Register

Umstritten

Jede offene Frage des Atlas, aus allen Artikeln zusammengetragen: die Fragen, die am Kopf eines Artikels benannt sind, und die Sätze, bei denen die Quellen oder die Lesarten auseinandergehen.

Diese Seite und das Menü sind deutsch. Ein Teil der Artikel gibt es auch auf Deutsch, die übrigen sind englisch und als englisch gekennzeichnet.

2124 benannte Fragen und 1655 strittige Aussagen in 950 Artikeln.

Personen

Abangbukurz

  • The number of his brothers: seventeen in the Zhou Shu and the Tongdian, seventy in the Bei Shi

Abaoji

  • Whether the campaign of 924 defeated the Kirghiz, met only scattered groups, or did not touch them
  • Whether the Kirghiz empire ended about 917, in 924, or never extended over Mongolia

Aetius

  • When the usurper John hired the Huns that Aetius led: 424 in one account, 425 in another
  • Whether Aetius and Attila were friends: allies until 451 in two studies; appeased but never friends in a third
  • Whether he left the Alpine passes unguarded in 452 through negligence: so some argue; others say no fifth-century defender held them
  • Why he let the Huns withdraw from Gaul: Jordanes says he feared for Rome if the Goths destroyed them; some scholars hold that he hoped to use the Huns again

Afrasiab

  • When and how the Turanians of the Iranian epic came to be equated with the Turks: the Avesta speaks of Turanians and not of Turks, and the equation is evident in the eleventh century, in Kashgari and in the name of the Karakhanid house
  • The place of the end: the lake Chaechasta of the Avesta, and the lake Khanjast, Urmia in Azerbaijan, of the Shahnameh

Afuzhiluo

  • The year of the secession: 487 in the Gaoche chapter; the Rouran chapter tells it under 492

al-Jarrah ibn Abdallahkurz

  • The numbers given for the battle, and the revenge campaign of Said ibn Amr, which the tradition embellishes
  • The year of the battle: the Arabic accounts give 730, and Theophanes puts the defeat under the year 727/8

Amrak

  • Whether he was the eldest of Bumin's grandsons, as one account of the assembly requires
  • His fate after 582: the sources record nothing
Im Text · 1
  • Another account of the same assembly has Amrak, supported by his faction, refuse to give the throne to his cousin Töremen, and has Ishbara step in. The two accounts agree that Amrak held the throne first and Ishbara after him. They differ on whose hand moved.

An Lushan

  • Whether An Lushan really worked as a commercial interpreter in the frontier markets, which some scholars reject as too typically Sogdian and Étienne de la Vaissière accepts

Anagaikurz

  • Whether the siege and fall of Bosporos belong to 576 or to about 579
  • Whether his name is the same as that of the Rouran khan Anagui

Anagastes

  • His office: master of the soldiers in Thrace according to some scholars; according to others that post was then held by Basiliscus
  • His part in the trick of Chelchal: Chelchal served under Aspar in Priscus; under Anagastes according to some scholars

Anagui

  • Circumstances of death
  • Year of accession: 516 in one account, 520 in its index and in the usual dating
  • The year of Gao Huan's marriage to Anagui's daughter: 546 in the Beishi, 545 in the Zizhi tongjian
  • The suicide: reported without alternative in the Chinese account, but without parallel among steppe rulers of the period, and the court had motive
  • Whether the khagans and the ruling nobility of the Avars of Europe came from the twenty thousand who fled west after his death, or the Avars were a group of other origin that took the name
  • The victory over the Tiele in Dzungaria: Anagui's, in one account; Chounu's, in 516, in the Wei Shu, which gives Anagui only an undated later victory over Yifu
Im Text · 5
  • The literature has carried the suicide from one generation to the next without demur, and it may be right. The doubt raised against it is a fair one. No other ruler in old Turkic or old Mongol history is reported to have taken his own life, under any circumstances.
  • A defeated khan was killed in battle, or killed by his court, or died in his bed. Those were the ways it was done.
  • Anagui was proud and experienced, and by every account power-hungry. He came from a dynasty a hundred and fifty years old. Around him were sons and a nobility who had just watched him lose everything. Some of the people close at hand had reason to shorten his life. The sources are silent. The silence is the whole of the evidence.
  • One modern account has Bumin kill Anagui and have a drinking cup made from his skull.
  • Other views give the Rouran a smaller part in the Avars.

Anankhastkurz

  • Whether Anankhast came to Constantinople as a Göktürk envoy or went to the Göktürks as a Roman one
  • Whether the name is a form of the Germanic Anagast

Anluochen

  • Whether he bore the title khan: not in the Zhou Shu; conferred by the Qi according to some scholars
  • His end: the Zhou Shu stops at his flight, and the Bei Qi Shu at his flight north in the third month of 554
  • The date of the revolt: the Bei Qi Shu gives the third month of 554; a second dating has September 553 with fifty thousand men
Im Text · 1
  • That last statement of the annals is the Qi court's own account of its campaign. No Göktürk or Zhou source confirms it.

Aoshe Shadkurz

  • Whether he and the Yushe Shad, whom the Xin Tang Shu also calls a son of Chula, are one man

Apa (Kirghiz Chancellor)

  • The month of the march: spring 848 in the Jiu Tang Shu, 'apparently' March 848 in a modern dating from the Zizhi tongjian
  • Whether he is the chief of the man on the Begre stele

Ardaric

  • Whether the Gepids became Christian under him: assumed in older scholarship; others find no support for it in the texts

Are Khan

  • What the name Are is: a Turkic word, a tribal name or a Chinese form of another title
  • Whether the Kirghiz ruler invested by the Tang in 847 was Are or his successor
Im Text · 3
  • A Kazakh scholar joined those who identify the word with "father". In his account, aco first meant the head of a large patriarchal family and became the title of a ruler when the state arose.
  • One reply to the identifications with inal and with the tribal name makes three points. The Xin Tang Shu names the heads of tribes after their tribes and the Kirghiz lord by a different word. There is no sound link between inal and the tribe Az. And inal elsewhere names the head of a principality, not of a state.
  • The same words are also taken to say that Are had no means of reaching the court, because his envoys had been killed. Turkic Atlas gives them in this sense under the embassies.

Arsilaskurz

  • Whether Arsilas was the supreme ruler of the Göktürks or only the eldest of the eight leaders among whom the land was divided
  • Whether the name is the Turkic arslan, 'lion', or the name of the Ashina house
  • Whether Arsilas was the eldest son of Istemi, viceroy of Bukhara, and the Shir-i Kishvar of the tale of Abrui
Im Text · 1
  • A third group takes the eight parts to be eight divisions of the western Göktürk realm alone. Arsilas, the oldest of the eight princes, is then the elder son of Istemi. His father set him as shad over the Göktürk half of the Hephthalite lands, with his seat at Bukhara.

Ashide Yuanzhen

  • Year of death
  • Circumstances of death
  • Whether he is Tonyukuk: the identification is that of Friedrich Hirth; the Tang history has Yuanzhen die against the Türgesh before Ilterish, and Tonyukuk lived thirty years longer
  • The year of his death: before Ilterish's death in 690 to 692 by the order of the Tang history's notices, if the notice is his
Im Text · 2
  • The identification of the two is old. Turkic Atlas sets out the case for it and the case against under Tonyukuk.
  • Either the history has misplaced a death, or Yuanzhen and Tonyukuk are two men. In the second case, one of them fell against the Türgesh before Ilterish's death while the other went on to write the history of the war.

Ashina Funian

  • Whether his execution broke a promise of safe conduct; the chapter records the surrender and the beheading without joining them

Ashina Helu

  • Dates
  • The year of his capture: 657 here, 658 in the Tang annals as Édouard Chavannes reads them, 659 in the dating of Peter B. Golden
  • The beginning of his khanate: 651, the year of the Tingzhou raid and the first Tang campaign, in the Tang annals; 653 in Peter B. Golden
Im Text · 2
  • The Tang annals set the raid and the first campaign against him in 651. Other accounts date his khanate from 653.
  • The Tang annals put the campaign in 657 and the capture in 658. A second dating gives 659.

Ashina Simo

  • Whether the suspicion about his descent reflects a real non-Ashina origin or only his appearance

Askelkurz

  • Whether the Hermichiones of Theophanes were the Göktürks or the people who came to Europe as the Avars
  • Whether Askel is the A-hsi-chieh of the western Göktürks
  • Whether Askel is the Scultor of Corippus
Im Text · 1
  • Modern accounts question the equation of Askel with Scultor.

Attila

  • When Attila and Bleda succeeded Rua: 434 in one reckoning, after the end of 435 in a second
  • The chronology of the Balkan wars: war in 441 and 442 and a peace of Anatolius in 447 in one reckoning; war from 441 to 443, peaces in 443, 448 and 450 in a second
  • How Bleda died: killed by Attila's treachery in Jordanes and the chronicles; in one account Bleda lured Attila into a trap on a boar hunt, and Bleda's own men went over to Attila
  • Who plotted against Attila: the eunuch Chrysaphius through Edeco in Priscus; in one account Attila survived two attempts on his life by Onegesius and his brother Scottas
  • Why he invaded Gaul: Honoria's appeal, the Frankish succession and Gaiseric in Priscus; Gaiseric's bribe in Jordanes; the contest with Aetius for influence among the Franks according to some, the wish to remove Aetius first according to others
  • How far his rule reached: estimates differ, from the Alps to the Baltic and from the Caspian to near the Rhine; from Central Asia to Gaul; or only Pannonia and the adjoining lands
  • Whether his name is Gothic, a diminutive of atta, father, Turkic, or Yeniseian

Awusili Irkinkurz

  • The year of the raid: 601 in the Sui Shu's chapter on the Göktürks, 602 in the Zizhi tongjian and the biography of Zhangsun Sheng
  • The form of his name: Awusili in the Sui Shu and the Bei Shi, Sili in the Zizhi tongjian and the biography of Zhangsun Sheng

Axian Shadkurz

  • Whether the Zhou Shu's 阿史那子 is Ashina's son or the son named Ashina; the Tongdian has the second
  • Whether he belongs to the Suo story, as in the Zhou Shu, or to the story of the cave, as in the Sui Shu

Bagatur (Modu Chanyu)

  • Whether 冒頓 renders *baġatur or a personal name that cannot be recovered; the reconstruction carries a question mark in the literature, and the competing view proposes no rival sound
  • Whether the name was borne from birth or given on his rise
  • Whether the twenty-four Ten Thousand Horsemen were his creation or an older order that the Shiji records under his reign
  • Whether the Yuezhi left the Dunhuang country for the Ili after his campaign of 177 to 176 BC or only under Laoshang
Im Text · 7
  • What stays open is the equation itself, not the ranking. Peter B. Golden sets Bagatur against 冒頓 with a question mark. Others decline to reconstruct at all. They treat the graphs as a personal name that cannot be recovered.
  • Others argue that the Oghuz story is older than Bagatur and was laid later over his youth. In that case the killing of the father is a motif of the epic and not of history.
  • Others take the same word for the earliest form of ordu, "camp".
  • One older reading names the Tuge instead, the people who later supplied the strongest Xiongnu tribe, and tentatively reads their name as Türk.
  • Some scholars argue that the Xiongnu were a mass of peoples that stretched from the eastern end of the Tian Shan to the west, and that the peoples between the Volga and Turkestan were their kin.
  • A Turkish national-historical interpretation regards the Xiongnu realm as the first of a single line of Turkic states and as the model of the later ones.
  • The left and right wings and the twenty-four commanders of the Xiongnu resemble the two branches and the twenty-four tribes of the Oghuz, and some writers have taken Oghuz Khan for Bagatur. The Oghuz epic was written about fifteen hundred years later, however, and knowledge of twenty-four Oghuz tribes goes back no further than the eleventh century.

Bagha Khan

  • Year of death
  • Circumstances of death
  • Dates
  • Whether he was the Šāba of the Persian tradition
  • Whether he fell in 588 at the Hyrcanian rock or the defeat belongs to Tardush's son at Herat in 589
  • Whether Bahram's arrow is history or a topos
  • His end: the Sui Shu has him die of a stray arrow on a second campaign in the west, without a year; the Hyrcanian rock of 588 has been identified with that campaign
Im Text · 4
  • In this second account the army destroyed by Bahram was Tardush's. It was led by Tardush's son, the Šāba whom the Perso-Islamic tradition calls the greatest king of the Turks. The defeat was at Herat in 589.
  • That account reports Lev Gumilev's identification of Šāba with a younger son of the Göktürk ruler of the Bukharan tradition and with a figure of the Chinese sources. It says this identification cannot be established.
  • The first account rests on the identification of the Chinese Baga Khan with the Persian Šāba. This identification is old. It remains a hypothesis.
  • The Persian name Šāba, if it is his, is the only name a non-Chinese source gives any Göktürks of the civil war.

Bagha Shadkurz

  • His relation to Tong Yabgu: served under him in the histories; his younger brother according to some scholars
  • Whether he is the Ziebel of Theophanes, as Mikhail Artamonov proposed
Im Text · 1
  • The usual view identifies Ziebel with Tong Yabgu himself. The question is argued.

Baghatur Khan

  • The year of the murder: the end of 628 in the Zizhi tongjian, 627 in the Cefu yuangui, 630 in one modern account
  • Who killed Tong Yabgu: his paternal uncle in the Chinese histories; one modern account reports the view that it was his own son
  • Whether the Moheduo Khan who sent an embassy in 624 was the same man

Bahram Chobin

  • Whether he killed the Göktürk leader with an arrow: Tabari, Thaʿālibī and the epic say so; some scholars regard it as a topos of Persian storytelling
  • Where and when he beat the Göktürks: scholars give the Hyrcanian rock in April 588, Herat in 589, or two campaigning seasons in 587 and 588
  • Why he revolted: the quarrel over the booty in Sebeos and Thaʿālibī, his defeat by the Romans in Albania in Theophylact
  • How and where he died: at Suyab, at the court of a khagan beyond the Oxus, or at Balkh
Im Text · 1
  • The defeat has been placed at Herat in 589. It makes the Göktürk leader Šāba, Tardush's son, "the greatest king of the Turks" of the Perso-Islamic tradition.

Balamberkurz

  • Whether Balamber existed: a shadowy figure for some; an invention of the Goths, to explain who conquered them, for others; repeated without comment as king of the Huns by a third group; at most the leader of a tribe or of a band of warriors for a fourth
  • Whether his name is Hunnic or a Gothic form
Im Text · 2
  • Whether Balamber lived is argued. Some call him a shadowy figure and leave the question open. They note that Cassiodorus would not have married a Gothic princess to a man who was not some kind of king.
  • It has also been held that Balamber never existed. The Goths, they say, invented him to explain who had conquered them.

Ban Chao

  • The years in AD of his campaigns, which are reckoned from the reign names and not given as such in the sources
  • The length of his stay in the Western Regions: the Hou Han Shu counts thirty-one years, his sister's petition thirty

Bars Beg

  • When the Göktürks made him khan: 693 in one account, the beginning of the eighth century in another
  • Whether the Kirghiz khan killed in the Soŋa forest is Bars Beg, and whether he fell in 710 or in 711
  • Whether the stelae of Altyn-köl are his memorial

Basich

  • Dates
  • The date of the raid: scholars give 395, about 415 to 420 or a little later, or the war of 423 to 425
  • The origin of the name: either a Turkish diminutive meaning little captain or a Turkic word meaning feline-like

Bayanchur Khan

  • How much of the Šine-Usu text is recoverable; the stone is badly worn
  • The year of his accession: 747 in the Chinese histories, 748 by the animal year of the Tariat inscription
Im Text · 1
  • The Tariat stone dates the capture of the khan a year later, to the monkey year, 744.

Bi Chanyu

  • Whether his claim as eldest son of the former chanyu meant the eldest son of Wuzhuliu or the eldest of Huhanye's grandsons

Bigilas

  • How much gold Attila took from him: the fifty pounds for Edeco in the account of the embassy; a hundred pounds received from Chrysaphius in the following fragment

Bilge Khan

  • Which of the two brothers was the elder: the Tang history and the inscriptions make Bilge the elder, at eight against seven when their father died; the literature available here has been read both ways
  • The year of his death: 734 by the inscription's Dog year and by the Tang Huiyao, 732 by the Jiu Tang Shu's year-count
  • His year of birth, 683 or 684, from his age at his father's death
Im Text · 1
  • The Chinese text is dated 19 August 735. The Turkic text took a month and four days to cut, and so the stone was raised on 24 September 735, after his death, by his son Tengri Khan.

Bleda

  • Which part of the Huns he ruled: the eastern tribes according to some; unknown according to others
  • How he died: through Attila's treachery in Jordanes and the chronicles; in one account after he had himself tried to trap Attila on a boar hunt
  • Whether he was the elder brother: so in Theophanes, who drew on Priscus

Bochankurz

  • Whether Bochan's army took Bosporos in 576 or about 579

Bögü Khan

  • Whether the conversion was a religious decision, a Sogdian one, or both

Börü Khankurz

  • Whether he was the son of Rudan Khan, as the Sui Shu, the Tongdian and the Zizhi tongjian have it, or Rudan Khan himself, as the Bei Shi has it
  • Whether he was the Buli Khan who came with Mukan against the Qi in 563

Börü Shad

  • The form of his name in the Armenian and Greek texts

Boyla Kutlug Yargan

  • Dates
  • Whether the stone dates from the end of the eighth century or from after 840
  • Whether the first sentence says that he drove out the Yaglakar khans or that he came to them

Bulan

  • Dates
  • Whether a Khazar king named Bulan lived
  • When the conversion took place: the long version of the reply gives a date that cannot stand
  • Whether Bulan was a khagan or a military commander, the Beg
  • Whether Bulan is the man called Bulkhan in the Georgian chronicle
  • What the name means
Im Text · 11
  • Some scholars regard Sabriel as Obadiah. A second takes him for Bulan under a Hebrew name.
  • The long version of the reply puts the event 340 years before the letter, which gives about 620.
  • That date cannot stand, because the story has a Muslim judge at the king's court.
  • One suggestion is that a copyist added the figure. A second suggestion is that 240 was meant, which gives about 720.
  • Halevi's Kuzari dates the conversion to the year 4500 of the Jewish era, which is about 740.
  • The Georgian chronicle is said to give Bulkhan as the name of the Khazar commander in the raid of 730.
  • If Bulan and Bulkhan are one man, the khagan took part in that campaign.
  • Omeljan Pritsak interprets Bulan as a military commander, a Beg and not a khagan. In his view, Bulan took up Judaism privately between about 730 and 740, after the campaign to Ardabil.
  • The name has several proposed meanings. Some scholars give "sage", and others deny it. A second proposes a Turkish animal name such as "hawk" or "panther".
  • Some scholars think that the reply is in the main authentic, with nothing decisive against its factual contents.
  • Whether a king of this name lived, and when, remains open.

Buli Shadkurz

  • Who carried off the women of Bingzhou: Chula's men in the Jiu Tang Shu, Buli Shad's horsemen as the Xin Tang Shu can be read

Buluzhen Khan

  • The year of his death: the Wei Shu tells his fall in one breath with his elevation in 414; Peter B. Golden begins Datan's reign in 414

Bumin Khan

  • Whether Bumin personally led the raid of 542
  • Date of Tuwu's death
  • Months of the two engagements of 552
  • Parentage of the Western Wei princess Changle
Im Text · 7
  • That value differs between reconstruction systems, so the equation, though generally accepted among historians, is not undisputed.
  • One edition of the inscriptions goes further and holds that the form Bumın in them is a mistake for Tumen, the form the Chinese histories give.
  • The meaning of the first element is contested. The translations that modern accounts offer for it are speculation.
  • The insult itself can be understood as a statement about the Ashina's occupation, as a statement about their political subordination, or as both at once.
  • Her parentage is disputed. She does not appear among the daughters of either emperor reigning that year.
  • Doubt has been raised about Anagui's suicide. The grounds are that no comparable case is recorded for a steppe ruler of the period and that a defeated ruler was more usually killed by his own court.
  • Whether this arrangement amounted to a division of the polity at Bumin's death, or was a standing structure that only became visible afterwards, remains disputed.

Charatonkurz

  • Whether Charaton succeeded Donatus: so according to some scholars; according to others the text says nothing of a succession
  • Where the Huns of Olympiodorus lived: north of the Black Sea, reached by sea, according to some scholars; in Hungary, reached across the Adriatic, according to others
  • The origin of the name: Turkic qara ton, black mantle, or Iranian
Im Text · 1
  • Where the Huns of Olympiodorus lived is argued. Some scholars put them north of the Black Sea, which Olympiodorus crossed by ship. Others put them in Hungary, which he reached across the Adriatic.

Chebi Khan

  • Where the Golden Mountain of his camp lay, and whether it is the Altai

Chelchal

  • Under whom he served: next in rank after Aspar in Priscus; under Anagastes according to some scholars
  • Who ordered the attack after the massacre: Aspar in Priscus; some scholars take the name for Anagastes
  • Whether his words about the Huns living off the Goths refer to the days of Attila: so according to some scholars
  • Whether the trick succeeded: the Goths and Huns soon made common cause again against the Romans, according to some scholars

Chorpan Tarkhankurz

  • Who sent him: the prince of the north in the Armenian account, Börü Shad as the yabgu's deputy according to some scholars
  • Whether he was a Göktürk or a Khazar commander: the Armenian history calls his men Khazars

Chounu Khan

  • The victory over the Tiele in Dzungaria: Chounu's in 516 by the Wei Shu; Anagui's after 520, as in the usual account
Im Text · 1
  • The usual account gives this western victory to Anagui, after 520, as the act that made the Tölös subjects again. The Wei Shu, by contrast, gives it to Chounu in 516. To Anagui it gives only a later, undated victory over Mi'etu's brother Yifu.

Chrysaphius

  • How to judge his policy towards the Huns: as the payments of a weak government or as the only course open to him

Chula Khan

  • Circumstances of death
  • The cause of his death: sudden in the Jiu Tang Shu; poisoning by Zheng Yuanshu in the Zizhi Tongjian on one view
  • The age of Shibi's son at the succession: seventeen on one view; 'young' in the Jiu Tang Shu

Datan Khan

  • The size of his army in 424: up to sixty thousand according to some scholars; the Wei Shu gives no number for the raid, only the fifty-odd ranks around the emperor
  • Whether his name was Tatar and whether the Otuz Tatar of the inscriptions descend from his following: a reconstruction reported by some scholars
  • The blow that broke him: 424 in an older reckoning, 429 in the Wei Shu and in Peter B. Golden

Dengizich

  • The date of the embassy of Attila's sons to Leo: about 466 in two studies, 468 or 469 in a third, 467 in a fourth
  • The date of the attack on Bassiana: some scholars place it between 463 and 466

Dengzhu

  • His relation to Anagui: uncle in the Zhou Shu and the Bei Shi, younger cousin 從弟 in the Bei Qi Shu, son according to some scholars
  • Whether 登注 of the Bei Qi Shu and 鄧叔子 of the Zhou Shu are the same man: the names are close in sound, the careers are not reconcilable
  • Where he went in 552: the Zhou Shu keeps him in the steppe as the remnant's ruler, the Bei Qi Shu has him flee south to the Qi with Anluochen
  • The place of Issik's victory: Mount Mulai 木賴山 north of Woye in the Zhou Shu; the Bei Shi writes Mount Lai, and the Zhou Shu's own collation note records the variant
  • Whether the Qi emperor forced him to march against the Göktürks in 553: some scholars think so; the Zhou Shu puts him among the Rouran who went west to the Wei
Im Text · 2
  • They make him Anagui's 從弟, a younger cousin. The Zhou Shu, by contrast, makes him Anagui's uncle.
  • This raises the question whether 登注 and 鄧叔子 are one man or two. The evidence does not settle it.

Dieluozhikurz

  • Whether the Dieluoshi taken in 630 after the killing of the princess Yicheng, her son or Ilig's, is the same man

Diqinchakurz

  • Whether he was Ishbara's younger cousin, as the Sui Shu has it, or his uncle, as one modern account has it
  • Whether he went over to Apa, as the Sui Shu has it, or fled to Tardush

Diwan

  • How much of the story is court gossip preserved by a hostile chronicler; it is the only record of a Rouran shaman by name

Dou Xian

  • The size of the force that went out in 89: eight thousand Han horse with thirty thousand of the Southern Chanyu in chapter 89, and in chapter 23 columns of four thousand, ten thousand and eight thousand, plus the Southern Chanyu's own, while the inscription counts thirty thousand cavalry
  • Whether the man Dou Xian proposed as Northern Chanyu is the Yuchujian of chapter 89 or the Atong of chapter 45
  • Where Mount Jiluo, Mount Yanran and Mount Jinwei lay: the sources give routes and distances, and the identification with places on the map is modern; one modern reading puts Mount Jiluo near the Gaoque pass north of the Ordos, close to the frontier
  • The year of his death: reckoned from the fourth year of Yongyuan, AD 92
Im Text · 1
  • It separates the fort Jilu on the frontier from Mount Jiluo, and puts the mountain near the Gaoque pass north of the Ordos, a gate between two peaks on what had long been an ordinary Han frontier. This account places the battle near the border and holds the Xiongnu defeat smaller than the stone claims.

Du-lü-shi Alpkurz

  • Who escorted the princess: ten dagan, ten officials with the title tarqan, or a general named Du-lü-shi Alp

Duliukurz

  • Whether he is the same man as Yangsu Tegin, the father of Niri Khan, as some scholars hold
  • Whether Shegui was his son and Tardush's grandson, as the Sui Shu has it, or a younger brother of Tardush, as other scholars have it

Duman (Touman)

  • How long he reigned: the sources give no year of accession, only the year of his death
  • Whether the Xiongnu union was formed under him in answer to Qin pressure, or existed before it
Im Text · 2
  • A fourth account lets the steppe empire grow out of the margins. Groups of half-nomads from the edges of China, the Altai forests and the oases moved into the open steppe. There, once they had left the compromises of border life behind, they took the form that appears with Duman and Bagatur.
  • It has been doubted that he already used the title chanyu. The title imitates the Chinese huangdi, which the First Emperor adopted in 221 BC. For a ruler who had just been beaten by Meng Tian it would be an arrogant claim. Bagatur may have been the first to take the title, and the Shiji's "Touman chanyu" may have been written back into the text later.

Duoxifukurz

  • Whether the Eletmiš Yabgu of the Ongin inscription is Duoxifu, and whether Duoxifu is the father of the dead man of the stone or the dead man himself
Im Text · 2
  • The Xin Tang Shu dates the rising to 682, the Jiu Tang Shu to 683. The literature follows 682.
  • The two editions agree that the Eletmiš Yabgu is Duoxifu, and they disagree on who lies under the stone.

Dusuliukurz

  • Who lost the treasures at chupu: Yami, by the Sui Shu and the Zizhi tongjian; the emperor, in one translation
  • Whether the Dusu who submitted to Yami with other Göktürks in Zhangsun Sheng's biography is Dusuliu

Edeco

  • Whether he meant to kill Attila: Priscus could not decide whether he agreed with the eunuch in pretence or revealed the plot from fear of Orestes
  • Whether he was the father of Odoacer: so according to some scholars; rejected by others

Ellackurz

  • Whether Ellac is a name or a title: some scholars take it as the Turkic ilik, ruler, applied to the governor of the Akatziri
  • Whether he was Attila's favourite: so in Jordanes; Priscus saw Attila show affection only to his younger son Ernak

Emperor Gaozu of Han

  • The size of the force that encircled him: four hundred thousand horse in the Shiji, more than three hundred thousand in the Han Shu
  • The size of Lu Wan's following when he went over to the Xiongnu: several thousand in the Shiji, nearly ten thousand in the Han Shu
  • Why Bagatur opened the ring: the consort's words, the failure of Xin's generals to appear, or both

Emperor Wu of Han

  • The years of his reign: 141 to 87 BC on one reckoning, 140 to 87 BC on the count by reign names
  • The end of Wang Hui, who proposed the Mayi ambush: beheaded in the Shiji, dead in prison in the Han Shu annals
  • How the chanyu took Wudi's message of 110 BC: with rage in the Shiji, with fear in the Han Shu annals
  • The years in which the four commanderies of Hexi were set up: Wuwei and Jiuquan in 121 BC and Zhangye and Dunhuang in 111 BC in the annals of Wudi, other years in other sources
  • The expedition of Li Guangli in 97 BC: with 100,000 foot in the Shiji, with 70,000 in the Han Shu; the Shiji also runs it together with the expedition of 90 BC
Im Text · 2
  • Other sources set the four commanderies in other years.
  • In 97 BC, Li Guangli led sixty thousand horse out of Shuofang. The Han Shu counts seventy thousand foot with him, the Shiji a hundred thousand.

Empress Ashina

  • Her age at death: thirty-two sui in the Zhou Shu; thirty-one years by the study's dates 551–582, which some scholars follow; thirty-three where the same dates are counted differently
  • The location of her tomb: the Xiaoling of the emperor Wu near Xianyang, Shaanxi, by the Zhou Shu and the study; Xinjiang has also been proposed

Er Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, since the Shiji dates by the Han eras and gives the length of the reign as three years
  • The year of his accession against the Dayuan campaign: the Shiji chapter on the Xiongnu sets the march on Dayuan in the year of his accession, the sixth of Yuanfeng, and the chapter on Dayuan and the annals of the Han Shu set it in the first year of Taichu, the year after
  • The season of Zhao Ponu's march: spring in the Shiji chapter on the Xiongnu, autumn in the annals of the Han Shu; the loss of his army falls in the summer according to the Shiji chapter on Dayuan

Ernakkurz

  • Where he settled: at the far edge of Lesser Scythia, the Dobruja, according to Jordanes and some scholars; at the confluence of the Danube and the Tisza according to others, on an emended text
  • Whether he is the Irnik of the Bulgarian princes' list, and whether that name stands first in it or second
  • Whether the king who sent envoys to the Northern Wei to ransom the merchants of Sute was Ernak, as has been proposed on the basis of the Wei Shu

Faghfurakurz

  • Dates
  • The year of the battle in which he fell: 588 or 589

Futu Khan

  • The year of his accession: 506 in Peter B. Golden, from the first embassy; the Wei Shu gives none

Fuzhulei Chanyu

  • Whether Huhanye's charge to pass the realm to his younger brother named Qiemoche alone or all his sons in turn
  • How many sons Wang Zhaojun bore Huhanye: one in the Han Shu, two in the Hou Han Shu

Gaiseric

  • Whether he bribed Attila to attack the Visigoths: so in Jordanes; in Priscus Attila only meant to earn his gratitude; the story is variously judged grotesque, unlikely, or an encouragement to a plan Attila already had

Heraclius

  • Who his Göktürk ally was: Tong Yabgu himself, a Khazar leader under Göktürk rule, or the holder of the title Yabgu Khagan

Hermanarickurz

  • Year of death
  • Circumstances of death
  • How he died: a voluntary death in Ammianus; of a wound from the Rosomoni and at the age of 110 in Jordanes
  • How large his realm was: wide and rich lands in Ammianus; an empire of many northern peoples, compared with Alexander's, in Jordanes

Hesa Khan

  • Whether the khan Hesa and the minister Kürabir are one man
  • How the khan before Hesa died, and whether the Jiu Tang Shu names him rightly

Heshana Khan

  • His descent: one view makes Tardush his great-uncle; the competing theories on the descent of the later western khans, from Istemi or from Apa, are reported without deciding
  • The number of Tiele chiefs he executed: several hundred in the Sui Shu

Hezhi Khankurz

  • Whether he was a Göktürk khan or the ruler of a neighbouring people

Honoria

  • Whether the affair happened as told: told with gusto by Priscus and those who copied him; Byzantine court gossip unknown to any western writer, according to some scholars
  • What she asked of Attila: rescue from a hateful marriage, sent with her ring and money; an offer of herself in marriage, as Attila understood it
  • What part she played in Attila's turn to the West: his pretext according to some scholars; a story too slight to explain a great campaign, against geopolitical motives, according to others

Hormizd IV

  • Whether his mother was a daughter of Istemi: Sebeos, Tabari and aṯ-Ṯaʿālibī name no khagan
  • Whether the marriage came before the Hephthalite war, as in Tabari, or sealed the pact on the Oxus about 560
  • The year and place of the decisive battle: April 588 at the Hyrcanian rock, or 589 at Herat

Huhanye Chanyu

  • Whether the submission was a surrender or a use of the Han tributary system on Xiongnu terms
  • Whether his instruction on the succession made the order of brothers the rule of the office or bound his own sons alone

Hulugu Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, not given in BC by the sources; the Han Shu dates his accession to the first year of Taishi and his successor's to the second year of Shiyuan
  • Whether the Right Guli King, named by him as heir, would have taken the throne had the consort and Wei Lü not acted; the Han Shu reports the order as forged and does not say what the nobles would have done

Hunye King

  • The year of the campaigns of Huo Qubing in the west: the second year of Yuanshou in Han Shu 6, which gives 121 BC, but the third year in Han Shu 55
  • How many came over with him: more than forty thousand, styled a hundred thousand (Shiji 110, Han Shu 6 and 94A), or tens of thousands, styled a hundred thousand (Shiji 111 and Han Shu 55)
  • The reading of the name: Hunye 渾邪 or Kunye 昆邪

Huo Qubing

  • The years in BC, which are reckoned from the reign names of the Han emperors, since the sources give no year in BC
  • The year of the first sortie out of Longxi: the second year of Yuanshou in the annals of Wudi and in the sequence of the Shiji, the third year in the Han Shu chapter on Huo Qubing as it is transcribed
  • The heads taken in the first sortie: 8,960 in the Han Shu chapter on Huo Qubing, more than 8,000 in the Han Shu chapter on the Xiongnu, 18,000 in the Shiji chapter on the Xiongnu
  • How the Hunye king came over: by killing the Xiutu king, in the Shiji and Han Shu chapters on the Xiongnu, and with no such killing in the chapters on Huo Qubing
  • The distance of the march out of Dai in 119 BC: more than 2,000 li in the Han Shu and the Shiji chapter on the Xiongnu, more than 1,000 li in the Shiji chapter on Huo Qubing
  • The fief for the night sortie of 123 BC: 1,600 households in the Shiji, 2,500 in the Han Shu
Im Text · 1
  • Others take the golden men for a Han-period cast made after the twelve bronze figures of the First Emperor of Qin. It rejects the Buddha, the Indian god and the Xiongnu god.

Huyandi Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, not given in BC by the sources; the Han Shu dates his accession to the second year of Shiyuan, his successor's to the second year of Dijie, and the five-army campaign to the second year of Benshi
  • Whether the Zhuanqu Yanzhi who set him up with Wei Lü in 85 BC and the Zhuanqu Yanzhi whom his successor set aside are one woman; the Han Shu uses the title for both and does not say
  • The haul of the Wusun and Chang Hui at the court of the Right Guli King: about forty thousand heads in the chapter on the Western Regions, and a figure in the Xiongnu chapter whose text is corrupt
Im Text · 1
  • It has also been argued that the origins of Attila's Huns are to be sought in the dispersal of the Xiongnu after this winter.

Ildicokurz

  • Whether she had any part in Attila's death: none in Priscus as Jordanes gives him; a rumour known to Marcellinus Comes had Attila killed by a woman

Ilig Khan

  • His personal name: Duobi in the Jiu Tang Shu; it has also been argued that the name is unknown and Ilig a title, the same the Chinese give Bumin
  • How he was taken: seized by Zhang Baoxiang in the camp of his kinsman Shaboluo in the Jiu Tang Shu; handed over by his uncle in other accounts
  • The year of the Xueyantuo's secession: 629, with the khan's self-proclamation, in the Jiu Tang Shu; 628 in other treatments
  • The Iron Mountain: the Jiu Tang Shu does not say where it was; the Altai has been proposed
Im Text · 3
  • The Jiu Tang Shu puts the raid in the seventh month. The Zizhi tongjian puts it in the eighth, after Li Shimin had taken the throne.
  • The Jiu Tang Shu names Zhang Baoxiang and Shaboluo's camp instead. The two accounts stand side by side.
  • Ilig, it has been argued, must have been his title, "ruler of the land", the title Bumin was given shortly before his death. His personal name is unknown, and the Orkhon inscriptions do not mention him. The Jiu Tang Shu gives the name Duobi.

Ilterish Khan

  • The year of the rising: 682 in the Xin Tang Shu, 683 in the Jiu Tang Shu
  • The year of his death: the Tianshou period, 690 to 692; the literature writes 691, and the ages of his sons in the inscriptions fit it; one survey writes 692
  • Whether the counsellor who says he made him khan, Tonyukuk, is the Ashide Yuanzhen whom the Tang history gives him as commander
Im Text · 4
  • Gudulu 骨咄祿 renders the Turkic name Kutluk, "possessed of Kut". Kut is the fortune Heaven gives a ruler. One account calls kutlug a title and not a name, and finds the word also as a qualifier of the rank çigşi in a Yenisei epitaph.
  • The Xin Tang Shu dates the rising to 682, the Jiu Tang Shu to 683. The literature follows 682.
  • Tonyukuk says in his own inscription that he joined the shad among the seven hundred. He says that he asked himself "Shall I make him khan?" and did so. Whether Yuanzhen is Tonyukuk is the question the Tonyukuk article treats.
  • The Tang history has Yuanzhen fall in the war against the Türgesh before Gudulu died. The equation has to explain that away.

Inel Khan

  • Whether the Fuju of 699, the Yinie Khan of 714, the Lesser Khan killed in 716 and the Inel Khan of the Tonyukuk stone are one man; some scholars treat them as one
Im Text · 3
  • The best-supported view is that the Fuju of 699, the Inel of the stone, the Yinie of 714 and the Lesser Khan of 716 are one man. The sources do not say it in so many words.
  • One scholar has explained the name as Ini Il instead.
  • The reply is that runic and Uyghur texts hold many names Inal, which may also be formed from ına-.

Irbis Ishbara Yabgu Khan

  • The year of his death: 641 by the sequence of the Jiu Tang Shu, whose last dated notice on him is the investiture of that year
  • His name: Biheduo Yabgu in the Xin Tang Shu, Bobu Tegin in the Jiu Tang Shu
Im Text · 2
  • The Xin Tang Shu gives his name as the Biheduo Yabgu, the Jiu Tang Shu as the Bobu Tegin.
  • Both make him the son of Jiana Shad, a brother of Ishbara Tolis. In the one history Jiana Shad is the elder brother Nishu under another name. In the other he is a younger brother.

Irbis Shegui Khan

  • Whether he is the Yipishekui who, by Artamonov's hypothesis, moved to the Khazar lands about 651 and founded their ruling house; it is reported with reservations
  • The year of his accession: 642 by the sequence of the histories, after Yukuk Shad's flight
Im Text · 3
  • After that the histories do not mention him. One modern hypothesis sends him to the Volga.
  • The Jiu Tang Shu calls his father Moheduo Yipi Khan. One translation treats him as the same man.
  • The hypothesis comes with its problems. The reading of Ashina itself is uncertain. Minorsky preferred to see in Ansā a corruption of īšā, the title of a sub-ruler.

