In Russian
Huns Table of Contents
Yu. Zuev Early Türks: Essays of history
Yu. Zuev Ethnic History of Usuns
Yu. Zuev The Strongest Tribe - Ezgil
Yu. Zuev Ancient Türkic social terms
Yu. Zuev Seyanto Kaganate and Kimeks
Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline

Kazakh SSR Academy of Sciences
Works of History, Archeology, and Ethnography Institute, Vol. 8
Publishing House of the Kazakh SSR Academy of Sciences, Alma-Ata, I960
Offprint copy

Yu. A. Zuev
(Translation of 8-10 c. Chinese composition Tanghuyao, vol. 3, chapter (tszüan) 72, p. 1305-1308)

Source and Comments
<ref>Zuev Yu.A., ''“Horse Tamgas from Vassal Princedoms (Translation of Chinese composition “Tanghuyao“ of 8-10th centuries)“'', Kazakh SSR Academy of Sciences, Alma-Ata, I960, pp. 93-139 (In Russian)</ref>

This posting is a tribute to late Prof. Yu. A. Zuev, who passed away on December, 5, 2006. Yu. A. Zuev produced numerous translations of the Chinese annalistic chronicles, intense scientific research of the history, culture, and socio-political life of medieval Türkic and non-Türkic peoples, and made outstanding contributions to Türkology and Iranology. Prof. Yu. A. Zuev specialty was in ancient Chinese, Middle Chinese, and modern Chinese languages, learned under a guru of the Chinese philology S.Ya.Yahontov, that made him a unique expert with a first-hand knowledge of the sources. His superb knowledge of the sources allowed Prof. Yu. A. Zuev to delve into related fields of history and ethnography with unequalled depth and competence.


Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page. Translator's notes and explanations, where embedded in the author's text and not denoted specifically, are shown in blue. Translator has added some subdivision headings shown in blue. The on-line posting is enhanced to compensate somewhat for the severe limitations of the printing technology evident in the original 1960 publication. Footnotes denoted 1, 2, 3,... are page footnotes, the author's numbered comments for the terminology of the document are denoted with asterisk 1*, 2*, 3*... Line entries in the author's “Table of Òamgas“ were in this posting assigned numbers, shown in box brackets in the body of the text in blue [1], [2], [3]... Hieroglyphic spelling of words, numbered with footnote numerals, is given at the end of the article.

Some special characters may not display correctly, and are either substituted by Latin letters, or duplicated in Latin letters shown in blue: γuən/guan, with Greek “gamma“ rendered as “g“, various diacritical “i“ rendered as “i“, and “ə“ and various diacritical “a“ rendered as “a“. Where the author used a combination of Latin, Cyrillic, and mysterious quasi-Cyrillic letters in a single word, the spelling is converted to standard English form: Áîêëi => Bokli. Where it appears that simplification infringes on semantic meaning, the author's transcriptions are reproduced more accurately. Author's text can be verified in pdf format reproduction. Where the author chose to translate place names to Russian, the Translator gives its English translation, for example Türkic “ak“ => Russian “beliy“ => English “white“.

Yu. A. Zuev


1 Introduction 94
2 Tanghuyao text 98
3 Translation of the text 97
4 Comments 102
5 Epilogue 129
6 Table of Òamgas 132
7 Glossary of Chinese terms 135
8 Glossary of Russian terms -
9 Bibliographic references to ethnic terms -




In studies of history of of Kazakhstan and Central Asian peoples especially important value have the numerous descriptions contained in the works of ancient and medieval Chinese authors. A substantial part of these materials was translated into Russian by N.Ya. Bichurin (1777-1853), who wrote a large work “Collection of information about peoples that lived in Central Asia in ancient times“. It included all special narratives from the official dynastic histories about the tribes of the “Western Territory“ and large fragments from the Sima Guan (pinyin “Quan“) collection “Tszychji tunizyan“.

Only sketchy materials scattered in the texts of the dynastic chronicles, and some compositions of historico-geografical character, mostly duplicating the contents of these chronicles, were not used in the “Collection of information“. But if as a whole these compositions have only auxiliary value, their separate sections sometimes present a significant interest in study of history and ethnography of the Türkic and Mongol speaking tribes living in the territory of Central and Middle Asia in an early Middle Ages. “Tanghuyao“ belongs to such compositions, one of its sections (“Tamgas of the horses from vassal princedoms“) we bring to the attention of the reader.

The first edition of “Tanghuyao“ belongs to a historian of Tang dynasty Su Myang, who entitled his work “Huyyao“ (“Review“). In it form the work covered a two-centuries period of time (618-804) and had forty chapters - tszüans. A further work on the composition was carried out under an imperial decree of 853 by a special commission led by Yan Shao-fu, it added to it a large appendix in 40 chapters - tszüans and brought the record to 852. A final compilation was made by Van Pu who collected information from 853 to 907 and, joining it with two earlier works, has given them a common name “Tanghuyao“ (“Review of Tang dynasty“). Compilation of “Tanghuyao“, totaling in the last edition 100 chapters - tszüans, was finished in 961.

The main source for compilation of “Tanghuyao“ were early editions of “Su Tangshu“ (“Old history of Tang dynasty“), whic is different from the editions available presently. For this reason some information found in “Tanghuyao“ is not repeated anywhere and is mostly exclusive.

We know five editions of “Tanghuyao“. A first edition was in 10th year of Guansu (1884) by a Book chamber of Jiangsu (Tsyansu) province in 24 volumes-tse, a second edition was in 21th year of Guansu . (1895) in a series “Uin tyantsüy chjenban tsunshu“ (volumes-tse 299 - 330), the third edition - Guan“ya shutszüy in 28 volumes-tse, the fourth edition of 1935, made with mobile font and 16 volumes-tse by a publishing house Wan Ün-u in Shanghai. We used the last, Peking edition “Tanghuyao“ of the book, published in 1955 by a publishing house Chjunhua shutszüy in 3 volumes-tse, 100 chapters - tszüans.

In addition to “Introduction“ to the Chinese text, the annotation and bibliographic information about “Tanghuyao“ are in the book of akad. V. I, Vasiliev “Catalogue of books, manuscripts and maps“ (Appendix 3 to “Materials on history of the Chinese literature“, SPb, 1888, p. 284-285), in the book of prof. N.V.Küner “Bibliography of the Chinese and Manchurian literature on history of Kazakhstan“ (No 65), published in this collection, and in book of Den Sy-üy and Nite Viggershtaff “Annotated bibliography of selected bibliography of Chinese reference works“ (Revised edition. Cambridge. 1950, p. 160 -161).

The section “Tamgas of the horses from vassal princedoms“ is included in the 72nd  tszüan of the “Tanghuyao“ Peking edition (pages 1305-1308) and is preceded by extensive discourse about Shanyu, Anbey, Ansi, Linchjou, and Andu commandieries. On its character it is a list of tamgas of the Central and Middle Asia tribes that were supplying and are supplying their horses to the Tang empire.

The text of the section does not point directly to the trade between  China  and nomads (excluding mentioning of a gift of horses from princedom Kan-go). However, a fact of existence of such a list and accompanying it descriptions in other chapters show that such trade existed and had a regular, systematic character. In this sense our source slightly unfolds a veil over almost unexplored question about concrete forms of China ties with northern and northwest tribes.

China and the Türko - Mongol tribes represented a division of labor between agricultural centers and nomadic periphery. These were different tiers of manufacture co-existing in parallel. That organically necessitated  a constant exchange of goods between them. Not only the military contacts, but also trading contacts were equally indicative for the whole period of relations between the ancient and medieval China with the cattlemen coaching periphery. The traditional objects of barter were, on the one hand, silk, grain and luxury goods, and on another hand horses, bulls, rams. How important and strong was this form of connections can be seen from the text of a message from the Eastern Türkic Yshbar-kagan (Shabolo) to the Chinese emperor.

Wishing to establish friendship and to conclude the contract “Of peace and kinship“, Yshbar-kagan writes: “[Chinese] emperor is a father of my wife, therefore, my father, I am a husband of his daughter, therefore, a son of his. These two sides though are different, but on internal feelings and fairness are a unity... Let the Supreme [Sacred] Sky be a witness, that I would never counteract. All sheep and horses of my state are the cattle of emperor, like his silk fabrics are mine. There is no mutual difference“ 1

1 N.Ya. Bichurin, “Collection of information about peoples that lived in Central Asia in ancient times“, vol. 1, M.-L., 1951. p. 337.


No less definitely wrote about it (only on another occasion) the emperor Süan-tszun (712-755 ) in the message to the Türkic kagan: “From extreme antiquity China and foreigners are connected by exchange and trade. China bought Tutsüe (Türkic) horses, and Tutsüe received silk from China“. 2

From the letters of Yshbar kagan and Süan-tszun definitely follows that the main subject of foreign tribes' sale in China, which did not have its horse breeding for the needs of army and the court, were horses. The words of Süan-tszun about the antiquity of economical relations with foreigners and about continuous purchase of horses by China are supported by numerous materials from Chinese manuscripts not needed to be repeated here 3. Sufficient to remind that one of the tasks for a long trip by Chjan Nyan to the Western Territory was a purchase of thoroughbred horses 4, and that the livestock spread in thirty six nurseries on the northern and northwestern borders of the Han empire (totaling 36,000 heads), completely consisted of supplies from foreign tribes 5.

By the 6th c. (647) China totaled 707,000 horse heads assembled mostly from the same receipts. At that time existed eight large horse preserves, located in Ordos (Baole, Ganmin, Southern Pujun, Chjiyan. Taipin, Ilu, Andin), with accessory farms with 1230 tsin 6 acreage and a large number of workers for working fields and care of the horses 7. It is indicative that as a result of activity in the trade with Türks in the begining of the 8th century the head count of cattle in China in 13 years grew almost in twice:

Year 713 726
horses 240,000 430,000
bulls 35 òûñ 50,000
rams 112,000 286,000

During that period under decrees of Süan-tszun were open markets for “mutual trade and exchange“ in Ëþ-xu-chjou (“Six foreign districts“ along the northern bend of Huanhe), in Western Shousyan, in provinces Hedun, Shofan and Lun'ü 8.

The market value of horses was high. In the beginning of the 9th c., êîãäà àñ à result of djuts and attacks of nomads all horse farms on the northern border were liquidated and the army was without horses, for each horse were paid 40-50 pieces of silk 9. In favorable years the equivalent cost of one horse was 15-20 pieces of silk 10. But in djut years the price for horses increased, and nomads refused to exchange them if the silk was bad or less of it was offered 11.

2 Òang Chanju, Commentary and correction of “Military descriptions“, Tangshu, 1957, vol. 4. p. 117.
3 See, for example, Shitszi,  tsz. 123, p. 4b (1956), 5 b (1958) and others, N.Ya. Bichurin, “Collection of information about peoples that lived in Central Asia in ancient times“, vol. 1, p. 234, 244, 333, etc. Very detailed material on that is given in ecyclopedia Tushu tszichen, sect. XIX, tsz. 89-102.
4  Shitszi, tsz. 123, p. 4 b, 5 b and on.
5 Tangshu binchji tsyanchjen,  tsz. 4, p. 109,
6 1 tsin = 6.5 ga
7 Tangshu binchji tsyanchjen,  tsz.  4. p. 112.
8 Ibid., page116, 117
9 Tanghuyao, tsz. 72,  page 1303
10 Tanghuyao, tsz. 72, p. 1304
11 Tangshu binchji tsyanchjen, tsz. 4, p. 120


Returning to the text of the section on tamgas, note once more that it does not have news about foreign trade relations of China with enumerated tribes. It only gives their list with a brief, solely business characteristic of horses of each separate tribe, and this draws to define its value in a different plane. By laconism of the record, it represents a copy of a quartermaster list in the Chinese army, or an order about relations with foreign contries. Therefore we should not search for the author of the tamga list. Probably, the authors were military quartermasters that compiled it as a practical guidance for purchasing horses.

As a service document, the section on tamgas deserves a greatest trust in locating localization of tribes. Its data, undoubtedly, win in comparison with the corresponding chapters of “Tanghuyao“ and other compositions that go back to Tang epoch. In comments to the text we try to show that these data result in a conclusion not noted earlier, about local division not only intra-tribal confederations, but also the tribes. At the same time the localizations are sometimes so specific, that now, more than one thousand years after the list was compiled, the smaller geographical names existing on a map of the 8th century sometimes can't be reconstructed.

Chapters of “Tanghuyao“ were compiled during various periods. The geographical material in the section about tamgas is a basis for its dating. Some dates mentioned in the text allow to atdan its compilation by the time after the 7th century, for example the indication of 627, when the princedom Kan presented a gift to the Chinese court of 4 thousand Fergana horses, and recent miugration of Kybirs to Lianchjou in the Alashan mountains in 653. There is noted the Yunchjun tutukdom, and the Karluk-Ephtalite, Shary-Cherik, etc. districts, established after 649. And is important that named in the list Gaolan tutukdom (princedom headed by tutuk - Translator's Note), created in 653, was abolished at the end of the 8th century. Hence, the monument can be limited by the time from the end of the 7th to the end of the 8th century. At last, taking into account that Uigurs (probably, their Khan clan) are located in the list to the north from the Uteken mountains, where they have moved after the establishment of the Uigur Orhon Kaganate (746 ã), it can be dated more precisely, by the third quarter of the 8th century. Thus, the compilation of the tamga list in the “Tanghuyao“ text was composed in its first edition by Su Miak.

An important advantage in the fragment is that it provides tamgas (total 36) for the majority of the tribes mentioned in the text. For the Chinese officials of horse departments the tamgas that were symbols of individual tribes, served as indicators of value and suitability of their horses for various types of service (hunting, transportation, riding, etc.). That makes a cardinal difference of the chapter about the tamgas of the horses of the vassal princedoms from the compositions of other eastern authors (Mahmud Kashgari Rashnd-ed Din, Abu'l Gazi), who only give parameters for ethnographical description of the tribes.

Branding the horses with tamgas was also known in the Tang China. Branding was made by several atdans: horse breed, its height, working qualities, belonging to official bodies or private persons. In contrast, the medieval nomads, with weak differentiation of the property, when formally “did not exist property of an individual person, but exist only his possession of it“ (C.Marx), and hence the family property is viewed as belonging to the family clan, an indicator of possession over the main types of their property (horses, bulls, rams) was its branding by the clan tamgas.

The section includes clan tamgas represented much more widely and earlier than in the "Dictionary of Türkic languages" by Mahmud Kzshgari and the "Collection of annals" by Rashid-ad-Din, compared with the tamgas of the Türkic and Mongolian tribes of the later time would provide a most valuable material to study the ethnogenesis of the Central and Middle Asia peoples.

In summary, the “Tamgas of horses from vassal princedoms“ has the following main advantages :

1) It testifies about active and regular mutual trading relations between Tang of China with Türko-Mongolian tribes,
2) It contains rich material on localization of tribes, fortunately combined with their list of the tamgas.

These reasons guided us in the translation of the source. Compiling a most possibly detailed textual comment and the table of preliminary comparison of the tamgas, we do not aim to answer complex ethnogenetical questions that follow, and we see the task of the publication in the analysis of the text. For the same reason instead of a developed historical-ethnographical research based on the source we are limited to a brief “Epilogue“ with appraisal of only a few, most interesting disclosures.

Tanghuyao text
98 99


Translation of the text

Horses [of the tribe] Gu-li-gan 1* (Kurykan) customarily have no tamgas, and instead of a brand [they are] identified by ears and muzzle. Horses [of the tribe] Tsze-gu 2* (Kirgut) are similar to Gu-li-gan (Kurykan) horses, the difference is small. Tamga (of Tsze-gu horses) [1] .

Horses [of the tribe] Si-mi 3* are similar to Tszegu. Difference is small. Tamga - (lacuna).

Horses [of the tribe] Ge-lo-lu 4* (Karluk) one brands with Si-mi's, are located in the west from Tszin-shan 5*. Tamga - (lacuna).

Above named tribes have a common kinship.

Horses [of the tribe] Chjan-i-gu 6* (Baiyrku) are one brand with horses [of the tribe] Gu-li-gan (Kurykan). Multiple black spots on the body, they are skewbald and in coloring are like leopards. [They are] located from Han-hai 7* south, from mountains Yu-lin [shan] 8* east, in the valley of the river Chjan-i-gu 9*.

Horses [of the tribe] Tun-lo 10* (Tongra) one brand with horses of the valley of the river Chjan-i-gu, also came from a version of skewbald horses. [They are] located southeast from the river the Hun-no-[he] 11* north from the Tsüi-üe-[shan] 12* mountains, east from the mountains Yu-lin-[shan] 13*. Tamga [2] .

Horses [of the tribe] Yan-to14* (Yanto, Tardu ?) are similar to Tun-lo's (Tongra). [They] came from the brands of white horses with black manes and skewbald horses. The tribe now [lives] very scattered. Most part from four separated [parts of the tribe, or: left in four directions] nowadays is to the north from Yu-chjou 15*. Tamga [3] .

Horses [of the tribe] Pu-gu 16* (Bugu) are smaller then Chjan-i-gu's (Baiyrku), [they] are similar to Tunlo's (Tongra). [They] are located permanently south of the Yu-lin-[shan] mountains. Tamga [4] .

Horses [of the tribe] A-de 17* (Ediz) one brand with Pu-gu's (Bugu) horses, [they] are on convenient pastures 18* southeast from Mo-he ku-khan-shan 19*, in the present Tszi-tian-chjou 20*. Tamga [8] .

Horses of above named tribe are of a common brand, but their tamga are different for each one.

Horses [of the tribe] Tsi 21* (Kybir) are like A-de (Ediz) horses. [They] are located directly north from the Yan-hun-da [tszin] 22* well, directly south from the river Du-le 23*, in present Yuy-si-chjou 24*. Tamga  [5], [6], [7] .

Horses of the state Kang, i.e. the state Kang- tszüy 25* (Kangarlyg), are a version of Da-yuan's horses 26* (Fergana), outwardly [they] are extremely large. In the middle of U-de 27* rule the state Kang sent gift [to the Chinese court] of four thousand heads [of these horses]. Presently the service horses [in China] are apparently their brand.

Horses [of the tribe] Tu-tsüe 28* (Türküt) are extremely deft 29*. [Their] muscles and bones match in sizes [i.e. have good constitution]. They can do long marches, and in hunting use have no equal. In accordance with “Historical notes“, the Sünnu 30* (Huns) breed [these] horses, namely Tao-ü 31*.

