tujüe bai xing ‘Hundred [i.e. All] Surnames of the Turks’. In
some cases guo ‘country’ also was in use.3
We have only one description of the tribes of the Eastern Türks at our disposal,
namely the one to be found in the Tanghuiyao in which their tamγas and dwelling
places were also fixed (Liu 1958, pp. 453–454; Zuev 1960). These were crucial
pieces of information for the Chinese who were trading in horses with the nomads.4
According to the Chinese source the tribes of the Eastern Türks that lived to the north
of the Gobi Desert were the following:

The name of the tribe The tamγa of the tribe

Ashina

Helu

Ashide

Da Ashide

Bayan Ashide

3
Ecsedy (1972, pp. 251 – 254). For the letter of the khagan in the Suishu, see Liu (1958, pp.
60 – 61); for another version incorporated into the Zizhi tongjian, see Taşağıl (1995, p. 167).
4
On the horse fairs of the Türks, see Liu (1958, pp. 454 – 455).
Acta Orient. Hung. 57, 2004
 THE THIRTY TRIBES OF THE TURKS 259

The following tribes lived to the south of the Gobi Desert:

The name of the tribe The tamγa of the tribe

Enjie (Sijie)

Fuliyu

Qibi

Xijie

Huxie

Nula

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

The tamγa of the Ashina dynasty The tamγa of the Ashina tribe

Although many of these tamγas are resembling Chinese characters (but appar-
ently none of them is identical with any of the real Chinese characters), they are un-
doubtedly original ones. Klyashtorny relied on them indicating that the tamγas of the
Ashina dynasty and the tribe Ashide appear together in the inscription of Choyr
(Mongolia) (Klyashtorny 1971).
This also means that a clear differentiation between the dynasty and the tribe
Ashina existed among the Eastern Türks. The Chinese epitaph of Princess Xienli Pijia
(Bilgä), the daughter of the Türk Qapγan/Mechuo khagan (691–716) provides us
with a clear evidence of this situation.5 According to this source the second husband
of the Princess held the title “The Heavenly Born (tianshangde = täŋridä bolmis)
Wise (pijia = bilgä) šad (sha) Khagan of the Thirty Tribes (sanshi xing tianshangde

5
Chavannes (1912); Pelliot (1912); Bombaci (1971); Pritsak (1985, p. 207); Rybatzki
(2000, pp. 227 – 228).
Acta Orient. Hung. 57, 2004
260 M. DOBROVITS

pijia sha kehan).6 We are also informed that the father of the Princess, mentioned
here as Gudulu (= Qutluγ) Mechuo khagan was the khagan of Thirty Tribes. At the be-
ginning of his career, the father of the Princess ruled over the left wing of the Em-
pire, then the Nine Surnames (jiu xing) were under his rule. Afterwards he became
the ruler of twelve surnames (shier xing), and at least thirty surnames were under his
overlordship. Thus he became the lord of all who ‘button up their garment to the
left’ ”, i.e. all of the Northern Barbarians.7 This is a rather correct description of Me-
chuo khagan’s rise to power.
Czeglédy (1972) was the first to try to identify these thirty tribes. According to
him, if we identify the ‘Nine Surnames’ (jiu xing) of the text with the toquz oγuz, and
there can be no doubt about this identification, the “Twelve Tribes” cannot be other
than the confederation of the Türks. He was, however, misled by the famous Tibetan
source referred to as Pelliot Tibétain 1283. This text based on the relation of five
Uighur explorers of Inner Asia after 750 often makes mention of the Türks as dru-gu.
The text also mentions those twelve tribes that lived between the Copper City,
legendary capital of the Western Türks (Tib. Pa-ker pa-lig = Tu. Baqïr balïq) and
’Bug-čhor. The names of these tribes were as follows: the tribe of King Ża-ma-mo-
ńan, then Ha-li, A-ša-ste, Šar-du-li, Lo-lad, Par-sil, Rńi-ke, So-ni, Jol-to, Yan-ti, He-
bdal, Gar-rga-pur (Bacot 1956, p. 145). As to the Copper City, it was Czeglédy
(1960) who identified it with Bešbalïq (Chinese Beiting, Iranian Panjikath) in East-
ern Turkestan. As far as ’Bug-čhor is concerned, Louis Ligeti identified it with the
Tibetan name of Mechuo khagan, and also with the land that formerly belonged to
him, i.e. the realm of the Eastern Türks. Ligeti warned that Czeglédy’s attempt to
identify the twelve tribes mentioned in the Tibetan source with the Turks was wrong
(Ligeti 1971, pp. 177, 178–179). Czeglédy (1982) failed to proof also his second
idea according to which the number of the tribes of the toquz oγuz together with the
ten tribes of the Uighurs were eighteen.8
Czeglédy, however, was quite near the solution. The term Nine Surnames (jiu
xing) really stands for the toquz oγuz. No further emendation is needed. The eleven
tribes of the Eastern Türks together with the nine tribes of the toquz oγuz make up
twenty. Adding to this amount the ten tribes of the Western Turks (on oq) we get the
thirty tribes (xing) we were looking for.
The last question left is the following: Who were then the “twelve tribes” (shier
xing) mentioned by the epitaph of Princess Xienli Pijia? We can respond very easily:
the twelfth xing was the dynasty itself. It was not a tribe, but an independent unit that
had its own tamγa and also the term xing fit for it.