Ishbara Khan

  • The reading of the Bugut inscription's khan as Ishbara
  • When his reign began: 581 by Golden's dating; 582, after Amrak's abdication, by another
  • The size of his army in 585: thirty or forty thousand by one estimate, against Tardush's hundred thousand
Im Text · 1
  • The first published reading, by contrast, says it was set up for Mahan Tegin and tells of events of the years 572 to 580.

Ishbara Tolis Khan

  • The side of the Ili each khan held after 638: the text gives the west to Yukuk Shad and the east to Ishbara Tolis; the translation shows that the text has them reversed
  • Whether Jiana Shad, the father of his successor, was his elder brother Nishu under another name (Xin Tang Shu) or a younger brother (Jiu Tang Shu)
Im Text · 1
  • The two Tang histories disagree about a third brother. The Xin Tang Shu says Nishu was also called Jiana Shad. The Jiu Tang Shu makes Jiana Shad a younger brother of Ishbara Tolis. His successor was Jiana Shad's son, so the difference decides only which brother's line followed him.

Issik Khan

  • The reading of the name: Issik as a title meaning ruler of the state and Kara as the personal name are reconstructions
  • His age: no source gives one

Istemi

  • Date of the battle of Bukhara: 557 or 560
  • Size of the army of 553: a hundred thousand in the Jiu Tang Shu and the older literature, thirty to fifty thousand in another estimate
  • The location of Ektag, where he received Zemarchos: the Altai, or the Tian Shan
  • Whether the marriage with Khosrow's house came before the Hephthalite war, as in Tabari, or sealed the settlement of 560
  • Whether Hormizd IV of Persia was the son of his daughter: Sebeos, Tabari and aṯ-Ṯaʿālibī name no khagan
  • Whether Tabari's Sinjibu and Theophylact's Stembischagan are Istemi
  • Whether Menander's Silziboulos is Istemi, or one of eight Göktürk chiefs
Im Text · 9
  • The older literature long repeated the figure of a hundred thousand.
  • Others consider the figure impossible for a force that had to move fast through unknown country. They put the army at thirty to fifty thousand, since Bumin had beaten the whole Tiele federation with fewer men.
  • None of these writers names the khagan. A grandson of Istemi on the Persian throne therefore remains a hypothesis.
  • Another suggestion has him set his eldest son over the Göktürk half of the Hephthalite lands as shad, with the seat at Bukhara. This son is identified with the Arsilas of Menander and the Shir-i Kishvar of the tale of Abrui.
  • An older count puts the departure in August 568.
  • The word should rather mean White Mountain. It is not settled whether this was the Altai, the golden mountain of the Göktürks and the yabgu's own seat, or a height in the Tian Shan.
  • One author places the camp on a mountain north of Kucha, in the Tian Shan.
  • The words for the Avars and the Romans can be divided differently.
  • Then par is Persia, a name explained from Middle Iranian pahr, and apa urum is Great Rome, meaning Byzantium, so that the list holds no Avars.

Jin Midi

  • What the golden image of the Xiutu king was: later commentators likened it to Buddha images, and other readings take it for the image of a Xiongnu cult of Heaven

Joseph of Khazaria

  • Whether the reply of King Joseph is genuine, in whole or in part
  • Whether Joseph was the khagan or the Beg
  • Whether the two versions of the reply go back to one original
Im Text · 4
  • Doubt about the reply is old, and Buxtorf met it with great suspicion in 1660.
  • Douglas M. Dunlop holds the reply in the main to be genuine.
  • Others have seen in it a later compilation.
  • The verdict decides what the reply is worth. If it is genuine, it is the one text that comes from the Khazar court itself.

Jujian Teginkurz

  • Whether the Lun Tegin of the Zizhi tongjian is the same man

Junchen Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, not given as such in the sources

Justin II

  • Whether Zemarchos left in August 568 or in August 569

Kang Shaolikurz

  • The size of the aid: a thousand horses and two thousand riders in the Jiu Tang Shu and the Tongdian, two thousand horses and five hundred soldiers in the Xin Tang Shu, a thousand horses for trade and then five hundred soldiers with two thousand horses in the Zizhi tongjian

Kang Sumikurz

  • Who brought the Sui empress Xiao to the Tang: Kang Sumi in the chapters on the Göktürks, Zhishi Sili in his own biography

Kapgan Khan

  • The year of his accession: the Tang history puts his brother's death in the Tianshou period, 690 to 692; the literature writes 691
  • The age of twenty-seven in line 51 of the Tonyukuk inscription: his age at accession, or something else in a damaged line
  • The year of the destruction of the Türgesh, 710 or 711
Im Text · 2
  • The Chinese call him Mochuo 默啜. The literature takes this as a Turkic title, Bögü Čor. Other suggestions are beg čor and bük čor, and the word bögü also stands in three Yenisei epitaphs.
  • In a damaged line, the Tonyukuk inscription gives an age of twenty-seven beside his name. It then says that he sat on the throne. If the age is his at accession, he was born in the 660s. The line does not say so.

Katulph

  • The origin of his name: Iranian and Mongolian, Turkic, or not to be determined
  • Whether he was the last king of the Hephthalites, as one line of older scholarship held; the passage that line relied on does not exist
Im Text · 3
  • The origin of the name is open. One proposal joins the Iranian kath, town, to a Mongolian word.
  • A second proposal emends the Greek to a Turkic Kutlug, fortunate.
  • A third takes it as an Old Turkic participle meaning mixed.

Kayen

  • Whether her father was Istemi: Sebeos, Tabari and aṯ-Ṯaʿālibī leave the khagan unnamed
  • The form of her name: Kayēn in Sebeos, a form given as Qāqin in Masʿudi
Im Text · 1
  • Whether he was Istemi is therefore disputed.

Kebinengkurz

  • How much of the Xianbei he actually held, which the Chinese accounts have reason to exaggerate in both directions

Khosrow I

  • The date of the Hephthalite war: given as 557, around 560, or between 563 and 567
  • Whether Khosrow ever held Transoxiana: Dinawari says he did and Tabari's parallel account assumes it; some scholars reject it on Menander's evidence that the Sogdians were Göktürk subjects after the Hephthalite fall
  • Whether the khagan whose daughter Khosrow married, and who in Tabari was the grandfather of Hormizd IV, was Istemi: the Perso-Arabic tradition answers it in two ways
Im Text · 2
  • The fall of the Hephthalites is dated to about 560, to 557, or to between 563 and 567, depending on the study. The decisive fight of the war was the battle of Bukhara.
  • One reckoning dates the sealing of the marriage to 554, another to after the victory. The border agreement is dated to 566 or 571.

Krekakurz

  • The form of the name: Kreka in the excerpts, Erekan in a later passage; Erekan is held to be original on one view
  • The origin of the name: Turkic, the pure princess or pure ruler, or a Turkic or Mongolic word for wife

Kuhanzhenkurz

  • The form of his name: Kuhanzhen in the Sui Shu's chapter on the Göktürks, Kuhezhen in the Bei Shi, the Zizhi tongjian and the annals of the Sui Shu, Kushezhen in the Tongdian

Kül Tegin

  • Which of the two brothers was the elder: the Tang history calls Bilge his elder brother, and the inscription gives Kül Tegin as seven when their father died against Bilge's eight
  • Whether the Chinese general Čača Seŋün of his inscription is the Shazha Zhongyi whom the Tang history has beaten at Mingsha in 705
Im Text · 4
  • The first part of the name is read Kül by some scholars and Köl by others.
  • Among those who read Köl, one scholar takes the word for an addition to the title, as in the Yenisei epitaph of Küç Köl Tutuk.
  • The case for Kül rests on the Mongol word otçigin, "fire prince", and on the nearness of the name to the verb köny-, "to burn".
  • The monument contains Bilge's grief, his address to the people, and the earliest Turkic-language account of the founding of the khaganate. Turkic Atlas gives it in full under the inscription. The literature is divided on which of the two brothers was the elder. The Tang history and the inscription's ages make Bilge the elder by a year. That is the likelier view.

Külüg Bagha

  • Whether the Kirghiz left him on the Orkhon as their representative after 840
  • Whether he is the Kutlug Baga Tarkan named in the Suji inscription

Kunaxolankurz

  • Dates
  • The form of the name: Kunaxolan or Kunaxola
  • The date of the revolt of Turum: about 582, 581–582, or about 598

Kürabir

  • Whether the minister Jueluowu and the khan Hesa are one man, as the wording of the Tang Huiyao has been read
  • How the khan of 839 died: killed by the minister in the Jiu Tang Shu, by his own hand in the Xin Tang Shu and the Tang Huiyao

Kursichkurz

  • Dates
  • The date of the raid: 395, or about 415 to 420 or a little later
  • Whether the Apa Kurçik of the runic fragments from Syria is the Hun leader of 395: so it has been argued, if the text is authentic
  • The origin of the name: a hybrid with a Turkish diminutive ending, or a Turkic word meaning brave-like or noble-like

Kutluk Teginkurz

  • Whether he came to the Tang court once in 618, as in the Xin Tang Shu, or twice, in the fifth and the ninth month, as in the Zizhi tongjian

Lady Poshikurz

  • Whether she came from the Tuyuhun: the Sui Shu calls them the mother's family of the Moheduo Shad, the title Ilig bore before he was khan, and the Tang histories give his mother only as Poshi

Lady Xiang

  • Whether in 611 Pei Ju took the lady herself to the Jade Gate and sent her to her son, or only her trusted attendants and her messenger

Laoshang Chanyu

  • The year of his death: 161 or 160 BC, reckoned from the Han reign years rather than given
  • Whether the Yuezhi left the Dunhuang country for the Ili in his reign or already in his father's campaign of 177 to 176 BC; in a third view they reached the Ili under his father and moved on west in 162 BC
Im Text · 2
  • This count may be the basis for the first levy on the Xiongnu. The argument admits that this is the only mention of a levy in the sources and that the burden in Xiongnu society itself was small.
  • Counted literally from the letters of 162 BC, however, the Shiji's "four years later" would lead to 158 BC, which fits neither reckoning.

Li Deyu

  • Whether the first two letters to the Kirghiz were two missions or one
  • Whether Wuzong's valedictory edict naming Li Deyu regent is genuine

Li Guangli

  • The years in BC, which are reckoned from the reign names of the Han emperors, since the sources give no year in BC
  • When he went over to the Xiongnu: after the campaign of 97 BC in the Shiji chapter on the Xiongnu as it stands, in 90 BC in the Han Shu and in the annals of Wudi
  • The foot soldiers of the campaign of 97 BC: 100,000 in the Shiji, 70,000 in the Han Shu
  • The army of the censor Shangqiu Cheng in 90 BC: 20,000 in the annals of Wudi, more than 30,000 in the Han Shu chapter on the Xiongnu
  • The year of his death, reckoned from the Han Shu's 'a year or more' after the surrender

Li Jiankurz

  • Whether his Chinese surname points to the Kirghiz claim of descent from Li Ling and kinship with the Tang house of Li

Li Ling

  • Whether the Kirghiz descend from Li Ling
  • What the Xiongnu title Right Xiao King (右校王) names, and whether Li Ling ruled a people with it; the Xin Tang Shu calls him Right Worthy King and places him in the Kirghiz past

Li Shi (Tang envoy)

  • Whether the envoy of 845 is the Li Shi who became military governor of Hedong, and the Li Shi of Hedong whom the Xin Tang Shu names in 850

Li Ye (Tang envoy)kurz

  • Whether he reached the Kirghiz, and which ruler he invested
  • Whether he is the Li Ye of Fengxiang whom the Xin Tang Shu names in 850

Maniakh

  • Whether the ruler who sent Maniakh, Sizabul, was Istemi or a lesser chief; and whether the claim that he alone held the power was true
Im Text · 1

Marcian

  • How to judge his refusal of the tribute: as the end of a ruinous payment, or as an untimely act of audacity
  • Whether he encouraged the revolt of the subject peoples after Attila's death: some scholars find it not improbable, others very likely, though without direct evidence

Marwan ibn Muhammadkurz

  • How far the khagan's acceptance of Islam in 737 went, and how long it lasted
  • The size of Marwan's army, for which the Arabic sources give figures

Maximinus

  • The year of the embassy: 449 on one view; 448 in the edition and in one English account
  • Whether he was the Maximinus whom Theodosius sent to Isauropolis in 450: so on one view
  • His religion: a pagan according to the text printed in the edition; a Christian according to a second view, which a third doubts

Meng Tian

  • The strength of his army: one hundred thousand in the Shiji, several hundred thousand in the Han Shu, and slightly over three hundred thousand on a modern count of the force that guarded the wall
  • The year of his death: 210 BC on the modern account; the Shiji gives only the interval after Duman's retreat

Moduo Daguankurz

  • Whether daguan renders the title tarkhan, as one modern study holds

Mugulü

  • Whether the story is history or a formulaic origin tale: Peter B. Golden calls it almost formulaic for the genesis of steppe polities; Yıldırım takes it as a rare precedent of a fugitive founding a state
  • The dating: the Wei Shu places the capture at the end of the reign of Shenyuan (Liwei, d. 277) and the flight under Mudi (Yilu, 307–316), a span that strains one lifetime; some scholars date the founder by an emperor Mu of the Eastern Jin, 345 to 361
Im Text · 2
  • The same tale of a bald ancestor has been found at the head of the Rouran and of the Khitan, and the Khitan name has been explained from a Mongolic word for a bare head.
  • A different dating identifies the emperor Mu of the story with the Jin emperor of that name, who reigned from 345 to 361.

Mukan Khan

  • The dates of the northern campaigns against the Kirghiz and the Khitan: between 554 and 560
  • The storm of 568 and the khan's change of mind: on one view a Chinese narrative pattern rather than a record
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars take the storm as a Chinese narrative pattern: the stubborn barbarian is corrected by an omen and forgiven by a magnanimous emperor. The story is told to the emperor's credit. The sources give only the story.

Mundzuckurz

  • Whether he ruled: no source names him as king according to some scholars; a third co-ruler beside Octar and Rua according to others
  • The meaning of the name: the Turkic word for a bead or for the knob of a standard, or a Germanic name

Nadulu Shadkurz

  • Whether Axian Shad was his grandson, as the Zhou Shu's wording is usually read, or his son Ashina under a title, as in the Tongdian
  • Whether the story makes the name Türk a title of rule before it was the name of a people

Nagai Khan

  • The year of his death: not in the Wei Shu; 506 in Golden, the year of Futu's first embassy

Natra

  • The reading of the name, which the translator of Tabari marks with a query

Niri Khan

  • Year of death
  • Dates
  • The year of his death: before 600 on the Sui Shu's account of his widow, after Tardush's flight in the Xin Tang Shu, probably 603 according to some, 604 according to others
  • Whether the alliance with the khan of the west was the princess Dayi's, as in the Sui Shu and the Bei Shi, or Tulan's, as in the Tongdian
  • His descent: a grandson of Mukan in one modern account; in another, a grandson of Tardush, if his father Yangsu Tegin is Duliu
  • Whether he wrote the khagan's letter to the emperor Maurice, as one modern account holds
Im Text · 1
  • Whether the western khans of these years descend from the line of Istemi or from Apa remains argued.

Nishu Bagha Shad

  • The year of the Tang investiture: 633 in the Jiu Tang Shu and the Tongdian, 632 in the Zizhi tongjian and the Cefu yuangui
  • Whether he was also called Jiana Shad, as the Xin Tang Shu reports

Nishufu Khan

  • Whether he was of the Ashina; the chapter does not say

Obadiah of Khazariakurz

  • Dates
  • Whether the reform of Obadiah took place, since the reply of King Joseph is the only source for it
  • When he reigned: some scholars put the reform about 800
  • Whether Obadiah was a khagan or the Beg, and whether he forced the khagan to take up Judaism
  • Whether the passage on Obadiah belongs to the original reply or is a later insertion
Im Text · 8
  • Obadiah is a Khazar king who appears only in the reply of King Joseph to Hasdai ibn Shaprut.
  • The long version calls him a king "from his grandchildren", and the short version calls him one of Bulan's descendants.
  • The reply calls Obadiah righteous and upright. It says that he renewed the kingdom and established the law as it should be.
  • He built synagogues and houses of learning. He gathered many sages of Israel and paid them with silver and gold. They explained to him the twenty-four books of the Bible, the Mishnah and the Talmud, and the order of prayers.
  • Some scholars date the reform to about 800.
  • Omeljan Pritsak draws a two-stage picture. In the first stage, Bulan, a military commander, took up Judaism privately. In the second, between 799 and 809, the Beg Obadiah made the conversion official.
  • Pritsak adds that the Beg then forced the khagan to follow him.
  • The reform appears in one letter, whose authenticity is itself debated. Where it fits in the history of the Khazar conversion therefore remains open.

Octarkurz

  • Which part of the Huns he ruled: the western lands in modern Hungary, with dealings with the western Romans, according to some scholars
  • How many Huns the Burgundians defeated: 10,000 in Socrates, a figure held to be much exaggerated

Ögä Khan

  • Whether the clans raised him or he proclaimed himself khan
  • Where he took refuge after Shahu Mountain: with the Shiwei in the Jiu Tang Shu, with the Black Carts in the Xin Tang Shu
  • Where and by whom he was killed: by a Uyghur minister in the Altai region in the Jiu Tang Shu, by the Black Carts in the Xin Tang Shu

Onegesius

  • Whether he plotted against Attila: in one account Attila survived two attempts on his life by Onegesius and his brother Scottas; in Priscus he refuses every Roman offer
  • The origin of the name: Germanic according to some scholars, while others find the evidence inadequate to decide

Orestes

  • When he entered Attila's service: perhaps in 433, when Attila may have come to Italy with Aetius, according to some scholars; in the second half of the 440s according to others
  • To whom Aetius ceded the land on the Save where Orestes lived: to Attila according to some scholars, against the common view that it was Rua
  • Whether Odoacer, who put him to death, was the son of his fellow envoy Edeco: so according to some scholars; rejected by others

Ozmish Khan

  • Peter B. Golden makes Ozmïš the chieftain of the Basmïl who was proclaimed khan in 742; the Jiu Tang Shu makes him the Göktürk Left Shad against whom the Basmïl rose.
  • Who he was: the Left Shad himself, in the Jiu Tang Shu; in the Xin Tang Shu the Left Shad is Pan Kül Tegin, who set up two sons of Bilge in turn before the yabgu Guduo killed them and took the throne, and Ozmish is Pan Kül Tegin's son, raised by the people after the coalition killed the yabgu

Parmudha

  • Whether he and his father were Göktürk princes or rulers of one of the small Sogdian dynasties subject to the Göktürks
  • Whether he is the Ye-li tegin who founded a temple in Kashmir

Pei Ju

  • How Pei Ju brought about the death of Princess Dayi: by asking to go to Tulan and persuade him, in the biography of Pei Ju; by telling the envoys of Yami that the marriage would follow her death, in the chapter on the Göktürks; both in the Zizhi tongjian
  • Whether Pei Ju and Yami were in secret correspondence during the war with Tulan, and whether Pei Ju offered Yami the princess Anyi in 597 as the price of Dayi's death
  • The year of the sacrifice on Mount Heng to which the states drawn by Pei Ju came: 607 in the Sui Shu, 608 in the Zizhi tongjian
  • Who gave Gaozu the advice to grant Tong Yabgu the marriage and to befriend the distant and attack the near: Pei Ju in the Tang Huiyao, the Cefu yuangui and the Zizhi tongjian; Feng Deyi in the Tongdian

Poliuhan Baling

  • Dates
  • The year of the rising: 523 in the Zizhi Tongjian, the third month of 524 in the annals of the Wei Shu
  • Whether he descended from the Southern Xiongnu, as some scholars infer from the origin the Bei Qi Shu gives the Poliuhan surname
  • Whether the Kongque whom Anagui beheaded in the Wei Shu is the Kongque who went over to Erzhu Rong in the Bei Qi Shu
Im Text · 2
  • The date stands in two forms. The annals of the Wei Shu put the rising in the third month of 524. The Zizhi Tongjian tells it under 523. It places the rising after the garrison of Huaihuang had killed its commander over grain he withheld during a Rouran raid.
  • If the two are one man, the two accounts cannot both be true. The sources do not say which is wrong.

Poluomen Khan

  • Whether he counts as a khan of the Rouran: the Wei Shu records his elevation and title; the usual ruler lists pass from Chounu to Anagui without him
Im Text · 1
  • The usual lists of Rouran khans pass over him. The chapter that lists the khans does not.

Poshi Teginkurz

  • His father: one view makes him a son of Duliu and grandson of Tardush

Princess Qianjin

  • Dates
  • When she received the title Princess Dayi: with Xu Pinghe's embassy of 584 by the Zizhi tongjian, after Ishbara's submission of 585 by the Sui Shu
  • The year of her death: 593 in the Zizhi tongjian; the Sui Shu gives no year; one account ties it to Yami's embassy of 597
  • Who killed her: Tulan in his tent after Yami's slander, in the Sui Shu; Yami, in one account

Princess Taihe

  • Which sister of Muzong she was: the tenth younger sister, or the fifth
  • Her place among Xianzong's daughters: seventeenth of eighteen, or eighteenth of nineteen
  • Whether the escort that the Kirghiz gave her was ten officers of the rank of dagan or a general with others
  • The city that Ögä asked the Tang to lend him: Tiande, or Zhenwu
  • The month of Wang Hui's mission to Ögä: the eighth month or the twelfth month of 841
  • Where Ögä's camp lay on the night of the attack: at Zhenwu, or eighty li from the Youzhou frontier
  • The day of her entry into Chang'an: the twenty-fifth day of the second month, a day at the start of the third month, or the third month
  • Her title after the return: Dingan or Anding
  • How many imperial princesses stayed away from her reception: six or seven

Princess Xinyikurz

  • The year of the marriage: the first month of 614 in the Sui Shu and the Bei Shi; 611, together with the title Heshana Khan, in one modern account

Qiedihou Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, not given in BC by the sources; the Han Shu dates his son's accession to the first year of Taishi, 96 BC, while one list of reigns ends his reign in 97 BC
  • Whether Li Guangli's surrender belongs to the campaign of 97 BC, as the transmitted Shiji has it, or to the campaign of 90 BC, as the Han Shu has it

Qinyu Shadkurz

  • The year of his death: the Sui Shu gives none; some scholars place the events around it in 593

Que Dadu Shad

  • The order of events in 618: in the Zizhi tongjian he submitted to the Tang after his flight to the Tuyuhun, in the Xin Tang Shu before his alliance with Li Gui

Qutayba ibn Muslim

  • How far the Göktürks and the Türgesh intervened in Sogdiana during his campaigns
Im Text · 1
  • How far the steppe intervened during Qutayba's own campaigns is argued.

Rehan Teginkurz

  • The year of his release: 621 in the Jiu Tang Shu, 622 in the Xin Tang Shu and the Zizhi tongjian
  • Whether Rehan is his name or the office the Tongdian writes 熱汗

Right Shad (d. 741)

  • His name: the Tang history gives none
  • The year: 741 by the order of the Jiu Tang Shu's notices; the lower chapter of the Xin Tang Shu tells the collapse with other men, Pan Kül Tegin and the yabgu Guduo, and does not mention the killing

Rua

  • Year of death
  • The year of his death: 434, after 435, or shortly after 425
  • When the tribute of 350 pounds began: about 430 according to some scholars; in the 410s according to others
  • Whether Aetius ceded him a part of Pannonia: so according to some scholars; according to others no text warrants it
  • The origin of the name: Germanic according to some scholars, a Germanized Turkic name according to others

Rudan Khankurz

  • Whether he was the father of the Buli Khan, as the Sui Shu, the Tongdian and the Zizhi tongjian have it, or the Buli Khan himself, as the Bei Shi has it

Rudan Teginkurz

  • The year of his embassy: 588 according to some scholars, with the Cefu Yuangui entering the jade staff under 587; the year of Qinyu Shad's death by the Sui Shu, which gives no number; 593 by one translation of the Sui Shu; the annals of the Sui Shu record a tegin from Tulan in 591

Šāba

  • Dates
  • His identity: Bagha Khan, Ishbara's brother, by an old equation; a son of Tardush on one view, identified with a younger son known from the Bukharan tradition; not a Turk in the strict sense by the translator's judgement
  • The year of his death: 588, the eleventh year of Hormizd, by Tabari's reckoning; 589 at Herat on one view
  • Whether the name is personal or the dynastic name Zhaowu of the Oxus princes
Im Text · 1
  • The equation of the Chinese Baga Khan with the Persian Šāba is old. It is a hypothesis.

Scottas

  • Whether he plotted against Attila: according to a modern account Attila survived two attempts on his life by Onegesius and his brother Scottas
  • The origin of the name: hardly Turkish because of its double initial consonant according to some scholars; a Germanic Skutta according to others

Sebükteginkurz

  • Whether the Pand-nama, which tells his origins, was written by Sebüktegin himself

Shegui Khan

  • Year of death
  • Dates
  • His place in the Ashina genealogy: the Sui Shu and the Xin Tang Shu make him the son of Duliu and the grandson of Tardush, which puts him a generation lower than if he were Tardush's younger brother
  • The end of his reign: 618 or 619 in one reckoning; the Xin Tang Shu still has him send envoys in 619; a different interpretation of the Tang notice on Persia puts Tong Yabgu on the throne before 616
  • The year of the attack on Heshana: 611 in the literature; the Sui Shu sets the plan in the sixth year of Daye, 610, and dates the attack itself no closer
Im Text · 5
  • The two statements of his descent are not reconciled.
  • The attack and the title fall in 611. The Sui Shu sets Pei Ju's plan in 610 and dates the attack no more closely.
  • One reckoning puts his death in 618 or 619. The Xin Tang Shu, however, still has Shegui's envoys at Chang'an in 619.
  • A second reckoning dates the accession of the Yabgu Khan before 616, on the strength of the Tang notice on Persia, with Tong Yabgu succeeding no later than 618.
  • The difference is two or three years. It turns on whether the Chinese chapters mean one man or two. They name the khan of 619 and 620 sometimes Shegui and sometimes Yabgu Khan.

Shelun Khan

  • Circumstances of death
  • The year he took the title khan: the Wei Shu gives no year; Peter B. Golden writes 402–410; some scholars date the khaganate from about 400; others place the title between 394 and 402 from the order of the Wei Shu narrative
  • Whether Shelun was the first to bear the title khan: yes according to some scholars, who take the earlier cases in the Chinese annals for later projections; no according to others, who find the title among the Xianbei in 261 and 278
  • His death: on the road in flight, in the Wei Shu; of wounds in battle in May 410, according to some scholars
  • Whether Wei Shu's 'no writing' describes the state he founded or the state the Wei wished to describe
Im Text · 2
  • Whether Shelun was the first to bear the title is disputed. Some scholars hold that he was. They take the earlier cases in the Chinese annals for later projections onto earlier chiefs. In their view, Shamohan, the Tuoba ancestor of 261, bore han as part of a personal name. The cry "Chu, khan" that the Song Shu gives the Tuyuhun is a story of the Song period. The tale of the Qifu ancestor Qifu Khan was made up from a tribal name.
  • Others find the title among the Xianbei already in 261 and again in 278, more than a century before Shelun.

Shi Xiong

  • His office in 843: deputy commander of the Tiande field army, prefect of Fengzhou, or adjutant to Liu Mian
  • Who found the princess in the camp: Shi Xiong's troops, or the spy Cai Xi, who claimed it for himself

Shibi Khan

  • The false report by the Yicheng princess that raised the siege of Yanmen: in the Zizhi Tongjian according to some scholars; not in the Sui Shu, which has the relief armies arrive
  • The two thousand horses and five hundred riders for Li Yuan: according to some scholars; the Jiu Tang Shu gives a thousand horses and two thousand riders

Shiboqu Azhan

  • The year of the visit: 647 in the Tongdian and in a letter of Li Deyu, 648 in the Xin Tang Shu and the Zizhi tongjian
  • Which guards he commanded: the Left in the Xin Tang Shu, the Right in the Zizhi tongjian
  • Whether silifa renders the Turkic title ilteber
Im Text · 1
  • The identification is disputed.

Si Yabgu Khan

  • Circumstances of death
  • Dates
  • His death: soon after his flight to Kangju in the Tang histories; at Balkh after his attack on the New Monastery in Xuanzang's Record
  • Why he killed the lesser khan Yili: without cause in the Jiu Tang Shu, on slander in the Xin Tang Shu, because Yili was not of his clan in the Zizhi tongjian

Silifakurz

  • Whether he was Tardush's nephew, as the Sui Shu and the Zizhi tongjian have it, or his son, as the Bei Shi has it
  • The form of his name: Silifa in the Sui Shu and the Zizhi tongjian, Houlifa in the Bei Shi

Sparzeugunkurz

  • Dates
  • Whether Sparzeugun renders the Turkic Išbara Jabğu, and whether the name is a form of the title yabgu khan
  • The date of the revolt of Turum: about 582, 581–582, or about 598

Su Wu

  • The years of his mission and his return: reckoned from the year of Li Ling's surrender and from the nineteen years the Han Shu counts, not given as such in the chapter
  • Where the North Sea lay: the Han Shu gives no direction and no distance, and some modern scholars identify it with Lake Baikal
Im Text · 1
  • The North Sea has been identified with Lake Baikal in modern scholarship.

Sulu Khan

  • Whether his rise was made possible by the Göktürk withdrawal of 715 or by the Arab pressure from the south

Suni Shi

  • How he was related to Ilig: an uncle in the Xin Tang Shu and the Zizhi tongjian, the son of a cousin in the Jiu Tang Shu
  • Who seized Ilig: Suni Shi under Tang pressure in the Zizhi tongjian and the Tang Huiyao, his son Ashina Zhong in his own biography, Zhang Baoxiang in the chapters on the Göktürks

Suopi Shadkurz

  • The form of his name: Suopi in the Sui Shu, Shapi in the Bei Shi

Ta-bu-he-zu

  • Whether the first two envoys made two missions or one

Tagma Tarkhankurz

  • Whether the Göktürk embassy that urged Justin II to war with Persia was Tagma's

Tamim ibn Bahrkurz

  • The year of the embassy, given as 821 with a query
Im Text · 1
  • Tamim ibn Bahr led an embassy, probably in 821, to the Uyghur capital on the Orkhon, Ordu-Balık.

Tanhan Khankurz

  • Whether he was one of the five khans who crossed the Long Wall in 582

Tanshihuai

  • The years of his life: the chapter gives his age at death as forty-five and dates the death to the Guanghe period (AD 178 to 184), but not the year; 136 to 181 are reckoned in the literature
  • Whether Qizhijian, who died in 133 and whom the literature credits with laying the foundation, stands in any line of office before him; the chapter does not connect them, and the confederation passed to nobody after 181
  • Whether his three divisions were an administration or a war arrangement that lapsed with him
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars identify the name Tanshihuai with the Turkic and Mongolic title Tangsuk Khan, because of the hailstone his mother swallowed.

Tardu Shad

  • Whether his Gaochang wife was the king's sister, as the biography says, or his daughter, as some scholars hold
  • Whether his second wife was the younger sister of the first, as the translations have it

Tardush

  • Year of death
  • Circumstances of death
  • When his revolt began: about 582 according to some; with Apa's flight to him in 583 according to others
  • Whether he held supreme power over both khaganates from about 600 to 603, as some hold, or his eastern venture failed without a battle, as others hold
  • Whether the army destroyed by Bahram Chobin in 588 or 589 was his, led by his son Šāba, or Bagha's
  • His death: 603 in exile in Tibet, or disappearance among the Tuyuhun
  • The year of his flight: the Sui Shu puts the Tiele defeat of Niri and the yabgu, the collapse of Tardush's realm and his flight to the Tuyuhun under the year 601; the literature writes about 603
  • Whether Tardush confirmed the alliance with Byzantium in 576, as some scholars hold; Menander's last fragment on the embassy says that the taking of Bosporos showed the Göktürks had been provoked into war with the Romans, and that Turxanthos detained the envoys
  • Who wrote the letter to Maurice that Theophylact records: Tardush about 598 according to some, a khagan of 581 or 582 according to others
Im Text · 6
  • Modern accounts take the name as Tarduš and connect it with the Tarduš, the people or wing that the Kül Tegin inscription pairs with the Tölis. The founders gave this wing a yabgu and a šad.
  • Tarduš is also taken to be the name of the western or right wing of the Göktürks.
  • In the Bukharan tradition the Göktürk ruler of these years is called Qara Čurin. Lev Gumilev identifies him with Tardush, but the identification cannot be established.
  • The war's western chapter is the war with Persia. Whose war it was is disputed. The army that crossed the Oxus in 588, took Balkh and Herat and was destroyed by Bahram Chobin at Herat in 589 may have been Tardush's. It was led by his son Šāba, "the greatest king of the Turks" in the Perso-Islamic tradition.
  • A different explanation makes it the army of Bagha, Ishbara's brother, and puts the destruction at the Hyrcanian rock in April 588.
  • His successor in the west was Heshana. From whom the later western khans descended, from Istemi through Tardush or from Apa, is a question the sources leave open.

Taspar Khan

  • Whether his religion is to be entered as Buddhism: he was converted, by the Chinese account, and no other Ashina followed him
  • His motive in taking up the Qi resistance: balance of power, according to some scholars; the sources give none
Im Text · 1
  • The first published interpretation, however, sets the stone up for Mahan Tegin, a younger brother of Mukan. The link to Taspar therefore rests on the later interpretation alone.

Tatik Iznanchu

  • The month of his arrival: the eighth month of 844 in one source, the second month in another
  • Whether the Chinese form Yi-si-nan-shu renders Iznanchu, Inanchu or Oz-Inanchu

Tengri Khan

  • The year of his death, 741 in the literature; the Tang history says only that it followed the investiture of 740
Im Text · 1
  • One dating of the Ongi stele reads the "sacred Bilge Khan" of its last lines as Tengri Khan and puts the stone in 740, a Dragon year, the year of this investiture.

Theodoric I

  • How he died on the Catalaunian Plains: thrown from his horse and trampled by his own men, in Jordanes; killed by the spear of the Ostrogoth Andag, as others said
  • Whether the Vandal king Gaiseric bribed Attila to attack him: so in Jordanes; grotesque according to some scholars; unlikely according to others

Theodosius II

  • When the tribute to the Huns began: under Rua in the 410s, or about 430
  • How to judge his policy towards the Huns: as the payments of a weak government, or as the only course open, its ill repute derived from Priscus

Thorismund

  • Whether Attila fought a second campaign against the Alans beyond the Loire, where Thorismund beat him: so in Jordanes; mentioned by no other author and generally disbelieved
  • Who killed him: enemies to whom his client Ascalc betrayed him, in Jordanes; his brothers and their followers, in other chronicles
  • How he came to the throne: so mildly that no one disputed the succession, in Jordanes; according to others, amid a violent rivalry between the Visigothic princes

Töles Khan

  • The year he went over to the Tang: 629, the third year of Zhenguan, in the Jiu Tang Shu; 21 April 628 in a modern account
  • The princess he married: the Tang history has him marry the Sui princess Huainan when she came north; no other source names her

Tong Yabgu

  • Year of death
  • Dates
  • Whether the reign began in 618 or 619
  • The year of his murder: 627 in the Cefu yuangui, 628 in the Tiele chapter of the Jiu Tang Shu and in the Zizhi Tongjian, 630 in the reckoning that dates Xuanzang's audience to that year
  • His descent: brother of Shegui by both accounts; the line back to Istemi or to Apa is the western succession problem
  • The meaning of the name Tong: 'tiger' after Kashgari, 'hero' after Gerard Clauson, as the literature reports them
  • Whether the Göktürk ruler who met Heraclius was Tong Yabgu himself, a subordinate, or a chief of the Khazars
  • Who advised Gaozu to grant the marriage: Feng Deyi in the Jiu Tang Shu and the Tongdian, Pei Ju in the Zizhi Tongjian, the Tang Huiyao and the Cefu yuangui
Im Text · 3
  • Jebu Xak'an is understood as Yabgu Khagan. It is equated with the Sir Yabgu of the Greek sources, the same title Istemi had borne.
  • Others take him for a chief of the Khazars. The Khazars may have depended on the western Göktürks, but they are not to be confused with them.
  • The end of the reign is disputed. It falls between 627 and 630.

Tonyukuk

  • Whether he is the Ashide Yuanzhen of the Tang histories
  • His year of birth: the Tang history's 'over seventy' in 716 puts it before 646, and his own inscription says he was born in the realm of China
  • The date of his monument: 716, about 720, between 720 and 725, or 726 and a little later; and the year of his death, which no source gives
  • Whether the name is a personal name or a title, tun yukuk, 'chief vizier'
Im Text · 7
  • One modern author draws from it that Tonyukuk was Chinese by descent.
  • The name itself may be a title. One interpretation divides it into tun, "first-born, first", and yukuk, which it relates to the Turkic word for a vizier. The name then means "chief vizier", and its first vowel is u.
  • Another interpretation divides the name into tuny and ukuk, "the one who understands".
  • Tonyukuk lived another thirty years and more. Either the history has misplaced a death, or Yuanzhen and Tonyukuk are two men. One of them fell against the Türgesh under Ilterish. The other fought the Türgesh under Kapgan and outlived them both.
  • According to one translation of line 51, Tonyukuk says in the first person that he himself seated Kapgan on the throne.
  • The stone gives no date. In line 56 Tonyukuk says that he has grown old, and the Tang history has him over seventy in 716. One dating therefore puts the stone five to ten years after 716, between 720 and 725. Another puts it in 726 or a little later.
  • The stone has been taken as a defence. Tonyukuk was spared in 716 because he was the khan's father-in-law, but he had been removed from office. His inscription lists his services to the state one by one, and it dwells on the deeds of Ilterish and Kapgan.

Tör Apakurz

  • Year of death
  • Dates
  • Whether Tör Apa is the dead man, his chief or a title
  • The date of the stele: the second half of the seventh century, 756 to 757, 842 to 843, or the second half of the ninth century and later
  • Whether the man is the Kirghiz envoy of 866 or his chief the chancellor of 848
Im Text · 1
  • The stone does not show whether Tör Apa is the dead man. One editor first took the dead man for an unnamed ičräki in the service of a chief called Tör Apa and later gave that up. A second reads Tör Apa as the dead man's own name and finds no title in the text. A third reads tör apa ičräki as the name and rank of one person.

Töremen Apa

  • His mother's standing: not Göktürks, and by Ishbara's claim of low rank
  • Whether the later western khans descended from him, as the Sui Shu is understood to say
  • Whether he dealt with the Sui before Ishbara turned on him
Im Text · 5
  • Töremen was given the title Apa Khan in the same settlement that made Amrak second khan on the Tola and Ishbara supreme at Ötüken. Others have him declare war on Ishbara outright.
  • A second account tells it differently. Apa lost two skirmishes on the way west and arrived in panic at Suyab, where Tardush was still occupied with the Tiele. Ishbara returned to Ötüken and killed the mother afterward. The sequence differs between the accounts, the killing does not.
  • According to some scholars, the Sui Shu derives the later khans of the western Göktürks from him rather than from Istemi.
  • A recent attempt to reconcile the sources has him drive Tardush out of his western holdings and hold the west for a time. Istemi's line then reasserted itself.
  • The western article sets out the positions, and none of them has prevailed.