The horses of the Fu-li 32* (Bokli) wing from Dai-lin-chjou 33*. Tamga  [9], [10] .

Horses [of the tribe] Huy-ge 34* (Uigur) are one breed with Pu-gu's (Bugu). [They are] coaching compactly in convenient pastures north from U-te-le-shan 35*. Tamga  [11]  .

Horses [of the tribe] Tszüy-lo-le 36* (Kurabor) are one breed with Huy-ge's (Uigur), [they] are north from the Te-le-[shan] 37* mountains. Tamga  [12]  .

Horses of a wing Bi 38* (Kybir) are a common breed with Huy-ge's (Uigur). Tamga  [5], [6], [7] .

Horses [of the tribe] Yui-mey-hun 39* (Yomut-hun) are one breed with Huy-ge's (Uigur). Tamga  [13] .

Horses [of the tribe] Chi 40* (Chig) are a common breed with Huy-ge's (Uigur), Bi's (Kybir) and Üy-mey-hun's (Yomut-hun). Tamga  [14] .

Horses [of the tribe] A-shi-de 41* (Ashide) are a common breed with Su-nun's 42* (see 66*) and Chji-shi's (?), [they] are north from the In-[shan] 43* mountains and north from the Ku-yan-gu 44* [valley] in western Chjen-lyan-chjou 45*. Tamga [15] .

Horses [of the tribe] Sy-tsze 46* (Sygir) are horses of the most southern Tu-tsüe (Türküt). [They are] southwest from Wei-man-shan 47*, southeast from Yan-hun-da [tszin] 22* well at the Guy-mo-shi-[tsen] 48* mountain, in Lu-shan tutukdom 49*. Tamga [16] .

The horses of the Fu-li 50* (Bokli ?) wing are horses of the most southern Tu-tsüe (Türküt), [they are] north from the Gan-ma-li-shi-[shan] 51* mountains, in the present Dai-lin-chjou 33*. Tamga  [9], [10] .

Horses [of the tribe] Òsi-bi 52* (Kybir) are like horses of the most southern Tu-tsüe (Türküt). [Before they] were in Lyan-chjou 53*, near the mountain Tsüe-shi 54*, and now moved to live by the Te-le-[shan] 37* mountains. Tamga  [5], [6], [7] .


Horses [of the tribe] Si-tsze 55* (Aigyr) are one brand with the horses of the most southern Tu-tsüe (Türküt), [They] are permanently [located] south from Tszi-fu-[shan] 56* mountains north from the valley of the river He-lyan-chji 57*, in the present Tszi-lu-chjou 58*. Tamga [17] .

The horses of above named tribes are of a common brand.

Horses [of the tribe] Khu-se 59* (Koksa ?) are a common breed with the horses of the most southern Tu-tsüe (Türküt). Now [they]  are on convenient pastures in In-[shan] 60* mountains north from the ancient city of Tszin-myn-[chen] 61*, in present Gao-lan-myn 62*. Tamga [18] .

Horses [of the tribe] Nu-la 63* (Dulat ?) are one breed with the horses of the most southern Tu-tsüe 64* (Türküt). [They are] in present Yue-den-chjou 65*. Tamga [19]  (Dulat tamga is Image:2DulatDongelek.gif and Image:74DulatAbak.gif , Sary Uysyn tamga is Image:8saryUysyn.gif, inconsistent with Nula tamga - Translator's Note).

Horses [of the tribe] Su-nun 66* (?). Tamga [20] .

Horses [of the tribe] Da-a-shi-de 67* (Da-Ashide ?). Tamga [21] .

Horses [of the tribe] Ba-yan-A-shi-de 68* (Bayan Ashide). Tamga [22] .

Horses [of the tribe] Je 69* (Nek ?). Tamga [23] .

Above listed tribes belong to the governorship of the Dinsyan 70* province.

Horses [of the tribe] She-li 71* (Shary), Che-li 72* (Cherig) and others. Tamga  [24], [25] .

Horses [of the tribe] A-shi-na 73* (Ushin). Tamga [26] (Usun - Ashina (Oshin) tamga represented a raven. (Yu. Zuev, Ethnic history of Usuns“) - Translator's Note).

Horses of the rate Horses [of the tribe] Ge-lo-chji 74* (Alachin). Tamga [27] .

Horses [of the tribe] Cho 75* (Chog, Choγ ?). Tamga [28] .

Horses [of the tribe] He-lu 76* (Khallukh). Tamga [29] .

Above named tribes [belong] to the governorship of the Yun-chjun 77* province.

Horses [of the tribe] A-yan 78* (?). Tamga - (lacuna).

Horses [of the tribe] Kan-he-li 79* (Kangarlyγ = Kangly). Tamga [30] .

Horses [of the tribe? location?] An-mu-lu-chjen 80* (?). Tamga [31] .

Horses [of the tribe? location?] An-she-he 81* (?). Tamga [32] .

Horses [of the tribe] Sha-to 82* (Sart). Tamga [33] .

Horses of mountains Chu-bi-[shan] 83*(Chubyr, Chubyl, Chumyl). Tamga [34] .


Horses [of the tribe] Hun 84* (Kün), common breed with Khu-se's (Koksa ?) horses. [They are located] in present tutukdom Gao-lan 85*, and their branched-off clans are in the Gao-lan-[shan] 86*  mountains and May-tszün-tszi-[shan] 87*. Tamga [35] .

Horses [of the tribe] Tsi-dan 88* (Kytai). Their (i. e. the tribe Tsi-dan) horses are very maneuverable. By size [they] are smaller than Tu-tsüe's (Türküt) horses. [They] can readily pass in the woods between trees. [They are] in present tutukdom Sun-mo 89*. Tamga [36] .

Horses [of the tribe] Si 90* (Kai),  [they] surpass Ttsidan (Kytai) horses by good muscles and [strong] joints, and otherwise are the same as well as Tsi-dan's (Kytai). [They are] in present tutukdom Jao-le 91*. Tamga [37] .


(emended by Translator with tamga depictions)


1*. Gu-li-gan 12 [1] . Under Tangshu text, one of Uigur generations 13, though a special section about Uigurs in the text (Tanghuyao, tse. 3, tsz. 98, p. 1744) did not mention that name. Decoding of this ethnonym was done by Hirt and Chavannes 14, who compared Gu-li-gan (anc. Chinese. k'u-lyi (ri)-kan) with Kurykan of the Orhon runiform inscriptions 15. An ethnonym Kurykan is found in Rashid-ad-Din “Djami at tavarih“, informing that “Kur(y)kans belong to those nations that now (13-14 centuries) are called Mongols, in the beginning, however, their name was not that“ 16. H.W.Haussig translates this term from Türkic lexicon: “kury“ = “western“ è “kan“ = a title (“mountain“?) 17.

Tamga list does not indicate localization of the Kurykans. A special section about the Guligan tribe in Tanghuyao, though it mostly repeats the contents of the respective matching section in Tangshu, has some different readings, however. In Tangshu: “Guligan are from Hanhai (Hangai mountains in central part of MPR - Yu. Z.) in the north... [They] breed fine horses, with a head like the head of the camels, strong and tall, able to run in day a few hundred li (100 li = 40 km - Translator's Note). Their lands in the north reach the sea, and from the capital [of China] [they] are extremely remote (literally: the most remote). And if in the north to cross the sea, [there] days are long, and nights are short “ (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 11 a) 18. In Tanghuyao: “Guligan is north from the northern side of Hanhai (Hangai). [They] live together in two sytszins 19 (erkins). Their country in the north borders on the Ice Sea [Baikal] “.

As we see, the Tanghuyao text gives more specific indications on structure of the Kurykans and their location. First, in addition to Tangshu,, it tells that Kurykans live in two erkins. This message reflects their attestation in Kül-Tegin inscription “uch-Kurykan“ = “three (tribes? erkins?) Kurykan“ 20, located between Kirgizes (in the west) and Otuz-Tatars (in the east).


Second, the message about their northern border allows to place them east from Altai and north from Sayan mountains. The more exact Kurykan coordinates we find in Uanshi 21* (Uanshi, tsz. 63, p. 19 à). Speaking about inhabitants of the river An-ke-la (Angara) the annals say: “they are controlled by Tszi-li-tszi-sy (Kirgiz), are more than 25 thousand li from Tai-du (Daidu). Their language differs much from the [language of] tszi-li-tszi-sy (Kirgiz). Days are long, and nights are short... It is the country Guligan, written about in Tangshu 22.

In that chronicle the inhabitants of Angara are called with a term Gu-li 23 (Kuri, in “Secret tale“: Khori). Kurykany are also known under this name in the “Hudud al-Alam“, a source of the 10 century which repeats with surprising accuracy the cited Chinese story: “Kuri (in the text: Furi) is a name of a tribe that also belongs to Hirhizes... Other Hirhizes do not know their language“ 24. These testimonies allow to accept the identity of the Kurykans in our list with Kuri as was suggested by W.W.Bartold, and then by V.F.Minorsky 25, P.Pelliot and L.Ambi. At the same time this identification apparently allows to find the “third“ Kurykan erkin, noted in the text of the monument in honor of Türkic prince Tonjukuk and “lost“ in Tanghuyao, it could be a clan Ke-li (Kori), which in the words of Gu Tszu-üi was subsequently included in the Kidan's structure 26.

13 N.Ya. Bichurin, “Collection of information about peoples that lived in Central Asia in ancient times“, vol. 1, M.-L. 1951, p. 301
14 Ed. Chavannes, Documents sur les T'ou-kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux, St. Pb., 1903, p. 341
15 S.E.Malov, Monuments of Ancient Türkic writing. M.- L., 1951, p. 415. Large inscription of Kül-Tegin monument, line 14.
16 Rashid-ad-din, 1952, (1888). Collection of annals, vol. 1. M.-L., 1962, p. 77.
17 H.W. Haussig, “ Theophylakts Exkurs über die skythischen Völker, ” Byzantion vol. 23, 1953, p, 337 a
18 Compare. N.Ya.Bichurin, Ibid., p. 348.
19 Here and further on, the hieroglyphic spelling of words is given at the end of the article.
20 S.E.Malov, Monuments, p. 38.

23 Compare F.W.Ñleavs, Qapqanas-Qampqanas, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 19 (1956), No 3-4, p. 400.
24 Hudud al-Alam, Translated and annotated by V. P. Minorsky, London, 1937, p. 94.
25 Ibid, p. 284. P. Pelliot et L. Hambis, Hitoire des campagnes de Gengiz-khan, 1, Leiden. 1961, pages 63-64.

  2* Tsze-gu 27 = k'it kut = Kirkut (Kirgut) [1] . The Chinese transcription tsze-gu also allows to reconstruct the phonetics of the ethnonym as Kir-kur (Kirgur). Which of these forms is more authentic (and for what time) is difficult to ascertain yet. While the first form is now accepted by a majority of orientalists, it is also impossible to deny the existence of the second form. T.Kovalsky 28 analyzed references in the Rus annals to the Kirkors, the “forty Tatars“,  which set this assumption onto a real base. Is also undoubted an another fact: both named forms ascend to an earliest variation for the term of “Kyrgyz“, the Kirkün (Chinese tszyan-kun 29) = “ field people “, “field Huns“.

The term Kirkün underwent a curious evolution noted here:
Kirêün (Kirgün) = Kirkut (Kirgut) = Kirkur, (Kirkor, Kirgur) = Kyrkyz (Kyrgyz). The evolution is chronologically well traced, but it almost did not succumb to an explanation. A semantic connection between “êün“ (“gün“) and “gür“ is obvious. Chronologically consecutive development of the concepts
êün = “progenitor-woman“ = her posterity = “human collective“ = “tribe“ = “people“ (compare the title “kun-khan“ among the Huns of the Aral Sea)
at that last stage coincides with gur = “people“ (compare the title “Gurkhan“ among Kytais (Khitais)) . And the “gur“ is a word of probably a late, secondary origin.

Anther connection is between affixes of plurality “t“ - “p“ - “z“. The application of this plural form in the ethnonym Kirkun has shrouded the initial word, and then and later also its meaning,  making its root an enigma:
Tsze-gu = Kirkut = Kir-kun (s?), compare: Tu-tsüe = “Torkut“ = Tür-kun (-s?).

Confirming position about the loss of the initial meaning of the word “Kirkun“ already during the Mongol epoch, we recall the version about the origin of the Kirgisuts, recorded in Uanshi (Uanshi, tsz. 63, p. 34 a, edition of the 14th year of Daoguan) from the words of the Kirgiz informants: “In antiquity (literally: in the beginning) from the Han lands came forty women and married men the from [tribe] Usu (Ursut), and this number (i.e. fourty -Yu. Z.) was taken as their name“ 30. Very indicative are the different readings of this text in the earlier editions of Uanshi, where instead of hieroglyphs “Han-di“ 31 (Han's, i.e. the Chinese lands) stood “mo-di“ (deserted, steppe lands). A change of the ethnonym brought about a new version of the origin, and the memory of the steppe motherland survived only as a mention of the former residence of forty the women. However, subsequently the memory of the steppe motherland has been also lost.

28 Ò. Kîwalsêó, Zur Erklarung des Namens Kirgis. Photocopy of Korosi Czoma Archivum.
29 Possibly, “forty tribes“ (Hüns).

2*. Tse-gu 27 = K'it-kut  = Kirkut (Kirgut) . At the same time the Chinese transcription Tse-gu allows to restore soundi of the ethnonym as Kir-kur (Kirgur). Which of these forms is more accurate (and for which time) is difficult to resolve. The first is now accepted by a majority of orientalists, but the existence of the second undeniable. The records about Kirkors - “forty Tatars“ in the Rus annals, analyzed by T.Êîwalsêó, 28 set this assumption on a firm base. Another fact is beyond doubts: both forms go back to the earliest variation of the term Kyrgyz - Kirkün (Chinese Tszyan-kun 29) “Field People“, “Field Huns“.

The term Kirkün went through a notable evolution: Kirkün (Kirgün) =  Kirkut (Kirgut) = Kirkur (Kirkor, Kirgur) = Kyrkyz (Kyrgyz). It is well traced chronologically, but yielded a faint explanation. The semantic connection between kün (gün) and gür is obvious. Chronologically consecutive development of the concept kün = “female progenitor“ =  her offsprings = “tribe“ = “a people“ (compare title Kun-khan of Aral Sea  Huns) at that last stage coincides with gür = “people“ (compare Khitan title Gurkhan). And the word “gur“ apparently is of late, secondary origin.

The other connection is between affixes of plurality “t“ - “r“ - “z“. Application of this plural form of the ethnonym Kirkun shaded the initial sound, and then also of the meaning, making its root an enigma: Tse-gu = Kirkut = Kir-kun  (s?), compare: Tu-jyue = Torkut =“Tür-kun (-s?).

23 Compare F.W.Ñleavs. Qapqanas-Qampqartas. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 19 (1956), No 3-4, p. 400.
24 Hudud al-Alam, Translated and annotated by V. P. Minorsky. London, 1937. p. 94.
25 Ibid, p. 284, L.P.Pelliot et L. Hambis. Historie des campagnes de Gengiz-khan, Leiden. 1961, pp. 63-64.
28. Ò. Êîwalsêó. Zur Erkllruttjt des Namens Kirgis. Photocopy of Korosi Czoma Archivum.
29 Possibly, “fourty tribes“ (of Huns).


To corroborate the assertion that the loss of initial meaning of the word Kirkun already happened during the Mongol epoch, we turn to the version of the Kirgisuts' origin , recorded in Uanshu (Uanshu, tsz. 63, p. 34 a, edition of 14th Daoguan year) from the words of Kirgiz informants: “In antiquity (literally: in the beginning) forty women came from the Han lands and married men from Usu (Ursut) (of tribe), and this meaning (i.e. fourty - Yu.Z.) was taken as their name“ 30. A notably different interpretation of this text is in the earlier editions of Uanshu, where instead of hieroglyphs “Han-di“ 31 (Han, i.e. Chinese lands) are “mo-di“ (deserted, steppe lands). A change of ethnonym produced a new version of an origin, and the memory about steppe motherland only survived as a recollection of the initial birthplace of forty women. However, subsequently that recollection was also lost.


3*. Si-mi 32 = sie(t)-miet, should be: Ba-si-mi 33. Variations: Ba-si-mi 34, Ba-si-mi 35. Comparison of Ba-si-mi with the Basmals (Basmyls) from the inscription in honor of Bilga-khan was made by V.Thomsen 36, and is now uniformly recognized 37.

W.W.Radloff considered Basmals to be one of Karluk tribes, dependent from the Türkic Kaganate 38. This opinion does not agree with the information in the Tszychji tuntszyan 39, where under year 720 is recorded that the dynastic clan of Basmals was a-shi-na 40 (see 73*), and they descend from Tu-tsüe (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 212, p. 6742).

An interesting hypothesis about the origin of Basmals was offered by N.A.Aristov 41, who viewed that Basmals and Argyns of the Kazakh Middle Juz are the same, and these terms are equivalent (“mixed tribe“). As a proof of that position he cited the description of the country Tandük by Marko Polo, which says that the ruling tribe of that country are Argon (Argyn) Christians, which means Basmul. A theory about a mixed origin of Basmals he also confirms by a fact that at they had a total of forty (?) clans, contrasted with three for Karluks, nine for Uigurs, and ten for the Jeti-su Türks.

Localization of Basmals in the tamga list is not given. Some indications about it are in above mentioned description of the Tszychji tuntszyan (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 212, p. 6742), where the residence of Basmals is named Beitin 42 (Bogdoshan ridge in the Guchen area).

30 About descent of “Kyrkyz“ from the “Kyrkk“, i.e. “forty“, and “z“, an affix of plurality, see D.Banzarov, Coll. of works, M, 1955. p. 184. Compare the legend about the origin of Kyrgyzes - Tsziankun in the text of U-ian tszatszu, ch. 4.
36 V. Thomsen, Inscriptions då l'Îrkhon dechifree, Memoirs de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne, 1896 p. 178, No 88.
37 A.N.Bernshtam, Social and economic structure of Orhonno-Yeniseian Türks, L, 1946, p. 82, 134.
38 W.W.Radloff, Die altffirkfcchen Inschriften der Mongolei, St.-Pb., 1894, pp. 424.453.
41 N.A.Àðèñòîâ, Notes on ethnic structure of Türkic tribes and nations // Olden time alivCommentsarate print, p. 91, compare G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Western Mongolia and Urianhai territory, vol. 2, L., 1926, p. 256

3*. Si-mi 32 = sie(t)-miet, should be: Ba-si-mi 33. Variations: Ba-si-mi 34, Ba-si-mi 35. V.Thomsen 36 identified Ba-si-mi with Basmals (Basmyls) of the inscription in honour of Bilgya-khan,  and now it is commonly accepted 37.