6
Instead of Bombaci’s mistaken reading (san pu t’ien shang tê p’i-chia sha k’o-han: 1971,
p. 117) we follow Rybatzki’s reading (2000, p. 228).
7
Chavannes (1912, p. 83); Bombaci (1971, pp. 105 – 106); in a former and shorter Hungar-
ian version of our article we confused the husband and the father of the Princess, cf.: Dobrovits
(2003, pp. 26 – 27).
8
On this question, see also Pulleybank (1956); Hamilton (1962).
Acta Orient. Hung. 57, 2004
 THE THIRTY TRIBES OF THE TURKS 261

References

Bacot, J. (1956): Reconnaissance en Haute Asie septentrionelle par cinq envoyés ouigours au VIIe
siècle. JA, pp. 137 – 153.
Bazin, L. (1953): Notes sur les mots « Oguz » et « Türk ». Oriens 6, pp. 315 – 322 = reprint in:
Bazin, L.: Les Turcs : Des mots, des hommes. Budapest – Paris 1994 (Bibliotheca Orientalis
Hungarica XLI), pp. 174 – 176.
Bombaci, A. (1971): The Husbands of Princess Hisen-li Bilgä. In: Ligeti, L. (ed.): Studia Turcica.
Budapest (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica XVII), pp. 103 – 123.
Chavannes, Éd. (1912): Épitaphes des deux princesses turques de l’époque des T’ang. In: Fest-
schrift Vilhelm Thomsen. Leipzig, pp. 78 – 87.
Clauson, G. Sir (1972): An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford.
Csongor, Cs. (1993): Kínai források az ázsiai avarokról [Chinese Sources on Asian Avars]. Buda-
pest (Történelem és kultúra 8).
Czeglédy K. (1960): A Rézváros [Copper City]. Antik Tanulmányok 7, pp. 211 – 216 = reprint:
Czeglédy K.: Magyar Őstörténeti Tanulmányok. Budapest 1985 (Budapest Oriental Re-
prints A3), pp. 354 –359.
Czeglédy, K. (1972): On the Numerical Composition of the Ancient Turkish Tribal Confederations.
AOH 25, pp. 275 –281.
Czeglédy, K. (1982): Zur Stammesorganisation der türkischen Völker. AOH 26, pp. 89 – 93.
Dobrovits M. (2003): A türkök harminc törzse [The thirty tribes of the Turks]. Eleink. Magyar
őstörténet 2003/2, pp. 23 – 28.
Doerfer, G. (1962): Zur Beziehung der Westtürken. CAJ 7, pp. 256 – 263.
Ecsedy, H. (1972): Tribe and Tribal Society in the 6th Century Türk Empire. AOH 25, pp.
245 – 262.
Golden, P. B. (1992): Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Ethnogenesis and State-
Formation in Medieval and Early-Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Wiesbaden, Otto
Harrassowitz (Turcologica, Bd. 20).
Hamilton, J. R. (1962): Toquz oγuz et on Uyγur. JA, pp. 23 – 63.
Klyashtorny, S. G. (1971): Руническая надпись из Восточной Гоби. In: Ligeti, L. (ed.): Studia
Turcica. Budapest (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica XVII), pp. 249 – 258.
Ligeti, L. (1971): A propos du « Rapport sur les rois demeurant dans le nord ». In: Études tibé-
taines dédiée à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou. Paris, pp. 166 – 189.
Liu, Mau-tsai (1958): Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Gechichte der Ost-Türken (T’u-küe). Wies-
baden, Otto Harrassowitz (Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen 10).
Marquart, J. (1914): Über das Volkstum der Komanen. In: Bang, W. – Marquart, J.: Osttürkische
Dialektstudien (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist.
Klasse, Neue Folge XIII/1). Berlin 1914.
Németh, Gy. (1921a): On ogur, hét magyar, Dentümogyer. MNy 17, pp. 205 – 207.
Németh, J. (1921b): On ogur, hét magyar, Dentümogyer. KCsA 1, pp. 148 – 155.
Pelliot, P. (1912): La fille de Mo-tch’o Qaghan et ses rapports avec Kül-tegin. T’oung Pao 13, pp.
301 – 306.
Pritsak, O. (1985): Old Turkic Regnal Names in the Chinese Sources. JTS 9, pp. 205 – 211.
Pulleybank, E. (1956): Some Remarks on the Toquzoghuz Problem. UAJb 28, pp. 35 – 42.
Rybatzki, V. (2000): The Titles of Türk and Uigur Rulers in the Old Turkic Inscriptions. CAJ 44,
pp. 205 – 292.
Sinor, D. (1950): Oğuz kağan destanı üzerinde bazi mülahazalar. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Edebiyat
Fakültesi, Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi 4, pp. 1 – 14.

Acta Orient. Hung. 57, 2004

 262 M. DOBROVITS

Sümer, F. (1999): Oğuzlar (Türkmenler). Tarihleri – Boy teşkilatı – Destanları. İstanbul 51999, p. 20.
Taşağıl, A. (1995): Gök-Türkler. Ankara (Atatürk Dil-ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Türk Tarih Kuru-
mu Yayınları, VII. Dizi – Sayı 160).
Turan, O. (1945): Eski Türklerde okun hukukî bir sembol olarak kullanılması. Türk Tarih Kurumu,
Belleten 9, pp. 305 –318.
Zuev, Ju. A. (1960): «Тамги лошадей из вассальных княжеств» (Перевод из китайского сочи-
нения VIII – X вв. Танхуйяо, т. III, цзюань 72, стр. 1305 – 1308). Труды Института ис-
тории, археологии и этнографии Академии наук Казахской ССР 8, pp. 93 – 137.

Acta Orient. Hung. 57, 2004

View publication stats