Tuhezhen Khan

  • Year of death
  • The year of accession: before 449, when the Wei Shu calls him newly established
  • The year of death: 464 in the Wei Shu; the second month of 450 in Taiwu's letter to the Song
  • The meaning of his title Chu Khan: 'only' or 'sole' by the usual interpretation of the Wei Shu gloss; or 'yes', a Mongolic or Tungusic word of assent
Im Text · 4
  • Wei is usually taken to mean "only" or "sole", as in the gloss above. A different explanation takes wei as "yes".
  • On that explanation, the first element of the title, Chu, is a Mongolic or Tungusic word of assent, ze.
  • The same word then stands in the greeting "Chu, khan", which the Song Shu records for the Tuyuhun in the story of their break with the Murong.
  • One option keeps the chapter's date of 464. The other follows the letter. It ends the reign in 450 and gives the campaign of 458 to Yucheng.

Tulan Khan

  • His relation to Ishbara: a brother by the usual reckoning; the sources as reported do not say
Im Text · 3
  • The Chinese histories give his title as Dulan.
  • The Turkic form of his name is not recorded. His relation to Ishbara is given as a brother by the usual reckoning.
  • The Sui Shu names him Yongyulü and makes him Ishbara's son. In its account, his father's dying wish passed him over as weak in favour of the uncle Bagha, and he was raised to the throne at that uncle's death.

Tuldichkurz

  • Dates
  • The date of the revolt of Turum: about 582, 581–582, or about 598

Tulun Khan

  • The year of the Gaoche secession: 487 in the Gaoche chapter of the Wei Shu; the Rouran chapter tells it under the campaign of 492

Tun Bagha Tarkan

  • Whether he rejected Manichaeism outright or only the Sogdian party that carried it

Türk-shad

  • Whether Turxanthos is a name or a title: Türk-shad according to some scholars, *Turuq-shad, shad of the Duolu tribes, according to others
  • Whether Turxanthos' father Silziboulos was Istemi, as most modern accounts have it, or one of the eight chiefs of the Göktürks
  • Whether the embassy ended in a confirmed alliance, as some scholars have it, or in open war, as Menander's fragment on the taking of Bosporos says
  • The fall of Bosporos: in 576 while Valentinos was with the Göktürks, by Menander's fragment; about 579 according to some scholars
Im Text · 1
  • The Greek name has also been taken for a title, Turuq-shad, the shad of the Turuk, that is of the five Duolu tribes east of Suyab.

Turumkurz

  • Dates
  • The date of his revolt: about 582, 581–582, or about 598
  • Whether his revolt was a revolt of the Ogurs
  • Against which khagan he rose

Tuwu

  • His name: Tuwu only in the Xin Tang Shu, a compilation of the eleventh century; the Zhou Shu, the Sui Shu and the Bei Shi give only the title Great Yabgu, and the Zhou Shu gives neither
  • His descent: son of the Axian Shad, against a view that makes him Axian's grandson
  • The year of his death: 542, when Bumin appears at the head of the tribe, is an inference
Im Text · 1
  • The view that puts Tuwu a generation lower, as Axian's grandson, is recorded beside it.

Üç Tuğlu Khan

  • The year of Guo Xiaoke's victory: 641 by the Jiu Tang Shu's arrangement, after the seventh month of 642 by the Tongjian gangmu
  • The year of his flight to Tokharistan, 642 by the sequence of the histories; the year of his death, given only as the year of Cheng Zhijie's appointment against Helu, 655 or 656
  • Whether he was of the Ashina: the office of shad implies it, and the histories do not say

Uldinkurz

  • How far his rule reached: west and east of the Carpathians, though not over all the Huns, according to some scholars; the leader of a fraction of the Huns according to others
  • Whether the Huns who served Stilicho and Honorius from 406 to 409 were Uldin's men: so according to some scholars; mercenaries of unknown origin according to others
  • Whether he invaded Thrace once or twice: in 408, and probably already in the winter of 404 to 405, according to some scholars

Valamir

  • Whether the Ostrogoths fought at the Nedao: in the coalition against Attila's sons according to some; already free and taking no part according to others; not on the field according to a third
  • When Attila's sons attacked him: about 455 in a modern account; the year of Theodoric's birth, which has been put in 454, 455 and 456
  • Whether he is the Balamer whom Priscus calls a Scythian: so according to some scholars

Valentinian III

  • Whether his sister Honoria's appeal to Attila happened as told: told by Priscus and those who copied him; some regard it as Byzantine court gossip unknown to any western writer
  • Who sent Pope Leo to Attila in 452: the emperor, who was at Rome, in two versions; in Jordanes an embassy simply came from Rome

Valentinos

  • Whether the Valentinos who went to the Avars about 558 is the envoy of 576
  • Whether Menander's two earlier embassies of Valentinos to the Göktürks include the embassy of 576
  • Whether Arsilas, whom Menander names as the elder ruler of the Göktürks, was their supreme ruler or only the eldest of their leaders
  • Whether the Ektel of 576 is the Ektag of 569
  • Whether the embassy ended in war, as Menander's fragment on the fall of Bosporos says, or in a renewal of the alliance, as some scholars have it
Im Text · 2
  • Scholars read Arsilas both ways, as the supreme ruler and as only the eldest of the leaders.
  • A third explanation takes both names for one mountain, named after a Turkic word for lime.

Wang Zhaojun

  • Whether she asked to go to the Xiongnu, as the Hou Han Shu has it, or was given, as the Han Shu has it
  • Her name and courtesy name, which the Han Shu and the Hou Han Shu give in reverse order
  • The year in BC, which is reckoned from the reign name Jingning

Wei Jie

  • Whether the censor of the western journey, the censor of the summons of 610 and the author of the Xifan ji are one man
  • The year of the western journey: 606 by one dating, 610 by an earlier
  • Whether Wangshe cheng, where the envoys received Buddhist scriptures, is the Hephthalite royal seat or Rajagriha in India
Im Text · 1
  • The scriptures may therefore have come from the Hephthalite royal seat. Others identify Wangshe cheng with Rajagriha in India.

Wei Qing

  • The years in BC, which are reckoned from the reign names of the Han emperors, since the sources give no year in BC
  • The mother's standing: a concubine of the marquis of Pingyang in the Shiji, a servant of the princess's household in the Han Shu
  • The fief added after the campaign of 124 BC: 6,000 households in the Shiji, 8,700 in the Han Shu, and the totals of his fiefs, which the two works count differently

Wen-wu Alp

  • The year of the letter that answers him: the summer of 843 or of 844

Woyanqudi Chanyu

  • How far he stood from the direct line of the chanyus: the Han Shu calls him an erxun of Wuwei, and some scholars make Wuwei his great-grandfather
Im Text · 1
  • The accession may have been a decision of the assembly, which was meeting when the old chanyu fell ill. If so, it is the only case in the sources of a chanyu chosen at an assembly.

Wuti Khan

  • The end of his reign: the Wei Shu gives no year; Tuhezhen is 'newly established' in 449; 444 in one reckoning
  • The campaign of 443: a Wei victory at the Egen river in the Wei Shu, a Wei defeat in the Song Shu

Wuwei Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, since the Shiji dates by the Han eras and gives the length of the reign as ten years
  • Whether the Xiongnu raided in these years: the Shiji says the chanyu would not raid the Han frontier, the annals of the Han Shu record a raid on Wuyuan in the year of the revolt in Nanyue

Xulihu Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, since the Shiji dates by the Han eras and gives the length of the reign as one year
  • Why the chanyu did not intercept Li Guangli on his way home from Dayuan: he could not reach him in the Shiji, he did not dare in the Han Shu
  • How the Xiongnu name is to be read, Xulihu or Goulihu, since the commentaries give two readings of the first character

Xulüquanqu Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, not given in BC by the sources; the Han Shu dates his accession to the second year of Dijie and his death to the second year of Shenjue, and counts the reign as nine years
  • Whether the Zhuanqu Yanzhi whom he set aside in 68 BC is the consort who set up Huyandi with Wei Lü in 85 BC; the Han Shu uses the title for both
  • Whether the Left Great Qiequ was the father or the brother of the Zhuanqu Yanzhi: the Han Shu calls him her father in 68 BC and, by the name Du Longqi, her brother in 60 BC

Yami Khan

  • The year of his death: 609 by the usual reckoning and by some scholars; the Sui Shu's 'that year' after the court visit of 608 could be understood as 608
  • His father: Ishbara in the Sui Shu's chapter on the Göktürks; Ishbara's brother Chuluohou, Bagha Khan, in the Tongdian, in Zhangsun Sheng's speech in the Zizhi Tongjian and in the Sui Shu's biography of Zhangsun Sheng
  • His relation to Tulan: brother by the Sui Shu, where both are sons of Ishbara; Turkic Atlas carries the question under Tulan
Im Text · 1
  • The Sui Shu tells the death in the same year as the court visit, which its sequence places in 608. The usual date is 609.

Yangsu Teginkurz

  • Whether he is the same man as Duliu, the son of Tardush and father of Shegui, as some scholars hold

Yinan Khan

  • The year of his death: the chapters date it by the campaign that followed

Yiran Khan

  • Whether he is the son who speaks in the Bilge Khan inscription and held the funeral in 735, or whether that was already Tengri
Im Text · 1
  • The Bilge Khan inscription is spoken by a son of the dead khan, who held the funeral in the fifth month of 735. Whether that son was Yiran or already Tengri depends on how long Yiran lived. No source says how long that was.

Yiwu Tudun Shadkurz

  • The year of the meeting at Mount Yanzhi: 609 in the Zizhi tongjian, 608 in a modern account

Yizhi Nishidukurz

  • Whether he summoned wind and rain, 徵召 in the Zhou Shu, or divined them, 徵占 in the Bei Shi

Yizhi-lianjikurz

  • Whether he came in 866, as the Tang huiyao is reported to have it, or in 867, as the Zizhi tongjian has it
  • Whether the Chinese name renders the Turkic rank ičräki
  • Whether he is the man commemorated on the Begre stele

Yizhixie Chanyu

  • The years of his reign: reckoned from the Han reign years, since the Shiji dates by the Han eras and gives the length of the reign as thirteen years
  • The number killed and taken in Huo Qubing's first sortie of 121 BC: more than 18,000 in the Shiji chapter on the Xiongnu, more than 8,000 in the decree quoted in the chapter on Wei Qing and Huo Qubing, 8,960 in the Han Shu
  • How the chanyu left the field at Mobei: alone with several hundred strong riders in one chapter, on six mules in another

Yucheng Khan

  • The beginning of the reign: 464 in the Wei Shu; 450 by the letter of Taiwu in the Song Shu
Im Text · 1
  • A letter of the emperor Taiwu in the Song Shu has his father already dead in 450. One reckoning dates his reign from that year.

Yukuk Shad

  • Year of death
  • Circumstances of death
  • How he was related to Ilig: his son, his nephew or his younger brother
  • His fate in 627: put to flight in the Chinese histories, killed in one modern account

Yushe Shad

  • Whether he and the Aoshe Shad, the son of Chula whom the princess Yicheng passed over in 620, are one man
  • Whether the Yushe Shad Ashina Momo of Liu Lan's biography is Chula's son

Yuwen Tai

  • Year of death: the tenth month of 556 in the annals of the Zhou Shu; 557, after the founding of the state, in other accounts
  • Whether the embassy of 545 answered a Göktürk wish to trade, as the Zhou Shu tells it, or a threat from Bumin
Im Text · 3
  • The embassy and the envoy An Nuopantuo have their own articles. The mission has also been understood the other way round. The Wei, they say, took the danger from Bumin seriously after the raid of 542 and forestalled a plundering expedition with an offer of trade.
  • Bumin accepted because the offer gave him Chinese silk without the Sogdian detour.
  • The Zhou Shu tells it as a Göktürk wish to trade, answered by an envoy. The two accounts stand together.

Zemarchos

  • Whether he came from Cilicia, as Menander says, or was a Thracian, as some scholars propose
  • The year of his embassy: 569 in Menander, the seventh year of Justin II in John of Ephesus

Zercon

  • Whose attendant his wife had been: a Hun queen's, which would make the passage evidence of a hereditary nobility among the Huns; or the empress's at Constantinople
  • The attribution of the passage on Bleda to Priscus, which goes back to the editor Valesius

Zhang Qian

  • Whether chapter 123 of the Shiji is Sima Qian's text or a later reconstruction from the Han Shu; the account of Zhang Qian stands in both
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars take this for the first description of the Sogdian merchants. This holds if Dayuan is Ferghana, so that the merchants between Dayuan and Parthia can only be the Sogdians.
  • Others take the remark as the sign of a family of related Iranian dialects spoken from Ferghana to Parthia.

Zhao Fankurz

  • Whether he ever set out for the Kirghiz country: the first letter of Li Deyu, which names him as its bearer, may never have been sent

Zhenzhu Tong Irkinkurz

  • The purpose of the gifts: to seal the agreement in the Xin Tang Shu, to fetch the princess in the Zizhi tongjian

Zhishi Sili

  • Who brought the Sui empress Xiao to the Tang in 630: Kang Sumi in the chapters on the Göktürks, Zhishi Sili in his own biography

Zhizhi Chanyu

  • How far west his realm reached, and whether the Talas settlement was a city he built or one he took
  • Where Jiankun lay: the country of the Yenisei Kirghiz according to some, the northern slope of the Tianshan south of the Altai according to others
Im Text · 4
  • The Wujie, the Kirghiz and the Dingling have been called kin of the Xiongnu, without a ground being named.
  • Jiankun may instead lie south of the Altai, on the northern slope of the Tianshan. The Kirghiz of the Xiongnu period, it is argued, had spread as far as there, and the Kirghiz on the Yenisei belong to the Göktürk period. Then it is hard to think of Zhizhi as settled in the tundra north of the Altai.
  • The foot soldiers drawn up at the gate in fish-scale order may have been a Roman-style phalanx. Armour, crossbows and drill are counted among the things that the horse peoples did not use.
  • The Xiongnu can be followed from the Altai over the Talas and the Volga to Hungary, with Zhizhi's Talas as a station on that road. It rests on weapons and goldsmith's work of Central Asian type.

Zhonghang Yue

Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars take the count as the basis for the first levy on the Xiongnu. They admit that this is the only mention of a levy in the sources and that the burden in Xiongnu society itself was small.

Zhu-wu Alp Sol

  • Whether the first two envoys made two missions or one
  • How far he went with the Tang escort of the princess: to Taiyuan, or only to a place outside Chang'an

Reiche

Buyeo

  • Whether the descent of Goguryeo from Buyeo is a historical relation or a claim made by the Goguryeo house and copied into the Chinese histories
  • Its end: the Chinese record has it beaten repeatedly from the third century and absorbed by Goguryeo in 494; no year is given for the state itself
Im Text · 1
  • Nothing in the text settles whether this descent is a historical relation or a claim made by the Goguryeo house and copied by the Chinese histories. The text shows that Goguryeo made the claim. It also shows that a sixth-century Chinese historian wrote the claim down as the beginning of the state.

Byzantium

  • The year of Zemarchos's departure: 568 in one view, the beginning of August 569 by Menander's reckoning from the fourth year of Justin II
  • Whether the Göktürk–Roman alliance survived 576: one view has it confirmed; Menander has Turxanthos detain and mock Valentinos and the Göktürks take Bosporos
  • The fall of Bosporos: 576, while Valentinos was with the Göktürks, by Menander's fragment; about 579 in one view
  • Who Heraclius's Göktürk ally was: Tong Yabgu himself, the Yabgu Khagan, in one view; Tong Yabgu with Börü Shad in command, in a second

Danube Bulgariakurz

  • Whether Asparuch crossed the Danube about 679 or well before
  • Whether the runic-looking marks of the first Bulgar state are letters, property marks or magic signs, and what language they would write
Im Text · 4
  • It has been understood as the name of Tengri, as Greek letters meaning "great", as a cryptogram of the name of Jesus, as "Supreme God" and as the sign of the ruling house. Each of these interpretations has been rejected by others.
  • Several scholars derive the signs from the Old Turkic runic script. Some scholars take the texts of Pliska, Byala, Murfatlar and Šudikova for Greek texts with signs of Asian origin among the Protobulgars.
  • A study of the lands from the Danube to the North Caucasus takes the runiform inscriptions there for monuments of dialects of Bulgar.
  • The name of Asparuch has been set beside the title ïšbara of the Göktürks, and the title has been derived from Sanskrit, Tocharian and Turkic roots. None of the derivations is settled.

Eastern Wei

  • The year of the division of the Wei: 534, when the emperor Xiaowu went west and a second emperor was raised at Ye, or 535, the first year of the Western Wei's own emperor

First Göktürk Khaganate

  • Whether the polity was divided into two wings at Bumin's death, whether the western command was a standing structure that only became visible afterward, or whether there were four commands from the start
  • Extent: the figures of two, five to seven, and six to seven million square kilometres are modern estimates
  • The end of the western wing: 657, 659 and the 740s are all used, for different things
  • The reading and meaning of kök türk
  • The fall of 630: Ilig handed over by his uncle, or taken by Zhang Baoxiang in Shaboluo's camp, as the Jiu Tang Shu has it
  • The Xueyantuo secession: 628 in the literature; 629 in the Jiu Tang Shu, which has the risings north of the Yinshan in 627 and the shad driven off, not killed
Im Text · 4
  • It is often translated as "Celestial Türks". The significance of kök in this passage remains disputed.
  • The khaganate developed an eastern and a western wing. The origins of this arrangement remain disputed.
  • These accounts leave open whether Bumin established the two wings or whether they took shape after his death.
  • It has been argued that by the first quarter of the seventh century most of the western Göktürks had adopted Buddhism, and that Tong Yabgu spread the faith with more energy than he conquered.

Five Divisions of the Xiongnu

  • The year of the division: the Jin Shu and the Tongdian place it in the Jian'an era, and the Zizhi Tongjian's placing directly after 216 has no evident basis
  • Whether the Xiongnu of the divisions stood outside the Jin household registers and, if they did, whether they still bore the dues of registered households
  • Whether the Liu Meng who revolted in 271 was a chanyu, as one chapter of the Jin Shu has it, or the commander of a single division

Former Yankurz

  • How far the Yan states were Xianbei polities and how far Chinese dynasties with a Xianbei house at the head

Gaochekurz

Im Text · 3
  • The name may be related to the sense of the Turkic name behind Dingling and Tiele, "circle" or "hoop", and may not only describe the wagons.
  • The wolf legends of the Wusun, the Gaoche and the Göktürks may be one line that begins inside the Xiongnu realm.
  • The Fufula, part of a people that rose against the Rouran in 487 and founded a state near Beshbalik, have also been identified as ancestors of the Uyghurs.

Goguryeo

  • Whether the Bökli of the Kül Tegin inscription are the Goguryeo
  • Whether the Göktürk attack on the Korean frontier in 551 took place
Im Text · 1
  • The equation is an interpretation. The text does not state it.

Han dynasty

  • When the four commanderies of Hexi were set up: Wuwei and Jiuquan in 121 BC and Zhangye and Dunhuang in 111 BC in the annals of Wudi, Jiuquan first and the others split off later in the chapter on the Western Regions, other years again in the geographical treatise of the Han Shu and in the Zizhi tongjian
Im Text · 2
  • Two further datings are reported. The geographical treatise of the Han Shu is said to give 104 BC for Zhangye and Jiuquan, 101 for Wuwei and 88 for Dunhuang.
  • The Zizhi tongjian sets up Jiuquan alone in 115 BC. It detaches Wuwei from it later and adds Zhangye and Dunhuang in 111.

Hunnic Empire

  • When the Huns became one realm: under Rua in the 420s and 430s according to some scholars; a confederacy of tribes without a single ruler in the 390s according to others; a tangible state in the Hungarian plain after the conquest of the Alans and Goths according to a third group; a federation of tribes at the beginning of the fifth century that became a state under a central power only under Attila according to a fourth
  • Where the centre of Hunnic power lay: in the Carpathian basin in most accounts; on the Pontic steppe, with the basin thinly held, according to some scholars
  • How far Attila ruled: from the Caucasus to the confines of France and Denmark according to some scholars; over a fairly well-defined territory, never a real danger to Rome, according to others
  • Whether the dual kingship of Bleda and Attila was an institution or a territorial division
  • Who the logades were: an order of the realm according to some scholars; simply the prominent men according to others
  • The descent of the Huns and their relation to the Xiongnu
Im Text · 2
  • Others put the change into steps. In the time of Ammianus, the Huns were a society of tribes and clans under chiefs. At the beginning of the fifth century they were a federation of tribes. Under Attila they became a state with unrestricted central power, ruled with a small circle of leading men and not unlike the later steppe empires of Asia.
  • Some scholars take the realm of the early fifth century for a federation of tribes, and that of Attila for a state under a central power, ruled by a small circle of leading men.

Kara-Khanid Khanatekurz

  • Dates
  • When the dynasty began: some scholars have the khaganate claimed after the fall of the Uyghur khaganate in 840, others start it with the pagan Turks who took Balasaghun around 943
  • Who the Karakhanids were: Karluks, Yaghma related to the Uyghur ruling house, or a line of the Ashina kind that belonged to no tribe
Im Text · 3
  • How the dynasty began is uncertain. Some scholars have the first Karakhanid khan claim the khaganate after the fall of the Uyghur khaganate in 840. Others see the dynasty in the pagan Turks who took Balasaghun around 943. According to them, they became Muslims within a generation.
  • A third group takes the Yaghma for the founders of the dynasty. The Yaghma were a people related to the Uyghur ruling house. They moved west after 840 and took the Kashgar region from the Karluks.
  • A last group denies that the dynasty belonged to any tribe. It makes the house a line of the Ashina kind, like the khans of the Göktürks, the Türgesh and the Toquz Oghuz, resting on the Yaghma and Chigil tribes of the Kashgar region.

Karluk Yabgu Statekurz

  • Who held the title of khagan among the Karluks after 840: the yabgu in one account; a ruler of the union of Yaghma, Chigil and Tukhsi as a descendant of the Ashina in a second; and whether the Yaghma took Kashgar from the Karluks
  • Whether the Karluk realm was the forerunner of the Karakhanid state, and whether the pagan Turks who seized Balasagun about 940 destroyed it
Im Text · 1
  • The Yaghma may have been related to the Uyghur ruling house. They moved west after 840 and took the Kashgar region from the Karluks.

Khazar Khaganate

  • Whether the Khazar ruling house descended from the Ashina: Peter B. Golden holds it strongly suggested, and names the objections
  • Where the Khazars came from: five hypotheses in the literature, none established
  • What the name means: from qaz- 'to wander', from Qasar, or from Caesar through Middle Persian
  • Whether the Khazars spoke an Oghuric or a Common Turkic language
  • When and how far the court took up Judaism, and how many of the Khazars followed it
Im Text · 9
  • They are the reason the history of the Göktürks does not end in the east. The house that ruled them is held, on grounds set out below, to have been the Ashina. If that is right, the family that took Ötüken in 552 was still reigning on the Volga when the Rus came in 965.
  • For the dynasty itself there are three arguments and three objections. Mikhail Artamonov proposed that Irbis Shegui, a defeated khan of the Nushibi, moved to the Khazar lands about 651 and founded the ruling house there.
  • It remains a hypothesis, and there are many problems with it.
  • The Ḥudūd al-ʿālam says the Khazar king is "one of the descendants of Ansā". Artamonov read this as a garbling of A-shih-na, that is Ashina.
  • Minorsky, the translator of the Ḥudūd, was uneasy about the reading. He preferred to see in ʾnsā a corruption of ʾysā, the title išād, which would fit only if "king" there meant the sub-ruler and not the khagan.
  • The Chinese transcription A-shih-na is itself of uncertain reading, and may stand for \Āršila.
  • Whether the Khazars struck coins of their own is still debated.
  • Runiform inscriptions of the seventh to the ninth century have been found in the old Khazar lands: on two flasks from Novocherkassk, on a wall at Mayatskoye Gorodishche and on a bull's skull near Elista. They are not deciphered. Their script follows the Göktürk letters in some thirteen signs, and the language behind them is probably Turkic.
  • A runiform word once read in it is now taken for a later Hebrew note, and its place name has been read as Canopus in the Nile delta, not as Kiev.

Kimek Khaganatekurz

  • Whether the Hudud al-Alam describes a real court and officers or reshapes a tribal structure

Kushan Empire

  • The era of Kanishka: 78, 127 or 232; the date of 127 is now most widely followed
  • Whether Gaofu was ever one of the five xihou of the Yuezhi: the Han Shu counts it, the Hou Han Shu denies it
  • When the Guishuang xihou united the five: the Hou Han Shu says only a hundred and more years after the division of Daxia
Im Text · 1
  • Its greatest king was Kanishka. Scholars have set the era of Kanishka in 78, in 127 and in 232. Numismatics, a newly found inscription and a reread text now point to 127.

Later Yankurz

  • Whether the fragments that used the Yan name after 407 are continuations of the state or separate polities

Northern Qi

  • Whether the Qi attack on Göktürk territory in 552 was an attempt to undo the new khaganate or a frontier operation
Im Text · 2
  • What that attack was meant to achieve is not settled. It may have been an attempt to strangle the new power at once, while the Rouran remnant still had a name to fight under.
  • It may equally have been an ordinary frontier operation, with its coincidence with the founding of the khaganate an accident of a bad year.

Northern Wei

  • The language and origin of the Tuoba: Xianbei and para-Mongolic by the usual classification; Turkic and Mongolic families, that is Turko-Mongol, following Grousset; and, as a third possibility, a conglomerate of clans of several origins
  • The blow that broke Datan: 424 in the older account, 429 in the Wei Shu
Im Text · 1
  • Three scholars have called the Tuoba Turkic, probably Turkic and largely Turkic. Others find it more likely that they were a conglomerate of clans of several origins.

Northern Zhou

  • Whether the Göktürks joined the Luoyang offensive of 564: the Zhou Shu has them come at the appointed time and withdraw after Yuwen Hu's defeat; a modern account has them stay away
  • The year of a Göktürk embassy with horses: 573 in the Zhou Shu's Göktürk chapter, the first month of 574 in the annals of Emperor Wu
  • Why Mukan held the bridal embassy for three years: the storm of the Zhou Shu, or the Qi bid and the failed campaigns

Oghuz Yabgu Statekurz

  • Whether the yabgu title of the Oghuz dates from the rearrangement of 744
  • Where the Oghuz of the Syr Darya came from: the Ten Arrows of the western Göktürks, or a westward move of the Nine Oghuz of the Orkhon
Im Text · 2
  • Where the Oghuz of the Syr Darya came from is a further question. There are two explanations of their origin. According to the first, they belonged to the Ten Arrows of the western Göktürks, the branch of the Nushibi on the Chu and the Talas, and not to the Nine Oghuz of the Orkhon.
  • According to the second, the Nine Oghuz of the Orkhon moved west. Islamic sources report Oghuz coming to Transoxiana under the caliph al-Mahdi, and a raid of the Nine Oghuz on Ushrusana in 820 or 821.

Old Great Bulgariakurz

  • Whether Organas, the uncle of Kubrat, is the Göktürk Mohetu (Qara Bagatur)
  • Whether Kubrat died in the 660s or in 642
Im Text · 2
  • One account sets the union in a longer line. In it the Bulgars were a branch of the Kutrigurs. In the second half of the seventh century they formed a strong union in the north-west of the Caucasus.
  • Under Khazar pressure the union soon divided. One part came under Khazar rule and became the Volga Bulgars. The other part went under Asparuch to Bessarabia and then to the Danube, where it became the Danube Bulgars.

Rouran Khaganate

  • Reading of the Chinese name: the demeaning gloss of the Wei Shu, or Ögel's proposal of an underlying Börü, wolf
  • Language of the ruling house: para-Mongolic by the usual classification, with Turkic elements in the confederation argued
  • Whether the nobility among the twenty thousand who fled west in 552 became the rulers of the Avars of Europe
  • Taiwu's blow: 424 in one reckoning; the Wei Shu has Datan's raid and the emperor's escape in 424, a five-road campaign in 425 and the crushing one across the desert in 429
  • The western victory over the Tiele: Anagui, after 520, in the literature; Chounu, in 516, in the Wei Shu, which gives Anagui only an undated victory over the Gaoche king Yifu
  • A chancery with Chinese secretaries, the subjection of the Tölös in 460 and the extent to Lake Balkhash and the Seven Rivers: the literature's; the Wei Shu says the Rouran kept no written records and draws the extent from Karashahr to Korea
Im Text · 3
  • Bahaeddin Ögel proposed that a Turkic börü, "wolf", underlies the name. The position is his alone, and the reading is not visible in the Chinese. It is mentioned here only because a Chinese source does elsewhere equate the Rouran with wolves.
  • Others find the title among the Xianbei already in 261 and again in 278.
  • The Kül Tegin inscription, carved by the Göktürks two centuries later, names the Apar among the peoples who came to mourn the founders. The Apar are either the Rouran remembered or the European Avars, and the inscription does not say which.

Sasanian Persia

  • The number of Göktürk–Persian wars: three great wars by one count, in 588, 606 and 627, after Istemi's campaign of 569 or 570; a second count gives the war of 588 and the Caucasian campaign of 627
  • Whether Khosrow I ever held Transoxiana: asserted by Dinawari, denied by some scholars on Menander's evidence
  • The descent of Hormizd IV from a daughter of Istemi: Tabari makes his mother a daughter of the khagan; that the khagan was Istemi is a modern identification
Im Text · 7
  • The division was made along the Oxus in 560, at a meeting of the two kings at Gurgan.
  • The Hephthalite ruler Faganish was handed over. A daughter of Istemi was married to Khosrow. She became the mother of Hormizd IV.
  • The agreement is also dated to 566 or 571. The marriage is dated to 554, or to the time after the victory.
  • The decisive fight of the war was the battle of Bukhara. It is dated in three ways.
  • Some scholars have the Göktürk army under Tardush's son Šāba beaten at Herat in 589.
  • Others have Bagha beaten at the Hyrcanian rock in April 588. If so, Herat was retaken in 589, together with the khan's golden throne.
  • One hypothesis holds that a defeated Nushibi khan, Irbis Shegui, founded the Khazar ruling house in 651, the year in which the Sasanian empire ended. It remains a hypothesis with many problems.

Second Göktürk Khaganate

  • The year of the rising: 682 in the Xin Tang Shu and the literature, 683 in the Jiu Tang Shu
  • The year of Ilterish's death, in the Tianshou period 690 to 692; the literature writes 691
  • The year of Bolchu and the destruction of the Türgesh: 710 or 711
  • The year of Bilge Khan's death: 734 by his inscription, 732 by the Jiu Tang Shu's year-heading
  • Who Ozmish was: the Göktürk Left Shad, as the Jiu Tang Shu has it, or a Basmïl chieftain, as Peter B. Golden has it
  • The end of the state: 744 in the usual reckoning and in the Uyghur chapter of the Jiu Tang Shu; 745 in two surveys, the year of Baimei's death in the Xin Tang Shu
  • Where the Iron Gate of the inscriptions lay: between Samarkand and Balkh, or between Sogdiana and Ferghana
  • Whether the Sir of türk sir bodun are the Xueyantuo
Im Text · 3
  • Modern accounts usually identify the Sir with the Xueyantuo, the Sir Tarduš of the Chinese. The Xueyantuo had ruled the Orkhon country between 630 and 646.
  • If so, the restored state named itself as a union of the Göktürks with the people who had held Ötüken in their absence. This is a fact about 682 that no Chinese source records.
  • Whether the Iron Gate of the inscriptions lay between Samarkand and Balkh or between Sogdiana and Ferghana has been argued, and so has the question whether the Göktürks ever met Arabs there.

Shanshan

  • When the name Shanshan began: with the renaming of 77 BC, after the town of Loulan was given up in the fourth or fifth century, or earlier still as a smaller realm round Yuni
Im Text · 2
  • The second ties the name to the end of the town. The town of Loulan was given up between the second third of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, probably because the desert advanced round the Lop Nor. The kingdom withdrew to the mountain foot in the south. The Chinese then gave it the name of the kingdom of Shanshan.
  • A third holds that a smaller realm of Shanshan already existed round Yuni before 77 BC, perhaps dependent on Loulan. That realm then took over the lands of Loulan when that kingdom fell. The name Loulan lived on among the people.

Southern Xiongnu

  • Whether it was a Xiongnu state under Han protection or a Han frontier command with a Xiongnu title at its head
  • The year it ended: the chanyu was held at Ye from 216, but the tribes and the Luandi name outlasted it
  • Whether the title of Southern Chanyu ended in 216 or survived without land at the Wei and Jin courts until Liu Yuan's rising in 304
  • The year of Yuan An's memorial against a new Northern Chanyu: AD 92, or 91 by one count

Sui

  • Whether the Sui defeated the Göktürks by arms in 583 or by agents and the khaganate's own divisions: some argue the latter
Im Text · 1
  • One reckoning dates Tulan's death and the final division of the khaganate to 603, when Yami marched into Ötüken with Chinese troops. By contrast, the history tells Tulan's death under 599.

Suo

  • Whether Suo is the old name of the Xianbei homeland, as the Chinese commentary holds
  • Whether the brothers numbered seventeen, as most texts have it, or seventy, as the Bei Shi writes
  • Which river the Afu is: Uvs Nuur or the Abakan
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars give the two stories different standing. The wolf-and-cave legend is the account that the state itself recognised. The Suo story is a popular tale, shaped more by religious belief and folk narrative. It also contains two rules of succession. At first the eldest son leads, as the law of the state has it. At the tree the youngest wins, as the law of the people has it.

Tang

  • Where the Li house came from: a Chinese family of Longxi, as the Jiu Tang Shu has it, or a clan of partly Turkish blood
  • Whether the fifty years after 630 are better described as Tang rule over the Göktürks or as Göktürk service within a Tang framework
  • How much of the collapse of 630 the Tang caused and how much it inherited
Im Text · 1
  • Another account gives the origin differently. It regards Li Yuan and his son as Chinese of partly Turkish blood, and it traces the clan to a short-lived Xiongnu dynasty in the Didao region of Gansu.

The Abbasid Caliphate

  • What the battle of the Talas decided, as against the withdrawal of the Tang armies after 755
Im Text · 1
  • Scholars disagree on whether the battle or the An Lushan rebellion four years later was the decisive cause.

The Göktürk interregnum, 630–682

  • Whether the settlement of 630 was a deliberate policy of absorption or an improvisation
  • Whether Ashina Simo's khanate of 639 was meant to restore a state or to build a buffer
  • When the southern protectorate received the name Shanyu: at its founding in 650 in one account, or only after 664 in the Xin Tang Shu
Im Text · 2
  • One modern account dates his submission to 637 instead.
  • One account dates the name Shanyu to the founding of the protectorate in 650, and holds that the Tang took it from the Southern Xiongnu because Göktürk princes lived there.

The Tibetan Empire

  • Whether the empire begins with Songtsen Gampo or with his father
  • How far Tibetan control of the Tarim reached at any one date

The Umayyad Caliphate

  • How far the conquest of Transoxiana was consolidated before the Abbasid revolution

Türgesh Khaganatekurz

Im Text · 2
  • According to some scholars, the Orkhon inscriptions show that the eastern Göktürks held the Türgesh in subjection for a short time in the years 710 to 715. They pushed west on the same campaigns as far as the Iron Gate, the pass between Sogdiana and Tokharistan. Where the pass lay, and whether the Göktürks met Arabs there, is disputed.
  • Some scholars identify the ruler of the coin with the Baga Tarkhan of the Chinese sources and give his reign as 740 to 766.

Turk Shahi of Kabul and Kapisa

  • Dates
  • When Turkic rule began at Kapisa: about 625 with a western Göktürk prince, about 666 with Barhatakin, or about 711 to 719
  • Whether the Turk Shahi of the Arabic and Indian accounts are one line with the kings of Jibin whom the Tang invested
  • Whether the Xin Tang Shu says that Zabulistan subdued Kapisa after 710 or that Zabulistan became a vassal of Kapisa
  • How the dynasty ended: with the Hindu Shahi in 843, or in the 860s and 870, with Lalliya and the Saffarid conquest of Kabul
  • Whether the Wusan Tegin Sa of the Chinese texts was the son of the founder Barhatakin or a prince of Zabulistan
Im Text · 2
  • The accounts do not agree on when the Turkic dynasty began. The dates run from about 625 to about 719.
  • Some scholars identify Vahitigina with Barhatakin.

Uyghur Khaganate

  • How the khan of 839 died: killed by his minister in the Jiu Tang Shu, by his own hand in the Xin Tang Shu
  • The identity of the 'Heavenly Khaghan' of the Chinese Karabalghasun inscription
  • The dates of the khaghans the Chinese call Huaixin and Baoyi
  • Whether the drought of 783 to 850 weakened the khaganate, or trade and the Sogdians shielded it from the worst
Im Text · 8
  • Further texts of the Uyghur age survive in pieces or with disputed readings. The stele of Tes is broken, the painted runiform texts of Hoyto Tamir are known from copies, and the gravestone of Ulaangom is cut in Uyghur letters, though its place in the khaganate is doubted.
  • The Chinese text of the Karabalghasun stele, written after 808, tells of a khan's restoration of the empire. He may be this founder of the second line. Another dating puts him somewhat later.
  • Most accounts give 805 for the death of the founder of this line and so for the accession of Baoyi. A study of the succession of the khans argues for 808, and later work follows it.
  • Others hold that in law they stood level with the Uyghurs themselves.
  • A line of the Šine-Usu stone names the Ten Uyghurs and the Nine Oguz one after the other as the people that remained. This is taken to show that the Nine Oguz were a people distinct from the Uyghurs.
  • Some hold the Shatuo to be the part of the Toquz Oghuz that moved east into the Tarim lands before 840 and held Beshbalik early in the ninth century.
  • Al-Tabari calls it the army of the Toghuz-Oghuz. These may be the Oghuz of the Aral Sea. Others hold that they were the Uyghurs, who were then expanding fast.
  • Others call the claim exaggerated, because the Uyghur khan still defended his co-religionists in China and under the Samanids by force.

Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho

  • When the state began: Menglig Tegin in the area by 856, or Toquz Oguz tribes entering in 866; Menglig proclaimed khagan before 848 in a third account
  • Which city was the capital: Gaochang on one view, Beshbalik in a second
Im Text · 4
  • In another account, the Uyghurs of the Tianshan proclaimed Menglig khagan before 848.
  • In 856 the Chinese court recognised him under the title Ulug Tengride Kut Bolmïsh Alp Külüg Bilge.
  • A further account has the Uyghurs of Gaochang choose Menglig as khagan under the same title and make Gaochang their capital.
  • The capital of the kingdom is disputed. Some scholars think that it was Gaochang. Others argue that it was Beshbalik, because Arslan Khan treated Beiting as his permanent home, while only his relative Ata Öge lived permanently at Gaochang.