W.W.Radloff associated Basmals with one of Karluk tribes, in vassalage from Türkic kagante 38. This suggestion conflicts with the record of Tszychji tuntszyan 39, which under year 720 stated that dynastic clan of Basmals is A-shi-na 40 (see 73*), and they come from Tu-jue (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 212, p. 6742).

The interesting hypothesis about an origin Basmals is stated N. L. Aristov  41 which considered, that Basmals and Arguns in the Kazakh Middle Juz  are the same, and these names are equivalent (“mixed tribe“). As a proof of his position he cites the description of the Tanduk country by Marko Polo, which says that the prevailing tribe of that country are Argon Christians (Argyns), which means Basmul. The theory about a mixed origin of Basmals he confirms by  them consisting of forty clans, as opposed to three of Karluks, nine of Uigurs and ten at the Jeti-su Türks .

The list of tamgas does not give localization of Basmals. Some indications  are given in the above mentioned Tszychji tuntszyan (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 212, p. 6742), where Basmals residence is named in Beitin 42 (Bogdoshan ridge in Guchen area).

4*. Ge-lo-lu 43 = kat-la-luk (Karluk). One of main Türkic tribes of that period.

5*. Tszin-shan 44 - “Golden mountains“, Altai. Tangshu describes location of Karluks in great detail: “Ge-lo-lu are actually Tu-tsüe tribe. [They] are located northwest from Beitin (Bogdoshan ridge), west from Tszin-shan (Altai), on both sides of the river Pu-gu-chjen (Bugu-chin, Upper Irtysh). [They] are bordering on tribes Che-bi (Chebni)“ (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 10 a). Subsequently, probably after victories over Basmals, the border of Karluks shifted south, to Beitin.

The southeast border of Karluks was within the Uigur (Orhon) Khanate. It is evident from the appointment to the throne of Uigur khan Huan-jen (650) “for the Karluks west and east from the U-de-tszyan (Uteken) mountains, was especially founded a tutukdom that reported to the Uigurs of nine clans “ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 100, p. 1788, tsz. 73, p. 1315).

In the 8 century the western borders of Karluks significantly expanded. From the source, it was connected with the increased expansion of the Uigur Khanate to the west to the Altai area. Fleeing from the attacks of Uigurs, Karluks migrated to the ancient lands of the kagan of ten clans (on ok, ten arrow Türks of the Jeti-su), and now the cities of Su-e 45 (Suyab) and the Dan-lo-sy 46 (Talas) became a place of their permanent residence (Tanghuyao, tsz, 100, p. 1783). Finally, the chronologically last mention in Tanghuyao of the Karluks says that in 23 year of Tianbao rule (763) “for two tribes, Ge-lo-lu (Karluks) and E-da 47 (Ephtalites) is founded a Ge-lo-lu (Karluk's) district“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1315).


6*. Chjan-i-gu 48. Here the “chjan“ stands in place of the graphically similar to it “ba“ 49. It should be: Ba-i-gu, usually identified with Baiyrku, one of the Uigur tribes, mentioned in the Orhon runiform inscriptions (Small inscription on the monument in honor of Kül-Tegin, lines 4, 34).

7*. Han-hai 50 - (“sandy sea“) is the Hangai highland in the central part of MPR.

8*. U-lin shan is the Sayan highland.

9*. River Chjan-i-gu 51. Like in the first case (see 6*) we read the name of the river with replacement of “chjan“ to “ba“: Ba-i-gu is the river Baiyrku. A special section of Tanghuyao about the tribe Ba-i-gu  added that it “is on the eastern borders of Pu-gu“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 78, p. 1754, see 16*). Its localization becomes clearer by comparing these data with dewscription by Rashid-ad-din: “Tribes Kori, Bargu, Tumat and Bayaut, of which some are Mongols and live in Bargudjin-Tokum district, are also close to this (Kirgizes - Yu. Z.) area“ 52. In the Bargudjin-Tokum group can be seen a “valley“ of same “river Baiyrku“ (Bargudjin = Baiyrku-chin = river Baiyrku). At the same time this group is a transitive form of the ancient name of Baikal Barguzin, and one of its east tributaries, “Barguzin river“, which carries this name now also.


10*. Tun-lo 53 = t'ung-la (Tongra) [2] . He Tsu-tao thought that this name was an ancient transmission of the ethnonym Tungus, and based on that, located the tribe Tongra on river Tungus (Shofan beichen 54, tse 4, tsz. 32, p. 10 à). F.Hirt matched tun-lo with Tongra of the Large inscription on the monument in honor of Kül-Tegin (line 47) 55, also supported by Chavannes 56, Marquart 57, and others.

11*. Hun-no-he 58 (“Hunn river“) is the river Orkhon.

12*. Tsüi-üe-shan 59 is the Baga-Hentei ridge.

13*. U-lin-shan is the Sayan highland. The sources also provide some additional information for the localization of the Tongra tribe. In Tangshu, “Tun-lo are north from Se-yan-to, east from Do-lan-ge (Telenget), located from the [Chinese] capital at 7,000 li“ (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 12, Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 192, p. 6044, Bichurin, 1, 344).


In Chjungo gutszin dimin 60 - further: Tsi-dyan - (Tsi-dyan, p. 295) also is noted their localization north from Se-yan-to (see 14*), i.e. in the area of modern city Ulan Bator in MPR. About the localization of Tongra in this area also testifies one more fact, not noted by previous researchers. We mean the message of Tangshu that the Türkic insurgent Anlushan, “raising in revolt, took their (the tribe Tongra - Yu.Z.) army and used (in revolt)“ naming them “I-lo-he (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 12 b), i. e. “troops of the river Ilo“ (Iro, the right tributary of Orkhon in northern Mongolia). Such localization of the tribe Tongra appears to us a most exact, and justifies the indication of the same annals about location of tun-lo east from ridge Ui-du-tszün (Ütükün, variation Oteken, i.e. north-eastern spurs of Hangai in the headwaters of Orkhon river) (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 7 a).

52 Rashid-ad-din, Collection of annals, vol. 1, book 1, p. 150
55 F. Hirth, Nachworte zur Inschrift des Tonjukuk, St. Pb. 1898, p. 36.
56 Ed. Chavannes. Ibid, pages 89 - 91.
57 J. Marquart, Über das Volkstum der Komanen, 1914, p. 9, 200.


14*. Yan-to 61 = ian (dan)-t'o(d'o) [3]  . The first decoding of this ethnonym belongs to F.Hirth, who likened Yanto (or: Se-yan-to = siat-dan-d'o) with Tardushes and Sirs of the Orhon inscriptions. His point of view was accepted by Thomsen, Chavannes, Grumm-Grjimailo, Bernshtam and other researchers.

W.W.Bartold stated an opposite view, denying a possibility of such comparison. His reasons are summed as follows. Accepting that originally “Sir-Tardushes“ (though in inscriptions these ethnonyms are not mentioned together) were a part of Toleses, whom the Chinese distinguished from Tu-tsüe - Türks, how they could join the Türkic confederation under a name Tardushes as a tribe of the same Türkic origin? In other words, how could Tardushes have a double origin, a Toles and a Türkic?

Recently Bartold's point of view was joined by American Sinologist Pit Budberg, without raising new evidence 61. An only example of a positive criticism of Hirth was an attempt of the commentator of “History“ (Theophylact) Haussig (Haussig, Ibid, p. 382) to connect Se-yan-to with Serinds of the Byzantine writers. Incidentally, the superficial association by Haussig of Se-yan-to with “Serinds“ has no value at all, because “Serinds“ is a conditional name of the country between Serica and India, invented by ancient authors by virtue of their ignorance of the real names of the peoples of that area. They are also totally non-compatible in a geographical relation: Se-yan-to lived in the territory of Mongolia, and not in Eastern Turkestan. Meanwhile, the analysis of information of the Chinese sources about the tribe Se-yan-to induces to more seriously consider the of Hirth's theory, and to view its basic premises to be correct.

The Tanghuyao text gives a following version of their origin: “In their own words, they are a clan of Se 62 (Siat-Sir). In antiquity they (Sirs) attacked and destroyed Yan-to as [a tribe], to seize their people. From that comes their name Se-yan-to“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 96 “ page 1726). In Tundyan this version is stated differently: “Se-yan-to are a separated tribe of Te-le (Toleses). (Further follows a comment: “Before, in the days of Yan's Muün-tszün 63, the Sünnu Shanyu Hetsytou led his tribe of 35 thousand people, and came to Syan-to“ 64. Probably, they are their descendants). [They] cohabitate with a tribe Se (Sir), therefore they are called Se-jan-to. ... Both (tribes, i.e. Se and Yan-to) depend from Tu-tsüe, but inside the tribe those scattered east from the Ui-du-tszün mountains depend from Shi-bi (Sibir - Translator's Note) [kagan], and living west from Tan-han (?) mountains depend from She-hu (Yabgu).

Their head Inan (Ynan), during the Tang dynasty, in the middle of Chjen-guan's rule period (638), sent to the (Chinese) Court ambassadors with a request for a marriage, and was declared Pi-tszya ke-han (Bilga-kagan). [He] lived north from the Great Steppe, south from the river Tszu-lun (Kerulen) (Tundian, tsz. 199, p. 16 - 17 à). Dushi fan'uy tsziyao informs that Ynan-Bilga-kagan “founded a court in the Great Steppe in the Ui-du-tszün (Ütükün) mountains. In the east his possessions reached Mo-he (Mukri), in the west the western Tu-tsüe, in the south bordered with Sha-tszi, and in the north bordered on the river Tszu-lun“ (Kerulen) (Tundyan, tsz. 45, p. 1907, compare. Tszychji tuntszian, tsz. 195, p. 6140). In Dushi fan'uy tsziyao composition, the section about the origin of Se-yan-to tells that they “are a separated branch of the Sünnu (Huns), i.e. Te-le (Toles) tribe“ (Tundian, Ibid).

It is easy to see that talking of the Se-jan-to origin, the sources substitute the origin with a foreign policy status of that tribe during various historical periods.

Still on the boundary of the 3rd - 2nd centuries BC the Hun Shanyu Mode subdued a tribe Sin-li, whose name can only be matched with the Sirs of the ancient Türkic runiform inscriptions and blue-eyed nomadic Sers of the ancient authors (Pliny). From that time the Chinese historiographical tradition attributes to them a Hunnish, and then the Toles (because the Toleses are descendants of the Huns) origin. The same apparently also applies to the tribe Yan-to, which submitted to the Hunnish Shanyu Hetsytou in the 4th century AD. Finally, during the Türkic Kaganate these both tribes were dependents of the Tu-tsüe - Türks. Should not be forgotten that these were political confederations, and far from all their tribes were of the same origin.

The synonymity of Sirs, Sers, Se (Sir) and Sin-li can hardly be challenged. It is confirmed by the fact that Se-yan-to former lands in the Utukun (Ütükün) mountains were called Sin-li (i.e. Sir's) tutukdom after a conquest of Se-yan-to by Chebni-kagan in 650. This very important circumstance allows to tie directly all versions of this ethnonym. In accordance with the tradition established relative to the foreigners, the Chinese always named the administrative areas of the tribes that lost their hegemony with their tribal name written in the conventional hieroglyphic form in which they first appeared in the Chinese annals (compare the 8 c. tutukdom Ue-di in Tocharistan, coinciding Tszyankun - Kirkun district for the Tsze-gu - Kirguts tribe, and so on).

The decoding of Yan-to (dan-d'o) as Tardo, Tardu also should not raise objections. Its correctness is verified by likewise reconstruction from ancient Chinese transmissions of toponyms, ethnonyms, and titles, An-si 65 = Arsak, Da-tan 66 = Tatar, Yan-tsai 67 = Arsi, Yue-ni 68 = Yeri, etc. Most likely, this is the only option in reconstructing the term Yan-to. In fact, in the 7th century, precisely at the Yan-to tribe, was recorded the title Da-du-she 69 = Tardu-Shad, having power equal with a vassal kagan 70. Starting with Deguignes and Chavannes, researchers unanimously recognize the synonymity of the term Da-du 71 with Tardu the of the western authors 72.


The “Shad“ could only be an appointee over a vassal tribe where he represented interests of the preeminent kagan. The name of the tribe was included in his title. Hence in this case, the Tardu-Shad could only be a Shad over the Tardu tribe. But from there follows the same conclusion about equivalency of the transkriptional forms Yan(Dan)-to and Da-du, i.e. Tardu.

Is the form Tardu a singular form from the plural Tardush? 73 In favor of such conclusion testifies the fact that in the same Orhon inscriptions the term Tardush is found with a replacement of the affix “-sh“with “-s“, the plural meaning of which, alongside with “z“ and “t“, is established (compare Êhotan rendition Taradussa). Identical replacement is also observable in the ethnonyms Türgis - Türgesh, Toles - Tolesh (Tülüsh), etc.

A different matter is whether is possible the existence of a two-part ethnonym Sir-Tardu (by Hirth, Sir-Tardush), not found in the written sources. It appears that in this case the chroniclers were giving only a listing of two joined tribes, Sirs and Tardu. The records examined above testify to that convincingly enough. Therefore, the tamga list named only one of them, the Tardu [3]  .

15*. U-chjou 74. Apparently, this is a district U-chjou located, in the description of Tsi-dyan (Tsi-dyan, p. 613), “in the modern province of Shaanxi, northeast from the Yui-lin district“. Bichurin (Ibid. vol. 3, see map) lists three U-chjou districts, on lake Baga-nor, on lake Ban-nor and New U-chjou south from the lake Hara-Mannai. To narrow this more than conditional localization of the Yan-to for the 8th century, when fell the power of the Tardu kagan and, in accordance with the source, occurred the “division of the Se-yan-to lands onto territories and districts“ (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 16 b), does not appear possible. It can be thought that after that event their main part remained coaching in their former places, in the interfluve between the headwaters of  Toly and Kerulen.

61 Ð. Boodberg, Three notes on the tribe T'u-chue - Turks, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1951, pp. 6-7.
63 I.e. 350 CE. In that year the Syan-biy (Sabir) prince Muün-tseün crushed the city Yan (modern Peking/Beijing) and proclaimed himself an emperor.

70 N.Ya.Bichurin, Ibid., p. 340,
72 Ed. Chavannes, Ibid., p. 94


16*. Pu-gu 75 = b'uək-kuət [4] . W.Bang (Türkische Turfan-Texte, 2, 5) links it with an ethnonym-title “Bugu“ (“Bugug“). This term was known among Huns and Toleses as a military title (“commander-in-chief“ for the left or right wing) 76. In the opinion of researchers (G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Ibid,  vol. 2, p. 249, compare N.Kozmin, - D.A.Klements and historico-ethnographical studies in Minusinsk territory, News East.-Sib., dept. IRGO, 1916, vol. 45, p. 48, it survived and now is in the name of a “bone“ - clan Bugu in Minusinsk territory, and the clan Bugu among the modern Kirgizes (compare. Ya.R.Vinnikov, Clan and tribal composition and location of Kirgizes, Works of the Kirgiz arheologo-ethnographical expedition, vol. 1, Ì., 1956, pp. 168-169).

Localization of Bugu for the 8th century is not done yet. The main pointers about their location in the sources are as follows. Tanghuyao text: “for the tribe Pu-gu is founded Tszin-wei tutukdom“ (Tanghuyao, tsz, 73, p. 1314, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 303). Tsi-dyan noted that mountains Tszin-wei“ are north from Mo (Steppes), [they are] more than 5,000 li from the Sho-fan 77. During dynasty Tang was founded Tszin-wei tutukdom“ (Tsi-dyan, p. 546). Tangshu places Bugu on the eastern border of Ba-e-gu (Baiyrku) and Do-lan-ge (Tolenget) (Tangshu, tsz, 217, p. 11, 12 a, Bichurin, Ibid, p. 344). See location of Baiyrku in  6* - 9*.

The testimony of the tamga list is supplementing these news about Bugu location south from U-lin-shan mountains (Hamardab ridge, eastern spurs of Sayan mountains), allowing to locate them in the interfluve of Chikoi and Khilka, that echoes the opinion of He Tsu-tao, who located Bugu north from Ken-te (Hentei) mountains on r. Chu - ku (Chikoi) (Sho fan beichen, tsz, 32, p. 10 b). However, He Tsu-tao started with a questionable similarity in the words “pu-gu“ and “chu-ku“, therefore his underlying premise cannot be considered satisfactory.

73 Gó. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, Budapest, 1943, Index.
76  L. Bazin. Un texte prototürk du 4-e siecle, Oriens, vol. 1. n. 2, 211


17*. A-de 78 = a-d'iet [8] . Variations: he-de 79, syade 80. Now the identification of A-de with Edizes of the ancient Türkic inscriptions is commonly accepted. (Ed. Chavannes, Ibid, p. 87, 89, J.R. Hamilton, Les Ouighours a I'epoque des Cinq Dynasties, 1955, p. 2).

18*. Here we translate anchji 81, literally meaning “settle quietly“, “conveniently locate“, with a free expression “on comfortable pastures“, as a best match in this context.

19*. Mohe ku-han-shan 82 is a name of the mountains. Wee did not find this name in sources and literature. It allows only a weakest decoding.

Mo-he 83 is usually equated with the Türko-Mongolian term “baga“, that survived in numerous names of the mountains and lakes in the territory of Mongolia: Baga-Hentei, Baga-Tsaidam, Baga-nur, and so on. Ku-khan 84 (k'uo-khan = kukan - knoTü) can be likened to the title-name of the first South Hun Shanyu Khu-khan-se 85 (Kukansig = Kukan's?), but we do not see a chance to connect these two terms with a specific place name.

20*. Tszi-tyan-chjou 86. In the words of Tsi-dyan, the district Tszi-tyan-chjou “is founded during Tang dynasty.. At that time it was at the southeast border of Ninsya province “ (Tsi-dyan, p. 1334). About the establishment of the Nin-sya-fu province 87 at Edizes also tells Li Chjao-le, whose dictionary is quoted by Chavannes (Ed. Chavannes, Ibid, p. 98). G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo places the district Tszi-tyan-chjou in the Alashan mountains and, based on that, he locates there Edizes (G.E.Grumm-Grzhimajlo, Ibid, t. 2, p. 276).

In the Tangshu text (Tangshu, tsz. 2176, p. 6 b) Edizes are mentioned between Ba-e-gu (Baiyrku) and Tun-lo (Tongra) among the tribes living east (should be: north) from Ütükün mountains. He Tsu-tao finds them in the same area, he noted the district Tszi-tyan-chjou north-west from the tribe Do-lan-ge, coaching along the river Tun-lo (Tongra, upper Chikoi).

21*. Tsi 88 = kiei  [5], [6], [7] . In the name the second hieroglyph bi 89 is dropped (should be: Tsi-bi = kybir, see comment 52*-53*). Acad. V.P.Vasiliev took this hieroglyph as a first part of the ethnonym Tsi-dan (Kytai) (V.P.Vasiliev, Chinese inscriptions from Kosho-Tsaidam, SPb, 1898, p. 18), this assertion however lacks any base. The complete rendition for the tribe Tsi-dan is shown in our list (see 88*), and the area of its occupation has nothing common with the place of Tsi-bi pasture routes.

22*. Yan-hun-da-tszin 90 - “Yan-hun-da well“. Where was this well is not known. The pointer of the annals “directly south from Du-le (Toly)“ is conditional. The only stipulation that could be made is that the name of the well comes from the one of the ancient Turkic titles (Tangshu, tsz. 215 a, p. 6 à), which was transmitted by the same hieroglyphs, but it also was not deciphered.

23*. The river Du-le 91. As has shown P. Pelliot, this transcription ascends to the ancient name Toly - Togla (Mong. Tugula) 92.

First identification of  Du-le - Tola was established by Bichurin (Ibid, vol. 3, p. 27).

92 P. Pelliot, Neuf notes sur des questions d'Asie centrale, “T'oung Pao“, 1920,  vol. XXVI, n. 4 - 5, p .211


24* Uy-si-chjou 93 is a name of a district. In Tsi-dyan: “District Uy-si-chjou...  is founded at the tribe Tsi-bi, [it] was west from the district Uy-lin, Shaanxi province“ (Tsi-dyan, p. 1028). However here is fingered the district Uy-si-chjou, apparently located between Ganzhou and Lianchjou and founded at the migrated part of the Tsi-bi tribe (see 52*). In this case should be understood the district south from Toly.

25*. Kangüy (Kantszüy) 94 is the name of a princedom on the Syr-Darya, known to ancient Chinese since the time of Chjan Tsyan travel to the Western territory (2 century BCE). By the Chinese annalistic tradition, the name of this princedom is linked with later, “Kan-go“ - “Kan state“ (Samarkand), which is hardly correct (see Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 3, p. 180).

26*. About Da-yuan (Fergana) horses, see Arthur Wailey, The heavenly horses of Fergana. A new view. Microfilm IIAE AofS KazSSR, inventory No 1983.

27*.622 CE

28*. Tu-tsüe 95 = t'uət-kiwat = Türküt (plural from Türkün). On the origin and semantics of the term “Türküt“ see P. Pelliot, Sur l'origin de nom chinoise des Turks. T'oung Pao “, 1915, p. 687-689. P. Pelliot saw “Türküt“ as Mongolified plural form from the “Òürk“, however the presence of an affix of plurality-collective “t“ (Plural - Comitative case? - Translator's Note) is also established in the ancient Türkic language (see 2*, 14*, 17*, etc.). A substantial collection of opinions about the term “Türk“ and its detailed analysis are given in two A.N.Kononov's works, “Attempt in analysis of the term Türk “ (“Soviet ethnography“, 1949, No 1, p. 40 - 47), and “Family tree of Turkmen“ (M.-L., 1958, p. 81), which relives us from a necessity to repeat the already stated. Of the newest works on Türks we shall name: A.M.Mandelshtam, “Characteristics of the 9th century Türks in “Message Fath ben Hakan“ al-Djahiz“ (Works of History, Archeology and Ethnography Institute of the KazSSR Academy of Sciences, vol. 1, 1956, pp. 227 - 250), Ma Chan-shou, “In respect to societal evolution of Türks and Türkic Kaganate“, Lishi Yantszu, 1958, No 3, 4 96) (the “latest“ works in respect to this 1960 article - Translator's Note).

29*. Expression chji-i tszüe lun 97, literally meaning “surpass in art (all) categories (or: degrees, classes)“, by a context we translate less figuratively: “extremely dexterous“.

30*. Sün-nu = xi ong-nu (Gün). See 84*. Here is meant one of the Hun tribes of the Hun confederation, in the period of Han dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) inhabiting the Southern and Central Mongolia. (About Sünnu-Huns  see A.I.Bernshtam, Sketch of Hun history, L., 1961, pp. 21-118).

31*. About Huns' horses of this breed see the article: N. Egami, The k'ua-t'i, the tao-yu, and the tan-hsi, the strange domestic animals of the Hsiung-nu, Memoires of the Research department of Toyo Bunko, vol. 13, 1951.

32*. Fu-li-yui 99 = b'uek-lji-jiu (b'uek-lyi-yiu) - “Wing [of tribe]  Fu-li“  [9], [10] . The Chinese information about this tribe is poor and unclear. It can be thought that Fu-li are a Toles tribe mentioned in Tundyan (Tundyan, tsz, 199, p. 15 b) and Vensyan tunkao 100 (Vensyan tunkao, tsz. 344, (page 15 à) under a name Fu-lo 101 (p'iuk-la) and in Suishu under a name Fu-li 102 and Fu-li-tszyui 103.

l03 Ed. Chavannes, Ibid,  p. 50, H.W.Haussig, Ibid,  p. 343, W.Bang, Aus dem Leben der Turksprachen, Festschrift fur Fr. Hirth, 1920, p. 31.


In Suishu they are known from “Biography of Chjan-sun Shen“, which says that in 601 - 602 they participated in the revolt of the Toles tribes against the Türks 104. It is the only information in the Chinese annals about Fu-li connected with a specific event.

The cited data is complemented by comparison of the Chinese transmission of Fu-li as b'uek-lji (b'uek-lyi) with the ethnonym Bokli (in the text: Bökli chollyg el, Bökli kaganka...) in the large inscription on the monument in honor of Türkic prince Kül-Tegin (S.E.Malov, Monuments, p. 29, 36, lines 4, 8, text and translation. Bernshtam, Social and economic structure, p. 81). The “El of Bokli steppe“ apparently was in tributary relations with the eastern Türks, as its representatives were among the “crying and groaning“ at the funerals of Bumyn-kagan and Istemi-kagan. In the eighth line of the inscription “the country of Bokli kagan“ is named as the extreme point of Türkic campaigns in the east.

M.P.Melioransky (M.P.Melioransky, Monument in honor of Kül-Tegin. Notes of VORAO, vol. 12, issue 2 - 3, SPb, 1899) held Bokli as a name of the mountains somewhere in the east, and W.W.Radloff (W.W.Radloff, Ibid, pp. 433 - 434) viewed Bokli as a name of a prince of the “Tungus living in the east“. Both views are not supported by the above cited information that recorded Fu-li - Bokli as a name of a Toles tribe. S.V.Malov sees an echo of this name in the name of a 10th century settlement Beklig (Beklilig) north from the Kastek pass (S.E.Malov, Monuments, p. 373, W.W.Bartold, Sketch of the Jeti-su history, Frunze, 1943, p. 21).

33*. Dai-lin-chjou 105 is a “Dai-lin district“, or a “district, where [they] circled around a [small] forest“. This name ascends to a Huns' ritual custom, where “in the autumn, when horses are fat, everybody gathers to circle a forest and count people and cattle“ (Sho-fan beichen, tsz. 30, p. 2 à). In Tsi-dyan, this district “was located in former Lian-chjou-fu territory 106 in the Gansu province“ (Tsi-dyan, p. 1324). This does not agree with the localization of Bokli steppe on the monument in honor of Kül-Tegin “in the country of sunrise“, i.e. east of Orkhon, and with the statement in Tundyan that Fu-lo were north from Toly (Tundyan, tsz, 199, p. 15 b). If the definition of the district in Tsi-dyan is correct, it can only be understood as a new district Dai-lin-chjou, created in connection with the migration to that territory of one of the three tribes that lived in the old Dai-lin-chjou, two Boklis and one Sygirs. About migration of Sygirs to the area between Ganzhou and Lianchjou (Uvei) is stated in Tuntseyan ganmu (see Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 306), and in addition to that the Tanghuyao text says: District Dai-lin-chjou is founded at the separated Sy-tsze tribe“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1314).

Thus, the sources traced the existence of three Dai-lin-chjou districts: on the farthest eastern border of the Türkic Kaganate, north from Toly, and in the vicinity of Uvei district. The Boklis of this paragraph from the tamgas list were located in second of them, north from Toly.

34*. Khuy-ge 107 = “ xuəi-guət = Uigut (plural of Uigur) [11]  . (About correspondence of Uigut with Uigur see P. Pelliot et L. Hambis, Hitoire des campagnes, 1, p. 253. Of the newest works about the ancient Uigurs, we shall name: Fan Tszya-shen [et al.], Collection of materials for history of Uigurs, vol. 1, 2, Peking, 1955 108, Fan Tszya-shen [et al.],  Questions of periodization of the Uigur history, Chjungo mintszu venti yatszü tszikan, Peking, 1955 109 Â.Czongor, Chinese in the Uigur script of Tang period, Acta Orientàlia Humgaricae, tomus 1, J.R. Hamilton, Les Ouighours a I'epoque des Cinq Dynasties, 1955, Yu.Zuev, Kirgiz inscription from Sudji, Soviet oriental studies, 1958, No 3).

l04 Ed. Chavannes, Ibid,  p. 50.


35*. U-te-le 110 = uo-tək-lək. Should be: U-te-tsin 111 - Uteken, one of the Utuken mountains name variations, located in the opinion of a majority of researchers in headwaters of the r. Orkhon in Mongolia. L.P.Potapov held another point of view (L.P.Potapov, New data about ancient Türkic Otuken, Soviet Oriental Studies, 1957, No 1), he located Ütükån in the Sayano-Altai mountains. We plan to address in more detail the questions of Ütükün localization and its comparisons with modern geographical names in another place.

36*. Tszüi-lo-le 112 = “ k'iu-la-lək. Should be: Tszüi-lo-bo 113  [12] . This hieroglyphic transcription is known in all chronicles (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1315, Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 3 a, Tszu Tangshu, tsz. 215, p. 3 a, Tszychji tuntszian, tsz. 198, p. 6253, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 303). Supposely, this is a name of the tribe Kürabor, described in one of the 8th century Saka documents as a Toles tribe (W.B.Íånning, Argi and Tokharians. BSOS, vol. 9, 1938, p. 558, compare: I.I.Umnyakov, Tocharian problem, Bulletin of ancient history, 1940, No 3 - 4, p. 190, S.P.Tolstov, Cities of Guzes, Soviet ethnography, 1947, No 3, p. 82).

37*. Te-le-shan 114 - “Toles mountains“ in Alashan desert. The location of the tribe Kürabor north from Alashan is narrowed by other sources. Tangshu  placed it northeast from Toles tribe Bai-si 115, occupying the district Tszüi-yan-chjou 116 (Kuyan district on Edzin Gol, compare 44*). Under a year 648, Tszychji tunts-zyan notes: “In Hangai tutukdom was detached a tribe Tszui-lo-bo, founding [for it] a district Chjo-lun-chjou 117 (Tszychji tunts-zjan, tsz. 198, p. 6253, the same in Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1315). On a modern map the district Chjo-lun-chjou 117 should correspond with the eastern end of the Gobi Altai, north-east from Edzin-gol or Bogdoshan ridge.

38*. Bi 118 = p'iet, judging by a diagnostic adder “üi“ (yui, yuy) 119 (“wing“), the subject is tribe Tsi-bi 120 - Kybir (variation Tsi-bi-üi - “Kybir wing“)  [5], [6], [7] . See 21*, 52*. Hard to tell if this is a wing (part) of a tribe itself, or it is a “Kybir wing“ within the Uigur Kaganate. Though its localization is not given, clearly it is distinct from the localization of those parts of tribes which were in the “Toles“ mountains and south from the upper Chikoi. It is confirmed in the following paragraph (see 40*), where it is noted as a special, autonomous from the main body, part of the tribe, along with Chiks, Yomut-huns and Uigurs. Apparently, they are those of the Kybir tribes about whom Tundyan stàtes: “Tsi-bi-üi are south from Do-lan-ge (Tolenget), two clans living jointly“ (Tundyan, tsz. 199, p. 20 b).

39*. Ui-mei-hun 121 = iwî-muət-õuən  [13] . In other Chinese sources this name have not been found. Its first part naturally matches the name of the clan Yomut of modern Turkmen (about them see. G.I.Karpov, Yomuds. Turkmen Studies, I931, No 7 - 9, p. 69-70). The second part matches widely used in ancient Türkic languages plural - collective  (Plural - Comitative case? - Translator's Note) affix gün (kün) (A.N.Kononov, Analysis of the term Turk, p. 44, L Bazin, Recherches sur les parlers T'o-ba. “ T'oung Pao, vol. 39, 1950, livr. 4-5, p. 281, etc.). (Compare Kashuk-gün, Chomul-gün, Tabgach-gün and so on).

The synonymity of the Ui-mei-hun with Yomuts appear to us indisputable, proved not only by the accuracy of the Chinese transmission of the name, but also by amazing similarity of their tamgas. (Yomuts' tamga   (called “ushak“ = “ladle“ - Translator's Note) see G.I.Karpov, Tagma - signs of clan property among Turkmen. Turkmen Studies, I929, No 8 - 9, p. 35 (http://yordam.manas.kg/ekitap/pdf/Manasdergi/sbd/sbd1/sbd-1-14.pdf - Translator's Note)). Unfortunately, this first in time mentioning of Yomuts in written sources was not followed with their localization, therefore it is impossible to determine it.


40*. Chi 122 = tsi = chig - (chiγ)  [14] . Apparently, this the only reference in the Chinese sources to the Türkic tribe Chik, which is known only from the monuments of the ancient Türkic writing (Works of Troitskosava-Kyakhta branch of IRGO Amur department, 15, 1, 1912, p. 43, A.N.Bernshtam, Social and economic structure of Orhonno-Yeniseian Türks, L, 1946, p.38, 82, S.E.Malov, Yenisei writing of Türks. Indexes, W.W.Radloff, Ibid, p. 427, 453).

G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo thought that the Chinese transmission of ethnonym Chik is Tsi-gu (Kirgut - see 2*, G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Ibid, vol. 2, p. 311). Such identification is completely unsatisfactory, because in that case an equal-sign had to be put between the Kirguts and Chiks, considering them to be a same tribe.

The monument in honor of Türkic prince Bilga-kagan says that in 710 the Chik tribe was subjugated by the east Türks, who “crossing Kem, went against Chiks, fought at Orpen, and defeated their army“ (V. Thomsen, Die alttiirkischen Inschriften der Mongolei, ZDMG, Bd 78, p. 151). The location of Chiks is stated there as west from Kem - Upper Yenisei, in the neighborhood of Kyrgyzes. Apparently, it is the Kemchik basin, a left tributary of Yenisei north from Tannu-ola ridge. In this plane is interesting the ethymology of the word Kemchigut (Kem-kem-Chighut), made by J.Marquart (J. Marquart, Über das Volkstum der Komanen). He translates the name Kemchighut as “tribe of Chiks from the river Kem“ (Compare Kemchik = Kem-chik = “river Chiks“), and on that base he locates Chiks in the Kemchik basin. Therefore hardly is correct A.Herrmann, placing the Chiks tribe northwest from Selenga and south from Kem (A.Herrmann, Atlas of China, Cambridge, 1935, Nos. 34-35, Fus - 2).

41*. A-shi-de 123 = a(o)-si-tək  [15]   is one of dynastic tribes of the Eastern Türkic Kaganate. Decoding of the term was made by F.Hirth (F.Hirth, Ibid), who believed the A-shi-de of the Chinese transmisson to be the ethnonym of the Ossets. His hypothesis is hardly acceptable, because it is difficult to accept the existence of the Iranian-lingual Ossets as a Khan dynastic clan of the Türkic confederation. Note that Bichurin (Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 265, note), referring to Ganmu (under year 679), inferred that “Ashide“ is a Dulgas (Türkic) tri-partite name“, but a most thorough review of the source did not find any base for that. Tszychji tuntszian under year 679 says that “A-shi-de is a name of a tribe“ (Tszychji tuntszian, tsz. 202, p. 6399). We also cannot offer a satisfactory treatment of this term. Can A-shi-de be understood as a derivative, plural - collective form  (Plural - Comitative case? - Translator's Note) from A-shi-na 124 = a(o)-si-na (aosin)? See 73*.

42*. Su-nun, see 66*.

43*. In-shan 125 is In-shan ridge north from Huang He. N.J.Bichurin defined its location this: “the ancient Chinese name of mountains, which begin 240 li northwest from the Urat banner, under a Mongolian name Gachjar-ola, and run east for Gui-hua-chen with extensive branches under different local names“ (N.J.Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 3, p. 30).

44*. Ku-yan-gu 126 is a  “Ku-yan  Valley“ (k'uo-ian), variations: Hu-yan 127 (Khóo-ian), Ho-yan (Khóo-ian), Tszüi-yan 128 - (k'ü-iän). All these forms ascend to the ancient and modern Türkic term “kuyan“ (“hare“). The Khan's clans among Sünnu - Huns and Syanbi-Sabirs were known under this name.

In Tszychji tuntszyan the “Kuyan valley“ is connected with the name of “Black mountains“ north from Huang He: “Hei-shan (“Black mountains“) are also called Sha-hu-shan“ 129 (“Mountains of killed Hu'es“), they are directly north from Linchjou and Middle city of Shou -syan 130 and run in eastern direction for 80 li. Their other name is Hu-yan Valley 131 (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 202, p. 6393). On the modern map this district corresponds to the district Guyan north from the center of  the Southern Urat banner and Baotou in the Inner Mongolia, and is distinct from the lake Kuyan and Kuyan river - Edzin-gol.