Volga Bulgariakurz

  • When the Bulgars reached the middle Volga: the middle of the seventh century, or the middle of the eighth or early ninth

Western Göktürk Khaganate

  • Dates
  • When the western wing became a polity of its own: under Istemi, about 583, or only after Tardush's collapse in 603
  • From whom the later western khans descended: from Istemi, or from Apa Khan, or from Istemi's line only after 603
  • Whether the after-effects run to the 740s, if the Ten Arrows and the Türgeş are counted
  • Whether Tong Yabgu's reign began in 618 or in 619
  • The year of Tong Yabgu's murder: 627, 628 or 630
  • Whether the Göktürk ruler who met Heraclius before Tiflis was Tong Yabgu or a chief of the Khazars
Im Text · 10
  • Scholars dispute when the western wing became a polity of its own. Some date it to Istemi's era. Others date it to about 583 and the struggle for the supreme khaganate that began then.
  • The civil war had a western chapter in the first great Göktürk–Persian war. A Göktürk army crossed the Oxus in 588 and took Balkh and Herat. Bahram Chobin destroyed it.
  • The Persian tradition names its leader Šāba, "the greatest king of the Turks". One account makes him Tardush's son. Another makes him Bagha, Ishbara's brother. The identification is not settled.
  • Some derive them from Istemi. Others, following the Sui Shu, derive them from Apa Khan, Mukan's son, who failed to gain the eastern throne.
  • A third reconstruction has Istemi's line take power in the west only after Tardush's collapse.
  • A fourth tries to reconcile the sources. In it Apa drives Tardush out of his western holdings, which sets Tardush on his drive for the east. Apa holds the west for a time until Istemi's line reasserts itself.
  • Another suggestion regards Heraclius's ally as a chief of the Khazars and not as Tong Yabgu.
  • It has been argued that by the first quarter of the seventh century most of the western Göktürks had adopted Buddhism, and that Tong Yabgu spread the faith with more energy than he conquered.
  • The Cefu yuangui sets Taizong's mourning for him under 627. The Zizhi Tongjian enters the murder at the end of 628. One reckoning dates it to 630.
  • The Tang annals put the campaign in 657, the capture in 658 and Helu's death in 659. One reckoning takes the last of those years as the end of the khaganate.

Western Roman Empirekurz

  • What the Huns meant for its fall: they were indirectly responsible, by driving the Germanic peoples into the empire; or they held the Germanic invasions back between 430 and 455 and sped them up before and after

Western Wei

  • The year of the division of the Wei: 534, when the emperor went west and a second emperor was raised at Ye, or 535, the first year of the Western Wei's own emperor
  • Whether the emperor Xiaowu died a natural death, as the Zhou Shu records it without comment, or of poison, as the Bei Shi states
  • The year in which the Western Wei handed the Rouran fugitives to the Göktürks: 555 in the Bei Shi's Rouran chapter; the Zhou Shu gives no year, and the handover is often dated to 553
  • The year of the joint campaign of Mukan and Shi Ning against the Tuyuhun: 555 in the Zhou Shu's Tuyuhun chapter, 556 by the reading of its Göktürk chapter
Im Text · 2
  • The embassy may have been the Wei's answer to the raids: an offer of trade that forestalled plunder. By contrast, the Zhou Shu tells it as a Göktürk wish for trade that the Wei answered.
  • The Göktürk chapter sets it in a third year, which the modern editors read as 556. Shi Ning's biography places it shortly before Yuwen Tai's death late in 556.

Xiongnu

  • Language of the confederation as a whole: Turkic, Yeniseian, Iranian or mixed
  • Whether the Ashina descended from the Xiongnu, as the Zhou Shu and Sui Shu assert
  • Whether the Han Shu's gloss of Gutu as 'son' or the Turkic derivation as Kut is correct
  • Whether the Northern Xiongnu who went west after 91 AD became the Huns of Europe
  • Whether the Xiongnu polity was a state or a military confederation
  • The last dates of the Northern Xiongnu in the east: an attempt on their old lands in 150 and a Xianbei victory in 155, or a last raid on Yiwu in 151 and a move west around 158
Im Text · 20
  • F. W. K. Müller had already explained chengli gutu as Old Turkic täŋri qut, "holy majesty".
  • İbrahim Kafesoğlu adds the words for sky, power, wolf, realm, camp, standard and sabre.
  • The Xiongnu word for the ceremonial sword, Chinese jinglu, has been set beside Turkic kıŋrak, "large knife", and has been called the oldest Turkic word on record.
  • Edwin Pulleyblank found the match in meaning and sound striking. He pointed out, however, that the Turkic word probably has a connection with Iranian words for "sword" as well.
  • He holds that they saw themselves as the continuation of the great Xiongnu state, as the many Xiongnu titles in their state show.
  • Kafesoğlu holds that the Xiongnu state took its form from the steppe and not from China. He names a central command, an army ordered by tens, wings on the left and the right, and an assembly of the ruling men.
  • Pulleyblank judged that Müller's derivation of the title becomes less plausible once the Han-period form of the word is reconstructed.
  • Kurakichi Shiratori rejected it too and took gutu for a Tungusic word, hutta, "son".
  • In 1990 he held that the Xiongnu words in Chinese transcription cannot be explained as Turkic or as any other Altaic language.
  • By 1926 he took the Xiongnu for a mainly Mongolic people with some Tungusic admixture. He treated shanyu as a Chinese expression, took yanzhi and gutu for Tungusic words, and called the attribution to the Turks a long-established habit of Western scholars.
  • Paul Pelliot found the element gutu again in the title of a Rouran khan. He took the endings in -fa of several Göktürk titles for a Rouran legacy of Mongolic form.
  • How far a shared name means a shared people is the central question of the Hun problem. It remains undecided.
  • Where they came from before that is argued. Some argue that they did not come from the Orkhon but from the west, and that Mongolia was only the left wing of their empire. They reject the claim that the empire was a Mongolian state.
  • Kurakichi Shiratori took the god of Jinglu in 1930 for a god of the sword. He held that the golden men were lesser gods beside it.
  • Other writers gloss the Turkic word as 'double-bladed knife' or 'large knife'. One of them calls the jinglu the oldest Turkic word on record.
  • Pulleyblank found the match in meaning and sound striking. He pointed out that the Turkic word is probably linked with Iranian words for 'sword', and held the Xiongnu form to be closer to the Turkic than to the Iranian forms.
  • Two further proposals were put forward earlier in the twentieth century. One of 1918 took the statues for an Indian god that reached the Xiongnu through the Yuezhi in Bactria. A later proposal rejected it, because the Yuezhi were enemies of the Xiongnu and Brahmanism never left India.
  • Shiratori took the golden men of the Xiutu king for a Han-period cast made after the twelve bronze figures of the First Emperor of Qin. In his view they were neither a Buddha, nor an Indian god, nor a Xiongnu god.
  • From the eighteenth century on, a long line of scholars has held the Xiongnu to be Turks.
  • One of them identifies the core of the Xiongnu with the Turkic mass whose ancestors are placed in the Altai–Sayan region and who spread from there to the Ordos and Gansu.

Xiongnu Hankurz

  • Whether the claim to the Han succession was a dynastic fiction for a Chinese audience or was meant seriously within the house

Xueyantuo Khaganate (Syr Tardush)

  • Whether the name is one ethnonym or two joined
  • Whether Xueyantuo renders Sır Tarduš: Hirth's equation against Boodberg's objection
  • Whether their rising or the winters of 627 and 628 did more to bring Ilig down
Im Text · 2
  • Paul Boodberg held that the equation rests on a misunderstanding. The objection has never been answered in full.
  • Some scholars identify the Xue with the Xinli, a people of southern Siberia whom the Xiongnu ruler Modu had conquered. It equates their name with the Sır of the Orkhon inscriptions.

Yabgus of Tokharistan

  • The year the line began: about 625, by one dating of Tong Yabgu's campaign, though the yabgu title is first attested at Huo in 643 or 644
  • Whether the ruler Xuanzang met at Huo on his return was a nephew of Tong Yabgu, as the translations of the Life have it, or his grandson, the tegin who had seized the rank of shad
  • Whether the entry of 645 in the Cefu yuangui names one Tokharian yabgu called Shabolo or two yabgus side by side
  • Whether the Wushibo of the Cefu yuangui, the Wujingbo of the Tang Huiyao and the Sem of the coins are one man
  • When the Yuezhi Area Command was set up: in the Xianqing years, 656 to 661, as the Xin Tang Shu says, in 652 as the Tang Huiyao has it, or in 661 with the other Tang area commands of the west
Im Text · 2
  • It has another in the first month of 645, in a list that names a Tuhuoluo yabgu and a Shabolo yabgu. Shabolo may be the personal name of the Tokharian yabgu.
  • Sem may be the Wushibo of the Chinese record.

Yenisei Kirghiz Khaganate

  • How far Kirghiz authority reached into Mongolia after 840 and how long it lasted: a hold of a few years on the plateau, a state from Lake Baikal to the Irtysh, or a Great Kirghiz State to about 917 or 924
  • Whether the Kirghiz khan who took Ordu-Balık was still alive when the Tang invested the Kirghiz in 847
  • Where the khan's seat lay: Midizhi of the Tang histories and Kemijkat of the Ḥudūd, equated, or Kemijkat on the Kem in Tuva
  • The name Are: a title, a clan name or the ruler's own name
  • The religion of the Kirghiz nobility: Nestorian or Manichaean
  • The date of the Yenisei runic inscriptions and of the stone of Suji
Im Text · 18
  • A separate argument finds three strata in the Kirghiz country: a red-haired Europoid one, a Mongoloid one from Lake Baikal and a Turkic one from the Altai and the Kem. It holds that the Turkicisation of the Göktürk period reached only the ruling class.
  • Three reconstructions stand against Drompp's. The first, Kyzlasov's, gives the Kirghiz a state that held the Khakas-Minusinsk basin, the Altai, the middle Irtysh, the Ob and Angara, Tuva, north-western Mongolia and Lake Baikal. Some Uyghur tribes would have remained in Mongolia under Kirghiz overlordship. The reconstruction rests largely on conjecture.
  • The second is the Great Kirghiz State of 840 to 924 of national historiography in Kyrgyzstan and Khakassia, a power reaching from Mongolia to eastern Turkestan.
  • The third has the Kirghiz empire last until about 917, when the Khitan united northern China and Mongolia and the khan went back to his old seat on the Yenisei. A variant has it last until 924, when the Khitan pushed the Kirghiz back from the Orkhon.
  • Turkish handbooks give this account as an event, dated 920 in one and 924 in another, and name no source for it.
  • Its editors take the name as a corruption of Midizhi. Kyzlasov identifies it as Kemijkat, a town on the Kem, and counts it among the former Uyghur fortress towns on the Ulug-Khem in Tuva.
  • The same scholars tie the texts to the Göktürks of Tuva, but they say that the texts name no people and that the script need not have had a single bearer.
  • The dating of the stones is argued. Most of them have been put in the seventh century. Another proposal puts them two or three centuries before the Orkhon inscriptions. The stele of Begre has been dated to the second half of the ninth century.
  • S. G. Klyashtorny reads the stone of Suji in northern Mongolia as naming a Kirghiz officer who took part in the fall of the Yaglakar khans, the Uyghur ruling house. He dates it after 840.
  • Another dating puts the stone at the end of the eighth century.
  • The stone of Suji has the Syriac word mar, lord or teacher. The teacher may have been a Nestorian. The nobility would favour such a teacher after its alliance with the Karluks and its war against the Manichaean Uyghurs, so the word would be a sign of the Church of the East. A different explanation takes him for a Manichaean and makes Manichaeism the state religion of the Kirghiz for five centuries.
  • Its notes on the Turkic peoples probably go back to the early tenth century. The editors do not agree on which of these notes rest on older material.
  • It is argued in a debate of 1992 whether the name stands for the Kirghiz or for an older state with the name of the later Khakas. S. G. Klyashtorny, S. E. Yakhontov and V. Ja. Butanaev take Jiankun, Jiegu and Xiajiasi as spellings of one people, the Kirghiz. They take the name Khakas as a self-designation of 1917 and 1918. I. L. Kyzlasov takes Xiajiasi as the Chinese form of Khakas, the name of the medieval state, with Kirghiz as the name of its ruling stratum.
  • There are five explanations of the word, in its Turkic form aco or ace. The first sees in it a Chinese writing of inal. The second takes it for a Samoyedic word asse, "father". The third takes it for the tribal name Az. The fourth takes it for Turkic idi, "lord", which Anvarbek Mokeev argues.
  • The fifth takes it for the ruler's own name, since no Old Turkic word corresponds to it.
  • A Kazakh scholar adopted the second explanation. In his view, aco first meant the head of a large patriarchal family and became the title of a ruler when the state arose.
  • Mokeev's reply to the derivations from inal and from the tribal name makes three points. The Xin Tangshu names tribal heads after their tribes and the Kirghiz lord by a different word. There is no sound link between inal and the tribe Az. And inal elsewhere names the head of a principality, not of a state.
  • Mokeev holds that the Kirghiz lost the title of khan when the great state ended in the first quarter of the tenth century. This sits ill with the khāqān of the Ḥudūd.

Kriege

Arab–Khazar Wars (642–737)

  • Whether the army that beat the Arabs at the Gate of the Huns in 655 was Khazar
  • How the Arab counterstroke after Ardabil went, and how large the armies of 730 and 737 were
  • Whether the khagan's Islam of 737 was more than a gesture made under the sword, and how long it lasted

Attila's Balkan wars

  • The chronology: a war in 441 and 442 and one great invasion in 447 in one reckoning; a war from 441 to 443, ended by a first peace of Anatolius, and a second invasion in 447 in a second
  • What the bishop of Margus robbed: the royal tombs, as the Greek can be construed; the royal treasure in the Latin of the edition
  • Why the Huns invaded in 447: the sources may give no reason at all; alternatively the refused fugitives and arrears, together with Huns raiding on their own
  • When Sirmium fell: 441 by some datings; the fragment of Priscus is undated

Fall of the Second Khaganate, 741–744

  • Whether Ozmish was the Left Shad himself, his son, or the Basmïl chieftain
  • Who began the killing in 741: the Left Shad in the Jiu Tang Shu, the yabgu Guduo in the Xin Tang Shu
  • Whether the dynasty ends in 744 with Ozmish or in 745 with his brother Baimei Khan
Im Text · 1
  • The sources do not settle which man began the killing.

Gaoche secession (487)

  • The year: 487 (Taihe 11) in the Gaoche chapter; the Rouran chapter tells the secession under the Wei campaign of 492 (Taihe 16); a third account has 485 or 486
  • The number: 'more than 100,000 tents' in the Wei Shu, a figure of the usual round kind
Im Text · 1
  • The five-year difference lies in the two chapters themselves. It is not resolved here.

Göktürk Expansion along the Silk Road

  • The year of the Hephthalite collapse: about 560 in one reckoning, 557 in a second, between 563 and 567 in a third
  • Where the decisive battle against the Hephthalites was fought: Bukhara in one reconstruction, Nasaf in an older statement
  • When the Göktürk bride went to Khosrow I: in 554, before the war, or at the pact that closed it
  • Who led the Göktürk army of 588: Bagha, a son of Tardush named Šāba, or a Sogdian prince of the Oxus lands
  • Whether the Göktürks drew Rome into the war with Persia of 571–590, or Rome the Göktürks
  • Whether the Jebu Xak'an of the Armenian history and the Ziebel of Theophanes is Tong Yabgu, as Josef Marquart held and Édouard Chavannes denied
Im Text · 5
  • When the marriage was made is disputed.
  • The year of the collapse is disputed.
  • Counted from Justin's accession in November 565, that is August 569. An older count puts the departure in August 568.
  • Who Šāba was is disputed.
  • Whether Jebu Xak'an and Ziebel were Tong Yabgu himself is a long-standing controversy.

Göktürk Expansion into Europe

  • Whether Askel, whose envoys Theophanes records at Constantinople in 563, was a Göktürk ruler or a chief of the Avars
  • Whether Turxanthos named the Alans and the Utigurs as subject peoples, or the Alans and the Onogurs
  • The date of the fall of Bosporos: 576, while Valentinos was still with the Göktürks, or about 579
  • Whether the alliance with Byzantium outlasted the events of 576, or whether open war followed, as Menander says
  • Whether the Göktürks besieged Chersonesos, or whether the Göktürks near Cherson in 580 were a pretext of the emperor
  • Whether the Sul of Tabari lay in Gurgan or at the Caucasus pass of Čor
  • The date of the revolt of Turum in Theophylact: 581 and 582, or the 590s
  • Whether the Ogor of the khagan's letter are the Ogurs of the Volga or the Uyghurs
Im Text · 13
  • Some scholars identify Askel with a western Göktürk chief known in Chinese as A-hsi-chieh. That would make his embassy the first from the Göktürks to Byzantium.
  • Others take Askel for a king of the Avars, on the ground that the first Göktürk embassy came in 568.
  • Counted from Justin's accession in November 565, that wording falls in August 569. An older count puts the departure in August 568.
  • The Turkic name is understood as Ak Tag, the white mountain. It has been placed in the Altai and in the Yulduz valley.
  • Some scholars place Sul in Gurgan. They argue that Sinjibu's arm did not reach the Caucasus.
  • Others place it at the Caucasus pass of Čor by Derbent. In that case Sinjibu was the overlord of the Khazars, the Bulgars and the Balanjar.
  • A second reckoning dates the attack to 576 and the fall of the city to about 579.
  • Others ascribe the letter to Istemi himself.
  • If the Til is the Volga and the Kolkh are the people of Colchis, the Ogor are the Ogurs near the Caucasus.
  • Some scholars identify the Til with the Tola in Mongolia.
  • Others regard Ogor as a garbled form of Uyghur.
  • Some scholars date the revolt to 581 and 582.
  • Others place it in the 590s. They see it as a revolt of the Ogurs and connect it with the flight of Ogur tribes to the Avars in Pannonia.

Göktürk war of restoration, 679–687

  • Whether the rising of 682 belongs to 682 or 683: the Xin Tang Shu gives 682, the Jiu Tang Shu 683
  • Whether the Apa Tarkan Ashide Yuanzhen of the Tang history is the Tonyukuk of the inscription
  • Whether the first rising of 679–681 and Ilterish's of 682 are one war or two
Im Text · 2
  • The Xin Tang Shu dates the rising to 682. The Jiu Tang Shu dates it to 683. Modern accounts follow 682.
  • Whether that man is Tonyukuk is the question the Tonyukuk article treats. The Tang history has Yuanzhen fall against the Türgesh before Gudulu died. The equation has to explain that away.

Göktürk–Persian war, 588–589

  • Who led the Göktürk army: Bagha Khan on one view, a son of Tardush called Šāba on a second, a prince of the Oxus states on a third, a Kushan king whom the romance of Bahram merged into the story on a fourth
  • The year and place of the decisive battle: April 588 at the Hyrcanian rock, 589 at Herat, or two campaigning seasons in 587 and 588
  • Whether the leader's death by Bahram's arrow is a report or a topos of Persian storytelling
  • The numbers: 12,000 Persians against 300,000 Göktürks in Tabari and the epic; a more realistic figure for the Göktürks lies between 20,000 and 30,000
  • Why Bahram revolted: the quarrel over the booty in the Armenian and Persian accounts, his defeat by the Romans in Albania in Theophylact
Im Text · 2
  • Lev Gumilev identified this son with Shir-i Kishvar, the younger son of Qara Churin in the Bukharan tradition, and with a figure of the Chinese sources.
  • On the second theory, this identification cannot be established.

Han campaigns against the Northern Xiongnu

  • Whether the Northern Xiongnu who moved west after these defeats became the Huns of Europe
  • How much of the fighting was Han and how much was done by the Southern Xiongnu and the Xianbei on Han pay
  • Whether the northern chanyu's people held the Wusun country on the Ili until about 158 or went on at once towards Kangju
Im Text · 5
  • A modern account doubts the scale of the victory. Most of what is known comes from the stone that Dou Xian had cut at the end of the first campaign, and the stone records the success of a prince who had been sent out to earn a pardon. The same account puts Mount Jiluo near the Gaoque pass north of the Ordos, on what had long been an ordinary Han frontier, and not in the Altai.
  • The Xiongnu who left in 91 have been placed between Lake Balkhash and the Aral Sea and identified as the ancestors of the Volga Huns.
  • Others call the Wei Shu account of the Yueban a legend. In their argument, the Yueban state existed earlier and that the Xiongnu only subjected it in 91.
  • A third explanation sees in the Yueban a mixture of the old Xiongnu of the Tianshan with the Xiongnu who came from the Orkhon in 91.
  • Under the Huns, Turkic Atlas sets out whether the people who arrived in Europe three centuries later were those groups. Turkic Atlas does not answer the question here.

Hegemony Wars in Northern China

  • Whether the wars of northern China from 534 to 630 form one series at all, or only a sequence under a modern name
  • Where the series begins and ends: the wider frame runs from about 200 to 750, the narrower from 534 to 630
  • Which decades belong to the Göktürks as arbiters and which to the Göktürks as instrument
Im Text · 2
  • Modern accounts draw two opposite conclusions from the same sources. The first sees the Göktürks as the arbiters of northern China, who took what they wanted from both sides and sold the surplus silk to the Persians and the Romans.
  • The second sees them as the instrument of whichever Chinese state was cleverest. The Sui played them against their own kin, and the Tang broke them, so that the reunification of China was completed on the steppe in 630.

Hunnic conquest of the Goths

  • The date: usually 375; undatable for some scholars, soon after 370 for others, about 375 for a third group
  • How Hermanaric died: by his own hand in Ammianus; of a wound and of grief at the Hun attacks, at the age of 110, in Jordanes
  • Whether the Hun king Balamber of Jordanes existed: shadowy but perhaps a king for some scholars, a Gothic invention for others
  • Whom Vithimiris fought: the Alans, with hired Huns on his side, in Ammianus; in the Gothic tradition of Jordanes Vinitharius fought the Huns of Balamber and fell at the river Erac
  • Whether the Huns fought at Adrianople in 378: perhaps leading the decisive cavalry charge according to some scholars, staying away according to others

Hunnic invasion of 395

  • Whether the raid of Basich and Kursich that Priscus reports belongs to 395: two views say yes; a third dates it to about 415 to 420 or a little later
  • Whether Huns also crossed the frozen Danube into Thrace in 395: two views say yes; a third holds that the invasion of Thrace in that year rests on a misreading of the sources
  • Whether the raids over the Danube and over the Caucasus were concerted: one view sees two unrelated groups; a second sees the raid into Asia as a concerted action of many Hun groups
  • How the war in the East ended: the Huns were unopposed until Eutropius took the field, and peace returned at the end of 398 (first view); the Huns left about 398 of their own accord (second); the Huns were back in the steppe in 395 and only a few hordes reached Roman Armenia in 397 (third)
  • Which way Basich and Kursich rode: down the Tigris and Euphrates as far as Ctesiphon (first view); or from Erzurum through Melitene, Cilicia, Edessa, Antioch and Tyre, and home through Cappadocia and Galatia (second)
  • Who the invaders were: Sabirs (first view), Hephthalites (second), or Huns from the Danube, because their leaders later came to Rome (third)
Im Text · 3
  • A second account gives the two leaders a different route. According to it, their cavalry rode from the region of Erzurum down the valleys of the Karasu and the Euphrates to Melitene and Cilicia.
  • They besieged Edessa and Antioch for a time, went down into Syria, pressed Tyre and turned towards Jerusalem.
  • In the autumn they turned north through Cappadocia and Galatia and came home by way of Azerbaijan and Baku, in 395 to 396.

Hunnic invasion of Gaul, 451

  • Why Attila turned on Gaul: a bribe from the Vandal king Gaiseric in Jordanes; Honoria and the Frankish succession in Priscus; the contest with Aetius for influence among the Franks, as some argue; others hold that the reason is not known
  • What happened at Orléans: in Jordanes the city was fortified before Attila came; the Huns besieged it and broke in before the allies drove them off, according to some; according to others the Alans held it against a siege, and Attila withdrew towards Hungary
  • Whether Attila fought a second campaign against the Alans beyond the Loire: so in Jordanes; mentioned by no other author and generally disbelieved

Hunnic invasion of Italy, 452

  • Why Attila withdrew: the embassy of Pope Leo in the chronicle of Prosper; famine, disease and the attack of an eastern army on the Huns at home, as two explanations; in Jordanes, after Priscus, his men warned him with the fate of Alaric; the pope, Alaric's fate, plague and want of fodder together, as a further explanation
  • Whether the Huns crossed the Po: they devastated Aemilia south of the river according to some scholars; Attila never set foot south of the Po according to others
  • Whether Aetius was caught off guard: so according to some scholars; no fifth-century defender held the Julian Alps according to others
  • What became of Milan and Ticinum: devastated in Jordanes; taken but not plundered according to some scholars

Kapgan's wars with the Tang, 698–716

  • Whether the six prefectures of 698 were handed over as the price of an alliance or extorted
  • When Kapgan sent his son Yangwozhi Tegin to the Tang court: once the Princess of Jinshan was named, as in the Jiu Tang Shu, or after Xuanzong ended the marriage talks, as in the Xin Tang Shu

Kapgan's western war, 709–713

  • The year of Bolchu: 710 or 711
  • Which Türgesh khan fell there
Im Text · 4
  • These mountains have been identified with the Tian Shan and given the Turkic name Ak Tag, the Ektag where Istemi received the Roman envoy in 569.
  • Scholars calculate the date in three ways. The first keeps that date and adds a check. Kül Tegin was twenty-six in the year of the Kirghiz and Türgesh campaigns, which is 710 if he was born in 684.
  • The second puts the acquisition of the Ten Arrows at about 711 to 712. It identifies the Türgesh khan as Saqal, who perished there with his brother.
  • It is therefore not settled which Türgesh khan fell at Bolchu.

Mukan's Eastern and Northern Wars

  • The years: the Zhou Shu gives none; the Zizhi tongjian enters the passage under 555; one reckoning dates the annexation of the Kirghiz about 560
  • Which people the Sui edict of 583 put in the Göktürks' rear: the Qigu in the Bei Shi's text, the Khitan in the Sui Shu's
  • Where the three seas of the Zhou Shu lay: the Western Sea is understood as the Caspian, the Northern Sea as Lake Baikal

Revolt of the Six Garrisons

  • The year of the outbreak: 523 in the Zizhi Tongjian, the third month of 524 in the annals of the Wei Shu
  • Whether the Kongque whom Anagui beheaded in the Wei Shu is the Kongque who went over to Erzhu Rong in the Bei Qi Shu
Im Text · 2
  • The Zizhi Tongjian tells this under 523. The annals of the Wei Shu, by contrast, put Baling's rising in the third month of 524.
  • If the two are one man, the two accounts cannot both be true. The sources do not say which one is wrong.

Rouran civil war (520–521)

  • Anagui's accession: 520 in the Wei Shu; 516 in another chronology
Im Text · 1
  • A different chronology places Anagui's accession and his victory over the Tölös in 516. It passes over the year of four rulers. Turkic Atlas sets the two chronologies side by side under the khaganate.

Rouran Domination of the Turkic Peoples

  • The secession of the Gaoche: 487 in the Gaoche chapter of the Wei Shu, 492 in the Rouran chapter
  • The subjection of the Tiele: about 400 under Shelun in the Wei Shu; 460 in one modern reckoning
  • The reconquest of the west: Chounu's, in 516, in the Wei Shu; Anagui's, after 520, in a modern account
Im Text · 2
  • The five-year difference between the two chapters remains unresolved.
  • Some modern accounts credit this western victory to Anagui after 520. The Wei Shu, by contrast, credits it to Chounu in 516.

Taiwu's campaign against the Rouran (429)

  • The decisive blow: 424 by one reckoning; 429 in the Wei Shu and in Peter B. Golden
  • Whether Taiwu could have captured Datan and hesitated for fear of a trap, as some suggest; the Wei Shu says no one knew where Datan had gone
Im Text · 1
  • One reckoning dates the heavy defeat of the Rouran to 424.

Tang conquest of the eastern Khaganate, 626–630

  • Whether Ilig was handed over by his kinsman Shaboluo's camp or by his own uncle
  • Whether the cold of 626 and 627 is a cause of the collapse or a circumstance of it
Im Text · 3
  • Modern accounts disagree on whether that cold caused the collapse or was only a circumstance of it. The article on climate covers the debate.
  • The Jiu Tang Shu names four other roads. The Xin Tang Shu, by contrast, names five, with one more column under Li Daozong, and counts more than a hundred thousand men.
  • By contrast, the other account has the Göktürk commanders surrendering one after another. Ilig's own uncle handed the khan over with his own hands. The two field records stand side by side.

The Caucasus campaign, 627–629

  • Whether Jebu Xak'an, the Ziebel of Theophanes, is Tong Yabgu, khan of the western Göktürks, as Josef Marquart held and Édouard Chavannes denied
  • The year of the meeting before Tiflis: 626 on the reckoning of Theophanes, 627 in one reconstruction, 628 on the Armenian count of Khosrow's years
  • The fall of Tiflis: to the northern army alone in a second siege, as the Armenian account has it, or to Heraclius and an officer he left behind, as the Georgian chronicle tells it
  • Whether the northern army is Göktürk, Khazar, or a Göktürk command over Khazar troops
Im Text · 1

The Göktürk Civil War

  • When the war began: 584 in part of the literature; about 582, with Tardush's revolt, in Peter B. Golden; 581–582 in Czeglédy's dating of the civil war Theophylact reports
  • When the realm was divided: 583 by one dating, 587 by Ishbara's death and Apa's capture, 603 by a third
  • Whether the Göktürk succession system or the Sui agents were the cause
Im Text · 5
  • One reckoning dates the war from 584 and its end to 603.
  • Another reckoning dates Tardush's revolt, the war's most serious threat, from about 582. It has Tardush hold supreme power in the united khaganates from about 600 to 603, before his fall.
  • Theophylact reports a civil war among the Göktürks and names three great khans of it who remain unidentified. Károly Czeglédy dates that war to 581–582. Mikhail Artamonov and Lev Gumilev date it to 598. Both datings stand.
  • The war's western chapter was fought against Persia. In 588, a Göktürk army crossed the Oxus and took Balkh, Herat and the cities of Bactria. Bahram Chobin destroyed it.
  • The war has its own article. Who led the army is disputed: reports name Bagha or Tardush's son.

The Göktürk–Hephthalite war, 555–563

  • The year of the destruction: reckonings differ between 557 and 563
  • Where the decisive battle was fought; Bukhara is one proposal
  • Whether the Oxus partition was agreed in advance or settled after the fact
Im Text · 3
  • Some scholars regard the battle of Bukhara as the decisive engagement. Where it was fought is itself disputed.
  • The difference of a decade lies where four chronologies meet.
  • One further survey dates the alliance of Mukan and Istemi with Khosrow to 566, and puts the defeat of the Hephthalite khans after it. In another place it dates the fall of the Hephthalite state to after 563.

The Göktürk–Rouran Wars

  • Whether the khagans and the ruling nobility of the Avars who reached the Alans about 557 came from the Rouran, or the Avars were a people of other origin that took the name
  • Whether Anagui killed himself after the defeat of 552, as the Chinese histories say
  • Whether Dengzhu, whom the Qi sent north in 553, and Dengshuzi, whom Issik broke at Mount Mulai, were one man
Im Text · 3
  • Whether Dengzhu and Dengshuzi were in fact one man, written twice, is not settled.
  • This clause is the Qi court's account of its own campaign. No Göktürk or Zhou source confirms it.
  • Whether the word means the Rouran, the Avars of Europe or both is argued.

The Göktürk–Sasanian Trade Conflict

  • The year of the embassies to Khosrow: 568 in one reckoning; Menander places them only before Maniakh's arrival in Constantinople at the beginning of Justin II's fourth year
  • Whether Persian policy was a blockade of the silk trade or a control of frontier trade combined with a political refusal of the Göktürks
  • Whether the deaths of the second embassy were murder, as Menander has it, or the heat, as the Persians gave out
  • Whether the trade motive reaches as far as the war of 588–589
Im Text · 2
  • A fifth extends the trade motive to the war of 589. It regards the war as an attempt to break the Sasanian hold on the trade between east and west.
  • A sixth holds that this claim still needs substantiation.

The Göktürk–Sui wars, 582–603

  • Whether the invasion of 582 was caused by the princess's grievance, by the end of the Zhou subsidies, or by both
  • Where Tardush went after 603 and when he died

The Turkic War of Independence

  • Whether the war is to be dated from 542 or from 546: the better date is 546, since the raid of 542 was one of the yearly winter raids on the Wei frontier
  • What Bumin did between 547 and 550: not recorded
  • The months of the two engagements of 552

The Xiongnu–Han Wars

  • The size of the armies and of the losses, which the annals give as round numbers of the Han court and which the Shiji and the Han Shu report differently: 18,000 or 8,000 killed in Huo Qubing's first sortie of 121 BC
  • The years in BC, which are reckoned from the reign names of the Han emperors, since the sources themselves give a year in BC for very few events
  • The years in which the four commanderies of Hexi were set up: Wuwei and Jiuquan in 121 BC and Zhangye and Dunhuang in 111 BC in the annals of Wudi, other years in other sources

The Zhou–Qi war, 557–577

  • Whether the Göktürk withdrawal in the spring of 564 was a defeat or a decision to stop paying for someone else's war

Uyghur–Kirghiz War

  • When the war began: about 820, in 821, or, on reports from Kirghiz-language histories, in 810 or 836
  • What brought the Uyghurs down: the drought of 783 to 850, the quarrels at court, or the Kirghiz attack
  • How the khan of 839 died: killed by his minister in the Jiu Tang Shu, by his own hand in the Xin Tang Shu
  • What the Kirghiz held after 840: a raid on the Orkhon and a return to the Yenisei, or an empire over Mongolia

Schlachten und Ereignisse

Abaoji's campaign to the Orkhon (924)

  • Whether the campaign defeated the Kirghiz, met only scattered groups, or did not touch them
  • Whether the Kirghiz empire ended about 917, in 924, or never extended over Mongolia

Abrui and Shir-i Kishvar

  • Whether the tale remembers a tyrant or personifies the river: read as a legend of the Zarafshan, as history, and as the last Hephthalite king
  • Who the king of Chin was whose daughter brought the pagoda to Ramitin
  • Who Qara Jurin Turk, Biyaghu and Shir-i Kishvar are: they have been identified as Istemi and a son of his, as a khan named Chuluo, and as Tardu and a son of his
Im Text · 2
  • A variant goes further. It identifies this elder brother with Arsilas, the eldest of the eight Göktürk rulers in Menander, set over the Göktürk half of the Hephthalite lands with his seat at Bukhara.
  • The third, by Lev Gumilev, makes Qara Jurin Tardush himself. Shir-i Kishvar is then his younger son, the Šāba who in the Persian tradition is "the greatest king of the Turks" and was beaten by Bahram Chobin at Herat in 589. The identification cannot be established.

Battle of Ardabil (730)

  • How the Arab counterstroke under Said ibn Amr went, which comes down in a form close to romance
  • Whether Bulan, to whom the Judaism of the Khazar court is traced, belongs to the years after this campaign
Im Text · 4
  • The first, private step of the Khazar court towards Judaism may have followed this campaign. The step would then have been taken under a commander called Bulan, between 730 and 740.
  • Omeljan Pritsak holds this view, and it is one of several dates proposed for the conversion.
  • A second suggestion sees in Bulan the "Bulkhan" of the Georgian chronicle in the campaign of 730.
  • The khagan would then have taken part.

Battle of Bolchu

  • Dates
  • The year: 710 by Kül Tegin's age of twenty-six if he was born in 684, 711 by Peter B. Golden; the Tang history gives the Jingyun period, 710 to 711
  • The Türgesh khan taken: Suoge, as the Tang history names the khan Kapgan destroyed; Golden has both Suoge and his brother Zhenu perish
  • Where Bolchu lay: beyond the Irtysh from the Altai, which puts it on the Dzungarian side; no closer identification is secure
Im Text · 5
  • The Tang history's Jingyun period is 710 to 711. Kül Tegin was twenty-six in the year of the Kirghiz and Türgesh campaigns, which is 710 if he was born in 684.
  • A second reckoning puts the acquisition of the Ten Arrows at about 711 to 712. In it the Türgesh khan Saqal, the Suoge of the Chinese, and his brother both perish.
  • Bolchu lay beyond the Irtysh from the Altai, on the Dzungarian side. The Yarısh plain where the Türgesh had gathered lay near it. Nothing closer is secure.
  • The fifth line of the Ulaangom inscription, cut in Uyghur letters in the style of the Orkhon texts, has the sequence boluçu öğüz(tä), which its first reader gives with a question mark.
  • Another reader takes the words for bulun üküş, "many captives". The sequence has not been tied to the battle.

Battle of Bukhara

  • The year: about 560, against 557 and 563 to 567 in the literature
  • The place: Bukhara in some views; the hills at Nasaf in a reconstruction from Firdausi; no place in Tabari, in Menander or in the History of Bukhara
  • The name of the Hephthalite king: Wrz in Tabari, Axšunwāz in Masʿudi, Ghadfar or Gatfar in the Persian epic tradition
  • Whether Khosrow fought at all: Tabari gives the killing of the king to the khagan alone; the Chinese chapters give the victory to the Göktürk khan alone
Im Text · 1
  • Tabari gives no year, and neither do the Chinese chapters. Menander gives only a terminus.

Battle of Huaihuang, 552

  • The month: the first month of the Chinese year by the Zhou Shu, March in one modern reckoning
  • Whether Bumin and Anagui met in person: likely, not attested
  • Anagui's suicide
Im Text · 2
  • Doubt has been raised about the suicide. No comparable case is recorded for a steppe ruler of the period, and a defeated ruler was more usually killed by his own court.
  • The doubt is set out in Anagui's article.

Battle of Jingyang (626)

  • The month of the invasion: the seventh in the Jiu Tang Shu, the Tongdian and the Xin Tang Shu, the eighth in the Zizhi tongjian and in the annals of the Jiu Tang Shu
  • The year in Yuchi Jingde's biography, which tells the fight under the first year of Zhenguan

Battle of Lake Sevan (629–630)

  • Who sent Čorpan Tarxan: the prince of the north in the Armenian account, Börü Shad as the yabgu's deputy in another account

Battle of Mount Dajin (600)

  • Dates
  • The year: 600 in the Zizhi tongjian; after Tulan's death of 599 in the Sui Shu's chapter on the Göktürks; 599, before Tulan's death, in the annals of the Sui Shu as translated
  • The road by which Shi Wansui marched: Shuozhou, Mayi or Dingxiang
  • The Göktürk dead: more than 2,000 heads and prisoners in the Sui Shu, several thousand heads in the Zizhi tongjian

Battle of Mount Mulai (553)

  • The year: the Zizhi tongjian has 553; the Zhou Shu allows any time between Issik's accession and the spring of 553
  • Whether Dengzhu, whom the Qi sent back north in 553, and Dengshuzi, whom Issik beat, were one man: the Zizhi tongjian keeps them apart
Im Text · 1
  • Whether they were in fact one man, written twice, is not settled.