In addition to the main tribe A-shi-de and its branches Da-Ashide and Bayan-Ashide (67*, 68*), the Tanghuyao section about Linchjou tutukdom named a tribe A-shi-de Te-tszjan Sy-tszin 132 = Ashide (?) - tegin-erkin - “Ashide princely clan“, for which in 649 were founded districts Gao-lan (see 85*) and Tsi-lyan 133 = Koklan (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1316).

45*. Chjen-lyan-chjou 134 - district Chjen-lyan. We did not find this name in sources and historico-geographical literature. It is tempting to view these forms as bad spelling of the term Tsilyan-chjou. See 44*.

46*. Sy-tsze 135 = si-k'iet [16] . Probably, they are the Sygirs of the Khotan (H.W.Bailey, A Khotanese text concerning the Turks in Kantsou. Asia Major, vol. 2, Νο 1, p. 50, J.R.Hamilton, Ibid, p. 2) and Siqar of the Saka (W.B.Henning, Ibid, p. 545) documents. In Tangshu they are listed among the Toles tribes, but a Toles origin of the Sygirs is not corroborated by other sources. In a Saka document of the 8th century, translated by Henning, “Sykars“ are named as a Khan's clan of Tardushes, which echo the messages in the same Tangshu, and Tszychji tuntszyan, about their initial location in the ancient center of Yan-to (Tardu see 14*) (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p., 2, Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 192 page 6044, compare Tangshu, tsz 217 a, p. 1 a, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 301).

Another observation about Sygirs in the Chinese sources connects them with the name of Tujue-Türks: Tujue-Sytsze 136 (Türküt-Sygir) (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 196, p. 6172, 641 year), this in turn finds analogies in the Khotan manuscripts, where one of Sygir military leaders is called with a title Sykyr-Turk chor (H.W.Bailey, Ibid, p. 50). In our opinion, all these versions are correct because they reflect the foreign policy position of the Sygirs during different periods: a dynastic clan of the  Tardushes, during the rise of the Eastern Türkic Kaganate they joined a coalition of the Türkic tribes, and after Uigurs securely settled on Orkhon, they were a part of the external union of the nine-arrows Uigurs (Toguz-Oguzes) - Toleses.

47*. Wei-man-shan 137 - “Weiman mountains“.

48*. Gui-mo-shi-tsen 138 - “Guimoshi Mountain“. Localization of these locations is vague. See below.

49*. Lu-shan du-tu 139 - Lushan tutukdom, founded at a Sy-tsze tribe (Tangshu tsz. 217 a, p. 2, Tszju Tangshu, tsz. 195, p. 2 b). G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo places it in the headwaters of r. Selenga (G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Ibid, vol. 2, p. 249), but in our source, Lushan tutukdom should be southeast from the Yanhunda well that was  “directly south“ from Toly (see 22*). This agrees with the location of the former Sygirs' residence in the Tangshu text: “Sy-dze were in tha  ancient center of Yan-to (Tardu, headwater interfluve of Gola and Kerulen. See 15*). Two tribes (i.e. Sy-tsze and Si-tsze) together [have] 20,000 (army). When [they] came to the Court (i.e. accepted the Chinese sizerainity), their lands were divided into districts and regions“ (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 2, Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 192, p. 6044).

Acceptance of the Chinese suzerainty and the following resettlement  of a part of Sygirs (probably, together with Aigyrs - Si-tsze) to the Chinese borders happened in the djut (massive mortality of cattle - Translator's Note) 631 - 632 years, when the Türkic Kaganate was threatened by disintegration. Localization of Sygirs on the Chinese border becomes clear from the description in Tszychji tuntszyan of the headed by a commander Li Shi-tszi Korean campaign of 641: “Li Shi-tszi  turned the army to Dinsyan (see 70*), Tujue-Sytsze (Türküt-Sygir) in U-tai 140 (“Five towers“) rebelled and left. The district army pursued them, and at that time Li Shi-tszi army turned (again) and, surrounding [them] from two sides, defeated and completely destroyed them“ (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 196, p. 6172), Commentators of this text locate the position of the district U-tai in Taiyuan 141 and Utai in the Shansi province on the modern map of China.

A second large departure of a part of Sygirs from the Lushan tutukdom happened during the rule of the Türkic kagan Beg-chor (693 - 715). Tuntszyan Ganmu mentions them among the four tribes which, “escaping from oppression of the kagan Mo-chjo (Beg-chor), crossed the Great Sandy Steppe to the south, and settled across the present provinces Gan chjou-fu and Lyan-chjou-fu “ (Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 306). And in the list of newly founded administrative divisions in the Tangshu text the Sygirs appear not only in the Lushan tutukdom, but also in district the Dai-lin-chjou district (Tangshu, tsz. 217 and, p. 3 a). Some clarification of this event is contained in Tanghuyao: “District Dai-lnn-chjou is founded at the detached Sytsze tribe“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1314). Tsi-dyan says that this district “was in the former Lyan-chjou-fu area in the Gansu province“ (Tsi-dyan, p. 1324, see 33*).

50*. Fu-li = Bokli (see 32* [9], [10] .

51*. Dai-lin-chjou is the “District where [the Huns] circled a forest“. See 33*. In contrast with the old district Dai-lin-chjou north from Gola, here is meant a new district called in the text “tszin“ 142 - “present“, “modern“. The new Dai-lin-chjou was in Lyanchjou-Uwei (after Sygirs and Bökli migrated there).

52*. Tsi-bi 143 = k'iei-p'iet  [5], [6], [7] . G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo sees in Tsi-bi of the Chinese sources the name of a clan-bone of the “black“ (taiga, forest - Translator's Note) Tatars Kibi or Kivi (G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Ibid, vol. 2, p. 247 - 248). The ancient Chinese transcription of the ethnonym apparently ascends to a form Kybit, where is easy to see a plural - collective (Plural - Comitative case? - Translator's Note) from of Kybir. The tribe Kybir is a well-known tribe from the chronicle “Tarih'i Rashidi“. In the Uigur version of this chronicle, the Kybirs are mentioned among the tribes constructing Balasagun, and belonging to the most ancient tribes (Leningrad manuscript of the Uigur version of “Tarih'i Rashidi“, sheet 274 (pages not numbered). We are obliged for this information to Mingulov, a scientist from the Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the KazSSR Academy of Sciences.

53*. Lyan-chjou 144 is a district located in the place of modern Uwei district in the Gansu province.

54*. Tsue-shi-tsen 145 is a Tsue-shi mountain in the Lyanchjou district. There are no more specifics about its location.

Migration of Kybirs to the Lyan-chjou area is dated by 632. It was connected with the internal disorders in the Türkic Kaganate, and natural disasters that fell on its territory, in the result a son of a late Kybir prince Bagadur Se-li-shan-nu 146 (?) “brought his tribe to Chinese suzerainty “ (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 9 b). After that, the Chinese emperor issued a decree “to settle Tsi-bi between Ganjou and Lyanchjou, and call their [new] lands Üi-si-chjou district“ (Compare Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1314). In 653 happened a new migration of the Lyanchjou Kybirs to the east, to the “Toles mountains“ (Alashan ridge“), and by a decree of the emperor in their lands was formed an Alashan tutykdom 147 (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 9 á).

There also was one more Kybir area, in addition to the three listed in the tamga list (in the old Üi-si-chjou south from Toly, in the new Üi-si-chjou and Alashan mountains, and also in the place of their most ancient residence south or Chikoi). This fourth tribe is localized in Tangshu “northwest or Yantsi (Karashar), in the valley of r. Inso (Uduz)“ (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 9 b). It is unknown when happened that migration, and what were the reasons and its initial point.

55*. Si-tsze 148 = γiei (hai)-k'iet [17] . J.R.Hamilton views this form to be a transcription of the term Aigyr (Türkic “stallion“) (J. R. Hamilton, Ibid, p. 3). Note, that G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo expressed an opinion about the synonymity of Si-tsze with the Izgils named in the monument in honor of Kül-Tegin (G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Ibid, vol. 2, p. 319). More convincing seems to us the decoding of the term suggested by Hamilton based on analysis of the ancient phonetics of these hieroglyphs (i.e. Si-tsze was a Chinese codename for Aigyrs - Translator's Note).

56*. Tszi-fu-shan 149 - Probably, a western part of Tsi-u mountains in Shaansi province. See below.

57*. He-lyan-chji 150 - “Branch of the Helyan river“, or “river of a part [of tribe] Helyan “. Tundyan says that “Helyan“ is a name of one of southern Hun clans (Tundyan, tsz. 200, p. 11 b), who later moved from Ordos to Uyuan on the left bank of Huang He in the Inner Mongolia. Another source, Shuitszin chju su 151 addressed that in more detail: “[From Toketo] Huanhe flows southeast, accepting on the left one tributary (r. Tsinshui-he). This tributary originates in the Eastern mountains Tsi-u“. Here is notable a comment by Yan-Shou-tszin: “In Yuan-ze-chji is said that Tsi-u mountains are 70 li north from Shofan district... The City of Tsi-u is 120 li north from Shofan district, in a place where r. Helyan exits the Tsi-u mountains.... The Helyan Tsi-u mountains are south from Huanhe“ (Shuitszin chju su, tsz. 3, p. 28 b - 29 à). This description the river Helyan matches the headwaters of r. Udin-he, a right tributary of Huang He.

Helyan (khək-liän) as a name of a southern Hun's clan, and a name of a river, could not be decoded. Probably, there is a connection between this word and the name of the eastern Türkic Bilga-khan “Mo-tszi-lyan“ 152 (Tangshu, tsz, 215 b, p. 1 a, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 273. Mogilyan), also not deciphered yet. This name consist of two fragments of two independent words, Mo l53 = m(b)ek = Beg, and Tszi-lyan 154 = kiək-liän.

 58*. Tszi-lu-chjou 155 is the place of southern Aighyrs. Tangshu gives another hieroglyphic symbology 156 for this district: Tszi-lu-chjou (Tangshu, tsz. 217 a, p. 3 a, compare Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1314). Obviously, these are two versions of the same name.

Shuitszin chju su characterizes its location so: During Han [emperor] U-di in the second year of Yuan-sho (127 BCE) was open a district Shofan-tszun, where was located the office of du-üi (governor) of the Western side. From the district a road, which leaves the Tszi-lu-sai, goes northwest“ 157 (“Fortified Tszi-lu line“). Further follows a comment by Yan Shou-jing: “In the Tang description, Tszi-lu-chjou is founded at the Si-tsze tribe (see 55*) it. In the Mingshi (Mingshi, “History of Ming dynasty“), northwest from Üi-lin-wei 158 checkpoint (in the Shaanxi province) is Tszi-lu-sai“ (Shuitszin chju su, tsz. 3, p. 8 à). Hence, the district Tszi-lu-chjou should be in the interfluve of the headwaters Udinhe and Tsüiehe in the Inner Mongolia (Compare Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, str. 128, footnote).

Along with these news, Tangshu gives a localization of one more Aigyr tribe, north from the Tunlo-Tongra tribe (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 12 b), i.e. in the headwaters of r. Chikoi and north from it.

59*. Khu-se l59 = γuk (guk, kuk)-siät, variations: Khu-sa 160 = γuk-sat, Khu-lyu 161 = γuk-liuət (?), Khu-bi 162 = γuk-biək [18] . Two last forms are obviously corrupted transcriptions of the conventional transcription Khu-se and Khu-sa. The editors of the new edition of the N.Ya.Bichurin's work “Collection of information about peoples that lived in Central Asia in ancient times“ identify with Khu-se the tribe Khu-öçå 163, mentioned in the letter of the Hun Shanyu to the Chinese empress among the countries subjugated by him. Turning to the Shitszi text (Shitszi, tsz. 110, p. 6 à) shows that this matching is wrong, because Bichurin gave an incorrect transcription khuse instead of Khu-tsze (See N.Ya.Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 55, comparison see in vol. 3, indexes). That the spelling Khu-tsze is not erroneous is confirmed by the comment in the text of the annals: “tsze sounds like 164 tsze“ (Ibid).

Decoding of this ethnonym presents a great difficulty, and was not done yet. Chavannes in his work about the western Türks limited only to state two different readings: Khu-se and Khu-sa (Ed. Chavannes, Ibid, pp. 87, 88, 89), The same did Marquart, who read these hieroglyphs khak-sit (J. Marquart, Ibid, p. 200). We also could not find a good equivalent for this term. May be, it is related to ancient Türkic and Kirgiz word koksa (+ “t“ - plural form).

60*. In-shan is the Inshan ridge north from Huang He, see 43*. Compare Dushi fan“üi tsziyao, tsz. 61, p. 2671.

61*. Tszin-myn-chen 165 is the “City of a golden gate“ southeast from Lanchjou, northwest from the Andin district in the Gansu province. See the Japanese atlas Eda Usuke. Atlas of Qin empire by provinces, p. 16 166.

62*. Gao-lan-myn 167 is the “Gao-lan Gate“. The Shuitszin chju su located the “Gaolan  Gate“  mountains “ 28 li northeast from Fen-lin district, south from Lanchjou (Shuitszin chju su, tsz. 2, p. 55 a, compare Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 3, p. 18).

This paragraph contains two various localizations of Khu-se: in Gao-lan-myn and in In-shan. The second of them is narrowed by the data from Tanghuyao: “Gao-tsyue district is founded at the Khu-sa 168 tribe“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1314). In Dushi fan“üi tsziyao, this district was on the western extremity of the Inshan mountains on the left bank of Huang He near its turn from the north to the east (Dushi fan“üi tsziyao, vol. 61, p. 2678, compare Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 3, p. 18, Tsi-dyan, page 780).


63*. Nu-la 171 = nuo(do)-lat  [19] is one of little-known tribes, its name was not decoded, the Chinese transcription allows to read it Dolit, Dulat. This term can be compared with the name of a large tribe among Kazakhs and Kirgizes (among Mongols - Duγ-lat) in the Jeti-su. The scant information available from the Chinese authors makes it difficult to judge its history and ethnic affiliation. Probably, this tribe (Dulat) is of Mongolian origin to what testify its description in the “Secret legend“, “Collection of annals“ by Rashid-ed-Din, and in “Shen-u tsinchjen lu“ 172 (see P. Pelliot et L Hambis, Ibid, 1, p. 70, compare Iakinf, “History of Tibet and Kukunor“, 1, p. 179). A complete absence of information about any connections of Nu-la with the Türks, and their political and geographical affinity with the Mongol-lingual Tuguhuns 173 - Türküns are also indicative. Some confirmation of our hypothesis we see in that the term “Dulat“ (“Dulan“) could be deciphered from the Mongolian lexicon: “lame“. (See 64*  location of Nu-la/Dulat in 647 CE between Tuguhuns and Tanguts - Translator's Note).

64*. Ue-den-chjou 174.It is an obvious typo, should be:  bo-den-(in-li)175 Boγtengri, the sacred mountain of Türks located, in the Chjoushu text, 500 li west from the Dutszin (?) mountains. Conditionally, this is an area north from Kukunor, because Tszychji tuntszyan defines the location of Nu-la “between Tuguhuns and Dansyans“ - Tanguts (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 198, p. 6249, 647 year).

65*. An obvious lacuna in the text: “one breed with the most southern horses“. It should be:: “... One breed with the horses of most southern Tu-tsüe“ (- Türks).

66*. Su-nun 176 = suo-nong [20]   is a name of a tribe where, in accordance with Tanghuyao text (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1315), was founded a district Su-nun-chjou (Sunun), initially in the Shanuy (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1309, Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz, 199, p. 6272, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 264), and then in the Dinsyan tutukdoms. We cannot tell what caused a change in the administrative position of the tribe, its migration  or reorganization of the vassal administration system in the Tang empire in 650. The Tszychji tuntszyan under a year 650 tells about it that the Sununs report to Dinsyan tutukdom and are located between A-shi-de and Bayan, probably on the north-eastern coast of Kukunor (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 199, p. 6269).

67*. Da-A-shi-de 177 = t'at-á(î)-si-tək  [21] is one of the branches of A-shi-de tribe (see 41*). The name of Tats in “Family tree of the Turkmen“ by Abu-l Gazi is used to designate the Princes of Iraq, Khurasan and Maverannahr (A.N.Kononov, Genealogy of the Turkmen, p. 56, para. 700). In accordance with Bartold, in the Karahanid time the pagan Uigurs and the Iranian Moslems of the East Turkestan were called Tats (W.W.Bartold, History of Turkestan cultural life, L., 1927, p. 24) (on the other hand, Da-Ashide could simply be Great Ashide, like Da-Yueji are Great Yueji, and Da-Yueban are Great Yueban. Then “Tat“ remains a “stranger“ unrelated to Da-Ashide, and strangeness is in the eyes of the beholder - Translator's Note).

Without stopping on the historico-ethnographical analysis of the term Tat and its arrival in the Central Asia of that period, an intriguing point of view  by S.Klyashtorny that the mentioned in the Orhon inscriptions Tats should be understood the Sogdian population (A.N.Kononov, Ibid, p. 96) should be noted .

68*. Ba-yan A-shi-de 178 = bwa-iän a(o)-si-tək [22]   also is one of the branches of the tribe A-shi-de (see 41*) and Ba-yan. In the first part of this name we are inclined to see an ethnonym Bayan, a name of a Mongol-lingual tribe, mentioned by Mahmud Kashgari in the form Bayat (plural of Bayan) (See S.P.Tolstov, Cities of Oguzes, p. 80 - 81). The Mongolian origin of the tribe Bayan points its genealogical relationship with Kais among Turkmen, from the data of Abu-l Gazi (A.N.Kononov, Ibid, p. 56, para. 690). To the same conclusion brings the comparison of the tamgas of Ba-yan and Turkmen's Bayats, displaying a large similarity between them (see Epilogue).

In Tszychji tuntszyan the tribe-district  Ba-yan is located near the tribes A-de 179 (should be: A-shi-de, the second hieroglyph is missing) and Su-nun (see 66*) (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 199, p. 6269). In the same source, the  Bayan mountains 180 are placed between Huang He and the Tu-gu-huns country of the Kukunor lake (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 181, p. 5643), i.e. south from A-shi-de. Apparently, the tribe Ba-yan A-shi-de was located at the crossing of the lands of these tribes (See also Dushi fan“üi tsziyao, tsz. 64, p. 2753).

69*. Je 181 - nət (nek?) [23] . We did not find this name in other sources, and its  identification does not appear possible. This tribe may be presumed to be Mongolian by origin, because as it lines up with Dulats (?), Tats, Sunun and Bayans.

70*. Din-syan-fu 182 is the Din-syan area, in the Tang epoch its center was 28 li northwest from the ancient and modern city of Datong (See Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 3, p. 26, 69, Dushi fan“üi tsziyao, tsz. 44, pp. 1835 - 1836, 1872).


71*. She-li 183 = sia-lji (ri) (sia-lyi (ri))  [24], [25] , variations: She-li 184 sia-lyi (ri), sit 185 = zia-lyi (ri), etc. The Türkic equivalent this name apparently is  “Shary“, “Sary“, (“Yellow“).

Tszychji tuntszyan mentions a tribe She-li among five Türkic tribes (Sy-pi 186 - Sybir, A-shi-na, Cho, and Bo-den 187, at which were founded districts under supervision of the Unchjun tutukdom (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 199, p. 6269). During reorganization of governance of foreign districts in 650, She-li fell into newly created Shanuy viceroyalty, and together with Che-lio 188 (see 72*) were subordinated to the San-gan tutukdom 189 (Ibid, tsz. 199, p. 6272). Possibly, She-li were in a  genealogical relationship with the dynastic clans of the eastern Türkic Kaganate, because Tangshu tells about kagan Gu-do-lu 190 (Kutlug) as an elder of the tribe She-li Yuan-in 191 (Tangshu, tsz. 215 a, p. 23 à).

The definition She-li - Shary among Kidans is interesting: “In the Kidan kingdom the rich and noble people who want to wrap their heads with a scarf, paid to the treasury 10 cows and camels and a 100 horses.  Kidans called such people She-li“ (V.P.Vasiliev, History and antiquities of eastern part of Central Asia. Notes of Imperial Archeological Society, vol. 13, 1859, p. 195).

The last reference to the Shary tribe in Tanghuyao is connected with the establishment at it (in the text: She-li - Tuli, should be: She-li - Che-li 192) of the district She-li-chjou 193 in 764 (Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1315). In the Tsi-dyan, as usual without the citing a source, the district She-li-chjou is located in the province Suyyuan, and the tutukdom of the district She-li 194 is located “on the lands of the district Tszin-syan  195 in the Fentyan-Shansi province“ (Tsi-dyan, p. 530).

In addition to the record cited above about two Shary groups, the sources note the existence of a third group with the same name. E.G. Pulleyblank published a text and translation of a 8th century composition Tajbo intszin (author Li Tsyuan), with  the tribe She-li named in the Dan-syans' area between Toba (western Tabgaches) and Pugu. It is difficult to assert now whether this third group has a relation with the mentioned in the Shuitszin Chju-su (Shuitszin chju-su, tsz. 1, p. 18 b) district She-li, which was east from the Inage princedom 196 and was distinct from the name of the Buddhist sanctuary of Sharir 197.

This data gains a realistic character when compared with the message of [[Abu Tahir Marwazi|Marvazi]] (12th century) about a tribe Shary divided in two separate groups, one in the East and one in the West.  Marvazi writes about the first of them “a Traveller going to Kytais, at a distance of a half month travel from Sandju (Shachjou?) comes to that part of Shary that is known by the name of their leader, called Basm.l “ (Basmyl, V. Minorsky, Sharaf az-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, Turks and India, London, 1942, p. 19). Translator and commentator of the text “Taban al-haiavan“ V.F.Minorsky located the eastern Shary “in the neighborhood of Edzingol“ (Ibid, p. 73). The Chinese sources carry them further east, northern bend of Huang He.

Marvazi mentions the western Shary in connection with the migration of the Kais and Kuns, who moved on the territory of the “Shary“  from the east, and Shary moved into the country of Turkmens, who in their movement attacked the country of Oguzes“ (Ibid, p. 29-30, compare S.P.Tolstov, Cities of Oguzes, p. 81). The location of Shary is too vague, but considering that the Kuns are the Huns 193 of the tamga list, located in the district Gao-lan (see 84*), and the ancient location of Oguzes was in the Jeti-su (W.W.Bartold, Sketch of the Jeti-su history, p. 20 - 21, A.N.Kononov, Ibid, p. 81), and that the district Tszinweishan of the western Pu-gu corresponds to the chain of the Tarbagatai mountains northwestern Dzungaria, then the western Shary should be conditionally located at the focal point in relation to above three mentioned points. May be, it is the area of Gaochan, because in the “Domestic history of the Gaochan family Se“ Tonyukuk and Bilge-khan, relatives of Kutlug, who was an elder of the She-li tribe, are named as ancestors of the Gaochan Uigurs (Yuan wen lei, vol. 2, tsz. 70, p. 1016).

72*. Che-li 199 = t'siet(-r)-lji(ri) (t'siet(-r)-lyi(ri))  [24], [25] . L.Bazen decoded the ethnonym from the Tabgach lexicon, he considered Che-li to be a Chinese transmission of the Türko - Mongolian term “cherig“ (L Bazin, Recherches sur les parlers T'o-ba, p. 243, 244). As an ethnic name this term is known for a very long time.

In addition to the Chinese sources, Cheriks are mentioned in the 8th century “Saka“ document, their western, maybe eastern Turkestan localization clearly transpires in it, because near to them are named Tochars - Ttaugara (W.B.Henning, Ibid, p. 545). To the same area should also be attributed the Cheriks - Charaiγa of the Khotan texts (H.W.Bailey, The Slael-Hollstein Miscellany, p. 20). Mahmud Kashgari, naming the Cheriks-Djaruklug among Oguzes (Materials on the history of Turkmens and Turkmenia, vol. 1, M.-L., 1939, p. 309), placed them already in the Jeti-su, between Igraks and Djumuls-Chomuls (V. Minorsky, Hudud al-Alam, p. 275). But under Che-li of the tamga list should be understood the eastern Cheriks, who were coaching in the vicinity of the Shary tribe in the Tszin-syan in Inner Mongolia, or jointly with them.  The information cited in 71* about She-li - Che-li undoubtedly speak about their eastern location, which is confirmed by the Tangshu message about the resettlement of Che-li (Tszu Tangshu - She-li, tsz.194, p. 15 à) in the Un-chjun viceroyalty after the defeat of the eastern Türkic Elkagan by the Chinese commander Li Jing (Tangshu, tsz. 215 a, p. 21, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 265). After that event, the Cheriks, among other Türkic tribes, accompanied the Chinese emperor in his travel to the Tai-shan sacred mountain, which was east from the Ordos (Ibid).


73*. A-shi-na 200 = a(o)-si-na [26]  . The first news of Chinese about the A-shi-na tribe they received from the Mongol-lingual Juan-Juans - Avars in the 5th century AD. According to this information, A-shi-na is a tribe of the Hun origin, which reached power in the mountains northwest from the Gao-chan, but originally from a country on a lake, somewhere in the east. In the 7th century one of clans of this tribe, A-shi-na He-lu 201, rose to lead a union of ten Türkic tribes (on ok) in the Jeti-su (See Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 263). During the same time A-shi-na had a high political and genealogical position in the eastern Türkic Kaganate (Ibid, p. 289).

The identification of the name A-shi-na with the data of etnonymics and written sources has not been done yet. Meanwhile, it seems almost improbable that a large tribe that was an ancestor of the Türkic ethnic groups west from Ordos, have disappeared completely, without even leaving their endoethnonym self-name. Attempts of the researchers to find an equivalent of this Türkic term in the Türkic lexicon did not produced any results. We perceive to be more correct to seek it in the same Mongol-lingual environment, through which in the extreme antiquity passed the term a-shi-na. Such an equivalent should be the term aoshin = üsin, (Chinese ao-shen 202), one of the Mongolized variations of the ethnonym Uysun. This is how is named one of the “Usun“ clans among the Ordos Mongols in the Mengu uanlu tsyanchjen 203 (Mengu uanlu tsyanchjen, tsz. 6, p. 5 a, P.Pelliot et L.Hambis, Ibid, 1, p. 72).

The events connected with the ancient ethnic history of the Usun tribal union in the Jeti-su are yet poorly investigated. A Chinese envoy Dun Din, who in 435 visited the capital of Usuns, “City of the Red valley“ 204, was a last traveler who brought back information about Usuns to China. He noted that at that time the Jeti-su came under assaults of Avars (Jujans). Soon it fell into the sphere of the Avar invasion, and any news about it vanished.

In addition to the summary of events in the Usun tribal union for about two hundred years, also survived a petite legend about the origin of Usuns (in two versions), written down from the words of Chjan Qan in the “Historical notes“ and “History of the Senior Han dynasty“.

Below we give a succinct text of this legend after the Tsyan Hanshu (Hanshu, tsz. 61, p. 886, published in Sybu beiyao series) and Shitszi (Shitszi, tsz. 123, p. 3 a, b): “Obedient servant (t. e. Chjan Qan), living among Sünnu (Huns of Mongolia), heard that Usun prince is called kun-mo 205 (Kün-Bàγ, “prince over a tribe“). The father of kun-mo by a name Nan-dou-mi lived together with Great Yue-di (Yueji) 206 [tribe] (Ates, Ases) between Tsilyan 207 and Dun-huan 208, being a small princedom. (Shitszi text literally reads: The father of kun-mo was a small princedom on the western border of Sünnu). The Great Yuedi (Yueji), attacked and killed Nan-dou-mi and occupied his lands, and people fled to Sünnu (In the Shitszi text, the Sünnu, attacking, killed his father...).

The godfather of the newborn kun-mo son, Bu-tszu si-hou (si-hou = yabgu - Translator's Note), swaddled the baby and left him in a grassy field, and left to search for food. And when he returned, he saw that a she-wolf feeds him from her breast, and a raven soars above him, holding meat in his beak. [He] desided that he is divine, took him in his hands, and took him to Sünnu. Shanuy grew fond of him and brought him up, and when kun-mo reached maturity, he returned to him the people of his father, and sent him to head the army, (Shitszi text reads:... And ordered him to rule eternally in Si-chen 209). [Kun-mo] a few times was distinguished in the campaigns, (Shitszi text reads: Kun-mo gathered his people and took care of them. He attacked neighboring small principalities with skilled in battles several tens of thousand soldiers), at this time Yue-di (Yueji), already defeated by the Sünnu, attacked Se 210 prince in the west. The Se prince fled southward and moved far away, and Yue-di (Yueji) began living in his lands. Kun-mo grew stronger. He asked for Shanyu permission to revenge the death of his father, he attacked and defeated Great Yue-di (Yueji) in the west“. Further it says that the young prince led his tribe to the Jeti-su. By time Chjan Qjan arrived in the “City of Red valley“ he had “about ten sons“ (compare Tszychji tuntszyan, vol. 1, tsz. 20, p. 656, Shofan beichen, tsz. 30, p. 2 a, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 2, p. 155-156).

In this legend about the origin of Usuns only she-wolf and raven, connected with the Usun tribal totems, can be called the mythical phenomena, The reality of other details of the legend, as we try to show in another place, does bring any doubts.

In a few centuries the same legend is found in other Chinese sources, in connection with the origin of the A-shi-na tribe. We recite its summary from three versions: in Tszychji tuntszyan (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 159, p. 4926), Tundyan (Tundyan, tsz. 197, p. 5 and - b) and Chjou-shu 211 (photocopy of the 16th year of Daoguan edition, tsz. 50, p. 1 a, b): “Ancestors of Tu-tsüe (Türks) lived right [west] from Si-khai 212 and alone made a tribe. Apparently, it is a separated branch of the Sünnu from the A-shi-na clan. [They] lived separately as a tribe, and subsequently were defeated by the neighboring princedom that completely destroyed their clan. Only one ten year old boy stayed alive. Soldiers (of the neighboring princedom), seeing, that he was small, had mercy not to kill him, they hacked off his legs, maimed his hands, and left him  in the lake overgrown with grass. (Nearby) was a she-wolf that began bringing daily meat to the place where the boy was. The boy ate meat and consequently did not die. When he has grown, he mated with she-wolf, and she became pregnant. And that prince, hearing that the boy is alive, sent people again to kill him. Those, seeing she-wolf next to him, wanted to kill her also. At that time as if a heavenly spirit appeared and spirited she-wolf to the east from  Si-khai and dropped in the mountains northwest of the Gao-chan. In the mountains is a gorge, and in the gorge is a plain, overgrown with grass for two hundred li  in a circumference.

It is surrounded by mountains on all four sides. After settling there, she-wolf gave birth to ten sons, who all got married and had descendants. Afterward each of them started a clan. The A-shi-na [Clan] was one of them“.

Comparing the first legend with the second, where a historical reality is adorned as an ancient totemic myth scarcely enmeshing with the real events of the 5th century, it is impossible to miss the commonality of features playing in all main details. These details are:

Usuns Ashina
1 The annals defines the ancient location of Usuns “between Tsilyan and Dunhuan“. A-shi-na was west from Sihai - Shara-nor, i.e. in the same area.
2 Usun were “a small princedom on the western border of Sünnu“. In all variations of the legend A-shi-na are a separate branch of Sünnu.
3 Usuns were defeated by neighboring tribe Yue-di (Yueji), and on their lands remained only a newborn prince. 3a A-shi-na were also defeated by the neighbors, then only one boy remained alive
4 Usun clan totems came to the aid of the baby, she-wolf and raven, who rescued him from death. Here the boy is rescued by she-wolf. The legend does not have a raven, but this blank is filled with the tamga list where is shown Ashina tamga - a raven [26]  .
5 The boy was carried to the east, to the court of the Hun Shanyu, and brought up there. The boy and she-wolf are carried by a spirit to the east from the Shara-nor in the Inner Mongolia. In the Usun legend the spirit is the boy
6 After several years flares again fight between Usuns and Yue-di (Yueji) that ends in defeat of the Yue-di. Learning that boy is alive, hostile prince sends army again to destroy him and the totem-tribe. However this plan fails.
7 Usuns migrate northwest from former territory, to the Jeti-su. The same way make A-shi-na. A-shi-na - Helu court was on Talas.
8 There the Usun tribe found power and expanded its territories. The first Usun prince had ten sons. 8a The same happened with A-shi-na tribe. But here the ten sons version deliberately reflects the existence of Western Türkic Kaganate ten tribes (On Ok).

In addition to the above we recall two more facts. In the Chinese sources, the initial location of Usuns - U-shi 213 (before their migration to Tsilyan-shan) were modern districts Pin-lyan and Guyuan in Ordos (Shitszi, tsz. 110, p. 2 a - 1755, Tsyan Han-shu, tsz. 94 a, p. 1232). The trustfulness of this news is confirmed by the most ancient Ashina legend, where the ancestors of A-shi-na descended from mixed Hun clans, who were coaching before in Pinlyan (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 159, p. 4926), That area is the southern border of the Ushin banner in the Inner Mongolia (see map “China“, composed and prepared by Novosibirsk map factory, editors Lyapidus and Krimer).

The above discourse allows to return to the question of confluence of the terms Usun and A-shi-na, and to recognize their foreign language (in the second case the Mongolo-Chinese ) transmission of the (Türkic - Translator's Note) term Uysun.

In this commentary we keep repeating that the Chinese chroniclers retained the old transmission of the names for foreign tribes, even in those cases when they did not correspond any more with the reality. It is known, for example, that after formation of the Great Kushan empire, the Chinese continued to call them Yue-di (Yueji), and the transcription Te-le 214 (together with Te-tsin 215) remained a standard form of transmission the ancient Türkic title “tegin“. The result of this was a “disappearance“ of some tribes and unjustified “showing“ of others. As in Tsze-gu the chroniclers for a long time did not recognize  Tszyan-kun (Kirkuns), so in A-shi-na they did not recognize the Usun - Uysuns. The identical in time Chinese news about Bei-tin 216 - Besh-balyk area are very typical in this sense. Tszychji tuntszyan tells that this area is owned by the ruling tribe Basmals A-shi-na (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz . 212, p. 6472). At the same time, the corresponding text in Tanghuyao says that the Beitin viceroyalty “are the borders of the Usun prince“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 78, p. 1429).

74*. Ge-lo-chji 217, should be: E-lo-chji 218 = a-la-tsie = (Alachin, Alagchin)  [27] . Other names of this tribe are Boma 219 (“skewbald horses“) and Bi-la 220 (?).

In the Tang  time's chronicles they are better known under a second name, “skewbald horses“. Tangshu tells about them: “[they] are north from Tu-tsüe (Türks), are 14000 li from the [China] capital. [They] follow grass and water [i.e. are coaching], but mostly live in the mountains. Standing army of 30,000 men. There always stands snow, and trees (= foliage) do not fall down. [They] plough fields [with] horses. All horses [are] skewbald colors, therefore the state is also given the [same] name. [They] live in the north near a sea. Though [they] have horses, [they] do not ride them, but use their milk for food. [They] frequently are at war with Tsze-gu (Kirguts)“ (Tangshu, tsz. 217, p. 3 a, compare Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1,p. 350, Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 195, p. 6152, Dushi fan“üi tsziyao, tsz. 45, p. 1893). Tszu Tangshu mentions a tribe of skewbald horses among Basmyls, Kirguts, Tuhsy-Kuns, etc., who submitted to the Western Türkic Torok(?)-kagan Du-lu ke-han in 638 (Tszu Tangshu, tsz. 194, p. 6 a, edition of 16 Dao-guan, compare Chavannes, Ibid, p. 29). A fragment from the unknown composition, cited in Tundyan as a comment, is very important for the definition of the ethnonym, “Tu-tsüe (Türks) call the skewbald horses e-la (à-la), and the state is also called e-la“ (Tundjan, tsz. 200, p. 10 b). A compilation of this place is found in He-Tsu-tao in the tszüan 32 of Shofan beichen (p. 12 a).