Battle of the Catalaunian Plains

  • Who won: a Roman and Gothic victory in Jordanes and the Gothic tradition; strictly undecided, though a lost battle for the Huns, according to some; a strategic Roman victory according to others; a failure for Attila that left his strength unbroken according to still others
  • Where it was fought: Châlons-sur-Marne, Méry-sur-Seine and Beauvoir east of Troyes have all been proposed
  • The numbers: 500,000 men in Attila's army and 165,000 dead in Jordanes; up to 300,000 combatants in one reckoning; no more than a fifth of Attila's figure in another
  • Why Attila came to Gaul: a bribe from the Vandal king Gaiseric in Jordanes, which some reject; Honoria and the Franks in Priscus; the contest with Aetius for influence among the Franks, as others argue
  • Whether Attila besieged Orléans before the battle: so in one account; in Jordanes the Alan king Sangiban offered to hand over the city, and Aetius and Theodorid fortified it before Attila arrived

Battle of the Iron Mountain (630)

  • Where the battle was fought: at the Iron Mountain in the Göktürk chapters, at the Yinshan in the Zizhi tongjian and the annals; the site of the Iron Mountain itself is not settled

Battle of the Nedao

  • The year: 454 by one dating, probably 455 by another
  • Who began the revolt: Ardaric in Jordanes; Ostrogoths in the Tisza valley, as a prelude to Ardaric's rising, according to some scholars
  • The river: probably a tributary of the Sava in southern Pannonia; the name occurs nowhere else

Battle of Zhoupan (582)

  • The outcome: the Göktürk chapter and the annals of the Sui Shu count Daxi Zhangru among the commanders the Göktürks defeated; his biography and the Zizhi tongjian tell a stand after which the Göktürks withdrew
  • Why the Göktürks went home: Tardush refused to go further and a false report of a Tiele rising turned Ishbara back, by the Zizhi tongjian; a real Tiele rising drew Tardush away, by one account

Campaign of Marwan (737)

  • How large the Arab armies were
  • Whether the khagan's Islam was more than a gesture made under the sword, and how long it lasted

Capture of Apa (587)

  • Whether Ishbara had already captured Apa in 585, as one sentence of the Sui Shu says
  • Apa's fate: the Chinese histories say no more of him after he was spared; one account has him die in 587

Capture of Ilig Khan (630)

  • Who seized Ilig: the Tang deputy commander Zhang Baoxiang in the Jiu Tang Shu and the Xin Tang Shu; his uncle Suni Shi, before Zhang Baoxiang arrived, in the Zizhi tongjian and in one modern account
  • Suni Shi's kinship: a younger brother of Yami, and so Ilig's uncle, in the Xin Tang Shu and the Zizhi tongjian; a cousin's son of Ilig in the Jiu Tang Shu
  • The five crimes: the Xin Tang Shu and the Zizhi tongjian give two different lists

Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism

  • Dates
  • When the court took up Judaism: about 740, between 786 and 809, in the 830s, after 861, or over a long process into the late 850s
  • Whether the conversion happened at all, or is a legend of the later Hebrew sources
  • How far beyond the elite and the inner core of the tribes it reached
  • How much of the court's own account of the conversion, in the letter of King Joseph, is history
Im Text · 18
  • The long version of the reply dates this 340 years before the letter, which would be about 620.
  • A Muslim judge appears in the story, so the date cannot be right.
  • One standard history calls this wrong, since khagans existed long before.
  • One view dates the first step to about 740, on Halevi's year 4500.
  • One standard history holds it more probable that Jewish influence began to be felt before the middle of the eighth century than that it began only after 860, though a rigorous demonstration is hardly possible.
  • Omeljan Pritsak proposes two stages. In the first a commander called Bulan took up Judaism privately between 730 and 740.
  • In the second the beg Obadiah made the step official between 799 and 809.
  • A third view points to special coins of 837 and 838 as evidence for the 830s.
  • R. K. Kovalev regards them as an official Khazar issue. They name the "land of the Khazars" as the mint, and a few pieces carry the legend "Moses is the messenger of God" in place of the name of Muhammad.
  • Whether the Khazars struck coins of their own is itself still debated.
  • A fourth view sets the conversion after 861.
  • C. Zuckerman and J. Shepard rely on the mission of Constantine and on a Latin notice of about 864 that already calls the Khazars circumcised.
  • A fifth view sees a long process. J. T. Olsson takes the coins of 837 and 838 as the start of a difficult change that led, in the late 850s, to the official step.
  • He calls it a conversion of the elite and not a mass conversion.
  • A sixth view denies the event. M. Gil and Sh. Stampfer hold that it never took place. Stampfer finds the sources contradictory, in part wrongly attributed to their alleged authors, and without information in other areas.
  • Alex M. Feldman rejects this view and defends the textual and archaeological evidence for a Khazar Judaism.
  • Zuckerman and Shepard conclude from this that the conversion came later. Others hold that the Jews were a decisive force at the court, though the life gives no direct sign that the conversion had already taken place.
  • Pritsak points to long-distance merchants as the carriers of the new faith.

Death of Attila

  • Whether Attila died of a haemorrhage, as Priscus reports through Jordanes, or was killed by a woman, as a tradition known to Marcellinus Comes had it; the second is generally held to be a rumour
  • Whether strava is a Hunnic word, as Jordanes gives it, or a Slavic word for a funeral feast

Death of Princess Dayi

  • Dates
  • The year: 593 in the Zizhi tongjian; the Sui Shu gives no year, and some scholars tie the killing to Yami's embassy of 597
  • Yami's father: Ishbara in the Sui Shu, Ishbara's brother Bagha in the Zizhi tongjian and the Tongdian
  • Yang Qin: seized by Tulan and reported to the Sui in the Sui Shu; believed and hidden by Tulan, and taken by Zhangsun Sheng, in the Zizhi tongjian

Death of Tulan Khan

  • Dates
  • The year: the twelfth month of 599 in the Zizhi tongjian and the annals of the Sui Shu; 600 in the biography of Zhangsun Sheng; 603 in a further dating
  • Whom the Sui armies beat before the killing: Tardush in the Sui Shu's chapter on the Göktürks, Tulan himself in the Tongdian

Defeat of the Tiele, 546

  • The figure of fifty thousand: households or persons
  • The strength of the two forces, for which no source gives a number

Defection of Töles (628)

  • The year of the memorial asking to come to court: 628 in the Zizhi tongjian, 629 in the biography of Töles
  • When Töles went to the Tang: at the end of 629 with his people in the Chinese histories; soon after his release in 627, with a submission at Chang'an on 21 April 628, in one modern account

Embassy of Cui Junsu (608)

  • Dates
  • The year: 608 in the Zizhi tongjian; early in the Daye era, from 605, in the Sui Shu
  • When the threat to the khan's mother was made: on Cui Junsu's embassy in the Sui Shu and the Zizhi tongjian; after Heshana's flight to Gaochang in some views

Embassy of Maximinus to Attila

  • Dates
  • The year: 449 in two modern accounts; 448 in the edition and in one English account
  • Where Attila's residence lay: beyond the Tisza according to some scholars; the rivers Priscus names cannot be identified with certainty

Embassy of Valentinos (576)

  • Whether the embassy ended in open war, as Menander's fragment on Bosporos says, or in a renewal of the alliance by Tardush
  • Whether Arsilas, whom Menander calls the senior ruler of the Göktürks, was their supreme ruler or only the eldest of the leaders
Im Text · 1
  • Arsilas is understood both ways, as the supreme ruler or only as the eldest of the leaders.

Embassy of Yu Qingze (584)

  • Whom Ishbara gave Yu Qingze in marriage: a cousin in the Sui Shu, a daughter in Yu Qingze's biography
  • When Qianjin received the title Princess Dayi: with the embassy of 584 by the Zizhi tongjian, after the submission of 585 by the Sui Shu

Fall of Heshana Khan (611)

  • When the title Heshana Khan and the Sui bride were conferred: during the Goguryeo war, with the princess Xinyi in the first month of 614, in the Sui Shu; in the first month of 612, for the title, in the Zizhi tongjian; in 611 for both in some views
  • The summons Heshana refused: in the sixth year of Daye, 610, in the Sui Shu; during the emperor's western journey of 609 in the Zizhi tongjian

Fall of Tardush (603)

  • Dates
  • The year: 603 in the Zizhi tongjian and the biography of Zhangsun Sheng; the Sui Shu's chapter on the Göktürks tells it after the events of 601, and some scholars hold that its 'that year' cannot be earlier than 602
  • Who left Tardush: the Tiele tribes in the Zizhi tongjian and the biography of Zhangsun Sheng; five tribes of the Xi and the Xi in the Sui Shu's chapter on the Göktürks and the Tongdian
  • Tardush's end: lost from the record among the Tuyuhun, or dead in exile in northern Tibet in 603 on one view

Fall of the Khazar Khaganate (about 965–969)

  • The year: 965 or 968 to 969, and whether the fall came in one campaign or two
  • Whether the Rus acted alone or with the Oghuz
  • Whether the Khazar ruler took Islam at the time, as the Muslim sources have it
  • Why the khaganate fell, and whether the Judaism of the court had a part in it
Im Text · 14
  • Whether the "town" of the chronicle is Sarkel is itself disputed.
  • An army of "Turks", whom modern accounts take to be the Rus, invaded Khazaria. The Khazars asked Khwarazm for help. The Khwarazmians first refused, because the Khazars were Jews. Whoever wanted help had to become Muslim. All but the king did so. Ibn al-Athīr adds that the king too became a Muslim later. Al-Muqaddasī, about 985, says that the inhabitants of Khazarān were no longer Jews but Muslims.
  • The account is to be treated with caution. Some scholars reject it as unhistorical, and others hold that this goes too far.
  • The date may belong to the visit of Ibn Hawqal to Gurgan and not to the attack.
  • A second explanation sees two phases: Sarkel taken in 965 by the Rus of Kiev, and Atil and Samandar taken in 968 by others.
  • One standard history allows this view, but holds on balance that Khazaria was devastated once, in 965.
  • The first sees outside force: the campaign of the Rus.
  • The second sees structural weakness. The realm was an agglomeration of territories without natural frontiers and far from self-sufficient. It rested on tribute and customs, on military force and on a mixed population.
  • The Khazar economy, in this view, was highly artificial, since everything depended on political prestige and military strength.
  • The third sees an economic change. In the tenth century the flow of silver moved away from Khazaria. Th. S. Noonan took finds of dirhams as the measure of the change.
  • Alex M. Feldman holds that the customs, perhaps four fifths of the income by Noonan's count, were lost when the Muslim trade routes turned away after the Volga Bulgar ruler Almush took Islam in the early 920s. The khagans could soon no longer pay their soldiers.
  • The fourth looks at religion and politics. Feldman holds that the Judaism of the court weakened the tie to Byzantium, but that this is only part of the story.
  • One standard history finds it trifling to say that Judaism by itself led to a decline of national vigour.
  • The fifth names the environment. It holds that a rise of the Caspian Sea drowned Atil. Newer work does not firmly support a medieval rise of this kind.

Flight of the Avars (557)

  • Who the fugitives were: whether the khagans and the ruling nobility of the Avars came from the nobility of the fallen Rouran state, or the fugitives were Avars of the Inner Asian steppe after a defeat by the Göktürks, or a people of Hephthalite origin that took in other groups on the way
  • The date of the arrival among the Alans: 557 or 558 in most reckonings, 559 or 560 in one
  • Whether Theophylact's account of the Var and Chunni, who took the name of the Avars, has any value of its own
Im Text · 1
  • Other scholars differ on who the fugitives were.

Flight of the Tarniach and Kotzagerkurz

  • Dates
  • The date: either 582, with the suppression of Turum's revolt, or 598
  • Whether the revolt of Turum was a revolt of the Ogurs, and the flight a flight of Ogur tribes

Funeral of Istemi (576)

  • The year of Istemi's death: 575 in one reckoning, 576 by the date of the embassy that found his son in mourning
  • Whether Silzibul, the dead man, was Istemi, as most modern accounts have it, or one of eight Göktürk chiefs
  • What was done with the four Hunnic captives: the text breaks off; some scholars take them for a sacrifice

Göktürk Aid to Li Yuan (617)

  • The size of the aid: 1,000 horses and 2,000 riders in the Jiu Tang Shu and the Tongdian; 2,000 horses and 500 soldiers in the Xin Tang Shu; 1,000 horses for trade and later 500 soldiers with 2,000 horses in the Zizhi tongjian
  • Whether the Göktürk troops fought at Huoyi: decisive there in some accounts; in the Zizhi tongjian they reached Li Yuan at Longmen twelve days after Huoyi fell

Göktürk campaign against the Kirghiz (710)

  • Dates
  • The year: 710 by Kül Tegin's age of twenty-six if he was born in 684, or the following year
  • Whether the khan killed in the winter campaign is the Bars Beg of the inscription
  • The word soŋa in the account of the fight: the name of a forest, or an adverb meaning then or beyond
  • Where the Kögmen lay: the Tannu-Ola or the Sayan
Im Text · 1
  • A second reckoning places the acquisition of the Ten Arrows about 711 to 712.

Göktürk prisoners with the cross (591)

  • Who the Christians were who advised the sign: Nestorian missionaries, as some suggest
  • How the story agrees with Theophylact's other statement that the Göktürks had never known an epidemic

Göktürk Succession Crisis (581)

  • Whether the lateral succession rule was a rule, or a pattern the sources happen to show
  • The status of Töremen's mother: non-Göktürks and, by Ishbara's claim, low-born
Im Text · 1
  • The sources show the pattern. Whether they show a rule is an open question.

Göktürk–Wei Campaign against Tuyuhun (556)

  • The year: 555 in the Tuyuhun chapter of the Zhou Shu; 556 as its editors date it and in the Zizhi tongjian; 554 in the Göktürk chapter, as some understand it
Im Text · 1
  • The date is thus given as 555, after the Tuyuhun chapter. A second dating gives 556.

Horse Market at the Western Shouxiang City (727)kurz

  • Whether the yearly silk was a gift to Bilge Khan or the price of the horses bought at the market
  • How much silk was delivered: several hundred thousand bolts a year in the Tang texts, 100,000 pieces for the year 727 in one survey

Huaixin's campaign against the Kirghizkurz

  • Dates
  • Whose exploit the stele tells: the prince who became Huaixin Khan, or the khan of 808 to 821
  • The date: before 795, after 795, or in the years 808 to 821
  • How far the Kirghiz state was broken: the stele has it end, and the twenty years of war that follow in the Tang histories say otherwise
Im Text · 2
  • The identity of the Heavenly Khan is itself in question. The stele is dated only to the early decades of the ninth century.
  • The three interpretations give the clash a different place in the history of the Kirghiz. The stele does not settle it.

Ishbara's Hunt (587)

  • To whom the tails and tongues were offered: the sentence of the Sui Shu names no recipient

Istemi's campaign against Persia, 569

  • Whether the march took place in 569 or in 570
  • Whether it was a raid for plunder or the opening of a war
  • Whether the invasion of Media that Menander dates to about 570 is this campaign

Jinyang campaign, 563–564

  • Whether the allied army besieged the city or blockaded the country around it: the Zhou Shu says only that the assault failed

Kabar Revolt

  • Dates
  • When the revolt took place, between about 780 and 881
  • Whether it had to do with the Khazar court taking up Judaism, or was a political revolt of the usual kind inside a nomad state
  • Who the Kabars were, in religion and in ethnic origin
Im Text · 12
  • According to some scholars, their loss weakened the khaganate.
  • The date is open. Proposals include about 780, about 800, the 810s and about 830, the time of the Khazar request to Byzantium that led to the building of Sarkel.
  • Others place it around 850 or in 854 to 855, or after 861 and 862 and before 881.
  • The range decides whether the revolt came before or after the court took up Judaism. Without a firm date it cannot be shown to follow from it.
  • The most common explanation connects the revolt with religious strife over the conversion to Judaism.
  • Mikhail Artamonov holds this view, and so does Douglas M. Dunlop, who wrote that it is attractive to think the secession had something to do with the conversion of the ruling section of the Khazars to Judaism about 740.
  • András Róna-Tas calls the antagonism within the empire largely connected with the forcible conversion of the leading strata.
  • This version rests on a date of about 740 for the conversion, which is itself uncertain.
  • Several other explanations have been put forward. The first holds that the Kabars were Karaites or pagans who rose against a rabbinic government. The second makes them Jews in conflict with pagan Khazars. The third makes them Muslims, or subjects of a Muslim military aristocracy. The fourth gives ethnic reasons, with Bulgars or Khwarazmians involved. The fifth sees a rising of the court's mercenary soldiers. The sixth sees a struggle for power in the dual kingship, with the Kabars on the side of the khagan against the beg.
  • A further explanation sees the revolt as an ordinary event of nomad states. Peter B. Golden calls it a typical falling out of tribes within a nomadic state, in which the losing side withdraws from the tribal union and joins another.
  • He adds that if the civil war had come from a religious conflict, one of the sources would surely have mentioned it.
  • S. L. Tóth agrees. In his view a Judaising of one part of the leading stratum would not have had such weighty consequences in a nomadic empire. He sees a political revolt of three tribes in the west of the realm, beaten by the khagan and the beg.

Kapgan's Request for Farm Tools and Iron (698)

  • Whether iron was among the goods handed over: the Xin Tang Shu names it only in the request
  • The quantity of seed: 100,000 hu in the request of the Xin Tang Shu, more than 40,000 shi in the delivery of the Jiu Tang Shu

Killing of Heshana Khan (619)

  • Who demanded Heshana's death: Shibi in the Jiu Tang Shu and the Tongdian; the western khan Shegui in the Xin Tang Shu; the northern Göktürks in the Zizhi tongjian

Kirghiz campaign against the Shiwei (848)

  • The month: spring in the Jiu Tang Shu, March 848 on one reckoning that sets it within days of the events of the summer of 847
  • Whose force it was: the Kirghiz, in the Xin Tang Shu, or the troops of the various barbarian peoples, in the Jiu Tang Shu
  • Whether the attack followed a change of khan among the Kirghiz

Kirghiz embassies of the Xiantong era (860–873)kurz

  • Whether the envoy of 866 bears a Turkic rank in the Chinese form of his name
  • Whether the general Yizhi-lianji came in 866, as the Tang huiyao is reported to have it, or in 867, as the Zizhi tongjian has it

Kirghiz Embassies to the Tang (842–848)

  • The year of the letter that answers the third envoy: the summer of 843 or of 844
  • Whether the first two envoys made two missions or one, and so whether the second letter of Li Deyu is a draft of the first
  • How far Kirghiz authority reached beyond the Yenisei after 840
  • Whether the khan invested in 847 was the ruler who destroyed the Uyghur khaganate

Kirghiz embassy of 648

  • Dates
  • The year: 647 in the Tongdian, 648 in the Xin Tang Shu and the Zizhi tongjian
  • The guard in which the chief was given his rank: the Left Guard in the Xin Tang Shu, the Right Guard in the Zizhi tongjian
  • Whether the Kirghiz had paid tribute to the Tang before: 643 in a later geography, none in the Tang histories

Li Chengqian's Göktürk Camp

  • When the camp stood: the Xin Tang Shu gives no year, and the remark about Simo places it after 639 if the Simo is Ashina Simo

Maniakh's embassy to Constantinople, 568

  • What language and script Istemi's letter was written in: Old Turkic according to some scholars, Sogdian according to others
  • The date of arrival: the beginning of Justin II's fourth year, from November 568, by Menander; the summer of 568 in another account
  • Whether the Turkish embassy in Theophanes of Byzantium, which asked Justin not to receive the Avars, is Maniakh's
Im Text · 2
  • Others take "Scythian" as Menander's loose word for the languages of Central Asia. They think Sogdian more likely.
  • An older count puts the departure in 568.

Meeting of Heraclius and Ziebel (627)

  • Dates
  • The year: 626, 627 or 628
  • Whether Ziebel, Jebu Xak'an, was Tong Yabgu or a general of his
  • Whether the Göktürk leader kissed the emperor's neck, as Theophanes has it, or his shoulder, as another account has it
Im Text · 1
  • It took place in 626, 627 or 628, depending on the dating followed.

Mission of Constantine to the Khazars (860–861)

  • What the mission shows about the religion of the Khazar court: Jewish already, or still open to all three faiths
  • How far the life of Constantine reports the debate as it happened
Im Text · 3
  • The main account is the Old Church Slavonic life of Constantine, which is a work of hagiography. Some scholars hold that it was written in defence of the Slavonic liturgy. The debate before a ruler is also a set form of Byzantine literature, so the life may not give the debate as it happened.
  • The life does not show Khazars who are Jewish. It shows a khagan who receives Jews as debaters and hears envoys complain of pressure from Jews and Muslims. For C. Zuckerman and J. Shepard, this is why the conversion to Judaism must have come after 861.
  • Others answer that the Jews at the court were a decisive force. They hold that the silence of the lives about a Jewish Khazar court seems to be of little weight, and that the life gives no direct sign that the conversion had already taken place.

Mobei campaign, 119 BC

  • The foot soldiers and carriers behind the cavalry: several hundred thousand in the Shiji and the Han Shu, thirty to fifty thousand in one modern count
  • The Han dead: several tens of thousands in the Shiji and the annals of Wudi, a number counted in ten-thousands in the Han Shu chapter on the Xiongnu
  • The distance of Huo Qubing's march out of Dai: more than 2,000 li in the Shiji chapter on the Xiongnu and in the Han Shu, more than 1,000 li in the Shiji chapter on Huo Qubing
  • The loss of Huo Qubing's army: two in ten in the Han Shu, three in ten in the Shiji
  • Where the marches went: the sources name Mount Langjuxu, Guyan, the Hanhai, Mount Tianyan and Zhao Xin's city without saying where they lay; some modern scholars identify the Hanhai of Huo Qubing's march with Lake Baikal

Mukan's Destruction of Dengshuzi (553–555)kurz

  • Whether Dengshuzi, whom Mukan destroyed, and Dengzhu, whom the Qi sent north in 553, were one man
Im Text · 1
  • It is not settled whether this Dengshuzi was the same man as the Dengzhu whom the Qi sent north in 553.

Murder of Bahram Chobin

  • Where Bahram died: at Suyab, at the court of a khan beyond the Oxus, or at Balkh
  • How he died: poisoned by a Persian agent, stabbed by a Göktürk hired by the khatun, or put to death by the people of Balkh

Murder of Tong Yabgu (630)

  • Dates
  • The year: 627, 628 or 630
  • Who killed him: his paternal uncle in the Chinese histories; one modern account also reports the view that it was his own son
  • Whether the Jebu Xak'an of the Armenian history and the lord of the Turks in Nikephoros are Tong Yabgu
  • Who advised Gaozu to grant the marriage: Feng Deyi in the Jiu Tang Shu, the Tongdian and the Xin Tang Shu, Pei Ju in the Zizhi tongjian
Im Text · 1
  • It is disputed whether Jebu Xak'an and the lord of the Turks in Nikephoros were Tong Yabgu.

Music of Empress Ashina (568)

  • Which music came with the empress: Kang and Kucha in Sui Shu 14, Kang alone in Sui Shu 15, Kucha, Shule, Anguo and Kang in the Jiu Tang Shu
  • Whether the music reached the Zhou office of music in 568 or only after the abolition of 571, after which the Sui Shu tells it

Peace of Anatolius

  • Dates
  • The date: 443, after a war of 441 to 443, by one dating; the autumn of 447, after the great invasion of that year, by another
  • How many agreements Anatolius made: three, in 443, 448 and 450, by one count; by another, the peace of 447 and the settlement of 450
  • The ransom for escaped captives: 12 solidi in the Latin of the edition; 10 in one English account

Plunder of Luoyang and the Silk Payment (757)kurz

  • Who ended the plunder and with what: the Prince of Guangping with brocade and treasure in the Jiu Tang Shu, the elders of the city with 10,000 bolts of silk in the Xin Tang Shu

Proclamation of Bumin Khan (552)

  • The meaning of the element Illig: either 'ruler of the lands' or 'the khan who has a realm'
  • Which wife became katun: the Chinese histories say only 'his wife'; one account names the Wei princess Changle

Raid on Yanmen (621)

  • Who held the envoys first: the Göktürks in the Chinese histories, the Tang in one modern account
  • Whether the Göktürks were beaten at Yanmen or took the commandery and won five battles
  • When the envoys were released: soon after the attack in the Jiu Tang Shu, in the following year in the Xin Tang Shu and the Zizhi tongjian

Rescue of Princess Taihe (840–843)

  • Who escorted her from the Kirghiz camp: ten officers with the rank of tarkhan, ten dagan, or a general named Du-lü-shi Alp
  • Where Ögä's camp lay: eighty li from the Youzhou frontier in the Jiu Tang Shu, at Zhenwu in the Xin Tang Shu
  • Who found the princess: Shi Xiong's troops in the two Tang histories, Cai Xi in his own account

Revolt of the Tiele (627)

  • The year: 627 in the Göktürk chapters, 626 in the Cefu yuangui
  • Who the Yukuk Shad was: Ilig's nephew, his brother or his son
  • What became of the Yukuk Shad: put to flight in the Chinese histories, killed in one modern account
  • Which people rose: the Xueyantuo, the Uyghurs and the Bayirku in the Chinese histories, the Tatabï in one modern account

Revolt of Turum

  • Dates
  • The date: 581–582, about 582, or about 598
  • Whether the revolt was a revolt of the Ogurs, connected with the flight of Ogur tribes to the Avars
  • Who the three allied khans were
Im Text · 1
  • Neither the khan nor the year is named, and both are disputed.

Rise of Anagui Khan

  • Year of accession: 520 in the Wei Shu; some scholars give 516, passing over the year of four rulers
  • The reconquest of the west: Chounu's, in 516, in the Wei Shu; some scholars make it Anagui's, after 520
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars give this western victory to Anagui after his accession instead. The Wei Shu gives it to Chounu.

Siege of Baideng

  • Why Bagatur opened the ring: the gift to his consort, the failure of two allied Han commanders to appear, or a decision that a captured emperor was worth less than a paying one
Im Text · 1
  • The passage cannot settle whether this was an order of battle, a ritual arrangement by the four directions, or a Chinese writer's tidying of both.

Siege of Bosporos, 576

  • The year: 576 in Menander's context and for some scholars; the attack in 576 and the fall of the city about 579 for others
  • Whether the fall of the city ended the alliance in open war, as Menander says, or left it standing with the Crimea in Göktürk hands, as some scholars argue
  • Whether the Göktürks went on to besiege Cherson

Siege of Naissus

  • Dates
  • The year: 441 in the chronicle of Marcellinus; 442 according to some scholars; 443 according to others; whether the account of Priscus refers to 442 or 447 cannot be decided
  • How the city fell: to Attila's siege engines after a brave defence according to some scholars; after a battle outside the walls according to others
  • Whether the Huns built a bridge to reach the city, as Priscus says: probably a guess of the historian, according to some scholars

Siege of Tiflis (627–629)

  • The dates of the two sieges
  • Who took the city: the army of the north alone in a second siege, as the Armenian account has it, or Heraclius, with the citadel taken by Jibghu, as the Georgian chronicle tells it
  • Whether the Göktürk commander was Tong Yabgu

Smbat Bagratuni's war with the khan

  • Dates
  • The date: 606–607, 597–598, or 614–615
  • Which khan sent the army: the yabgu of the west, Shegui, in one account; the great khan, king of the north, in Sebeos

Subjugation of the Alans and Onogurs (before 576)

  • When the conquest fell: after 572, when the Alan king still fought for Rome, or in the years since the return of Zemarchos in 571
  • Whether Turxanthos named the Alans with the Unigurs, that is the Onogurs, or with the Utigurs: the editions of Menander differ

Submission of Ishbara (585)

  • Whether Ishbara captured Apa in 585: the Sui Shu and the Bei Shi say so; the Tongdian and the Zizhi tongjian say only that he attacked or defeated him, and the Sui Shu has Bagha take Apa alive in 587

Submission of Yiwu (630)

  • Whose subject Yiwu had been: the Göktürks of Ilig in the chapter on the eastern Göktürks, the western Göktürks in the chapters on Gaochang

Sui Variety Shows for Yami Khan (606–610)

  • When Yami came to court at the Eastern Capital: in the second year of Daye (606) in the Sui Shu and the Jiu Tang Shu, in the first month of the third year (607) in the Zizhi tongjian, in the year after the visit to Yulin in the Sui Shu's account of his reign
  • Who the great show of 610 was for: the Sui Shu names Qimin, that is Yami, among the rulers who came in person, although he was dead by 609 on the usual reckoning; the Zizhi tongjian names the chiefs of the foreign peoples
Im Text · 2
  • The visit therefore falls in 606 or at the start of 607. The sources do not settle which.
  • The Sui Shu names Qimin first among the rulers present. Yami died in 609 by the usual reckoning, and in 608 by the order of events in the Sui Shu.

Tang investiture of the Kirghiz (847)

  • Whom the investiture reached: the khan who had destroyed the Uyghur khaganate, or his successor
  • Why Xuanzong changed his mind: the Xin Tang Shu gives no reason, and a Tibetan-led attack on the frontier in the month before is one conjecture
Im Text · 1
  • The question is open. No source for 847 names the khan. The khan of 840 is Are.

The Archery Match at the Wu'an Hall (599)

  • Which khan kept Zhangsun Sheng in 580: Shetu, the later Ishbara, as the biography has it, or Taspar
  • The arrows given to Zhangsun Sheng: 'for six hou' in the Sui Shu, six arrows in the Cefu Yuangui
  • What the deer was that his shots went into
  • The year of the match: the nineteenth year of Kaihuang (599) by the order of the Sui Shu, the tenth (590) in the Cefu Yuangui

The Attack on Yami Khan (599)

  • Yami's flight: in the Sui Shu he fled straight to the Sui; in the Zizhi tongjian he thought of going over to Tardush, and the envoy Zhangsun Sheng turned him with false beacon fires

The battle of the Talas, 751

  • Whether the battle or the An Lushan rebellion ended Tang power in the west
  • Whether paper-making reached the Islamic world through prisoners taken here
Im Text · 3
  • Which of the two mattered more is disputed.
  • Some scholars give the battle no part in the retreat at all. The defeat was bitter, but it did not stop the Chinese from returning to the region two years later. The rebellion of An Lushan from 755 ended the Chinese presence in Central Asia for a thousand years and left Göktürk, Sogdian and Arab armies facing one another.
  • The claim that paper-making reached the Islamic world through prisoners taken in this battle is old and much repeated. It rests on a late report and is not demonstrated.

The capture of Samarkand, 712kurz

  • The sum paid at once: two million dirhams in Ibn A'tham al-Kufi, ten million in the Persian Tabari of Bal'ami, probably a confusion of two and ten

The coup of 716

  • Whether Tonyukuk took part in the killing or was spared as Bilge's father-in-law
Im Text · 1
  • Historians argue whether he stood behind the killing or survived it because his daughter was married to the new khan. The sources cannot settle the question. The two men who could have said speak only in their own inscriptions.

The Court Debate of 630

  • How many households settled in Chang'an: several thousand in the Jiu Tang Shu and the Xin Tang Shu, nearly ten thousand in the Tongdian and the Zizhi tongjian
  • How many surrendered: nearly 100,000 in Wei Zheng's speech, more than 100,000 in the Xin Tang Shu

The embassies to Ctesiphon, 568

  • Whether the deaths of the second embassy were murder or, as the Persian account had it, the climate
  • Where the embassies were received: Menander names no place; at Ctesiphon on one view
Im Text · 1
  • Whether it was murder or the climate cannot be settled from the one account that survives. That account is not a neutral one.

The embassy of Zemarchos, 569

  • Where Ektag lay: in the Altai, in the Tian Shan, or elsewhere
  • When the embassy set out: August 569 by Menander's reckoning, in the seventh year of Justin II by John of Ephesus, August 568 by one modern reckoning
  • Where Istemi confronted the Persian envoy: at Talas on the march, as Menander has it, or at his own court, as John of Ephesus has it
  • Whether the enormous lake of the return journey was the Aral or the Caspian
Im Text · 8
  • The location of Ektag is disputed.
  • It has been placed in the Altai, whose name the Greek would translate.
  • A second explanation takes the name as Ak tag, white mountain, and seeks it in the Tian Shan, by the Tekes or in the Yulduz valley.
  • A third takes Ektag and the Ektel of 576 for one mountain named after a Turkic word for lime.
  • A fourth takes Ektag, the Turkic Altın Dağ and the Chinese Baishan, the White Mountain, for one range in the Tian Shan.
  • One author puts Istemi's camp on a mountain north of Kucha.
  • Another takes Ak Dag and Altın Dağ for two names of the same place.
  • An older count puts the departure a year earlier, in August 568.

The fall of Ordu-Balık, 840

  • What part the defector at the Uyghur court played
  • Why the Kirghiz did not settle on the Orkhon: their attachment to the Yenisei, or the ruin of the valley by drought and a hard winter

The Flight of the Ashina (439)

  • The route and the arrival in the Altai: one reconstruction has the Ashina reach Gaochang about 439 and the southern Altai about 460
  • Whether the catastrophe of the wolf legend is the Wei campaign of 439

The Gaoche Herds of 429

  • Whether the more than one million of the first count are horses alone or horses and captives together
Im Text · 1
  • The count may cover the horses alone or horses and people together.

The Göktürk Campaign of 622

  • Whether Ilig led the force at Xincheng himself or sent it
  • The size of the army of the eighth month: 50,000 horse or 150,000
  • Why Ilig withdrew: on hearing that Li Shimin was coming, or on the persuasion of Zheng Yuanshu

The Göktürk Campaign of 625

  • Where Zhang Jin was beaten: at Taiyuan in the Jiu Tang Shu, at Taigu or Dagu in the Zizhi tongjian and the Xin Tang Shu

The Göktürk–Byzantine alliance

  • Whether the alliance ended in open war after Bosporos in 576, as Menander says, or was renewed by Tardush and Valentinos, as some scholars hold
  • When the alliance broke: after Bosporos in 576, or about thirty years before 627
  • Who Heraclius's Göktürk ally was: Tong Yabgu himself, a Khazar leader under Göktürk rule, or the holder of the title Yabgu Khagan

The Göktürk–Wei alliance

  • Whether the handover of the Rouran at the Qingmen gate belongs to 553, after the horses of that year, or to 555, the year the Bei Shi gives the Rouran flight

The Göktürk–Zhou alliance

  • Whether the Göktürks took part in the second campaign of 564: the Zhou Shu has them come at the appointed time and withdraw, one modern account has them stay away

The Göktürks before Cherson (579)

  • Whether the Göktürks besieged Chersonesos, or whether the emperor's report of them at Cherson was a pretext
  • Whether the Göktürks held the Crimea from 576 until 598

The Han–Xiongnu heqin treaties

  • Whether heqin was tribute paid by the Han or a gift given by a superior, and whether the two courts ever read the same document the same way
  • When the frontier markets began: under Emperor Jing in the usual account, under Emperor Wen at the Xiongnu's demand in a second
Im Text · 1
  • There are three interpretations of the yearly deliveries. The first takes them as tribute that China paid to a nomadic ruler for peace.

The khan's letter to Maurice

  • Dates
  • The date: soon after 582, at the start of Maurice's reign, or 598
  • Who wrote the letter: Tardush has been proposed; the khan is not named
  • Whether the Abdeli are the Hephthalites, as Theophylact says, or the Tiele
  • Whether the Ogur and the river Til are the Ogurs and the Volga, the Uyghurs and the Tola, or the Oguz and the Tarim
  • Who the Kolch were
Im Text · 1
  • Theophylact does not name the khan. The date of the embassy is disputed.

The Qi Court in Exile (577–580)

  • When Gao Baoning's appeal and Shaoyi's proclamation fell: in the twelfth month of 577 by the Zizhi tongjian, in the summer of 578 by one account
  • Who received seventy horses from Taspar: the Qi envoy Hexi Yong'an by the Zizhi tongjian, Gao Baoning by one account
  • Where Shaoyi was seized: on Taspar's southern border by the Zizhi tongjian, in the forest of Ötüken by one account

The Qi March to Shuozhou (553)kurz

  • Whether the Göktürks asked to submit at Shuozhou, as the Qi annals say; no Göktürk or Zhou source confirms it
Im Text · 1
  • The submission at Shuozhou comes from the Qi court's own account of its own campaign. No Göktürk or Zhou source confirms it.

The Qingmen Executions (555)

  • Whether the ruler handed over was Dengshuzi: the Zhou Shu names him, the Rouran chapter of the Bei Shi speaks only of the ruler of the Rouran

The Raid on Youzhou (578)

  • How the raid was joined with Gao Shaoyi's cause: the Chinese histories set Shaoyi's march on Fanyang after Emperor Wu's death; one account has him attack Jicheng while the Zhou struck back at the Göktürks

The Rouran Marriage Refusal (546)

  • The year: 546 in the Tongdian and in the order of the Zhou Shu; the sixth month of 551 in the Zizhi tongjian; 544 in one modern account, 550 or 551 in another
  • The purpose of the request: a place in the Rouran succession, or an imitation of the marriage policy of the Rouran themselves
  • Who asked: Bumin in the Zizhi tongjian and the Tongdian; the subject is unstated in the Zhou Shu, and one translation gives the request to the Tiele
Im Text · 1
  • A third places the incident in 544. A fourth finds 544 much too early, because nearly eight years would then lie between the insult and the rising of 552, and dates the incident between 550 and 551.

The Standoff at Binzhou (624)

  • The name of the slope where the khan drew up: Wulong in two different writings
  • Whether the Göktürks withdrew because of the prince's words or because the rain had slackened their bows

The Succession of 587

  • The title Bagha took: Yehu Khan in the Sui Shu, Mohe Khan in the Zizhi tongjian
  • How Ishbara died: a month after the burning of his tent by the Sui Shu; of an illness of a month by one account
  • Who followed Ishbara: Bagha by the Chinese histories; Tulan directly by one account

The Sui Campaign of 599

  • Whether Tardush fought the Sui: the Sui Shu and the Zizhi tongjian record his defeat by Yang Su; one account has him suffer heavy losses on the march east without once fighting the Sui emperor
  • Whom the Sui fought: Tardush by the Sui Shu, Tulan by the Tongdian

The Sui Court in Exile at Dingxiang (620)

  • Yang Zhengdao's descent: son of Yangdi's son Jian, prince of Qi, in the Jiu Tang Shu; a posthumous son of the Sui founder Yang Jian according to some scholars
  • Chula's death: of illness in the Jiu Tang Shu; after the princess gave him the five-mineral powder in the Xin Tang Shu; by poison from the Tang envoy Zheng Yuanshu, as his people suspected, in the Zizhi tongjian

The Ten Steeds of 647

  • The size of the Kurykan force: 4,500 men in the Tongdian, 5,000 in the Xin Tang Shu

The Wei bridge, 626

  • What the Tang paid, and whether a formal treaty was sworn
Im Text · 2
  • The Jiu Tang Shu puts the raid in the seventh month. The Zizhi tongjian puts it in the eighth, after the emperor had taken the throne.
  • The accounts report differently what was said at the water. What happened is not in doubt.