In ancient Türkic lexicon the meaning of “skewbald“ (horse) is expressed with the terms “ala“ (S.E.Malov, Monuments, p. 356), “alagchin“ (Yu.Nemeth, Das Volk mit dem scheckigen Pferden. Photoprint from Êîrosi Czoma Archivum), still used now in composite expressions: ala-bula, alag-bulag, etc. (Ibid). The Chinese transcription E-lo-chji, the earliest transmission of the main ethnic component in the Kazakh Junior Juz and parts of Uzbeks, certainly ascends to Alagchin (Alachin, Alchin, Alchi) (See N.A.Aristov, Notes about ethnic structure of Türkic tribes, G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Ibid, vol. 2, p. 353-354, Hîworth, History of the Mongols from the 9-th to the 19-th centuries, 1876-1928, vol. 2, p. 6-12, P. Pelliot et. L Hambis, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 111 - 112).

The localization of the ancient Alachins is conditional. The authors of Tangshu vaguely locate them “ north from Tu-tsüe“, near Kirguts “on the sea coast“. Asimilar legend about their former residence in the east survived in one of the Kazakh legends, recorded by A.Levshin: “It is said that once the Kazakhs were one with Alats, or the Siberian Tatars. [They] separated from them by virtue of internal disputes.“ (A.Levshin, Description of the Kirgiz - Kais (Kazakh) hordes and steppes, SPb, 1832, p. 27). Based on annalistic traditions, the author of the “Family tree of Türks“ Abu-l Gazi speaks more definitely about the country of skewbald horses: “A multitude of their (Tatar - Yu.Z.) tribes coached along the banks of the Angara-muren, which runs on the east of the Kirgiz country, and absorbing tributes of the small rivers that increase its waters, runs into the sea. At the estuary of this river, on the seacoast, is a large city surrounded by settlements, where in large  numbers live nomadic tribes. Their horses were large... All of them were skewbald in color, there are no others. Near that city called Alakchin was a silver spring, therefore all caldrons, dishes, and vases were from silver. It is that country that the Uzbeks mean when say: “there is a country where all horses are skewbald, and the stoves are from gold“ (Desmaisons, Historire des Mongols et des Tatars, St. Pb., 1874, vol. 2, p.44).

Based on the story of Abu-l Gazi and the description of two Mongolian embassies (in 1233 and 1254) to Alachins that lived along Yenisei, Ðålliot places them at the estuary of Yenisei, on the coast of the Icy Ocean (P.Pelliot, Notes sur I histotre de la Horde d'Or, Paris, 1949, p. 142), which generally is improbable and contradicts testimony of the sources. We are inclined to see here the sources of Angara and the area of the east coast of lake Baikal, known to the Chinese chroniclers under the name “Bei-khai“ - “Northern sea“.

75*. Cho 221 = t'sök (choγ) = Choγ [28] . Could this term be compared withthe name of the eastern Türkic kagan Chogai (Choγai) winter court  in the northern spurs of the Hangai mountains? ItsChinese transmission (could be translation) isTszun Tsai shan 222 - Karakum. (More detailed localization and comparison of toponym Choγai see G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Ibid, vol. 2, p. 282, Chavannes, Ibid, p. 31, A.V.Gabain, Steppe und Stadt im Leben der ältesten Türken, Der Islam, Bd, 29 (1949), Heft, 1, p.34).

76*. He-lu 224 = γa-luo [29]   is one of Türkic tribes, already in the 7th century it became dynastic in the Western Türkic Kaganate. Tangshu says that the rise of Helu happened in 642, when Yabgu Ashina-helu, a fifth generation grandson of Istemi-kagan, revolted and overthrew the power of Du-lu (Tör-ok?)  kagan (Tangshu,tsz. 140b, p. 7  b, Bichurin, Ibid,  vol. 1, p. 288). The question of attribution of the name Helu remains open. No doubt that Helu was a large tribe, it united a number of tribes of the ten-arrow Kaganate, and for almost a century held its hegemony. In our opinion, it should be identified with the Khallukhs of the Arab and Persian writers. Notably, the eastern authors know not only the form Karlukh, but also Karlukh Kharlukh,  Khallukh (V. Ìinorsky, Hudud al-Alam, p. 285). To presume traditions of distorted spelling for the term Karluk would be dubious, because Persians and Arabs were closely familiar with the tribes of the Western Türkic Kaganate“.

Most likely the cause should be sought in the phonetical change of the term, in the dialectal aspects of the languages of these tribes. Not without a reason before the Sungand Mongolian time the Chinese knew the western Karluks as Ha-la-lu 225 = Halluh or Harluh. (Dushi fan“üi tsziyao, tsz. 65, p. 2803). Still in the 763 (23-rd year of Tianbao), a few years before the invasion of the Altai Karluks tothe Jeti-su, in the northern Toharistan was founded a district Gelo-lu-chjou (= Karluk's, Tanghuyao, tsz. 73, p. 1315, see 4*). An echo of the early penetration of Halluhs in that area can be seen in the message of Garidzi about a friendship between the Halluhs and the Tocharistan Haitals (Ephtalites) (V.V.Bartold, Report on trip to Central Asia in 1893 - 1894 with a scientific purpose, Notes of IAN in historico-phylological dept. vol. 1, No 4, SPb, 1897, p. 108, Minorsky, Ibid, p. 288).

Apparently, the first division of Karluks into eastern and western happened before 766. Otherwise it would be problematic to explain the text of the inscription on the monument in honor of Tardush prince Kuli-chur (first quarter of the 8th century), which tells about a struggle of “Kharluks against Karluks“ (Karlukyγ... Karluk tapa: A.N.Bernshtam, Social and economic structure of Orhono-Yeniseian Türks, p. 48). It testifies about political and military struggle between two Karluk tribes, and not about conflicts within a tribe, because in these cases the ancient Türkic texts express more specifically. Therefore at the end of the 7th century in the Halluh federation, alongside with Chu-ue 226 - Chigils, Chumi 227 - Chumuls, Gu-su 228 - Oguzes, etc., also appeared Ge-lo-lu 229 - Karluks living west from Altai (Tangshu, tsz. 140, p. 8, Tszu Tangshu, tsz. 194 “, p. 7, Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 199, p. 6256, tsz. 200, p. 6298, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 289).

Tszychji tuntszyan provides the following data about He-lu location: “From Shuan-he 230 (“Double river“) southwest after 200 li you come to the He-lu court, the Tsyan tsüan 231 (“Thousand springs“) is within the borders of Shi-go 232 (“Stone state“, Tashkent) and is southwest from He-lu“ (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 199, p. 6273). The name “Thousand springs“ is identified with Ters valley (Severtsev), with the area between Merke and Djambul (Skailer), with the valley and station Merke (E.I.Ageeva and G.I.Patsevich). (See N.V.Byakin-Vasiliev, Ancient travelers in the territory of Kazakhstan, Alma-Ata, 1946, p. 9, manuscript, KazSSR Academy of Sciences Histor., Apxeîë., and Ethnogr. Institute , inventory No 23, E.I.Ageeva and G.I.Patsevich, From history of settled settlements and cities of Southern Kazakhstan, Works of   KazSSR Academy of Sciences Histor., Apxeîë., and Ethnogr. Institute, vol. 5, 1958, p. 204). The same source explains their localization this way: “He-lu lived in the basin of the river Do-lo-sy 233 (Talas), 1500 li from Si-chjou (in China)“ (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 200, p. 6306, compare Tsi-dyan, p. 249). Probably, it is Myn-Bulak - the station Burnoe southwest from Djambul. Then the court of the tribe He-lu should be located in the Djambul area, and Shuan-he (“Double river“) in the interfluvial of Kuragaty - Chu. These landss were a center of the Karluk Kaganate in the 8th century.

77*. Un-chjun 234. The description of the regional city Jun-chjun by Bichurin is: “[It is a] name of an ancient district city“ founded by prince U Lin in the 4 century BCE. This city was on the southern side of the In-shan ridge, at the turn of the Yellow river from Ordos south, west from Huhu-hoto, in the vicinity of a small town Tohto-hoto. At the end of the eastern dynasty Han the governance of Un-chjun province was transferred to Un-chjun, located in Dai-chjou, 70 li southwest from the district city Go-sjan“ (Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 3, p. 80). Compare Dushi fan“üi tsziyao, tsz. 44, p. 1841 - 1842.

78*. A-yan 235 = a-iam. This name is not known any closer. It is tempting to see in the transcription Ayam (Àyam) a name of the Turkmen clan Aymur (variations Aymür, Amür, Imir). See these terms in L.N.Kononov (L.N.Kononov, Ibid, p. 93) and P.Pelliot (P. Pelliot, Ibid, p. 197 - 198). The absence of this name in other Chinese texts and the omission of tamga in the tamga list do not allow to delve into more detailed analysis.

79*. Kan-khe-li 236 = kang-γat-lji (kang-γat-lyi) [30] . The Chinese transcription is naturally read kangγatly = kangarlyγ - one of the earliest variations of the ethnonym Kangly. Here, we do not see the affix of plurality “s“, which saw H. Matsuda, who read the whole form Kengeres (H. Matsuda, The Geo-historical Studies on ancient Tien-Shan region, Tokyo, 1955, p. 7).

Probably, the name of the same tribe should be recognized in the title of one of the eastern Türkic tegins, sent by Shibi-kagan in 618 with an embassy to China. The text of the tszüan 94 in Tanghuyao says: “[Emperor] Yan-di on the thirteenth year of rule (618) in the sixth month sent ambassadors to Tu-tsüe. Tu-tsüe sent [to China] Kan-khe-li and others to accompany one thousand horses [gift]“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 94, p. 1687). (Here, like in the subsequent examples, we replace an unstable reading of the second hieroglyphs: shao 237, shao 238 and a “silent“ hieroglyph 239 on a more plausible he 240). In the Tszu Tangshu this version is laid in more detail: “Gao-tszu... sent to Shi-bi with a greeting an official of a military chamber Lu Wen jing-na to give him support. Shi-bi (-kagan) sent a tele (tegin) Kan-khe-li to present [to the Chinese emperor] one thousand horses gift“ (Tszu Tangshu, tsz. 194 a, p. 1, E.J.Parker, The early Turks, jornal China Review, part 4, p. 163-164). A third version of this event, in the “Gao-tszu Biography“ in the same annals under the eighth month 618 reads: “Tu-tsüe Shi-bi-kagan sent Kan-khe-li to lead 500 troops and 2,000 heads of horses under command Lu Wen jing-na“ (citation by Tangshu binchji tsyan-chjen, tsz. 4, p. 109).

From that appears that Kangarlygs were a vassal tribe of the eastern Türks - Tutsüe. Secondly, they close to the kagan court, because the reciprocal gift of the Türks of Kangarlyg's horses was made right after the visit by Lu Wen jing-na, or during his stay in the kagan court (compare S.G.Klyashtorny, Kangju ethno-toponymy in Orhon texts, Soviet ethnography, Nî 3, 1951, p. 54 - 63).

80*. An-mu-lu-chjen 241 (?) [31] .

81*. An-she-khe 242 [32] . These names of tribes or districts are not known any closer.

82*. Sha-to 243 = sà-t'o [33] , one of the branches of the western Türkic  tribe of Chu-ue - Chigils from the valley of the r. In-so - Yulduz (Tanghuyao, tsz. 94, p. 1395 - 1398, Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 210, p. 6678, Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 357 - 361). The detailed analysis of term Sha-to (Sanscr.: Sart) is given in the book of the prof. Chjan Si-man “New research about historical tribes of the Western territory“ 244. The study of public and economic life of Sart-Türks was addressed in the article of Wolfram Eberhard “Notes on a history of culture of Shato-Türks“ (W.Eberhard, Some cultural Traits of the Sha-t'o Turks, “Oriental Art“, vol. 1 (1048), No 2, p. 50 - 55, was published a translation into Turkish language).

83*. Chu-bi-shan 245 - “Mountain [of the tribe] Chu-bi“. Probably, Chu-bi (tsiwo-piet) is one of phonetic variations of the Chinese transcription of term Chubyr, Chubyl (Chumyl) [34] . In the Chinese sources, Chubyls (Chumyls) are usually located together with Chu-ue (Chugyls) (Chumyls?) in the valley of the r. In-so (Yulduz) and in the mountains of the same name. (See Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 1, p. 287, 289, 290, 291, 299, etc.).

84*. Hun 246 - γuən (guan) [35] (Êün). Interpretation of this term is studied in another work (Works of KirgSSR Academy of Sciences History Institute, issue 4, p.169-170, also see H.W.Bailey, A Khotanese text concerning the Türks, p. 48, J.R.Hamilton, Ibid, Page 2, P.Pelliot et L.Hambis, Ibid., 1, p. 63, 110, J.Nobel, Central Asia - the connecting link between East and West, Nagpur. 1952, p. 7-9, V. Minorsky, Marvazi. p. 29-30, J.Marquart, Ibid, p. 52-54, 59, 70, 74).

Our studies attest that the Chinese transliterations of Hun (variations  Sün 247, Sünnu 248, Kun 249 Kun-u 250 Hun-u 251, derivatives: Kun-se 252, Hun-se 253) reflect the term kün, γün (gün) “tribe, people“ of the ancient Türkic languages. The equivalent renditions of the term kün in other languages are: Hionit (Chionite, Xionite) (Middle Persian “belonging to γün - Hions“), Kuonaye (Êün), Khotansk. Huna, Greek Huni (Funi, Faunae, Kunns), Latin Huns (Unns, Uns), Slavic Un (variation Kun), Arabian, Hungarian, Koman Kun, Uigur and Kalmyk Kün, etc.

Simultaneously with the above appellations, these tribes also had other names: Huns - Usuns, Huns - Agach-eri, Huns - Kirkuns, Huns - Tabgach, Huns - On-ok, Huns -Komans, Huns - Yomuts, etc. In other words, the term Kün (Hun) served to denote certain clan and tribal organizations, and included a “clan“ or a “tribe“ concept integral to the unity of ethnic origin.

Apparently, only such interpretation of the term can account for the presence of a large number of the ancient Türkic tribes known under name “Hunnish“.

In this particular case the term Hun-Gün designated a Hun tribe with endoethnonym  (or its Chinese translation) Lan 254 (and therefore the double name of the district: Lan-chjou = “Lan district“, “district of a Lan tribe“ and Hun-chjou = “Hun district“. And the tribes of this area retained the name Hun-se 255 (Künsig = “Hunnish“, “Hün's“) from the 3rd century BC to the 8th century AD (E.G. Pulleyblank, A geographical text of the 8-th century. Silver jubilee volume of the Kyoto University, Kyoto, 1954, p. 305).

85*. Gao-lan du-tu-fu 256 is the tutukdom Gao-lan. The name is given after the city Gao-lan (modern Gaolan-Lanchjou), a center of the district Lanchjou. Compare Dushi fan'yuy tsziyao, tse. 60, p. 2622.

86*. Gao-lan-shan 257 are the Gao-lan mountains which, tells Bichurin,  “lay in Gansu four or five (li) south from Lan chjou-fu (Bichurin, Ibid, vol. 111, p. 18).

87*. Mai-tszun-tszi-shan 258 is a name of the mountains, pinpointing their exact location is impossible. Probably, they were near the Gao-Lan mountains.

88*. Tsi-dan 259 = k'iei-tan [36] , a traditional Chinese transcription for the term “Kytai“ (Cathay). The literature about Kidans - Kytais is extensive. In Russian, main compilations are a collection of information about Kytai from the Chinese sources by academician V. P. Vasiliev in the work “History and antiquities of the eastern part of the Central Asia“ (V.P.Vasiliev, “Notes of Imperial Archeological Society, vol. 13, SPb, 1899, pp. 1-235), and the work of N.Ya.Bichurin “Collection of information about peoples...“ (N.Ya.Bichurin, vol. 1, p. 362-370).

89*. Sun-mo du-tu-fu 260 is a  “Tutukdom of the r. Sun-mo“. Sun-mo is an ancient name of the river Sungari, a tributary of Amur. 

90*.  Si 261 = γiei (hai), variations: ku-mo-si (k'uo-maγ-γiei), ku-chjen-si (k'uo-t'sien-γiei), etc. (Kai) [37] .

The Sui Tangshu and Udaishi state: “Si are a detached branch of the Sünnu“ (Sui Tangshu and Udaishi, tsz. 70, p. 1 a, tsz, 74, p. 1 à). The Udaihuyao and Sin Tangshu tell that “Si, like Tsi-dan, are a detached branch of the Sünnu, and belong to Dun-hu“ (Sin Tangshu, tsz. 219, p. 7 a, V.P.Vasiliev, Ibid, p. 34). In Tanghuyao they are characterized as follows: “Si, probably, are a detached branch of Sünnu. Their residence is in the ancient Syan-bi lands, that is within the borders of Dun-hu“ (Tanghuyao, tsz. 96, p. 1719). To this we shall add a definition of the Si in the Tundyan, which apparently is a most accurate: “Their ancestors were Dun-bu 262 (should be Dun-hu) - Syan-bi from the Ui-wen house 263 (Tundyan, tsz. 200, p. 1 à). The “Hun“ origin of the Si is here explained by their belonging to the proto-Mongol Syan-bi tribal union Ui-wen-sünnu, instead of the Sünnu - Huns themselves. (About the Ui-wen - Sünnu see Weishu 264, tsz. 103, p. 12 a - 13 b). This postulate is supported by the statement in the Tsidan-go chji 265: “The language of [the tribe] Tsi-dan is quite similar with the language of the Si tribe, in effect, it is the same country“ (Tsidan-go chji, tsz. 26, translation see R.Stein, Leao-tche, “T'oung Pao“, 35, 1939, 1-3, p. 17). The ethnic kinship of Si with the Mongol-lingual Kytais is also repeatedly emphasized in other Chinese sources (Beishi 266, tsz. 94, Sui Tunchji 267, tsz. 636, Tszu Udajshi, tsz. 137).

An analysis of the term Si was made by P.Pelliot, who held that the Chinese transcription ku-mo-si was a transmission of two ethnonyms: Kumak (compare a name of a Kumyk nation, related to Avars, in Dagestan) and Kai. Later it was convincingly confirmed by V.F.Minorsky (V.Minorsky, Marvazi, p. 95-98, compare W.Eberhard, Sinologische Bemerkungen über den Stamm der Kay), who correlated Si with the name of the Kai tribe, which in the 9th century ignited relocation of the Kuns, Shary and Turkmens from the east to the west. From the 9th century, the Kais are already known as one of Turkmen - Oguz tribes. That the Kais among Turkmens, and the Si (Khai) of the Chinese sources are the same does not raise any doubts, because till the 19 century they retained the tamga recorded in Tanghuyao 11 centuries earlier (see Epilogue).