The Woye and Luoyang Campaign (564)

  • What the Göktürks did in the campaign: the Zhou Shu has them come at the appointed time and withdraw after Yuwen Hu's defeat, and records no fighting of theirs

Tiele Revolt (605)

  • The number of chiefs Heshana had killed: several hundred in the Sui Shu and the Zizhi tongjian, about a hundred in one account
  • The lesser khan: Yedie, chief of the Xueyantuo, in the Sui Shu and the Zizhi tongjian; Yishibo with the title Yedie Khan in the Xin Tang Shu and in one account

Treaty of Margus

  • Dates
  • The date: 435 in one reckoning; after November 438 in a second; 433 in the dating of the edition
  • Whether Bleda and Attila took part in the meeting in person: so in the usual account, though some scholars think Hun envoys negotiated in their name
  • Whether the eastern government paid the tribute agreed at Margus: probably not, some scholars argue, which explains the arrears of 6,000 pounds demanded in the next peace

Uyghur victory over the Kirghiz (758)

  • When the Kirghiz ruler received the title Bilga Ton Irkin: after 758, as the Xin Tang Shu places the defeat, or at another time
  • How far the Kirghiz were subjected: they lost the khan's title and their independence, and kept their own rule

Xiongnu split of 48

  • Whether the drought and the locusts were the cause of the split or the occasion of it
  • Whether the order of brothers was the standing law of the royal house or Huhanye's instruction for his own sons, which lapsed with the last of them
Im Text · 2
  • Modern accounts disagree on where they went. Some put the retreat in the northern Altai. Others put it east of the Tianshan.
  • How much the famine weighed is argued.

Yang Su's Northern Campaign (601–602)

  • The year of the raid and the pursuit: 601 in the Sui Shu's chapter on the Göktürks; 602 in the Zizhi tongjian and the biography of Zhangsun Sheng; some scholars place it between the end of 600 and 602

Yangdi's Visit to Yami Khan (607)

  • The silk given at the feast: 200,000 pieces in the Sui Shu, 20,000,000 in the Zizhi tongjian
  • Where the Goguryeo envoy was found: in Yami's camp in 607 in the Sui Shu and the Zizhi tongjian; at Ötüken, in the tent of Tulan Khan, on one view

Orte

Afu Riverkurz

  • Which water the Afu is: the lake Uvs Nuur or the Abakan

Aksu

  • Whether the seat of Gumo stood at Aksu itself or at Yangishahr, ten kilometres to the south
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars put the residence of Gumo at Yangishahr, ten kilometres south of Aksu, because the Han Shu calls it the South City. Earlier readers had placed it at Aksu itself.

Altai

  • Whether the Zhou Shu's derivation of the name Türk from a helmet-shaped mountain is an etymology or a Chinese story
  • Where exactly on the southern slope the Ashina smithies are to be placed
Im Text · 12
  • The name itself is commonly derived from a word for gold. That derivation is argued, and it is not the reason the mountains mattered.
  • Three of them contain the cry esiz, "alas".
  • One names a man, Bert Apa, for whom the writer wrote.
  • Line 3 has been read as naming three horses by colour, each with a saddle of a different material.
  • The readings agree on a white horse with a gold saddle and a second horse with a silver one. They differ on the third saddle, which is bronze in one reading and juniper wood in another.
  • The first line is close to a text from Chiyin Tash in Kyrgyzstan, and the third line to one from Gurvan Mandal in Mongolia.
  • One reader places it in the ninth century because of the verb ending -gAy.
  • Three readers have read it, and no two agree.
  • All three find the name Temir Apa, the address "my son" and a cry of regret.
  • A few Altai texts show single signs of the South Yenisei alphabet, among them texts of Kosh-Agach and Kalbak-Tash.
  • The authors who note this say that it does not prove that the two alphabets were used together in one place.
  • One reader therefore holds that the script came to the Tian Shan by way of the Altai.

Amga Korgankurz

  • Whether the Göktürk word yut in the winter at Amga means famine or the loss of livestock
  • The year of the winter at Amga: 715 by one account, 717 by another
  • Where the fortress stood
Im Text · 4
  • Translations of the inscription give yut as famine. One study understands it as the dying of livestock. It gives two causes, a hard climate or a large force wintering in a small place.
  • The stones give no year. One account places the winter at Amga in 715.
  • A second account places the attack on the camp in the spring of 717, after the death of Kapgan in 716.
  • The study counts the place among its evidence that the Göktürks were not pure nomads.

Anbei Protectoratekurz

  • When the Yanran protectorate became the Hanhai protectorate: the second month of 663 in the Tang Huiyao, the first years of Linde (664 to 665) in the Xin Tang Shu
  • Whether Yanran, Hanhai and Anbei were one office under three names: one modern note says so, and the memorial of 845 gives Anbei its own seats at Tiande and Ganzhou

Anxi Protectorate

  • When the seat first moved to Kucha: after the conquest of 648 in the Jiu Tang Shu, or in 658 in a modern note on the Xin Tang Shu
  • Which towns made up the Four Garrisons: Kucha, Khotan, Shule and Suiye in the Jiu Tang Shu, Kucha, Khotan, Shule and Yanqi in a modern note and from 719

Aquileia

  • How completely the city was destroyed: some hold that it was razed and never rebuilt, so that a century later hardly a trace could be seen; others that it was so destroyed that its historic site became hard to determine; a third group that it was plundered but soon rebuilt, counting Jordanes's words an exaggeration
  • Who built the siege engines: subject peoples skilled in siegecraft, or Roman deserters or prisoners
  • Where the story of the storks comes from: either a tale of the kind Priscus told when he lacked real information, or a variant of a Chinese story about Lü Guang at Kucha, brought west by the Huns
  • When the city fell: at the end of August or early in September, if the departure of the storks is taken literally; some scholars doubt that the story permits such a dating

Argukurz

  • Whether Rubruck's Organum is Argu or, as Paul Pelliot proposed, Ürgänč, the old capital of Khorezm
Im Text · 1
  • William of Rubruck passed Cailac, the old Karluk capital south-east of Lake Balkhash, in 1253. He heard of a country called Organum with its own language and script, which the Nestorians there used in their services. Paul Pelliot linked the name to Ürgänč in Khorezm. Organum may be Argu, and its language Sogdian, which Turkic dialects supplanted there.

Badghiskurz

  • The date of Smbat Bagratuni's eastern campaign, in which Badghis was plundered: 597–598 or 614–615

Baidao Plain

  • Whether 白道川 names a valley or a river: the valley of Baidao in one translation, the Baidao river in another

Balanjarkurz

  • Where the city lay: the early notices place it in the North Caucasus and its location remains unclear
  • Whether the Baranjar of the Volga Bulgars came from the Balanjar of the Caucasus, and whether they left it as refugees
Im Text · 1
  • The date of the first attack is disputed. Tabari puts the first Arab advance on Balanjar in AH 22, which is 642. Balādhurī knows of no attack in that year, and Marquart moved the first advance to 652.

Bay Balïq

  • Whether Bay Balïq was a seat of the khan or a minor town: the inscription names it without saying, and some scholars hold that it was never a capital
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars doubt that Bay Balïq could have been a capital. On their view the administrative seat of the Uyghurs, as of the Göktürks before them, lay further south on the Orkhon, near Karakorum or Karabalghasun.

Beihaikurz

  • Whether the Northern Sea is Lake Baikal

Beiting

  • Whether the Beiting of the western khan's court and the Beiting of the Tang protectorate name the same ground
  • Whether Duodan of the Ten Surnames, whom Ashina Xian killed, is a chief or a tribe
Im Text · 3
  • Painted runiform texts on the Tayhar rock at Hoyto Tamir in Mongolia speak of travelling to a place of that name.
  • Two of these texts carry animal-year dates that have been reckoned as 753 and 756.
  • Neither reading can be applied by default. The ambiguity is in the source, not in the modern literature.

Berel

  • Whether the frozen state of the great mounds is the result of the builders' design or of the porous stone cover
  • Which people the mounds of the Pazyryk period belong to, a Saka people or a proto-Turkic one
  • Whether the graves of the Göktürk period continue the burial custom of the Pazyryk mounds
  • How the graves of the first millennium AD are to be grouped in periods
Im Text · 4
  • An older view dated the Pazyryk mounds to the second century BC and the mounds of Berel to the centuries after Christ, shortly before the empire of Attila. It took them for the late features of Hunnic art.
  • Which people the mounds belong to is disputed. Berel may be a branch of the Scythian and Saka world, which spread from the Altai to the northern Black Sea.
  • According to others, the people who left the Pazyryk mounds and the later graves are the Dingling of the Chinese sources, a proto-Turkic people.
  • The same account takes this for a sign of cultural continuity from the Scythian to the Göktürk age. It ties the cemetery to the Dingling.

Beshbalik

  • Whether the Beiting of the western khaganate's court and the Beiting protectorate seat name the same place
Im Text · 3
  • Painted runiform texts on the Tayhar rock at Hoyto Tamir in Arkhangay, Mongolia, speak of travelling to Beshbalik.
  • Three texts name the town, and two of these carry animal-year dates that have been reckoned as 753 and 756.
  • The two are not the same ground. The same two characters in the same chapter do not always name the same place. Which place a given passage means has to be read out of the passage.

Bodeng Ninglikurz

  • The distance and direction from Ötüken: four or five hundred li without a direction in the Zhou Shu, five hundred li to the west in the Bei Shi and the Tongdian
  • Whether the mountain belongs to the same conception as the sacred Earth-and-Water of the inscriptions
Im Text · 1
  • This equation is a modern inference. Neither text mentions the other's earth-power.

Bosporos

  • The year in which the city fell: 576 in Menander's context and for some scholars, about 579 for others
  • How the Göktürk force reached the city: across the strait, perhaps frozen, or round the Sea of Azov by land

Bukhara

  • Whether the decisive battle of the Hephthalite war was fought at Bukhara, according to some scholars, or at Nasaf, as Aydogdy Kurbanov reconstructs it from the Persian epic
  • Whether the Zandaniji silks were woven in the Bukhara oasis or are Chinese work on Iranian models
  • Whether the city led its oasis in the sixth century, or shared the oasis with rival towns that kept their own lords until shortly before the Arab conquest
Im Text · 1
  • A silk at Huy in Belgium bears the word in Sogdian on its back. Silks of the type have been found on the passes of the western Caucasus. Whether they were woven in Sogdiana or are Chinese work on Iranian models is disputed.

Cave of the ancestors

  • Where the cave lay: the Zhou Shu gives neither place nor direction
  • Whether the cave of the annual sacrifice is the cave of the wolf legend
  • Whether the four or five hundred li belong to the earth-spirit mountain, as the Zhou Shu has it, or to the cave
Im Text · 1
  • Scholars have never settled which water the Western Sea is, so the direction fixes nothing.

Cherson

  • Whether the Göktürks besieged Cherson after the fall of Bosporos, or whether the emperor's report of them there in 579 was a pretext
  • Where the Cherson of Jordanes lay: at Chersonesus according to some, perhaps at Eupatoria according to others

Chuzhe Riverkurz

  • Whether the Chuzhe is the Yenisei as a whole or its middle course

Derbent

  • Whether Tabari's Sul, whose gate Khosrow fortified and Sinjibu approached, is the Caspian Gates at Derbent or the eastern frontier at Gurgan: Nöldeke holds the two confused in the text and the khagan's objective to have been Khurasan
  • Whether the army before Derbent in 627 was Khazar, as Theophanes and the Armenian source call it, or Göktürks under Börü Shad, as one other study and Peter B. Golden read it

Dujin Garrisonkurz

  • Whether 度斤 is the 都斤 of the Zhou Shu, the mountain of the khan's seat that is read as Ötüken

Dunhuang

  • When Dunhuang was set up: 111 BC in the annals of Wudi, split off from Jiuquan later in the chapter on the Western Regions, 88 BC in the geographical treatise of the Han Shu
Im Text · 2
  • The geographical treatise of the Han Shu is said to give 88 BC for Dunhuang.
  • The Zizhi tongjian adds Zhangye and Dunhuang in 111 BC. Jiuquan came first, in 115, and Wuwei later.

Dzungaria

  • Whether the battles of 546 and 552 were fought in Dzungaria: one account has both there; the Zhou Shu names no place for 546 and puts the Rouran defeat of 552 north of Huaihuang
  • Whether the pass Herodotus describes in book four is the Dzungarian Gate: argued in the literature, doubted because Herodotus wrote from hearsay
Im Text · 1
  • Herodotus, in the fourth book of the Histories, describes a passage between mountain ranges that served the Scythians and other peoples. Some historians connect it with the Dzungarian Gate. The identification is disputed, because Herodotus wrote from hearsay. The god of the north wind, Boreas, was said to keep that gate. The Dzungarian pass is known for exactly that wind.

Egiin Gol

  • Whether the large riverside sites of the valley were farming villages or summer camps of herders

Ektag

  • Whether Ektag is a range in the Tian Shan or the Altai
  • Whether the Greek name renders a Turkic word for gold or for white
Im Text · 1
  • The mountain has not been fixed. Menander translates the name as Golden Mountain. This may be a rendering of the Turkic altun. That would point to the Altai, the altun yıs of the later inscriptions. Another suggestion sets the name against a Turkic word for white. That would point to a snow range of the Tian Shan nearer the route the embassy travelled.

Eyang Ridgekurz

  • The site: south of the old fort of Dingxiang, north-west of Pinglu county, by one view; north of Shahukou, twenty li north of Youyu county, by a second

Ferghana

  • Whether the Dayuan of the Shiji is Ferghana, as most commentators hold, or Sogdiana
Im Text · 1
  • Most commentators take Dayuan for Ferghana. It has also been identified with Sogdiana.

Gaochang

  • Whether the Ashina passed through Gaochang on their way to the Altai: the Sui Shu sets the cave of the wolf north-west of Gaochang; the five hundred families' flight from Gansu to Gaochang rests on a single interpretation
  • The year of Xuanzang's visit to Tong Yabgu with the king of Gaochang's letters: 629 or 630

Gate of Sul

  • Whether the gate of Sul lay in Gurgan, at the south-eastern corner of the Caspian, or at the Caucasus passes near Derbent

Gol Mod

  • Whether the cemetery belongs to the Xiongnu of the Chinese histories
  • Whether the man of Tomb 1 was a chanyu
  • Whether the skeleton on the outer coffin of Tomb 189 is the tomb owner or a looter
  • Whether the damage to the satellite tombs of Tomb 189 was looting or retaliation
Im Text · 2
  • A young man's skeleton lay face down on the outer coffin. The excavators cannot tell whether he was a looter caught by the collapse of the looters' shaft or the tomb owner, dragged from the coffin.
  • A study points out that the culture of the large necropolises of Mongolia, which appeared around the first century BCE, is assigned to the Xiongnu empire of the Chinese histories. That assignment, it says, has yet to be demonstrated.

Gouzhu Passkurz

  • Whether the Gouzhu mountain is the same as the Xing ridge of 563, as one identification holds

Gurgan

  • Whether Khosrow I's works at Sul, built with stone from Gurgan, stood in Gurgan or at the Caucasus
  • The meeting of Istemi and Khosrow I at Gurgan in 560, which one modern account reports
  • When Smbat Bagratuni became marzpan of Vrkan: 599 or 600 according to some scholars, 595 according to others
Im Text · 1
  • Where Sul lay is disputed.

Heng'an

  • The year of Han Hong's defeat: 601 in the Sui Shu; the Zizhi tongjian enters a defeat of Han Hong at Heng'an both under 599 and under the first month of 601

Herat

  • Whether the battle of 588 or 589 was fought at Herat, as one view has it, beyond Herat and Badhghis, as Tabari has it, or at the Hyrcanian rock in April 588, as a second has it
  • Who led the Göktürk army: Šāba, son of Tardush, in one view from the Perso-Arabic tradition; Bagha, as a lesser khan, in a second; a third doubts that Tabari's Šāba was a Göktürk in the strict sense
Im Text · 1
  • Badhghis, the district beside the city, is one of the places proposed for Badiyan, the seat of the Hephthalite kings in the Chinese records. Another proposal puts Badiyan in Badakhshan on the upper Oxus. A third puts it at the Huo of Xuanzang near Kunduz (Hephthalites).

Huaihuang

  • The month of the battle: the first month of the Chinese year by the Zhou Shu, 11 February to 10 March 552; March in one modern reckoning

Huo

  • Where Huo lay: at Kunduz according to some, at Ghori on the road from Kunduz to Kabul according to others
  • Whether Huo was the capital of the Hephthalite kings, the Badiyan of the Chinese reports
  • Whether the capital stood on the southern or on the eastern bank of the river, on which the two translations of the Life differ
  • Whether the ruler of Tokharistan whom Xuanzang met at Huo on his return was a nephew of the Yabgu Khan, as the translations of the Life have it, or his grandson, the tegin who had seized the rank of shad
Im Text · 2
  • A third explanation is that Huo was the capital of the Hephthalite kings, the Badiyan of the Chinese reports. The Göktürk shad of 630 then sat in the place of the Hephthalite king. His son and successor took the title of yabgu, the highest after the khan, in 643 or 644.
  • In that case Huo, 活, is the town named for the people, whom the Chinese write Hua, 滑. The ten or so monasteries that Xuanzang counts in the country answer to the temples that the Chinese histories give the Hephthalite capital.

Ikarkurz

  • The date of Turum's revolt: about 582, or the years before 598
  • Where the Ikar lay: left open by some, identified with the river Guma in Central Asia by others

Iron Mountain

  • The site: north of the Yin mountains, by the commentary on the Zizhi tongjian; in the Maoming'an banner, by a second view; the Altai, by a third

Issyk-Kul

  • The pass by which Xuanzang crossed the mountains to the lake: the Muzart or the Bedel
  • Whether the road from the mountains to Suyab ran along the northern or the southern shore of the lake
Im Text · 2
  • How the pilgrim reached the lake is disputed.
  • The road to Suyab is disputed in the same way.

Itil

  • Where the city lay: a site at Samosdelka, about 30 kilometres south-west of Astrakhan, and a settlement at Semibugry in the Volga delta have been proposed, and neither is confirmed
  • Whether Atil, Etil, Khamlikh and Qutlugh name one capital, parts of one capital or several cities
  • Whether the Rus destroyed the city in 965 or in 968 to 969
Im Text · 4
  • In September 2008 a team under Dmitry Vasiliev announced that it had found Itil at Samosdelka, about 30 kilometres south-west of Astrakhan.
  • Critics call the identification speculative. In 2020 the Russian Geographical Society concluded that Itil had not been found there.
  • Excavations at Semibugry in the Volga delta have been carried out since 2020 in the hope of finding the city.
  • One hypothesis holds that the rising Caspian Sea washed the city away. The dates proposed for the rise range from the tenth to the thirteenth century.

Ivolgakurz

  • How the site was used through the year: the excavator reads it as a settlement lived in year round for generations, while the survey of Egiin Gol reads the large Xiongnu sites there as summer settlements

Jade Gate

  • When the line of posts reached the Jade Gate: given as 108 BC; elsewhere the wall was begun about 110 BC, the name is attested from 105 BC and the posts as far as the Salt Marsh date from about 95 BC
  • Where the Gate stood: about 120 km west of Dunhuang, where the wall turns south-west, on the determination of 1910; at a station of the wall a little west of 94 degrees east from 94 BC, and at two other stations later, on the determination of 1913; at the fort T. xiv, Xiaofangpan, from 96 BC at the latest and for as long as the western wall was guarded, on Aurel Stein's determination, which leaves open where the Gate stood before

Jian Riverkurz

  • Whether the Jian is the Ulug-Khem, the upper course of the Yenisei, or the Kem, the Yenisei itself

Jingyangkurz

  • The month: the seventh month of 626 in the Jiu Tang Shu, the Tongdian and the Xin Tang Shu; the eighth, after Taizong's accession, in the Zizhi tongjian

Jiuquan

  • Whether the attack on Jiuquan that the Sui edict of 583 ascribes to Tardush is the siege of 578
  • When the four commanderies of Hexi were set up: Wuwei and Jiuquan in 121 BC and Zhangye and Dunhuang in 111 BC in the annals of Wudi, Jiuquan first and the others split off later in the chapter on the Western Regions, other years again in the geographical treatise of the Han Shu and in the Zizhi tongjian
Im Text · 2
  • Two further datings are reported. The geographical treatise of the Han Shu is said to give 104 BC for Zhangye and Jiuquan, 101 for Wuwei and 88 for Dunhuang.
  • The Zizhi tongjian sets up Jiuquan alone in 115 BC. It detaches Wuwei from it later and adds Zhangye and Dunhuang in 111.

Karashahr

  • The size of the capital: two li square in the Wei, Zhou and Sui histories, six or seven li round for Xuanzang, thirty li round in the Xin Tang Shu

Kemijkatkurz

  • Where the town lay: in the Minusinsk region, or on the Kem in Tuva
  • Whether K.M.JKATH is a corrupt form of the Midizhi of the Tang histories
Im Text · 1
  • A second proposal, I. L. Kyzlasov's, takes the name as Kemijkat, the town on the Kem. It was one of the former Uyghur fortress towns on the Ulug-Khem in Tuva.

Kesh

  • Which side of the river Dumo the town stood on: south of it in the Sui Shu and the Xin Tang Shu, north of it in the Tang Huiyao
Im Text · 1
  • The sources differ on which side of the river the town stood.

Khorasan

  • Whether the khagan Sinjibu's march aimed at Khorasan, as some scholars hold, or at the Caucasus

Khöshöö Tsaidam

  • Whether the great monuments mark graves or are memorial halls with the graves elsewhere
  • Whether the monument was wrecked in 745 or in 840
  • Whether the Kül Tegin complex is Chinese work or built on a Turkic plan
Im Text · 4
  • The report on the dig regards the whole complex as the work of Chinese craftsmen. Its grounds are the form, the materials and the technique, and the measures, which are whole multiples of the Chinese building unit of 86 centimetres. It counts only the balbals, the stone men and the Turkic inscriptions as Turkic.
  • A later summary assumes Chinese artists as well, and yet it holds that the statue of Kül Tegin reflects Turkic sculpture.
  • The report dates the wrecking either to 745, when Uyghur rule replaced Göktürk rule, or to the raid of the Yenisei Kirghiz of 840, and it prefers 745 because of the Uyghurs' hatred of the Göktürks of the Orkhon. It names no find that decides between the two.
  • Other views stand against this. One takes the stone chests of the smaller sites for real coffins. Another takes the sites for memorial places set apart from the graves. A third holds that a body burned after six months leaves no bone, so that the lack of bones proves nothing.

Kögmen

  • Where the Kögmen lay: the Tannu-Ola or the main ridge of the Sayan
  • The reading of the name in line 20 of the east face of the Kül Tegin inscription: Kögmän or Kökmän
Im Text · 1
  • Where it lay is not settled.

Kucha

  • Where exactly the Three-Mi mountain of Shegui Khan's court lay
Im Text · 1
  • Others see in a Kizil painting of armoured newcomers received by the rulers of Kucha the Göktürk conquest of 552. The Tarim Basin article gives this reading.

Kujie Valleykurz

  • The year: 601 in the Sui Shu; the Zizhi tongjian enters the raid that preceded the fight under 602

Lingzhou

  • The army sent against Kapgan in 693: ten generals in the Jiu Tang Shu, eighteen in the Xin Tang Shu
  • The dead at Mingsha: more than six thousand in the Jiu Tang Shu, nearly ten thousand in the Xin Tang Shu

Loulan

Im Text · 4
  • The slip was first read otherwise. The first edition has the recipient as a hu named Lou. A second line reckons ten thousand, with two hundred coins remaining.
  • The reading as a Sogdian, a Sute hu, is the later one.
  • One explanation has the small post in the north of the Lop Nor, left to its own resources, keep the name because word of its end never reached it. A second has the name continued locally by the Liang.
  • The town was given up between the second third of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth. Some scholars put the end in the second third of the fourth century, others at the beginning of the fifth. The advance of the desert round the Lop Nor is the probable cause.

Margus

  • What the bishop of Margus robbed: the royal treasury and hidden treasures in the Latin of the edition; the royal tombs in a reading of the Greek
  • When Margus fell: 441, or 442, which is also the dating of the edition
  • Whether the Hun kings had their residence on the far bank opposite Margus from the time of Uldin until the 440s: some say so, others hold that Uldin led only a fraction of the Huns
  • Whether Jordanes's Margoplanum is Margus or Horrea Margi

Minusinsk Basinkurz

  • Whether the Kirghiz lived in the Minusinsk basin from the time of the Xiongnu, or came there from the eastern Tian Shan or from north-western Mongolia
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars place the seat of the khan in the basin. Others place it on the Kem in Tuva, at Kemijkat.
  • Whether the Kirghiz lived here from the time of the Xiongnu or came from elsewhere is the subject of the Kirghiz origin debate.

Mount Dajinkurz

  • The road by which the Sui army went out: Shuozhou in the Sui Shu, the Mayi road in the Zizhi tongjian, the Dingxiang road in the biography of Pei Ju

Mount Jiansi Chuzheshikurz

  • The first character of the name: 踐 in the Zhou Shu, 跋 in the Bei Shi
  • Whether the mountain is the Qingshan of the Kirghiz notice in the Xin Tang Shu, taken for the Western Sayan

Mount Mulaikurz

  • The name: Mount Mulai in the Zhou Shu and the Zizhi tongjian, Mount Lai in the Bei Shi

Mumocheng

  • The date of the first walls: the Tianjian era, 502 to 519, in the Liang Shu; 516, as some think, after Chounu's victory over the Gaoche; the capital with its double wall belongs to Anagui's last years
  • Its site: not identified

Naissus

  • When Naissus fell: in 441 in the chronicle of Marcellinus; in 442, after the fall of Margus, or in 443, after the fall of Ratiaria
  • How it fell: after a brave defence, to Attila's siege engines and the missiles of a countless host; without great effort, to rams and siege engines; or, in a view that doubts Priscus's account of the siege, after an encounter outside the walls
  • Whether the frontier was moved to Naissus: by a peace of 448, as some scholars hold; in Priscus it stands as a demand in Attila's letter

Noin Ula

  • The date of the princely graves: the beginning of the first century BC, the turn of the era, or the first century AD
  • Whether the graves belong to the Xiongnu of the Chinese histories
  • Whether the princes buried there ruled Mongol or Tungus tribes, or belonged to a confederation with Turkic and Mongol chiefs
  • Whether a silver plaque from the graves shows an early form of the Uyghur tale of origin
Im Text · 2
  • The princes of Noin Ula may have been rulers of Mongol or Tungus tribes in the east of the empire. It adds that this does not show the Xiongnu to have been Tungusic, because the empire rested on a confederation of tribes. The chiefs of its Turkic and Mongol tribes formed the aristocracy.
  • A different position puts the Xiongnu at the head of a line of Turkic peoples that carried the culture of the steppe.

Ordos

  • The place of Issik's victory of 553: Mount Mulai north of Woye in the Zhou Shu, on the Ordos edge; some scholars place the battle on the Ordos

Ordu-Balık

  • Whether the Turkic name Ordu-Balık is attested for this site or applied to it by modern usage
  • How much of the town was permanently inhabited and how much was a seasonal camp
  • Whether the town of Togu named in the Göktürk inscriptions was a built town, which would leave Ordu-Balık not the first
Im Text · 1

Ötüken

  • Whether the epithet in E23 is ıduq, sacred, or kutlu, blessed with Kut
  • The exact location within the Khangai and Orkhon country
  • Whether Ötüken was a goddess of the land as well as a mountain
Im Text · 6
  • The first character of 於都斤 may be part of the name, so that the mountain of the Zhou Shu is Yudujin, and 都斤 is a clipped form that first appears in the Sui Shu.
  • It is therefore asked whether Ötüken was a goddess of the land as well as a mountain.
  • The transcription does not read kutlu there, and the difference matters. It is the difference between Ötüken being sacred ground and Ötüken being a source of royal fortune. In the inscriptions Kut is said of the ruler, not of the place.
  • The name of the mountain, 勃登凝黎, is understood as a Turkic name. Its second part is täŋri, which means "god" as well as "sky", and the Chinese gloss "spirit of the earth" shows that it means "god" here. The first part is unexplained.
  • One reading of line 5 has him call the Ötüken region his "inner woodland".
  • The key word of that line is read in five ways.

Partaw

  • The year in which the northern army reached Partaw: 627 in one reckoning, 628 by the Armenian count of Khosrow's years
  • Whether Jebu Xak'an, the ruler of the northern army, is Tong Yabgu
Im Text · 1
  • He has been identified with Tong Yabgu. Another view doubts it.

Pingliang

  • The sense of 雜胡: barbarians of mixed race, or barbarians of diverse and unidentified origin
  • How mixed hu of Pingliang came to flee at the fall of the Northern Liang: through the Helian of the Xia, from within the Liang state, or after a Wei raid on Pingliang itself

Pliskakurz

  • How the marks on the stones, bricks and the bronze rosette are to be read, and whether they are writing
Im Text · 3
  • A seven-armed bronze rosette from Pliska has a mark at its centre and two marks on each arm. It has been taken for a cavalry badge, for a charm of the sun, the moon and the five planets, for a sacred calendar, and for a seal in Greek vowels.
  • The marks of Pliska are not read. Several scholars take them for the Old Turkic runiform script, and others take the texts of Pliska for Greek writing with signs of Asian origin.
  • The runiform alphabet of Murfatlar and Pliska has also been classed as an alphabet of its own.

Samandarkurz

  • Where the city lay: the early notices place it in the North Caucasus, and its location remains unclear
  • Whether Samandar and Balanjar arose from tribal groupings, as the early notices may suggest

Samarkand

  • Whether the Xiongnu who took Sute in the Wei Shu are the Kidarites in Sogdiana or the Huns north of the Black Sea
Im Text · 1
  • A different explanation takes Sute for the country of the Alans north of the Black Sea and these Xiongnu for the Huns.

Sarkel

  • The year of the building: 838 in most accounts, about 833 in one, 839 in another
  • Whether the town taken by Sviatoslav in 965 and called Belaya Vezha in the Rus chronicle is Sarkel
  • What Sarkel meant as a name, and whether the form Sarkil is right
Im Text · 1
  • The year is not settled. Most accounts give 838. The older date is 833, and a later one, 839, has also been proposed.

Shanyu Protectoratekurz

  • When the name Shanyu was first given: at the founding in 650 in one account, or only in 664 in the Xin Tang Shu
  • How many prefectures the protectorate held at its founding: fourteen in the Jiu Tang Shu and the Tongdian, twenty-four in the Xin Tang Shu
  • Whether the memorial of 845 dates the early commands correctly: it places them in the fourth and fifth years of Wude
Im Text · 1
  • The same memorial puts the first commands in the fourth and fifth years of Wude, which does not agree with the other histories.

Shiveet Ulaan

  • Whether the complex belongs wholly to the Göktürk period, since its western part resembles the Uyghur monument of Shine-Us
  • Whom the complex commemorates: one publication names the funeral of Ilterish Khan, the others name no ruler

Sogdiana

  • Whether the Xiongnu who took Sute in the Wei Shu are the Kidarites in Sogdiana or the Huns north of the Black Sea
  • Whether the Hun period was a disaster for Sogdiana, as commonly held, or a time of rapid development, as Étienne de la Vaissière argues
Im Text · 2

Suyab

  • The date of Xuanzang's visit: 629, or the beginning of 630 in Édouard Chavannes
  • When Suyab became the western seat: some place it under Tardush after 576; the Chinese chapters put Shegui's court north of Kucha and Tong Yabgu's at the Thousand Springs west of Suyab

Syr Daryakurz

  • Whether the Pearl River of the inscriptions is the Syr Darya
Im Text · 1
  • The inscriptions of the second khaganate name a Pearl River on the road west. The usual reading puts it here.

Talas

  • Whether the battle of 751 or the An Lushan rebellion ended Tang power in the west
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars have a man give his name on it as Kara Chor and say that his enemy cannot stand against him.
  • Some scholars take sharga for a Sogdian word, "lion".

Tamatarkhakurz

  • Whether the place that Theophanes calls Tomis, on the strait of Kerch, is Taman and Tamatarkha
  • Whom the Rus chronicle means by the Khazars at Tmutarakan in the eleventh and twelfth centuries
  • Whether the Rus attack in the Schechter Letter fell on Tamatarkha or on the province of the Sewerians, as the translation of Schechter has it
  • Whether the Schechter Letter, in which the Khazar commander Pesach beats the Rus prince Helgu, is reliable, and when its events fall
Im Text · 4
  • The translators place the commander's territory on the Cimmerian Bosporos. They report one argument that the place Tomis, where Justinian boarded the boat, is Taman, and that Tomi Tarcha is the Tmutarakan of the Rus.
  • Schechter's translation reads the province as that of the Sewerians. Others take the Hebrew to name the people of Tamatarkha.
  • The reliability of the document is doubted. Its account of the Khazar wars of the ninth and tenth centuries, for which it is almost the only witness, calls for caution, and it has been argued that it is a compilation and not an authentic letter.
  • What the word Khazar means in these notices is not settled.

Taren Riverkurz

  • Whether the Taren is the Tamir
  • Whether 他人水 names a river at all, or means 'other people', as the French translation of 1864 read it

Tarim Basin

  • How far Hephthalite rule reached into the Tarim before the Göktürks: indirect and of uncertain extent, according to some
  • The Kizil mural of armoured riders at Kucha: the Göktürk conquest of 552, according to some; the distribution of the relics of the Buddha, according to others
  • Where Wulei, the seat of the first Han Protector-General, lay: at Chadir, or at Bugur
Im Text · 3
  • Wulei is placed in two ways. One puts it at Chadir, some fifty kilometres east of Bugur. The other puts it at Bugur itself.
  • This list has been taken for the frontier of the Hephthalite realm, with nearly all the oasis states of the basin subject to it. The Liang Shu itself speaks only of the campaign and of the land gained.
  • A different explanation, a century older, is that the painting of armoured riders at a city gate in the Cave of the Painters at Qizil shows the distribution of the relics of the Buddha. The princes of the cities then come armed to claim their share. Turkic Atlas describes it under Kucha. Whether both explanations concern the same painting is not certain.

Tiflis

  • Whether the city fell to the northern army alone in a second siege, as the Armenian account has it, to the Göktürks after the battle of Nineveh, or to Heraclius himself before it, as the Georgian chronicle tells it

Togu Balıkkurz

  • Whether togu means east, and whether the town was a built town of the Nine Oguz
  • Where the town stood
Im Text · 1
  • The stones give no year for the battles. One account places them in 714, and a second places the revolt of the Nine Oguz after the death of Kapgan in 716.

Tuz Köl of the Karlukskurz

  • Which lake the Ḥudūd means: Issyk-Köl, Boro-dabasun, Shor Köl or another
  • How much of the notice rests on older material
Im Text · 10
  • Three proposals for Tuz Köl stand beside this entry.
  • Vasily Barthold, in his preface to the translation, took Tuz Köl and Issyk-Köl for the same lake. He held that the different sizes given for the two did not rule this out.
  • Vladimir Minorsky, the translator, rejected the equation. In his commentary he says that the areas and the positions of the two lakes differ. Tuz Köl lies within the limits of the Khallukh, and Issyk-Köl lies between the Chigil and the Toghuzghuz.
  • Issyk-Köl is only slightly brackish. An abundant supply of salt from it is therefore highly improbable.
  • From the order of the entries Minorsky places Tuz Köl west of Issyk-Köl, near the places Tüzün-Bulagh and Tüzün-ʿArj.
  • Zeki Velidi Togan, whom Minorsky calls A. Z. Validi, proposed the lake Boro-dabasun. It lies east of Issyk-Köl, between the headwaters of the Tekes and the Kegen, and is strongly salt.
  • Minorsky found the lake too far east to lie within the limits of the Khallukh.
  • Minorsky himself preferred the Shor Köl, a "Salt Lake" on the southern slope of the Tian Shan, about 140 kilometres north-east of Kashgar and south of the Taushqan.
  • Which lake the Ḥudūd means is therefore not settled.
  • Which notices go back to it is argued.

Viminacium

  • When the city fell: 441 in two datings; the edition of Priscus dates the fragment to 442
  • When the merchant of Viminacium fought for his master: either against the Romans in 442 or 443 and against the Akatziri in 445, or against the Romans in 443 and 447 and against the Akatziri in 448

Volga

  • When the Huns crossed the Volga: in 395, or about 370
  • Whether the river Til of Theophylact is the Volga, the Tola or the Tarim

Wuleikurz

  • Where Wulei stood: at Chadir according to some, or at Bugur, fifty kilometres to the west, according to others
Im Text · 1
  • One study equates Wulei with Bugur itself but gives no reason for the choice.

Wuweikurz

  • When Wuwei was set up: 121 BC in the annals of Wudi, a later division of Jiuquan in the chapter on the Western Regions, 101 BC in the geographical treatise of the Han Shu, later than 115 BC in the Zizhi tongjian
Im Text · 2
  • The geographical treatise of the Han Shu is said to give 101 BC for Wuwei.
  • The Zizhi tongjian detaches Wuwei from Jiuquan later than 115 BC.

Xihai

  • Which water the name denotes: the Caspian, the Aral Sea, the lakes of the Edzin Gol delta, or a sea thought to lie beside Fulin
Im Text · 1
  • Which water the name means has been interpreted in several ways.

Xing Ridgekurz

  • Whether the Xing ridge is the Gouzhu mountain under another name, as one identification holds

Zhao Xin City

  • Zhao Xin's origin: a petty king of the Hu in the Shiji chapter on the Xiongnu and in the Han Shu, a chancellor of the Xiongnu in the lists of the marquises
  • Where the town stood: the sources give only that it lay beyond the desert and a little over 200 li past the field of the night battle

Völker

Abusikurz

  • Whether the chief Abusi of Kapgan's war and the tribe of the same name are one line

Akatziri

  • Whether they were Huns, as some argue because Priscus calls them Huns, or a people of their own
  • Where they lived: on the lower Bug and Dniester, or near the eastern shore of the Black Sea or the Sea of Azov, according to different scholars; south of the Aesti in Jordanes
  • When Attila subdued them: about 445 according to two datings; 448 according to a third
  • Whether they were a people of the steppe or of the forest belt
  • The name: forest people, the Khazars or the White Khazars have been proposed; all remain conjectures
  • Whether they marched with the Saragurs against Persia: so in the Latin of the edition; some regard this as a mistranslation

Alans

  • Whether Attila fought a second campaign against the Alans beyond the Loire: so in Jordanes; mentioned by no other author and generally disbelieved

Alchon Huns

  • Dates
  • How the Bactrian word alxono is to be read, and whether it names a people, a tribe, a dynasty, a title or a person
  • Whether the Huna of the Indian texts are the Alchons or the Hephthalites, and whether the Alchons were a branch of the Hephthalites
  • The order and the dates of the kings: the classification runs Khingila, Toramana, Mihirakula in turn from about 430 to 542, while a copper scroll of 492 or 493 names Khingila, Toramana, Javukha and Mehama side by side
  • Whether the Huna defeated by Skandagupta were Hephthalites or Kidarites
  • Whether the king Gollas of Cosmas Indicopleustes is Mihirakula or the king whom Song Yun met in 520
  • When the Alchons and the Nezaks fought for Kapisa and Kabul, and who held the Kabul mint
Im Text · 9
  • It is not settled whether the word is a personal name that became the name of a dynasty, the name of a tribe or a title.
  • Which people the Huna of the Indian texts were is disputed.
  • Some scholars identify them with the Alchons and hold that the Hephthalites proper never crossed the Hindu Kush.
  • Others identify them with the Hephthalites.
  • A third view admits that the Alchons may have been a clan of the Hephthalites.
  • Which Hun people he met is uncertain: they were either Hephthalites or Kidarites.
  • Others identify him with the king whom Song Yun met in Gandhara in 520.
  • Whether the king of Song Yun and the Wei Shu belongs among the Alchon kings of the coins is not settled.
  • The sequence is given in two ways.

Amilzurikurz

  • Whether the Alpidzuri and Alcildzuri of Jordanes are one people, the Amilzuri of Priscus
  • Whether the name proves Turkic-speaking nomads north of the Black Sea before the Huns came

Angiscirikurz

  • The name: older work takes it as the grassland Sciri, Germanic; others find Turkic, Angisgiri, more likely

Avars

  • Whether the khagans and the ruling nobility of the European Avars came from the Rouran who fled west, or the Avars were a group of other origin that took the name
  • Whether Apar in the Kül Tegin inscription names the Avars: the usual interpretation; Persia according to some
  • What language the early Avars spoke
  • Whether the runiform signs on Avar finds and on the Nagyszentmiklós vessels are Orkhon and Yenisei script, a late Avar script or property marks, and whether they are earlier or later than the objects
  • Whether the end of the state in the 790s and 800s was the end of the Avars: so in the short account; Avars are recorded in Pannonia and Dalmatia in the ninth and tenth centuries
Im Text · 7
  • The Kül Tegin inscription names the Apar among the mourners of the founders. Whether the word means the Rouran, the European Avars or both is argued.
  • A second line of the same argument explains par from Middle Iranian pahr, a name for the whole Iranian land, and interprets apa urum as “Great Rome”, meaning Byzantium. The list of mourners would then name Persia and Byzantium and no Avars.
  • Another survey reports that archaeologists date the treasure before the ninth century. It also reports a bone needle case found in 1983 in a late Avar cemetery at Szarvas, of about the eighth century, which bears a runiform text of the same late Avar script. The survey thinks the language probably a Bulgar variety of Turkic, and it counts the script as undeciphered.
  • The surveys therefore differ on whether the runes are later than the objects. A different view identifies the signs on Avar graves of the Carpathian basin with the Orkhon and Yenisei script or one close to it.
  • It follows the script west with Karluk and Western Göktürk groups to the Urals, the Volga and the Oka, and from there with a late migration of the Avars to the Carpathian basin.
  • A tamga cut on a rock near Bol'šoe Mikuškino on the Sok has its nearest parallel on an iron strap end from an Avar grave at Keszthely-Csákberény in Hungary.
  • Another theory derives the core of the Avars from the Hephthalite realm and its Var and Hun peoples, a third from the Ogurs and the Töles.

Az

  • Their ethnic and linguistic affiliation: Turkic, Ketic, or related to the Iranian As
  • Whether az in a given passage of the inscriptions names the people or means 'few'
  • Whether the Chinese word aco, the title of the Kirghiz ruler, renders the name Az
Im Text · 3
  • There are three theories about their descent. The first connects them with the Iranian As and with an Azi people that the Muslim geographers place near the Čigil and the Türgeš. The second regards them as a Turkic people. The third regards them as a Ketic people, comparable to the Assans.
  • Two theories concern the name rather than the people. The first identifies the Az as the dominant tribe of the Yenisei Kirghiz and the Chinese title aco of their ruler as a rendering of the tribal name. The second rejects this, because the Chinese text does not attach the title to a clan name.
  • The articles on Are and the Kirghiz Khaganate treat the title. A third view counts the Az, with the Chik, among the dependants whom the Kirghiz called Kyshtym.

Basmïl

  • Their ethnic and linguistic affiliation, which Peter B. Golden calls uncertain
  • Whether the Ozmïš of 742 was their chieftain, as Golden has it, or the Göktürk Left Shad against whom they rose, as the Jiu Tang Shu has it

Bittugureskurz

  • Whether they were an Oguric people: probably not, on one view, since the Ogurs came to Europe only about 463 and lived farther east

Boiscikurz

  • Whether they were Celts: the little Boii, according to some scholars

Boma

  • Why the Tongdian and the Xin Tangshu give the name Bila to the Boma, and the Tongdian gives it to the Basmïl
  • Whether the Boma were a distant neighbour of the Kirghiz or a people that shaped them
Im Text · 1
  • A reading in Kyrgyz scholarship counts the Boma among the peoples that stood especially close to the Kirghiz. These peoples may have contributed to the making of the Kirghiz people. The reading cites a later Chinese geography that puts the Boma north of the Kirghiz state, and Kyrgyz genealogical traditions of piebald-horse people.

Bugukurz

  • Whether the nine tribes of the confederation were a fixed list or a changing one

Bulgarskurz

  • How far the Bulgar union stood under Göktürk overlordship before 630
  • Whether the runiform inscriptions of the Danube, the Volga, the Don and the North Caucasus are Bulgar
Im Text · 3
  • One scholar identifies the runiform inscriptions of the Danube, the Volga, the Don and the North Caucasus as monuments of Bulgar dialects.
  • He points to the initial sounds c- and dz- and to numerals formed with -em as in Bulgar. He also calls Bulgar a vocabulary of burial, names, kinship, trades and the calendar.
  • Another scholar holds that Turkic-speaking tribes brought the script west to the Volga, the Don and the Danube. In general these were the Tele, whom this scholar calls Proto-Bulgars.

Chik

  • Where exactly they lived: south of the Sayan on the headwaters of the Yenisei, or between the Yenisei and the Sayan
  • Whether the Chik, with the Az, belong among the dependants that the Kirghiz called Kyshtym
Im Text · 1
  • Three remarks concern their later fate. The first counts them, with the Az, among the Turkic and other dependants whom the Kirghiz called Kyshtym.

Cimmerianskurz

  • Whether Cimmerian is an ethnonym or an appellative for a mounted band of Iranian-speaking nomads
  • Their ethnic identity, which the sources do not settle
Im Text · 1
  • What they were is not settled. Their ethnic identity has yet to be determined. Some scholars go further and deny that the word names a people at all. On that view "Cimmerian" was an appellative for a mobile, mounted band of Iranian-speaking nomads of the Eurasian steppe.

Dingling

  • Whether Tiele derives from Dingling, and whether one people stands behind both names
  • Whether the Dingling spoke a Turkic language; the sources give no word of their speech
  • Where they lived: the sources place them north of the Xiongnu and give no boundary
Im Text · 4
  • Its supporters count the Gekun, the Dingling and the Xinli among the ancestors of the Turkic-speaking peoples of the Han period. They identify the Xinli with the Sir of the Orkhon inscriptions and the Xue of the Tang sources.
  • Some scholars call the Wujie, the Kirghiz and the Dingling kin of the Xiongnu, without naming a ground.
  • One line of derivation traces Tiele, Dingling and the later Chinese name Gaoche, 'high carts', to one Turkic word for 'cart', perhaps tegreg. The derivation is conjectural and awaits support.
  • A further suggestion is that the Chinese name "high carts" is related to the meaning of the Turkic name, "circle" or "hoop", and does not only describe their wagons.

Donghu

  • Whether Donghu is an ethnonym or a Chinese label for the peoples east of the Xiongnu
  • The descent of the Xianbei, the Wuhuan and the Rouran from them, which later Chinese histories assert and the Shiji does not
  • Whether they spoke a Proto-Mongolic language
Im Text · 5
  • Scholars have not studied the Chinese terms Hu, Lin Hu, Donghu and Loufan as terms of identification. Therefore little can be said about what they covered. It is open whether Donghu was ever an ethnonym or only the label of the peoples east of the Xiongnu.
  • The name has been explained in two ways. One explanation takes Donghu as the Chinese "eastern Hu". The other takes it as a Chinese spelling of Tungus, which would in turn come from a Turkic word for pig. The second explanation has been doubted, because that Turkic word is not known from before the Common Era.
  • A second proposal sees in it an early form of Turkic ordu, "camp" or "garrison", and derives ordu from the empty strip between the Xiongnu and the Donghu.
  • The Chinese commentators explain the word as an earth hut or as a waste without people, and the equation with ordu rests on the sound alone.
  • One position holds that the Xiongnu were Turks and that the Donghu to their east were Proto-Mongols, with a desert between the two peoples. It rejects the view that Turks and Mongols were one people.

Dubo

  • Whether the Dubo of the first Xin Tangshu notice and the Wooden-Horse Tujue of the second are the same three groups
  • Whether they were Turkic, Samoyedic or of mixed descent
  • Where the small sea lay, and so where they lived
Im Text · 3
  • The three divisions of the Dubo in the first passage may be the Dubo, the Mielie and the Geezhi of the second. One people would then be described in two ways.
  • For their descent the literature gives three views. The first identifies the name with Tuba, the name that Samoyedic peoples bore. In this view the Dubo were Samoyedic tribes that were already Turkicized when the Chinese called them Göktürks.
  • The second makes the Tuvan Todzha descend from the Dubo.

Edizkurz

  • Whether the Ediz belonged to the confederation from its foundation or joined later; it has been argued that the division into nine had become political rather than ethnic
Im Text · 5
  • Whether they belonged to the nine from the beginning is argued. A governor-general of the tribe came to China as an ambassador in 788. This shows the tribe inside the confederation by then. It may have been there from the foundation. By this date the division of the Uyghurs into nine would then have become political rather than ethnic: a count of the seats at the top rather than a list of peoples.
  • The name appears in a few runiform texts of the Uyghur age, and all of them are uncertain. In line 2 of the north face of the Tariat inscription, one editor reads ediz, with a query, beside the Tongra among the people of the khan.
  • A short text cut into a rock at Zamyn Buuts in Bayankhongor province in Mongolia may belong to the time of the Uyghur Khaganate. It has been taken to name the Ädiz.
  • Three interpretations differ on whether it records the passing of Ädiz men and horses or an Ädiz camp.
  • At Dukhyn Buuts, in the same province, a tamga beside another rock text may belong to the Ediz, according to its finders.

Eurasian Nomads

  • Where and why pastoral nomadism began: growing herds, farmers pushing herders into the steppe, or several causes at once, among them a dry climate and the rise of settled states
  • What set off the rise of steppe empires: the wealth of a united China, long-distance trade, or both
  • Whether the idea of a heavenly mandate came to the steppe rulers from China or belonged to a shared Inner Asian tradition
  • Whether the Huns descend from the Xiongnu
Im Text · 7
  • The Xiongnu are often taken for a Turkic-speaking people and for forerunners of the Göktürks.
  • Other scholars place their language among the Yeniseian or the Mongolic languages, and the debate on the language sets the positions out.
  • How nomadism began is disputed. One theory has herds growing until herders had to move with them. A second theory has stronger neighbours pushing herders into the steppe. A third theory finds neither enough and counts several causes together.
  • Scholars differ on the trigger. One theory ties each empire to a strong, united China whose wealth the nomads could take.
  • A second theory gives the lead to long-distance trade and to rulers who guaranteed the safety of caravans.
  • Whether the claim to a heavenly mandate came from China or from a shared Inner Asian tradition is not settled.
  • Whether the Huns descend from the Xiongnu is debated.

Furi

  • Whether the Furi, the Quri and the Kurykan are one name and one people
  • Where the wild forest people of Gardīzī and Marvazī lived: east of the Kirghiz or on the road toward the Toghuzghuz
Im Text · 1
  • In Kyrgyz scholarship the name Furi is said to have developed into Kurıkan by way of Hori. The Furi-Kurykan are counted among the peoples that entered the Kirghiz union and influenced the growth of the Kirghiz state.

Göktürks

  • Whether the name kept any ethnic content after 744, or survived only as a word for steppe nomads and a language family
  • Whether the runiform spelling of the name is to be read Türük, or Türk

Gothskurz

  • Whether the Greuthungi and Tervingi of Ammianus are the same groups as the Ostrogoths and Visigoths of the Gothic tradition

Gulun Wugukurz

  • The form of the name and the Turkic original behind it

Heichezi

  • Whether the Black Carts were a Shiwei people, and whether the Shiwei with whom Ögä sheltered were the Black Carts
  • Whether the Black Carts or an Uyghur minister killed Ögä, and where
Im Text · 1
  • Which of the two accounts is right is not settled.

Hephthalites

  • The date of the destruction of their realm: the literature runs from 557 to 567; one estimate sets it about 560
  • Their language, and whether the ruling core was Iranian, Altaic or mixed
  • Whether Ebodalo is their self-designation
  • Whether the Rouran were their overlords
  • Where the Hephthalite king's city Badiyan lay: at Badghis, at Huo, or in Badakhshan
  • Whether the Sogdian name element čamūk is a Hephthalite word
  • Whether the king in the yurt on the north wall of the Shi Jun sarcophagus is a Hephthalite ruler
Im Text · 8
  • Whether the Rouran were in fact their overlords is not settled.
  • This northern origin has been taken at its word. It makes the Hephthalites an East Asian people from the Altai who became Iranian only in the country they conquered.
  • Wangshecheng has been identified with the Hephthalite capital, whose Chinese name the Wei Shu glosses in the same words. Another identification is Rajagriha in India.
  • Where Badiyan lay is argued, and the proposals are far apart. One puts it at Badghis near Herat. The Arabic geographers call Badghis the old capital of the Hephthalites, and the Chinese name answers to it.
  • A second rejects Badghis. The later struggles of the Hephthalite prince Nezak aimed at Balkh and upper Tokharistan. It therefore puts the city at Huo, the later Kunduz, which the Arabic geographers know as War-waliz.
  • A third puts it in Badakhshan, at Faizabad. It argues from the route of the Chinese embassy of 519 and from the country that Xuanzang calls Himatala.
  • The crown does not mark a Hephthalite alone. A second figure with a winged crown on the same sarcophagus appears three times as the chief figure of the banquets and the hunt. His crown has a small circle and a crescent between the wings. He may be another Hephthalite ruler. He has also been identified as Shi Jun himself.
  • The difference of a decade sits at the junction of Chinese, Persian, Arabic and Greek reckonings.

History of the Turkic peoples

  • Where and when pastoral nomadism arose on the steppe
  • What language the ruling stratum of the Xiongnu spoke
  • Whether the Huns of Europe continue the Xiongnu
  • Whether the Ashina came out of the Xiongnu, as the Zhou Shu asserts
  • Where the ruling house of the Khazars came from
  • How far the power of the Yenisei Kirghiz reached after 840
  • How far the weather of the steppe explains the fall of the khaganates
  • How far the cosmos recorded in the Altai and in Siberia since the eighteenth century reaches back to the Göktürks
Im Text · 14
  • The two explanations disagree on the date at which the cold began to matter for Mongolia.
  • Whether the eruption of 626 stands behind the fall is disputed.
  • Whether the drought undid the Uyghurs, or the Kirghiz did, is disputed.
  • Which lake the Ḥudūd means is open, and three lakes of the Tian Shan region have been proposed for it.
  • The equation is contested.
  • Several theories about the origin of the letters compete, and the question is not closed.
  • A second derives the letters from the tamgas.
  • Another holds that the Xiongnu were a mainly Mongolic people.
  • On the best view the identification holds and the elite of both was Turkic-speaking.
  • How far Kirghiz power reached is argued. One view gives the Kirghiz a state that held the Khakas-Minusinsk basin, the Altai, the middle Irtysh, Tuva, north-western Mongolia and Lake Baikal. It rests largely on conjecture.
  • A second has the Kirghiz empire last until about 917, when the Khitan united northern China and Mongolia and the khan went back to his old seat on the Yenisei.
  • The house that ruled the Khazars is held to have been the Ashina. If that is right, the family that took Ötüken in 552 was still reigning on the Volga when the Rus came in 965.
  • One hypothesis has the defeated Nushibi khan Irbis Shegui move to the Khazar lands about 651 and found the ruling house there.
  • It remains a hypothesis, and there are many problems with it.

Hun (Tiele tribe)kurz

  • The name is unrelated to the Huns of Europe; the coincidence in English spelling is an accident of transcription

Huns

  • Whether the Huns of Europe continue the Xiongnu of Inner Asia, and in what sense
  • What language the core of the Huns spoke
  • Where the Huns came from before the 370s: the Altai, Kangju on the Syr Darya or the basin of the Kuban, depending on the theory
  • Why Ammianus describes scarred cheeks: to stop the beard growing, as he says; or, as some scholars hold, mourning wounds that he misunderstood
  • Whether prominent Huns cremated their dead: some say so, while others hold that the fire reached only the grave goods, and burnt bone is found in one grave only
  • Whether the cast bronze cauldrons derive from the Scythian and Sarmatian cauldrons: not at all, or only in part in the handle knobs, depending on the theory
Im Text · 2
  • On the best view the identification holds and the elite of both was Turkic-speaking.
  • The sign may be a picture of the world with its four quarters.

Itimarikurz

  • The origin of the name: unknown; older proposals derive it from Itil, the Volga, with an Iranian ending, or equate it with a people of a Syriac list

Jiekurz

  • What the Jie spoke; the Jin Shu couplet has been identified as Turkic, as Yeniseian and as Iranian
  • Whether they were Xiongnu in any sense beyond the Chinese classification
Im Text · 1
  • The Jie matter far more than their size suggests, because of a single sentence. The Jin Shu preserves a four-word couplet, glossed there in Chinese. It is the longest connected utterance of any Xiongnu-affiliated tongue that survives. Every account of the Xiongnu language has had to explain it. The couplet has been identified as Turkic, as Yeniseian and as Iranian.

Kabars

  • When the Kabars left the khaganate: dates from about 780 to 881 have been proposed
  • Why they left: a religious quarrel over the Khazar conversion to Judaism, a quarrel inside the dual kingship, a revolt of mercenaries or a split of the kind that happens in any steppe union
  • Whether the Kabars were Muslims, Karaites, pagans or Jews

Kangju

  • Its extent, and its relation to the Sogdian city-states that later occupied the same country
  • Whether the Kangju embassies of 29 and 11 BC were conducted by Sogdian merchants, as has been argued

Khalajkurz

  • Where the Khalaj came from: remnants of the Hephthalites, Turkic settlers of early Islamic Afghanistan, or an offshoot of the Argu
  • Whether their language is a branch of Turkic of its own or an Oghuz speech
Im Text · 2
  • Three theories of their origin are put forward. The first holds that they are a remnant of the Hephthalites. The second counts them with the Turkic settlement of Afghanistan in early Islamic times. The third derives them from the Argu.
  • Some scholars regard it as a branch of Turkic of its own. Others regard it as an Oghuz speech.

Khitan

  • Whether the Khitan of the Wei Shu and the Kıtañ of the inscriptions are one people under one name over three centuries
  • How far the Kumo Xi and the Khitan are to be told apart before the sixth century
Im Text · 2
  • Whether the Qidan of the fifth-century Wei Shu, the Kıtañ of the eighth-century inscriptions and the Khitan of the tenth-century Liao are one people under one name is the ordinary question about steppe ethnonyms.
  • The ordinary answer applies: the name is continuous, and what it names need not have been.

Kidarites

  • Whether the Xiongnu who took Sute in the Wei Shu are the Kidarites in Sogdiana or the Huns north of the Black Sea
  • Whether the Kidarites belong at the end of the fourth century or, as all the written sources agree, around 420 to 440
  • Who drove Kidara west in the entry on the Little Yuezhi: the Xiongnu in the transmitted Wei Shu, the Rouran in the Tongdian and the Taiping huanyu ji
Im Text · 1
  • A different identification takes Sute for the country of the Alans north of the Black Sea, the Xiongnu for the Huns and Huni for Attila's son Hernac.

Kimekkurz

  • The origin of the name and of the union: Tatar, Proto-Mongolian, or neither
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars derive the name from a Proto-Mongolian people of the Xianbei line. The change from Quomag to Kimek, however, is not explained.

Kipchakkurz

  • Where the Kipchak stood in relation to the Kimek, and when the name comes into use
Im Text · 1
  • The editors of the texts call one of the two tamgas on a painted runiform text at Hoyto Tamir in central Mongolia a Kipchak tamga. They give no reason for the name. One reckoning dates the text to 756, more than three centuries before the Dīvān.

Kotzagerkurz

  • Dates
  • Whether the Kotzager are the Kutrigurs
  • The date of their flight to the Avars: 582 or 598, depending on the dating

Kurykan

  • Whether the Gulikan of the Chinese histories and the Kurıkan of the inscriptions are one people
  • Where they lived: north of the desert and south of Lake Baikal, or north of Lake Baikal to the Arctic Ocean
  • Whether the Quri of the Muslim geographers are the same people
  • Whether the Kurykan were absorbed by the Kirghiz state, as one interpretation of the Chinese notice and of an Uibat epitaph has it
Im Text · 4
  • The argument rests on the form of the word. One scholar analyses korıkan as Mongolic kori, "lamb", with a Mongolic suffix -kan. The Turkic counterpart would then be kuzu. The scholar cites tribal names such as Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu in support.
  • Some Kyrgyz scholars count the Kurykan among the peoples that the Kirghiz state took in. Their view rests on three points: the Chinese notice that the Kirghiz border reached them, a likeness between runiform inscriptions on the Lena and finds in the Kurykan country, and an epitaph from the Uibat valley.
  • One editor understands the epitaph as a lament for a beg named Tirig. This beg took the league of the Üč Kurıkan and "was like a tusked boar" when he did. Another editor interprets the epitaph differently and identifies the enemy in the passage as an Uyghur khan.
  • The same editor puts the stone in the first half of the eighth century. He concludes that the Kirghiz took the Kurykan in the time of their first khan, Bars Beg, a century before the later period of their power.

Kutrigurs

  • Whether the Kotzageroi of Theophylact, who fled from the Göktürks to the Avars, are the Kutrigurs
  • Whether the Altziagiri of Jordanes are the Kutrigurs
  • Whether the Kutrigurs were Bulgars, or one of the ten tribes of an Onogur federation

Kyshtym

  • Whether the K.SAYM of the Ḥudūd and the Kishtim are one name, and where the people lived
  • Whether the name designates one people or the dependants of the Kirghiz in general
  • Whether the Chik and the Az were Kyshtym
Im Text · 1
  • Other scholars treat the Kyshtym as a particular people named in runiform inscriptions. They place the people on the Kemchik in Tuva and hold that the Chik and the Az were Kyshtym too.

Nezak Shahs

  • Dates
  • How the Pahlavi legend is read, and whether it is a name, a title or a dynastic name
  • When the series begins: about 460, or about 630
  • Whether the Nezak kings were Huns, local rulers of Kapisa, Kabul and Zabul, or a Western Turkic dynasty
  • Where the two mints lay, at Ghazni and at Kabul
  • Whether the Nezak kings of the coins have anything to do with Nezak Tarkhan of Badghis
  • Whether the king of Cao with his crown, in the Sui Shu, is a king of Kapisa
  • When the Alchons and the Nezaks fought for Kapisa and Kabul
Im Text · 3
  • Accounts based on the coins and the written sources make them Huns, local rulers or a Western Turkic dynasty.
  • The name itself is explained in several ways.
  • How the Nezak coins relate to the Turk Shahi depends on how the series is interpreted.

Nushibikurz

  • Where the line between Nushibi and Duolu ran on the ground

Oghuzkurz

  • Whether the Oghuz of the eleventh century descend from the Toquz Oghuz of the khaganates, and in what sense
Im Text · 1
  • Their relation to the Toquz Oghuz of the khaganates is a separate question. The name alone does not settle it.

Ogurs

  • Whether Menander's Ugurs on Zemarchos' road home are the Ogurs or, by an old emendation, the Utigurs
  • Whether the Ogor subdued by the khagan in Theophylact's letter are the Ogurs on the Volga or the Uyghurs
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars identify the Til with the Volga and the Ogor with the Ogurs. They allow that the name may be a garbling of Uyghur.
  • Others identify the Til with the Tola in Mongolia.

On Oq

  • Whether the Chinese Duolu renders Üç Tuğlu or another name
  • Whether the On Oq are the Tardush group of the Tölis
  • Whether the Ten Arrows are the western Göktürks under another name or a new formation: some hold that the ten tribes took power from the yabgus and khans; Peter B. Golden sees a confederation that fully manifested itself under Shaboluo Dielishi in 634 to 639
Im Text · 2
  • An older proposal reads the Turkic name behind the ten tribes as On Oguz, "the ten Oguz". It regards this as the name of the whole western realm from about 635.
  • Another proposal reads the On Oq as probably the Tardush group of the Tölis, also called western Turks.

Onogurs

  • Whether Turxanthos named the Onogurs or the Utigurs among the peoples subdued by 576; the editions of Menander read the passage differently
  • Whether the Onogurs spoke an Oguric form of Turkic or were an Ugric people with a Turkic name
  • How the Onogurs and the Bulgars came together: the Onogurs joining a Bulgar union, or an Onogur federation of ten tribes that took in Bulgars, Utigurs and Kutrigurs
  • Whether the Enqu of the Sui Shu and the Honagur of the Armenian history are the Onogurs
Im Text · 3
  • An Armenian notice of the late fourth century tells of a "Hun" named Honagur who challenged Shapur of Iran.
  • If the name means the Onogurs, they were within raiding distance of Iran before 463.
  • Others grant that their name is Turkic. They regard the Onogurs and the Akatziri as two Ugric peoples and ancestors of the Magyars.

Pechenegskurz

  • Where the Pechenegs came from; a tribe Peiju in the Sui Shu is taken to be their name
  • Their speech: Common Turkic, most probably of the Kipchak kind, or a mixture with Tokharian, Eastern Iranian and Bulgaric elements

Rouran

  • Language and origin: Donghu and Xianbei by the Wei Shu, para-Mongolic by the usual classification; Turkic elements in the confederation argued, and some scholars hold that the Tuoba, the Xianbei and the Rouran ruling house had Turkic components
  • Whether the nobility of the Rouran who fled west in 552 became the rulers of the Avars of Europe
  • Whether the Khüis Tolgoi inscription in Brahmi script belongs to the Rouran, and whether its language is Mongolic
  • Ögel's proposal of a Turkic börü, wolf, behind the Chinese name
Im Text · 10
  • Some scholars set this tale of a bald ancestor beside the bald ancestor of the Khitan. They count the Rouran, the Khitan and the Xianbei among the Proto-Mongols.
  • The Turkologist Bahaeddin Ögel proposed a Turkic börü, "wolf", behind the name. The Chinese writings do not show this etymology. It rests only on a Chinese source elsewhere that equates the Rouran with wolves.
  • A third theory holds the Xianbei to be Turks, and the Rouran, from their titles, probably Mongols.
  • A fourth holds some court titles of the Tuoba to be Turkic. It reads the Chinese transcriptions of the titles of a secretary, a gatekeeper and an official of the belt as bitigči, kapaɣčı and kurlaɣčı.
  • The Chinese gloss of Chu, wei, has been taken for the word "yes", and Chu for a Mongolic or Tungusic word of assent.
  • The glosses are Wei renderings. The language behind them is not identified.
  • The Khüis Tolgoi inscription is in Brahmi script, and some read it as Mongolic. It leaves open whether its language is that of the Rouran state, of the Tuoba, or of a tribe of the Tula valley.
  • Some scholars hold the kinship of Rouran and Avars established and the sceptics refuted by recent genetic studies. The question nevertheless remains undecided.
  • One older account takes the Avars for a part of the Rouran, who came to the Black Sea about 560 and stood before Constantinople in 626.
  • One survey takes the "caverns" of the Göktürk legend for the underground mines in which the people of Bumin worked iron for the Rouran.

Sabirs

  • Their origin: western Siberia, the Turfan region, the Ili and Jungaria, or both sides of the Urals; and whether they spoke Common Turkic, an Oguric language or an Ugric one
  • Whether Grod, the Hunnic king of Bosporos baptised in 528, was a Sabir or an Utigur
  • Whether the Khazars rose from a Sabir union reorganised under Göktürk rule
Im Text · 4
  • Where the Sabirs came from is argued.
  • Their origin has been sought in western Siberia, where their name has been found in that of Siberia.
  • Other proposals place them in the Turfan region, in the Ili valley and Jungaria between 350 and 463, or on both sides of the Urals.
  • Some call their language Common Turkic, others Oguric, and a third group Ugric.

Saka

  • The etymology of the name; the derivation 'nomad' from Iranian sak- is one proposal among several and has been rejected
  • Which modern region answers to each of the four Saka groups of the Achaemenid inscriptions
  • Whether the Turkic peoples of South Siberia took equestrian pastoral nomadism from the Saka with pointed caps
Im Text · 5
  • One etymology derives the name from Iranian sak-, "to go, flow, run". That gives "running, swift, vagrant" and so "nomad".
  • A name that means "the moving people" is a common enough kind of name on this steppe. The derivation is one proposal among several, however, and has been rejected.
  • It has been suggested that the Turkic peoples of South Siberia took equestrian pastoral nomadism from the Saka with pointed caps. It remains a suggestion.
  • A third tie is writing. A silver cup from the Issyk kurgan near Almaty, a burial of the Saka age, bears an inscription. Some scholars see in its signs an early runiform writing that passed from the Saka through the Huns to the Göktürks.
  • Others see in them the script of Iranian-speaking nomads.

Saragurskurz

  • Where they came from: from the western Tiele on one view; the movement that drove them began north or north-east of the Altai, or no farther than the Aral Sea, in a second

Sarmatians

  • When Scythian hegemony ended: early in the fourth century BC, or in the third to second
  • Whether the Sauromatians of Herodotus are the same people as the later Sarmatians
Im Text · 1
  • The Sarmatians were the Iranian nomads who ended the supremacy of the Scythians in the western steppe. Their challenge ran through the fifth and fourth centuries BC. The end came probably early in the fourth century or in the third to second century. The dating is argued.

Scythians

  • Whether the whole confederation spoke Iranian or only its ruling elite
  • The route by which they entered the western steppe; they may have come from the east by way of western Siberia
Im Text · 1
  • A people named for its weapon is not unusual on this steppe. The same derivation has been proposed for two further names. One is Σκόλοτοι, a Scythian grouping, with l for the δ. The other is Sogd, the name of Sogdiana, through a chain of forms running back to skuda.

Shiwei

  • Whether the Otuz Tatar and Toquz Tatar of the inscriptions are the Shiwei and the southern Shiwei
  • Whether the Mengwu of the Shiwei are the Mongols
  • Whether the Xianbei and the Shiwei bear one name in two dialect forms
  • Whether the Black Carts were a Shiwei people
Im Text · 3
  • Three identifications are open. The first identifies the Otuz Tatar, the Thirty Tatars of the Göktürk inscriptions, with the Shiwei, and the Toquz Tatar, the Nine Tatars, with the southern Shiwei.
  • The Tatars article gives the evidence. The second identifies the Mengwu among the Shiwei, whom the Jiu Tangshu names in connection with events of the eighth century, with the Mongols, as a form of Monggol. A challenge to this identification links the name with Mangut.
  • The third regards the names Xianbei and Shiwei as two dialect forms of one name, rendered Serbi or Sirvi, which no one has explained.

Sijiekurz

  • Its place in the order of the nine, which the sources do not fix

Sogdians

  • Whether the Xiongnu who took Sute in the Wei Shu are the Kidarites in Sogdiana or the Huns north of the Black Sea
  • Whether the Sogdian settlements of Semirech'e were trading stations on a Silk Road or agricultural estates founded by nobles, as Étienne de la Vaissière argues
  • Whether the Zandanījī silks were woven in Sogdiana or are Chinese copies of Iranian models
  • Whether An Lushan really worked as a market interpreter, or the biography gives him the occupation the Chinese thought typical of a Sogdian
  • Whether Yu Hong, buried at Taiyuan in 592, was a Sogdian
Im Text · 3
  • A different identification takes Sute for the country of the Alans north of the Black Sea. It makes these Xiongnu the Huns.
  • Yu Hong's own descent is argued from his second name Mupan, which transcribes the Sogdian Māxfarn, glory of the moon god Mākh. Those who doubt that he was a Sogdian question this argument.
  • Whether the Zandanījī silks were woven in Sogdiana or are Chinese copies of Iranian designs is disputed. For the route it does not matter, since they passed through Central Asia.

Sorosgikurz

  • Who they were: the Saragurs, in an older guess; perhaps, according to some scholars, a distortion of the name of the Ogurs

Tashtyk Culture

  • Whether the carriers of the culture were the ancestors of the Kirghiz, a mixed people of Jiankun and Dingling, or tribes that the Kirghiz later subjected
  • The end of the culture: the fifth century in one account, the seventh in another
  • Whether the plaster mask custom arose in southern Siberia or came from outside
Im Text · 13
  • The end of the culture is therefore dated differently, to the fifth or to the seventh century.
  • The authors of a study of 2024 know of no other plaster work of the Tes and Tashtyk people. They therefore ask whether the technique arose in southern Siberia or came with itinerant craftsmen or a new population.
  • A study of the Tes masks holds that the tradition came from the west. It finds a close conceptual likeness only in the plaster funerary masks of Roman Egypt.
  • A Turkish work cites an older view that took the masks for Iranian and Parthian influence. It adds that the custom of masking the dead also existed in China, so that the view needs caution.
  • In the first reconstruction, that of L. R. Kyzlasov, the Turkic Jiankun and the Dingling lived side by side. The Jiankun are the ancestors of the Kirghiz, and the Dingling are the bearers of the Tagar culture.
  • After the Xiongnu attacked in 201 BCE, some of the Dingling were pushed north and mixed with the Jiankun.
  • The Tashtyk culture of the Minusinsk basin is the result.
  • In this reconstruction, the Jiankun and the Xiongnu brought the cremation of the dead.
  • The second account has the Turkic-speaking Jiankun, whom it equates with the Yenisei Kirghiz, meet the Dingling in the second and first centuries BCE.
  • It identifies the Dingling as speakers of partly Ugric and partly South Samoyedic dialects.
  • It sees the Tashtyk culture and the Shurmak culture of the Upper Yenisei as marks of this meeting.
  • The third account separates the two. It regards the Tashtyk tribes as vassals of the Kirghiz, among them Europoid people.
  • The Kirghiz subjected these tribes and pushed them into the taiga of the Minusinsk basin. In the state of the Yenisei Kirghiz they were dependants, called kyshtym.

Tatars

  • Whether the Tatars were Mongolic or Turkic
  • Whether the Thirty Tatars descend from the following of the Rouran khan Datan
  • Whether the Thirty and the Nine Tatars are the Shiwei and the southern Shiwei
  • Whether the Kirghiz fought the Tatars in 842
Im Text · 4
  • Some scholars take the letter to show that the Kirghiz fought the Tatars in 842. They find support in two Kirghiz runiform inscriptions.
  • Others find the first inscription damaged at the decisive point and without any mention of such a war. They find the second at most naming the Tatars as "enemies".
  • The second holds that they were Turkic. The eleventh-century Turkic dictionary of Kashgar and a part of the Turkologists share this view. The editor of the Tariat inscription calls the question one of the most confused in the history of Inner Asia.
  • The third theory equates the Thirty Tatars with the Shiwei and the Nine Tatars with the southern Shiwei.

The Great Empires of the Steppe

  • What language the ruling stratum of the Xiongnu spoke
  • Whether the Huns of Europe continue the Xiongnu
  • Where the capital of the Hephthalites lay, and when their realm fell
  • When the western wing of the Göktürk state became a polity of its own
  • Where the ruling house of the Khazars came from
  • How far the power of the Yenisei Kirghiz reached after 840
Im Text · 6
  • Another regards the Xiongnu as a mainly Mongolic people.
  • The identification is argued, and Turkic Atlas sets the evidence out under the Huns and the Xiongnu.
  • Where Badiyan lay is argued.
  • Scholars dispute when the western wing became a polity of its own.
  • How far Kirghiz power reached is argued.
  • The house that ruled the Khazars is held to have been the Ashina.

Tiele

  • What Turkic name lies behind the Chinese transcriptions
  • The number of the Tiele who submitted to Bumin in 546: households or persons
  • The end of the decade of freedom: Anagui's victory in Dzungaria, as some accounts have it; Chounu's of 516 according to the Wei Shu
Im Text · 3
  • Both names are taken to render one Turkic original. What that original was is not settled. The reconstruction Tegreg has been proposed, with the observation that the Mongolian word for a cart, telegen, lies close to it.
  • Some scholars identify the Tiele with old Hunnic tribes and with the whole Turkic population of Central Asia.
  • According to one theory, Turkic-speaking tribes, in general the Tele, as that theory calls the Tiele, brought the runiform script west to the Volga, the Don and the Danube.

Tongrakurz

  • Its place in the order of the nine, which the sources do not fix
Im Text · 1
  • A rock text of five letters at Khöshööt Tolgoi in Govi-Altai province in Mongolia reads tuŋrač or toŋrač. Its first readers took this for a man's name, and others for the name of the Tongra.

Toquz Oghuz

  • Which nine peoples the name counted, and whether the count was ever fixed
  • Whether the Nine Surnames of the Tang chapters and the Nine Oguz of the inscriptions name the same body
  • Whether the Uyghurs were one of the nine or the ruling tribe above them
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars take them for the Oghuz of the Aral Sea. Others hold that they were the Uyghurs, who were then expanding fast.
  • A second approach cuts the question differently. It holds that the division of the Uyghurs into nine had become political rather than ethnic. It was a count of the seats at the top of the confederation, not a list of peoples. This would explain why no two lists agree and why membership can be argued about at all.

Tounsoureskurz

  • Whether the name is Turkic, *Tungur

Tuobakurz

  • How far the early genealogy of the house in the first chapter of the Wei Shu is invented
  • Whether the Tabgach of the Orkhon inscriptions is this name
Im Text · 2
  • The Orkhon inscriptions call China Tabgach. The word is usually understood as the name of this house, carried over from the dynasty to the country.
  • Whether the older links of the line are invented is argued. There are two views. The first holds most of the early line to be a construction. The second takes the early names for real Xianbei chiefs of the Later Han period. These chiefs were not a hereditary line, and they received imperial titles only after their death. It also holds the line of the kings of Dai reliable from Liwei on.

Türgesh

  • Whether Sulu is the Abū Muzāḥim of the Muslim sources; some scholars hold it probable
Im Text · 1
  • The name stands on rock in Mongolia as well. Two painted runiform texts at Hoyto Tamir have türgeš in a damaged third line, once as türgeš el. The lines are too broken to say whether the word is a tribal name or part of a personal name.

Turkic Tribes in Europe

  • Which of these peoples spoke Turkic: the Oguric languages are one branch, the Sabirs are classed as Turkic, Oguric or Ugric, and the language of the early Avars is argued
  • Whether the Onogurs formed a federation that took in the Bulgars, the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs, or joined a Bulgar union later
  • Whether Turxanthos named the Utigurs or the Onogurs among the peoples subdued by 576
  • Whether the khagans and the ruling nobility of the Avars of Europe came from the Rouran who fled west after 552, or the Avars were a mixed steppe group that took the name
Im Text · 2
  • A third takes the Onogurs for an Ugric people with a Turkic name.
  • Their origin and language are argued. The proposals range from Common Turkic and Oguric to Ugric.