91*. Jao-le du-tu-fu 268 is the tutukdom of the river Jao-le. Jao-le is an ancient name of the river Shara- muren (modern Silyao-he) in the southeast of the Inner Mongolia.


The text of the section “Tamgas of horses from vassal princedoms“ is valuable material for ethnographic and (in lesser degree) historico-economical research. But to pinpoint its exact place within the circle of the Central and Middle Asia ethnogenetical problems does not appear possible, because that would require analysis of ethnogenetical process for the majority of modern Türkic and Mongolian peoples. Therefore, we shall only briefly address some questions directly following from its analysis.

First of all, comes to attention a vivid picture of local dispersion of the tribes in the huge spaces of Central and Middle Asia, typical for the period of incipient feudal relations and coalescing of nations. It involves not only only the (mostly temporary) unions of ethnically related tribes, but also a ceaseless splitting of tribal coalitions, fractioning within the tribes, their large migrations to new areas and, finally, admixture with foreign-speaking tribes.

A same tribe, driven by various factors, economic, political and even geographical, ends up fragmented into few separate parts and living isolated in different territories. We see the tribe Bokli in three places: in the basin of r. Hilok, in the basin of Toly, and in the Uvei. The tribe Sygir is in the Shansi province, in the south of Alashan desert, and in the area of modern Ulan Bator. The tribe Kibir is southeast from Ulan Bator, and in mountains the Alashan mountains, the tribe Aigyr is on upper Chikoi and in Ordos, the tribe Sary is in the vicinity of Lanchow, on the northern bend of Huang He, and near Karashar, etc. (The author's assumption of the initial conditions presupposes an existence of initial tribal nucleus or a clan that grows and fragments with time, along the lines of a family tree concept, which may be totally inapplicable to the actual historical developments - Translator's Note)

The traditional policy of the Chinese dynasties, “pacify foreigners with the hands of foreigners“, played an important role in this process. An expression of this policy was “acceptance suzerainty“ by the nomadic cattlebreeding tribes. Driven by the need to protect Chinese borders from frequent attacks by cattlebreeding tribes, the Tang dynasty by bribing tribal elites (and frequently with direct military pressure) settled the tribes that accepted Chinese overlordship along the main boundary tracts, in the basin of of Huang He northern bend and along the Silk road. In the 8th century isolated frontier tribes were situated in this sequence from the west to the east: Sygirs, Bokli, Shary, Kuns, Huse, Kybirs, Huse, Shary, Ashide, Aigyrs, Sygirs. That was one of specific features in the Eastern Türkic, Uigur and Mongolian ethnogenesis in the studied period.

The second feature of this policy was establishment for the tribes that accepted Chinese overlordship of the “roaming districts“. The apparent confusion in the location of the districts, misleading even for the Chinese chroniclers and later commentators, was caused by continuous movement of the nomadic unions and separate tribes. Districts with the same names were appearing simultaneously in different places, reflecting the map of tribe locations. The administration district “roamed“ together with the tribe. But curiously, however removed were same-named (hence, one-tribal) districts one from another, as a rule they remained in the former chain of command, even when the tribe was in the lands of another province. This was noted by He Tsu-tao: “However, examining the districts temporarily founded by Tang dynasty, it transpires that the Tangs, settling subjugated peoples in different places of the inner China, to control them were temporarily establishing only the names of districts 269.

In the conditions of forming the feudal relations, and accompanying it intensive mixture of clans and tribes are clearly visible two paths of ethnogenetical processes: disappearance of some and creation on their basis of other tribes. The branching of separate parts of a tribe was opening a path to new ethnic influences, and was reflected in a change of the tribal tamga. As an example can serve the tamgas of the branched off Bokli [9], [10] and Kybir [5], [6], [7] tribes, in which is difficult to find commonalities even in the materials of the 8th century. Another side of process was the merging of the tribes into new ethnic collectives (Tat-Ashide, Bayan-Ashide, Turkut-Sygirs, etc.). Therefore no wonder that comparison of ethnic names and tamgas of the 8th century with the modern names and tamgas is a difficult and sometimes simply impossible task.

269 Mungu yumutszi. - Notes about Mongolian pastures. Transl. P.S.Popov, SPb, 1884, p. 194


Compilation of the 36 tamgas table from the list with the purpose to bring them to the attention of the experts, who have corresponding field material, comes with understanding that the suggested comparison of some of them has a preliminary character. The supporting material for the comparisons is taken from works of N.A.Aristov 270, G.I.Karpov 271, O.Akchokrakly 272, C.II.Tolstov 273, Castagne 274 and unpublished G.I.Patsevich's material (finds of tamgas in Djezkazgan).

The text in the list of tamgas, and their comparison allow to illuminate anew some events of ethnogenetical character that happened in the territory of Central and Middle Asia during the subsequent period. One of them, almost unnoticed by the Chinese sources,  was a large migration of the Kuns, Kais, Shary and Guzes (Oguzes) from the east to the west, known from the “rising a number of bewilderments“ (Bartold) story by the Arabian geographer of the beginning of the 12 century Sharaf al-Marvazi. Describing the tribe of Türks, al-Marvazi tells: “To them [also] belong Kuns, who came from the Kytai country, scared of Kyta-khan. They [were] Nestorian Christians, and left their place under pressure of shepherds (nomads). From their number came Ikinji Kochkar, a Horezm-shah. Kuns were pursued by people called Kais, who were more numerous and strong than they, [and which] expelled them from these [new] pastures. Then they moved over to the territory of Shary, and Shary moved over to the territory of Turkmen [apparently, should be: Türks] (?), who in their movement migrated to the eastern parts of the Oguz country. The Guses (Oguzes) - Türks then moved on the Badjanak territory, near the banks of the Armenian (?) sea “ 275.

The question about migration timing, and location of the tribes named by Marvazi is disputable. A translator and commentator of Marvazi composition, V.F.Minorsky, dates it by the 9th century 276. S.P.Tolstov, analyzing Marvazi text, was inclined to project his news on the events of the 5-6th centuries, connected with the Avar's movement to the west 277. But al-Marvazi it is not alone in the description of these migrations and recalling of ethnic names. Al-Masudi described a flight of Besenyo (Badjanaks) under pressure of “four Türkic tribes“ at the end of the 9th century (893 or 898), and its further course is described by Constantine Porphyrogenitus 278. Before the end of the 9th century sources do not name the mentioned tribes in the territory of modern Turkmenia, about which wrote Marvazi.

From his (Marvazi) story appears that migration happened in two stages. It was started by the Kuns who, defeated by other nomadic tribes, moved west. Soon a new tribe, Kai, living further in the east, joined it (migration). Both stages were caused by serious ethnical and political regroupings in the northern Kitai nomadic periphery.

270 N.A.Aristov, Ibid
271 G.I.Karpov, Ibid
O.Akchokrakly, Tatar tamga in Crimea. Materials of scientific - ethnographic expedition on studying the Tatar culture in Crimea, 1925, Simferopol, 1927
273 C. P.Tolstov, From prehistory of Russia. Soviet ethnography, 1947, vyp. 6-7
274 Castagne, Les tangas des Khirgizes (Kazaks.) Revue du mond musulman, 1921
275 V. Minorsêó, Ibid, p. 29-30
276 Ibid, p. 103-104
277 S.P.Tolstov, Cities of Oguzes, p. 81
278 A.J.Yakubovsky, Questions of an ethnogenesis the Turkmen at 8-10 vv, the Soviet ethnography, 1947, No 3, p. 49


The above comparison of the tamgas and analysis of the texts show the identity of Kais and Kuns with the Si (Kai) and Hun (Kun) tribes of the Chinese annals. Kuns were one of the main tribes of the Sünnu - Hun and then Uigur coalitions 279.

Considerable migration of the Uigur tribes, among which undoubtedly also were Kuns, happened in the 840, and was caused by a fall of Uigur Kaganate in the territory of Mongolia. Tangshu tells that in that year the Uigur territorial prince Külüg Baga attacked jointly with Kirgizes the court of Uigur prince in Orkhon, and sat to fire his city. After that fifteen tribes of the Uigur union fled to the west, to the Beshbalyk Karluks 280.

In seven years a similar event happened in the Kytai tribal union, when its previous member, a separate part of the Kai tribe ended up far in the west from the valley of the r. Silyaohe, in the Guizhou 281 and Beishan 282. Akad. V.P.Vasiljev explains this movement of the Kai: “In 847, when the northern clans Hi rebelled, a [Kidan prince] Lulun Chjenchjunu burnt their 200,000 coaches, ceased 70,000 rams, and so forth. Maybe, this event caused that the Kidan gain in strength because of weakening of Hi and, finally having subdued them, charged them with guarding the borders. But one branch escaped from Kidans and settled near Guichou [and] in the Northern Mountains [Bei Shan], from that during Kidans the Hi split into two clans, eastern and western 283. A detailed description of these events is contained in Sin Tangshu (Sin Tangshu, tsz. 210, p. 7 à), Sui Tangshu (Sui Tangshu, tsz. 70, p. 1 and, á) and Udaishi (Udaishi, tsz. 74, p. 1 and, á).

But the Chinese sources do not have any records about further course of migration. Based on Marvazi information, can be suggested that that started its second stage, when happened a collision of interests between Kuns and Kais (northwest from Beishan) (Bei Shan), and a new tribe, the Shary, were drawn into migration and moved onto the territory of the Jeti-su, in the country of Türks and Oguzes.

Still V.V.Bartold paid attention that in the “Family tree of the Turkmen“ the native place of the legendary Türk, a son of Yafet and an ancestor of Oguzes, were the banks of Issyk Kul 284. Later, the possessions of the forming Oguz Il in the east reached “To Issyk Kul and Almalyk, in the south to Sairam, in the west the city of Yangikent, whish stands at the mouth of the river Syr (Syr-darya), and to the Kara- Kum“ 285.

In the Chinese sources ascending to the 7th and 8th centuries, Oguzes (Chinese Gu-su 286) are consistently shown in the vicinity of Issyk Kul - Talas and then apparently on Syr-darya.

In the accessible for us editions of Tangshu (Tangshu, tsz. 140, p. 8 à) and Tszu Tangshu (Tszu Tangshu, tsz. 194, p. 7 à) Oguzes are mentioned in connection with the rise of the Western Türkic kagan He-lu: “[In 648 He-lu] united Chu - ue (Chugyl, Chigil), Chumi (Chumyl, Chumul), Gu-su (Guz, Oguz), Ge-lo-lu 287 (Karluk) and people of five tribes Bu-shi-bi 288 (Nushibi).

279 See 84*
280 Tangshu, tsz. 157 a, p. 26
281 V.P.Vasiliev, Ibid, p. 35
284 V.V.Bartold, Sketch of history of the Jeti-su, Frunze, 1943, p. 21, V.V.Bartold, Turkestan during epoch of the Mongol invasion, part 2, SPb, 1900, p. 28, A.N.Kononov, Ibid, p. 81
285 A.N.Kononov, Ibid, p. 81


These tribes are named in association with the center of the Western Türkic kagan in Talas, in the area of the modern Djambul. There clearly appears the localization of Oguzes between Chumuls in the east and Karluks (Halluhs) of the Talas basin in the west (see 76*).

The tribal composition of the 8th century Oguzes is unknown. Al-Masudi wrote several centuries later: “This tribe is from Türks, it is divided onto three groups: lower (Guzes)(Oguzes), upper, and middle“ 289 (in modern terminology Junior, Senior, and Middle Juzes - Translator's Note). This division of Oguzes also existed earlier. In the unofficial composition “Taibo intszin“ 290 of the 8th century Chinese author Li Tsuan they are called “three (Guzes)“ (Oguzes): [From China] the road runs toward the lands previously (or: initially) occupied by nine tribes (Toguz-Guzes (Oguzes) of Mongolia) (Uigurs), [then] toward the lands occupied by ten arrows ( Jeti-su On Ok Türks), [then] to three Ku (Êut = Guz)“ 291. From that is easy to see that in the 8th century. Oguzes were already on Syr-darya outside the ten arrows Türkic Kaganate, and directly bordering it. There Oguzes encountered Kuns, Kais, Shary, and other tribes, with outcome described by Marvazi and Masudi.

288 Tundjan, tsz. 199 p. 8, Vensyan tunkao, tsz. 344, p. 8 a, Syma Guan, copying this place, made a mistake drawing the term Gu-su: Shi-su instead of Gu-su (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 199, p. 6256). In another place of the same annals they are called correctly, Gu-su (Tszychji tuntszyan, tsz. 200, p. 6298)
289 Materials on history of the Turkmen and Turkmenia, vol. 1, p. 166
291 Pulleyblank, Ibid, p. 307
Table of Òamgas


A little graphical misalignment, sorry

  Tribe Name Tamgas per  Tanghuyao Author, clan, or place
Chinese Expected Identity New Edition Old Edition Expected Identity
1 Tse-gu 18 Kirgut 1    
2 Tun-lo15 Tongra 2 Argyn, Tabyn (Kaz.), Hodja, Saryk (Turkm.)
3 Yan-to15 Tardu ? 3 Ditto
4 Pu-gu 15 Bugu 4  
5 Tsi (bi)18 Kybir 5 1. Karpov, Djebin (Turkm.) 2. Tomenei, Shekty (Kaz.)
6 Tsi (bi-yui)20 Kybir 6  
7 Tsi-bi20 Kybir 7  
8 A-de18 Ediz 8 1. Akchokrakly, village Abuzlar 2. Munke-Khan coins
9 Fu-li-yui22 Bokli Uigur? 9  
10 Fu-li-yui20 Bokli Uigur? 10  
11 Huy-ge26 Uigur 11    
12 Tszui-lo-bo26 Kurabor 12  
13 Yui-mei-hun26 Yomut-gün (-γün) 13 Karpov, Yomut (Turkm.)
14 Chi31 Chig 14  
15 A-shi-de20 ? 15 Akchokrakly, village Abuzlar
16 Sy-tsze18 Sygir 16 Akchokrakly, Eupatoria (Crimea)
17 Si-tsze23 Aygyr 17  
18 Khu-se25 Koksa ? 18 Patsevich, Djezkazgan
19 Nu-la25 Dulat  ? 19  
20 Su-nun30 ? 20  
21 Da-A-shi-de24 Tat-Ashide ? 21    
22 Ba-yan-A-shi-de ? 26 22 1. Argyn (Kaz.) 2. Rashid-ad-Din, Bayat (Turkm.)
23 Je 24 Nek? 23  
24 She-li20 Shary 24 Kül Tegin, Kuli-chur, Kybchak
25 Che-li18 Cherig 25 Ditto
26 A-shi-na26 Ushin 26 Abu-l Gazi, Ala-Yontly (Turkm.)
27 Ge-lo-chji20 Alachin 27 Khalaj
28 Cho20 Chog ?  (Choγ) 28 Mahmud Kashgari, Bayutdur (Oguz)
29 He-lu26 Khallukh 29 Karluks
30 Kan-he-li30 Kangarlyg 30  
31 An-mu-lu-chjen ? 26 31 Tolstov, Hephtalites  
32 An-she-he22 ? 32  
33 Shato25 Sart 33  
34 Chu-bi-shan25 Chubyl mountains 34 Mahmud Kashgari, Uregir
35 Hun26 Kün 35 1. Akchokrakly, vill. Alach; 2. Kastanie, Alays (?) (Kaz.); 3. Patsevich, Djezkazgan
36 Tsi-dan22 Kytai 36  
37 Si25 Kai 37 Abu-l Gazi, Karpov, Kaiy (Turkm.)


Glossary of Chinese terms



137 138
140 139

Last Page

Glossary of Russian terms
Russian spelling English spelling
Chjan Tsyan Zhang Qian
Ganjou and Ganzhou
Lianchjou/Lyanchjou Liangzhou


Bibliographic references to ethnic terms
Türküt P. Pelliot, Sur l'origin de nom chinoise des Turks. T'oung Pao “, 1915, p. 687-689
  A.N.Kononov, “Attempt in analysis of the term Türk “, “Soviet ethnography“, 1949, No 1, p. 40 - 47
  A.N.Kononov, “Family tree of Turkmen“, M.-L., 1958, p. 81
  A.M.Mandelshtam, “Characteristics of the 9th century Türks in “Message Fath ben Hakan“ al-Djahiz“ (Works of History, Archeology and Ethnography Institute of the KazSSR Academy of Sciences, vol. 1, 1956, pp. 227 - 250
  Ma Chan-shou, “In respect to societal evolution of Türks and Türkic Kaganate“, Lishi Yantszu, 1958, No 3, 4
Uigur P. Pelliot et L. Hambis, Historie des campagnes de Gengiz-khan, Leiden, 1961, 1, p. 253
  Fan Tszya-shen [et al.], Collection of materials for history of Uigurs, vol. 1, 2, Peking, 1955
  Fan Tszya-shen [et al.],  Questions of periodization of the Uigur history, Chjungo mintszu venti yatszü tszikan, Peking, 1955
  Â.Czongor, Chinese in the Uigur script of Tang period, Acta Orientàlia Humgaricae, tomus 1
  J.R. Hamilton, Les Ouighours a I'epoque des Cinq Dynasties, 1955
Sünnu-Huns A.I.Bernshtam, Sketch of Hun history, L., 1961, pp. 21-118
Huns H.W.Bailey, A Khotanese text concerning the Türks, p. 48
  J.R.Hamilton, Les Ouighours a I'epoque des Cinq Dynasties, 1955, Page 2
  P.Pelliot et L.Hambis, Ibid., 1, p. 63, 110
  Nobel, Central Asia - the connecting link between East and West, Nagpur. 1952, p. 7-9
  V.F.Minorsky, Sharaf az-Zaman Tahir Marvàzi on China, the Turks and India, London, 1942, p. 29-30
  J.Marquart, , Über das Volkstum der Komanen, 1914, p. 52-54, 59, 70, 74
  Yu.Zuev, ?......?, Works of KirgSSR Academy of Sciences History Institute, issue 4, p.169-170
In Russian
Huns Table of Contents
Yu. Zuev Early Türks: Essays of history
Yu. Zuev Ethnic History of Usuns
Yu. Zuev The Strongest Tribe - Ezgil
Yu. Zuev Ancient Türkic social terms
Yu. Zuev Seyanto Kaganate and Kimeks
Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
© Yu.Zuev  1960
8/15/08 ©TürkicWorld