Ultzinzureskurz

  • Whether they took their name from Ultzindur, the kinsman of Attila's sons

Utigurs

  • Whether Turxanthos named the Utigurs or the Onogurs among the peoples subdued by 576
  • Whether Grod, the Hunnic king of Bosporos baptised in 528, was an Utigur
  • Whether the Utigurs were Bulgars, and whether their country is the later Great Bulgaria

Uyghurs

  • Whether the Gaoche of the Rouran period are the ancestors of the Uyghurs of 744

Wuhuan

  • Their language, and their descent with the Xianbei from the Donghu
  • Whether the name Wuhuan is an early Chinese writing of Avar
  • The year of Cao Cao's victory over Tadun: AD 206 by the Sanguozhi, 207 in other reckonings
Im Text · 2
  • One proposal takes the name Avar to be an early Chinese writing of Wuhuan, which would tie the Avars to the Donghu. It is unproven, because it is not clear that the Apar of the Orkhon inscriptions and the Avars are one people.
  • A second proposal also identifies Wuhuan as an early Chinese writing of Avar. It regards the Wuhuan as speakers of a Mongolic language and joins them with the Hephthalites, whose speech the Liang Shu makes the same as that of the Tuyuhun, a Mongolic dialect in this proposal.

Wusun

  • What the Wusun spoke; no word of their language is recorded beyond names and titles
  • Whether the Ashina wolf legend descends from the Wusun one, or both from a common steppe pattern
  • Whether the Saka and Yuezhi elements the Han Shu names make the Wusun a mixed formation from the start
Im Text · 7
  • Some scholars take the wolf legends of the Wusun, the Gaoche and the Göktürks as one line that begins inside the Xiongnu realm.
  • Some scholars regard the Han Shu's wording as a misunderstanding of its author. The same view divides the Hexi between the two peoples, with the Yuezhi in the east, around Liangzhou, and the Wusun in the west, around Shazhou.
  • The usual classification is Indo-Iranian, based on the Saka ground they took and on the names. It is an inference from very little.
  • An older position, held by Otto Franke, took the Wusun to be probably of Turkic descent.
  • A later view also counts the Wusun among Turkic speakers, without giving a ground in the work where it appears. It adds that they were subject to the chanyu while they were weak, and that they stopped obeying his summons once they had grown strong.
  • A third position takes their language for a Tocharian one, from the final element of the royal titles.
  • The marquis title xihou is found among the Wusun, the Yuezhi and the Kangju. It is no doubt the title later used by the Turks as yabgu, but, according to some scholars, not of Turkic origin, and a Tocharian word that the Turks took over in Bactria.

Xianbei

  • What the Xianbei spoke: Mongolic, para-Mongolic, or a mixture with Turkic elements
  • Whether the Xiongnu who took the Xianbei name in the second century became Xianbei in any sense beyond the name
  • Whether the Tuoba are to be called Turko-Mongol
Im Text · 6
  • Some scholars identify the name Tanshihuai with the Turkic-Mongol title Tangsuk Khan, because of the hailstone the mother swallowed.
  • The usual classification is Mongolic or para-Mongolic. It is a classification of the same order as the one applied to the Rouran: an inference from a thin body of transcribed words, not a reading of a corpus.
  • A further proposal counts the Xianbei as Turks who ruled in eastern Mongolia from 266 to 394 and explains their words from the Göktürk and Uyghur languages. It takes the Rouran to be probably Mongolic.
  • The court titles of the Tuoba are taken by some to be Turkic. They interpret the Chinese transcriptions of the titles of a secretary, a gatekeeper and an official of the belt as bitigči, kapaɣčı and kurlaɣčı.
  • A Tang geography of 814 glosses the name of a mountain in northern Shanxi as "thirty li" in the language of the barbarians. The name suits the Mongolic word for thirty, not the Turkic one, and has been taken as a trace of Mongolic speech among the successors of the Xianbei.
  • One scholar counts the Tuoba as a branch of the Asian Huns, regards their titles as Turkic and gives roughly three fifths of their clans as Turkic and a third as Mongolic.

Yueban

  • Whether the Wei Shu's derivation from the northern Xiongnu is a genealogy or an administrative label
  • Whether the Yueban and the Hephthalites were one people: the Wei Shu keeps them in two separate entries
  • Where the Yueban country lay: north of Kucha, as the Wei Shu says in one clause, or north-west of the Wusun, as it says in another
Im Text · 3
  • Some scholars regard the Wei Shu account of the Yueban as a legend, hold that the state existed earlier, and say that it was subjected by the Xiongnu only in AD 91.
  • Another counts the Yueban as a mixture of the older Xiongnu of the Tianshan and the Xiongnu who came from the Orkhon in 91.
  • The descent is the Wei Shu's own statement. Whether it records a genealogy or the label the Wei court gave a people of the northern Xiongnu tradition is not decided.

Yuezhi

  • Their language and their identity with the Tocharians of the Tarim
  • Whether the Kushan house descended from them
  • Where the Qilian of the Han texts lay: the range south of the Gansu corridor, or the eastern Tianshan
  • Whether they left the Dunhuang country for the Ili under Laoshang or already in Bagatur's western campaign of 177 to 176 BC
  • When they left the Ili: in Laoshang's reign, between 174 and 161 BC, or in the years of Zhang Qian's captivity, between 133 and 129 BC
  • Who killed the Wusun king Nandoumi: the Xiongnu, as the Shiji has it, or the Great Yuezhi, as the Han Shu has it
  • Whether Gaofu was ever one of the five xihou: the Han Shu counts it, the Hou Han Shu denies it
Im Text · 3
  • There are two views about the location of their country.
  • Still others take up another question, the division of the Hexi between the Yuezhi and the Wusun. They put the Yuezhi in the east, around Liangzhou, and the Wusun in the west, around Shazhou.
  • Whether the Kushan house itself came out of them is likewise unsettled.

Zabenderkurz

  • Dates
  • Whether the Zabender took part in the flight of the Tarniach and Kotzager to the Avars

Geschlechter

Arekurz

  • What the word Are is: a Turkic title, a Samoyedic word, a tribal name or a Chinese form of another title
  • Whether the Kirghiz ruling house descended from Li Ling
Im Text · 1
  • The word is a title and a family name at once. It has been read as a Chinese writing of the title inal, as a Samoyedic word for father, as the tribal name Az and as the Turkic idi, lord. None of these readings is secure. Turkic Atlas treats the title under Aco.

Ashide

  • Whether Tonyukuk was an Ashide: the attribution rests on his identification with Ashide Yuanzhen, which the Tang history's account of Yuanzhen's death makes difficult
Im Text · 1
  • The Tang history's account of Yuanzhen's death makes this identification difficult, and Turkic Atlas treats the question under Yuanzhen.

Ashina

  • Dates
  • The origin of the name: a Khotanese-Saka word for blue, an Old Persian word for dark-coloured, Turkic verbs, or unexplained
  • Descent from the Xiongnu: a claim of the Chinese histories, not a finding
  • Whether the link with the Juqu house of Pingliang is more than a rumour, and where the first home of the Ashina lay: the Altai, the Kem basin or the middle Tian Shan
  • Whether the wolf legend was the Ashina's own or borrowed from their Wusun neighbours in Gansu
  • Whether the line continues in the Khazar ruling house, and with it to 969: Peter B. Golden holds it strongly suggested, Minorsky doubted the one text that names it
Im Text · 18
  • By a claim that is still argued, the khans of the Khazars were Ashina too.
  • One interpretation of the legend makes the wolf the ancestor of the house, Ashina her descendant of the second generation, and his mother a woman of the country.
  • Sergei Klyashtorny proposed a Khotanese-Saka word for “blue”, which he gives as āṣṣeina or āṣṣena. That would make the Ashina “the blue ones”. In his view the form fits the name in sound and in sense, but the claim still needs a text to rest on.
  • He also takes the kök of kök türk to render the name itself, so that the phrase would mean “the Ashina and the Türk”. The proposal is one position among several.
  • Haussig derived the name from Old Persian axšaēna, “dark-coloured”.
  • Two older proposals derive it from Turkic verbs, from aş-, to cross a mountain, and from eş-, to leap. Their evidence is too accidental to persuade.
  • Two further proposals derive the name from a Sanskrit word for a holy sage, ṛṣi, borrowed into Turkic as aši or arši, and from a Tokharian word for noble, ārśi, which gives Aršilaš, noble kings.
  • One position adds that the Ashina went back to the house of Modu, through the line of the Southern Xiongnu chanyu.
  • The link between the Ashina and the Juqu house of Pingliang may be no more than a rumour. The Zhou Shu and the Jiu Tang Shu do not have it. The biography of the Juqu leader Mengxun names neither the Altai nor a crossing of the desert to the Rouran, and his people are found later at Shanshan and Turfan. If so, the Altai is the first certain home of the Ashina.
  • One position goes further and regards the basin of the Kem, on the upper Yenisei, as the first home of the Göktürks. It attributes the inscriptions found there to the Göktürks and not to the Kirghiz.
  • Another position puts their homeland in the middle Tian Shan, by Lake Issyk-Kul.
  • Scholars argue whether the wolf legend and the Suo story are two tellings of one myth or the separate traditions of tribes that joined.
  • One interpretation regards the wolf-and-cave legend as the state's own account of its origin and the Suo story as a popular tale. It finds in the second both laws of succession: the eldest son leads first, and the youngest wins at the tree.
  • It has also been argued that the ruling houses of the Göktürks and the Khazars came from a line of smith tarkhans.
  • Three objections stand against the case. The first concerns the derivation of the house from Yipishekui, a beaten Nushibi khan who is supposed to have moved west about 651. It is a hypothesis with many problems.
  • The second concerns the one text that seems to say the descent outright, the Ḥudūd al-ʿālam with its "descendants of Ansā". Scholars have understood it differently, taking the word for a corruption of the title išād.
  • The third is that the Chinese transcription of Ashina is itself uncertain in pronunciation.
  • If the case holds, the line lasted until the Khazar state fell in 969. For the years after 744, it remains contested.

Duankurz

  • Whether Duan is a house name or a Chinese surname taken by its chiefs

Fufuluokurz

  • Whether the Gaoche kings after Afuzhiluo, from Mi'etu on, belonged to the Fufuluo: the sources give the clan name only for Afuzhiluo and, in the annals of 541, for Qubin

Luandi

  • Whether 攣鞮 and 虛連題 render the same name, and which is nearer the Xiongnu form
  • Whether the clan name can be read in any known language; some scholars call it very un-Altaic and makes it an argument against a Turkic elite
  • Whether the order of brothers was the law of the house or Huhanye's instruction for his own sons alone
  • Whether the house died out at the end of the Han or continued under the surname Liu
  • Whether the Tuge, the strongest tribe of the Xiongnu in the third and fourth centuries, stand behind the name of the Turks, as some scholars hold
Im Text · 3
  • These are different characters, and a different number of them. The two works are also two centuries apart. The texts cannot settle whether the two forms render one name at two dates, are two spellings of one name, or reflect a change of usage at the Southern court.
  • Under steppe empire formation, Turkic Atlas holds open whether that is descent, imitation or the shape any such state takes.
  • One further reading goes beyond the Xiongnu. It places Modu himself in the Tuge, and takes the name Tuge, written Tuku or Tuko in older transcriptions, for the people whose name stands behind that of the Turks.

Murong

  • Whether Murong is a clan name, a title, or a Chinese rendering of something else
  • How far the Yan states were Xianbei polities and how far Chinese dynasties with a Xianbei house at the head
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars take this for a tale of the Song period, which gave the founder of the Tuyuhun the highest title of its own time.

Qifukurz

  • Whether the Qifu were Xianbei in origin or a mixed formation of the Gansu corridor

Tufakurz

  • Whether Tufa and Tuoba are one name, which is generally held but rests on the reconstruction

Yaglakarkurz

  • Why the succession passed from the Yaglakar to the Ediz in 795
Im Text · 1
  • In 2021 a standing stone was found at Dövön in Govi-Altai province in Mongolia. It carries a tamga that its finders think may belong to the Yaglakar, a text in Uyghur script and a runiform text of two letters, read taš, "stone".

Yujiulü

  • The genealogy before Shelun: five generations from Mugulü in the Wei Shu, whose dates strain the arithmetic
  • Dengzhu's place in the house: Anagui's uncle in the Zhou Shu, his son according to some scholars
Im Text · 1
  • Another version makes Dengshuzi a son of Anagui. The Zhou Shu calls him the uncle.

Yuwenkurz

  • Whether the Northern Zhou house descended from the Yuwen or took the name

Einrichtungen und Titel

Acokurz

  • Whether aco is a Turkic title, a Samoyedic word, the name of the Az tribe or only the name of the ruler
  • Whether the Kirghiz ruler bore aco instead of khan after 758 or beside it after about 820
Im Text · 9
  • According to one account, the Kirghiz ruler lost the title of khan in 758. In this account, he bears only aco, a title unknown among other Turkic peoples.
  • Four explanations of the word have been proposed. Some see in it a Chinese writing of the title inal. Others take it for a Samoyedic word asse, "father". Others take it for the name of the Az tribe. A fourth group identifies it with the Turkic idi, "lord".
  • A fifth view finds no Old Turkic word that corresponds to it and no other evidence for it. It allows that the word was no more than the name of the ruler.
  • The Kazakh scholar A. Margulan adopted the meaning "father". By his account, aco first named the head of a large patriarchal family. It became the title of a ruler when the state arose.
  • E. V. Sevortyan finds two parallel senses of ace and ece in the Orkhon and Yenisei texts: "rich man" or "lord", and "woman". He holds the first to be the more common.
  • Mokeev finds the word in the Kül Tegin inscription as well, in the phrase eçüm apam, "my forefathers". There it would mean "father".
  • Mokeev rejects the derivation from a tribal name. The Xin Tang Shu says that the Kirghiz lord is called aco. It says that the leaders of tribes are named after their tribes. The lord's title therefore cannot come from a tribal name.
  • He also reports two objections of I. L. Kızlasov. The derivations from inal and from Az give two words that share no sound.
  • Furthermore, inal named the head of a principality in the Turkic states, never the head of a state.

Apa Tarkankurz

  • What apa adds to tarkan: a command, a seniority, or a wing
Im Text · 1
  • What apa adds is not settled. It stands in personal names as well, and Töremen Apa carries it. The literature reads it now as a command, now as a seniority within a wing.

Army of the Steppe Empires

  • Whether the counts of archers in the Chinese histories are counts or estimates
  • Whether the Turks of the Strategikon are the western Göktürks

Atabeg

  • Whether Nizam al-Mulk received the title from Alp Arslan after Manzikert or from Malikshah later
Im Text · 2
  • The sources disagree on the occasion. One account has Malikshah, who reigned from 1072 to 1092, leave all business to his vizier with full independence. In that account, he granted him the title of atabeg among others.
  • A second account has Alp Arslan appoint Nizam al-Mulk as atabeg for his son Malikshah after the battle of Manzikert.

Avar Craftsmen

  • How far the objects called Avar were made by Avar craftsmen and how far by Byzantine or itinerant ones
  • What status the smith held in steppe society

Baga

Im Text · 2
  • One edition of the Ongin inscription reads baga teŋriken in the line about the speaker's father. It takes baga with his name or title.
  • The editor does not give his reasons for this choice.

Baidie Cotton

  • Whether baidie is cotton from its first use in the Liang Shu, or a cloth of another fibre to which the name later passed
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars take the first element of the name for the Middle Persian word for cotton, pambak.
  • If so, baidie was a product of the Iranian lands. The Chinese records name it for Sogdiana and for Parthia, and it also appears in India.

Beg

  • Whether beg is a native Turkic word, a loan from Chinese 伯 bo, or a loan from Iranian baga
  • Whether the absence of the title among the Iranians after the sixth century tells against the Iranian derivation
  • Whether the beg of the inscriptions is an office in the khaganate or the head of a tribe who is owed a place in it
Im Text · 4
  • The origin is not settled, and it has not been settled for a century. Three derivations compete.
  • The first takes the word from Chinese 伯 bo, an elder brother and a rank of nobility. Its older pronunciation has been reconstructed as something like pak. Sinologists have held this view. The standard etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish records it as the view of Giles and Karlgren.
  • The second takes the word from Iranian baga, "god". This is the word behind Middle Persian bay and Sogdian βγ-, and all of them were used as honorifics for kings and men of rank. The main objection is phonetic. The Middle Iranian form was baγ, so a borrowing should have produced baγ or beγ, not beg.
  • A separate argument cuts across all three. The title also turns up among peoples who were not Turkic-speaking. Barthold, Menges and Peter B. Golden took its spread as evidence that it was a loan into Turkic rather than out of it.

Bloomery Furnaces of the South Altai

  • The dates of the furnaces and the specific features of iron production in the different periods
  • Whether the south-eastern cluster belongs to the Göktürks alone or to earlier and later users as well

Bone and Horn Working

  • Whether the bone points that Ammianus gives to the Hunnic arrows were common or an exception

Border Markets

  • Whether the Göktürks of the 540s came to the frontier to buy silk or to sell it
  • The year of the request for markets under Tulan Khan: 588 by the Cefu Yuangui, which enters the tribute of horses under the eighth year of Kaihuang and has the request follow soon after; 594 by one translation of the Sui Shu, which sets the embassy of Rudan Tegin in 593

Bride-Price in Livestock

  • The size of the Uyghur bride-price of 788: 2,000 horses in the Jiu Tang Shu, 3,000 in the Tang Huiyao
Im Text · 1
  • The two figures disagree.

Bronze Mirrors of the Steppe

  • Whether a mirror with an odd decoration is an imitation cast beyond the frontier or a simplified Chinese piece

Buyruk

  • Whether the Chinese Meilu transcribes buyruk
  • Whether buyruk was one office or a collective name for the men who carried out a khan's orders

Camels

  • Whether the camels of the Xiongnu lists were one-humped or two-humped, which the Chinese words do not say

Captives and the Unfree

  • What legal status the people called kul and küŋ in the Orkhon inscriptions held: slaves, bondsmen or subjects of a conqueror
  • How far Xiongnu and Göktürk crafts and farming rested on captives and deserters
  • Whether the Xiongnu office translated Commandant of Slaves had to do with slaves at all
Im Text · 1
  • The sources name captives, slaves and defectors and tell what became of them. They give no figure for the unfree in any steppe empire and no description of how they were held, owned or freed. The treatment of the word kul in the inscriptions remains open.

Chanyu

  • What Chengli and Gutu render; the equation of Chengli with Tengri is a proposal
  • Whether the order of brothers was the rule of the office or Huhanye's instruction for his own sons alone
  • Whether the Southern chanyuate ended in 216 or kept its title without land until 304
Im Text · 12
  • The gloss is the reason the title is argued over. Chengli is commonly understood as Tengri, and Gutu as a word for son or for fortune. If these interpretations hold, the Xiongnu ruler bore a sky-title of the same shape as the title of the Göktürk khans, half a millennium before them.
  • The second word has been interpreted in several ways. Chengli gutu may be Old Turkic täŋri qut, "holy majesty", and so a sign of a Turkic Xiongnu court.
  • A second reads gutu as kut, "fortune", and not as "son", and regards the Han Shu's "son of heaven" as a misreading.
  • A third rejects the equation of gutu with kut. The Han Shu glosses the word as "son", and a Turkic kut would have been written with a single character. No word for "son" that matches gutu has been found in Turkic or Mongolic. It tried Tungusic hutta and weighed Mongolic köyün, "son".
  • The Göktürk khan, it is argued, was no son of Heaven but a man favoured by Heaven, a kind of envoy of Heaven, whereas the Chinese emperor was the Son of Heaven.
  • The word chanyu itself has been explained in five ways. It may be the Turkic yabgu, and the Tengri-Kut-yabgu of the whole title a Turkic phrase.
  • A second sees in it a Chinese phrase meaning "vast", formed after the First Emperor's huangdi, and so no older than Bagatur.
  • A third reads it as the Chinese rendering of a Xiongnu word for "broad", reconstructed as targü and related to Mongolic delgüü, "to spread out".
  • A fourth sees in its second element a word of the type of khan.
  • A fifth derives Turkic tarqan and Mongolic daruya from the same word. It sets chanyu with three other titles of the Xiongnu court, huyu, yanzhi and tuqi, as the source of the Turkic titles qayan, qatun and tegin, and rejects the equation of chanyu with yabgu because the sounds do not fit.
  • The chanyus can be counted as the First, the Second and so on, as the Chinese emperors were counted after Qin Shihuang, beginning with Bagatur. Duman then did not bear the title, and the name "Duman chanyu" of the Shiji is a later addition.
  • Another observes that the word chanyu stands before Bagatur's time only in the account of Li Mu and in a few passages, and that it may have been inserted later.

Chepetukh

  • Dates
  • Whether Chembukh and Chepetukh render the Göktürk title yabgu
  • The date of the campaign on the Oxus: 597–598 or 614–615
  • Whether the notice on the Pass of Chor describes the invasion of 627
Im Text · 1

Chinese Craftsmen at the Orkhon Monuments

  • Whether *tuygun* in the Kül Tegin inscription is a name, a title or the name of the people from whom the carvers were drawn
  • How far the sculpture of the monuments is Chinese work and how far Turkic
Im Text · 3
  • The word tuygun is understood variously, as a name, as a title and as taygun. One argument identifies it as the name of a people, so that the sentence would say from which people the carvers were drawn.
  • A later summary of the excavation assumes Chinese artists as well. It holds that the statue of Kül Tegin nevertheless reflects Turkic sculpture.
  • The carvers did not only work the figures. Some scholars hold that Chinese craftsmen cut the Turkic text into the stone, and that Yollug Tegin, who names himself as its writer, only wrote it.

Chur

  • Whether chur outranked irkin, or the two were parallel ranks in the two wings of the western khaganate
Im Text · 3
  • It is argued whether Kapgan is the man's name or a style that he took after his raids on China.
  • Short runiform texts on rock carry the word as well. Their readings are uncertain. Two rock texts in Bayankhongor, at Deed Tsokhiot and at Havtsgaityn Havtsal (rock inscriptions found in Mongolia, 2018 to 2021), have been read as naming a Qar Chur and a Qarlïγ Chur. The texts do not show whether chur is a title there or part of a name.
  • Among the painted texts of the Tayhar rock at Hoyto Tamir, one has been read with the name İbris Apa Çor and another with Tarduš Köl-İç-Çor.

Çigşikurz

  • When the title entered Turkic
  • Whether the Tang emperors gave it to Turkic chiefs

Coinage of the Huna Peopleskurz

  • Which coins belong to which people, and in what order: one classification sets Kidarites, Alchons, Nezaks and Hephthalites in four waves, and a copper scroll inscription contradicts parts of it
  • Whether the copper coins of Shor-tepe belong to a Hephthalite governor of Nakhsheb, and whether coins in the Bukhara region name Gatfar or Kavad

Composite bow

  • Where and when the reflex form was developed; the archaeology gives a range and not a point

Daguankurz

  • Whether daguan is a second Chinese spelling of tarkhan

Daluobiankurz

  • Whether 角 in the gloss means a horn or a wine cup of that name

Deer stoneskurz

  • What the carved figures on the upper part of the stone represent: a face, a mask, or a sun

Diplomacy of the Steppe Empires

  • Whether the exchange of gifts, brides and titles between steppe rulers and Chinese courts was tribute, subsidy or trade by other means
  • How far the words of kinship in letters (brother, father, son, subject) described the real balance of power between the courts
  • Whether the Persian queen mother Kayen was a daughter of Istemi, and when the marriage was made
Im Text · 1
  • Modern accounts disagree on what the exchange of brides, gifts and titles was. Some scholars see it as tribute that the steppe paid or received under Chinese names. Others see it as a subsidy that bought quiet from the nomads. A third group sees it as trade by other means.

Envoys and Embassies

  • What language and script Istemi's letter of 568 was written in: Old Turkic according to some, Sogdian according to others
  • Whether the Persian court poisoned the Göktürk envoys of 568 or whether they died of the climate: the one account that survives is Menander's
  • Whether the Göktürks kept a standing office for foreign affairs or chose envoys as each occasion required
Im Text · 2
  • Menander does not say which language that was. Some identify it as Old Turkic, others as Sogdian.
  • Whether this was murder or the climate cannot be settled from Menander's account, which is not a neutral one.

Farming and Taxes in Gaochang

  • The number of towns of Gaochang: sixteen in the Zhou Shu, eighteen in the Sui Shu, twenty-one in the Tang histories, and forty-six garrison towns in the Liang Shu

Feltkurz

  • Nothing of substance; the practice is continuous and well recorded
Im Text · 4
  • An older view dated the Pazyryk finds to the second century BC, to the age of the Xiongnu, and called the felt appliqué of the Altai graves Hunnic.
  • The first line of the east face of the Bilge Khan inscription names the lords of the Toquz Oghuz, and the words after that name are read in two ways. One proposal takes eki ediz for a people, the two Ediz, and kerekülüg for "with tents".
  • The other reads kidiz kerekülüg, "with felt tents", so that the lords are those "of the felt tents".
  • Its proponent points out that eki ediz would stand nowhere else in the runiform texts.

Funi Rehankurz

  • Whether funi alone or funi rehan is the word for wine: the transmitted sentence gives the second, a translation reads the first

Furs and Musk among the Turkic Peoples

  • Whether the gold, silver, silk, horses, sables and squirrels of the Bilge Khan inscription are booty, or in part the trade that the Chinese emperor allowed in 727
  • Which notices of the Ḥudūd and of Marvazī rest on older material
Im Text · 2
  • Which notices those are is argued.
  • Whether that is so is not settled.

Geli Daguankurz

  • Whether daguan is a spelling of tarkhan

Göktürk Dress and Hair

  • Whether the Zhou Shu's beifa means hair worn loose or hair plaited
  • Whether the ten feet of silk at Tong Yabgu's court measured the band round his head or his hair
Im Text · 2
  • What the Zhou Shu means by the hair is read in two ways.
  • It calls the invaders Khazars. Whether they were Göktürks, Khazars or Khazars under Göktürk command is disputed.

Göktürk Ironworking

  • How the Ashina came by the craft: some scholars suggest that they subdued an Altaian population that already specialised in it
  • Whether the trade in iron paid for the war against the Rouran
Im Text · 1
  • The chronicle calls the northern army Khazar. Its relation to the Göktürks of the Caucasus campaign is disputed.

Göktürk Weapons

  • What the belt ornament futu was: a dagger in one rendering, ornaments worked in hollow and relief in another
  • Whether the Sui Shu's horn bows were bows of horn or bows decorated with horn
Im Text · 1
  • The horn bow is rendered in two ways.

Gold and Silver in the Orkhon Inscriptions

  • Whether the gift at Kül Tegin's funeral was ten thousand bolts of silk with gold and silver, or an immeasurable quantity of gold and silver treasures
  • Whether kergeksiz means 'past all counting' or 'beyond need'
Im Text · 1
  • Two words in the list are disputed. Isgiti is glossed as silk and as a loan from Chinese, while other scholars take it for a kind of grain.

Han Bestowals on the Chanyu

  • Whether the gifts were the favour of a superior to a subject or the price of peace with a power that the Han could not coerce

Heqin

  • Whether heqin was tribute paid by the Han or a gift given by a superior, and whether the two courts ever read the same document the same way
  • Whether the deliveries strengthened the Xiongnu state or bound it to a Chinese economy it could not replace

Horse harness

  • When the stirrup came into use on the steppe, and by which route
Im Text · 1
  • A runiform text from the Altai may name saddled horses. A split piece of rock with five lines of runes was found near the village of Jabogan in the Altai Republic. One line of it has been interpreted as naming three horses by colour, each with a saddle of a different metal: white with gold, dark grey with silver, brown with bronze.

Horses in Göktürk Law

  • Whether the theft of a horse's tether or the theft of a horse is the capital crime, which the Zhou Shu and the Sui Shu word differently

Hunnic Cauldrons

  • Whether the cauldrons of the lower Volga, the Urals and the Kama region are Hunnic or only akin to Hunnic ones
  • Whether the cauldrons served in sacrifice or only for cooking
Im Text · 1
  • The common view that nearly all Eurasian cauldrons were sacred vessels has been doubted, because the great cauldrons of the rock pictures of the Minusinsk basin are drawn out of scale and the settlements drawn beside them could not have held so many sacrificial vessels.

Hunnic Diademskurz

  • Whether every diadem listed under the Huns was made for Hunnic owners and whether the Kerch and Tiligul pieces come from the graves that the dealers named

Idikurz

  • Whether idi is the word the Chinese write 阿熱, in the form aco or ace
Im Text · 1
  • Mokeev takes this as the last form of the word the Chinese write 阿熱, which by then had fallen from the rank of ruler to that of noble. The opposing readings of aco do not accept this.

Ilteber

  • Whether Chinese 頡利發 xielifa renders the Turkic title ilteber
  • Whether the Armenian forms and the title of the Bulgar ruler in Ibn Faḍlān belong to the same word as Old Turkic eltäbär
Im Text · 5
  • On one side stands the equation 頡利發 xielifa = ilteber, which is the reading most handbooks print. Friedrich Hirth and F. W. K. Müller proposed that the Chinese kʿi-li-fa should be read il-di-bar. Wilhelm Barthold took sse-li-fa to be elteber. Faruk Sümer reports the equation as settled and analyses the word as il, realm, with a suffix. Ahmet Taşağıl gives ilteber as the Göktürk equivalent of xielifa. Kürşat Yıldırım equates the Rouran szu-li-fa with it in the same way.
  • On the other side the objection is phonetic, and it is old. Paul Pelliot rejected the Hirth–Müller reading outright. The Chinese word reads el-fa, not il-di-bar, he argued, and therefore cannot render ilteber.
  • The case has been pressed further. The sounds, it is argued, simply do not match. Hsie- is a sibilant, and the remainder gives -l- and -b-. The Chinese transcription therefore renders a Turkic silbäg rather than ilteber.
  • That word would belong instead with Zilgibis, the name East Roman writers record among the Caucasian Huns in 521, and with Selifān among the Khazars of Dagestan in 916 and 943.
  • Peter B. Golden has separately resisted joining Selifān to the Chinese sse-li-fa. He calls the content of the title obscure, with Caucasian or Iranian connections not excluded.

Inalkurz

  • Whether the title inal is the word the Chinese write 阿熱, or a different and lower title
Im Text · 2
  • Three scholars, S. E. Yakhontov, G. P. Suprunenko and R. Alimov, take the Chinese 阿熱 to be a writing of this title. I. L. Kyzlasov and Mokeev answer that aco and inal are two titles, since inal serves only for the head of a principality.
  • Mokeev takes the use of inal and idi side by side in the thirteenth century as proof that the two were not one title.

Irkin

  • Whether irkin was the lowest of the great offices or one of several parallel chiefly ranks
Im Text · 3
  • Painted texts on the Tayhar rock at Hoyto Tamir have been read with the names Tagay İrkin and Yegen İrkin.
  • A rock text of two lines at Tavan Tolgoi in Sükhbaatar province has been read by its first editor as the words of a man named Yegän Irkin. The man says that he sat "on the seat" in the fourth month. Some twenty tamgas, all derived from a snake sign, stand around it.
  • It is not clear whether irkin is a title or part of the name in these texts.

Ishbara (Title)

  • The origin of the word: a borrowing of Sanskrit īśvara, 'prince, lord', by one derivation, against the Tongdian's gloss 'brave'

Katun

  • Whether the title is Turkic or taken over from a Sogdian or earlier steppe usage
Im Text · 3
  • The study that sets the two uses side by side allows that the formula may also be a man's address to his wife as "my princess".
  • The same study ranks the words. Katun is the khan's chief wife, and kunçuy the next rank at court and the first rank in small places.
  • The inscriptions themselves give no ranked list of women. The study leaves open whether the other words for women, such as yutuz and evçi, name a rank at all.

Khan (Khagan)

  • The origin of the word: unknown; a Xianbei or Rouran coinage by the usual view, a derivation from an 'old Hunnic' form by a second
  • Whether khan and khagan were distinct ranks in the sixth century, or one title under two spellings
  • The meaning of the element Illig in Bumin's title
Im Text · 2
  • The article on the making of the first steppe empire presents the argument in full. The Chinese continued to call the Göktürk rulers chanyu in some contexts long after the Göktürks themselves used khagan, which can be seen as a memory of continuity and may equally be a habit of the chancery.
  • The meaning of the first element is contested. Much of the literature glosses it "ruler of the land", from Turkic el, "realm"; the translations offered in modern accounts are interpretations rather than readings, and the element is not securely explained.

Khazar Customs and Tribute

  • Whether the Khazars struck coins of their own
  • Whether the tenth that the Rus paid on their cargoes was general or fell on all merchants
Im Text · 1
  • A later survey says that the debate continues.

Khazar Dual Kingship

  • Where the dual kingship came from: the rule of the Göktürk steppe, the Khazar conversion to Judaism or a later development
  • Who installed whom: al-Istakhri has the king appoint the khagan, Ibn Hawqal has the khagan confirm the king
  • What the titles Kundur Khagan and Jawshighr meant

Kirghiz Iron and Gold

  • Whether the third metal is tin or lead: the Chinese character is the ordinary word for tin, and one English rendering gives lead
  • What the iron that came with the rain was

Kül Tegin's Horses

  • Whether Alp Šalčı is the name of a white horse or of a man
  • Whether azman is the name of a horse, a word for a gelding or an adjective
  • The colour of the third horse of the first battle: chestnut in the reading used here
Im Text · 2
  • The name is taken here as that of a horse. Tekin's glossary lists Šalčı as a personal name.
  • A reading from Kazakh takes it for a common word, a gelding, and not for a name.

Külüg Churkurz

  • How the first element 屈律 is to be read
Im Text · 1
  • The first two, 屈律, have been reconstructed in more than one way.

Kunçuykurz

  • Whether kunçuy in the Yenisei epitaphs means wife or is a man's address to his wife as princess
  • Whether kunçuy ranked below the katun as a later wife or a sister of the khan
Im Text · 2
  • The study that compares the two uses says that the meaning may have widened or changed. It also allows that the formula may be a man's address to his wife as "my princess".
  • Some scholars take the katun for the chief wife of the khan and kunçuy for the next rank at court, and for the first rank in small places.

Kurgankurz

  • Whether a shared burial form across three thousand years implies any continuity of people or belief

Kut

  • Whether Gutu in the Xiongnu title is Kut or, as the Han Shu glosses it, 'son'
  • Whether Kut inheres in Ötüken as well as in the ruler: the inscription calls the forest ıduq, sacred, and the view that makes it a source of Kut is a modern one
Im Text · 5
  • The equation is contested. It goes back to F. W. K. Müller, who interpreted the title as the Old Turkic täŋri qut, "holy majesty", and set it beside the Old Uyghur title täŋridä qut bulmış.
  • Some scholars reject it, because the Han Shu glosses gutu as "son" and a Turkic kut would have been written with a single character. These scholars set gutu beside the Tungusic word for "son", hutta.
  • Others set the Han-period form of gutu, something like \kwala, beside the Yeniseian words for "son", among them Arin bikjal. They hold that Müller's qut does not fit the sounds of the Han period.
  • Further proposals concern the last word of the title: shanyu is the Turkic yabgu, or a Xiongnu word for "broad, great", or a title of the khan type.
  • Whoever holds Ötüken rules. Whoever rules must hold Ötüken. Read as politics, this is a circle. The circularity is a fair description of how the steppe worked and of why every confederation that rose in the east sat in the same valley: Xiongnu, Xianbei, Rouran, Göktürks, Uyghur.

Lesser Khankurz

  • Whether the Lesser Khan was a fixed office or a rank granted case by case
Im Text · 1
  • Whether the office was fixed or granted case by case is not settled. The sources name the holders, not the rule.

Levirate

  • The meaning of the closing clause 唯尊者不得下淫
  • Whether the marriage included conjugal relations

Livestock Losses in the Annals

  • Whether the shares of dead people and animals that the annals give were counted or estimated
  • Whether the yut of the Bilge Khan inscription was a famine or a die-off of livestock
Im Text · 1
  • Others take yut here as a die-off of livestock, caused by the climate or by a large army wintering in a small camp.

Livestock Raids

  • Whether the herd that Bilge Khan took to feed his people in the thirty-fourth year was taken from the Oghuz

Logadeskurz

  • Whether the logades were an order of the realm with defined functions, which some see as the hinge of its whole administration, or simply the prominent men

Loose-rein prefectures

  • Whether the system was designed as absorption or as containment
Im Text · 1
  • The two protectorates of 650 are placed at Yunzhong and Yanran, and the names Shanyu and Hanhai are given only from 664.

Ordos bronzeskurz

  • How far the animal style is a single tradition and how far a set of local ones that trade connected

Ordu

  • How far the ordu was a fixed place in any period before the Uyghurs built Ordu-Balık
  • Whether Turkic ordu goes back to the Chinese 甌脫 outuo of the Xiongnu period
  • Whether 牙 in yazhang is the commander's banner or a Chinese spelling of an Old Turkic word
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars regard this Chinese word as an early form of ordu.
  • The other takes it as a Chinese spelling of an Old Turkic word, with no connection to teeth.

Post and Communication

  • The language of the letter that Istemi sent to Justin II: Old Turkic, or Sogdian
  • Whether a line of the Jabogan stone concerns a post; the stone is undated
Im Text · 3
  • Or Scythian is Menander's loose word for the languages of Central Asia, and Sogdian is more likely.
  • The Tonyukuk inscription shows messages passing in war. News reaches the Göktürks through a kürüg. The word has been read as spy, as messenger and, in the latest reading, as fugitive.
  • One line of the undated Jabogan stone has the words bitig belde, "the letter is at the waist". A scholar proposed that the whole text could be about the medieval post.

Raw Materials and Trade among the Turkic Peoples

  • Whether the Göktürks mined or quarried anything themselves: no source of their age describes it
  • Whether the northern army of the Caucasus campaign, whose officials went to the metalworkers of Albania, was Göktürk
Im Text · 2
  • Which lake it was is disputed.
  • The chronicle calls the northern army Khazar. Its relation to the Göktürks is disputed.

Sabao

  • What the office was at the start: a head of caravans, a religious officer, or a civil magistrate of the foreign community
  • Whether the titles that epitaphs give to ancestors were held or were added later

Salt among the Turkic Peoples

  • Which lake the Ḥudūd means by Tuz Köl
  • Whether the Göktürks took salt from the deposits and lakes around the Altai, which no source of their age reports
Im Text · 4
  • Three lakes of the Tian Shan region have been proposed for it, and the question is open.
  • One of the proposals is the Shor Köl, "Salt Lake", north-east of Kashgar.
  • Some of Marvazī's notices on the Turks go back to the lost geography of Jayhānī. Which ones is argued, and so the date of these two is not known.
  • The chronicle calls the army Khazar. Whether it was Göktürk is disputed.

Saŋunkurz

  • Whether the Tang emperors gave the title to Turkic chiefs, or the chiefs took it themselves

Seasonal Pastures

  • Whether the stages of the moves were fixed from year to year or changed with the grass

Shad

  • Whether the title is Iranian in origin or Turkic
  • Whether a shad always commanded a wing, or sometimes only a people
  • Whether the shadship was a hereditary grade, as the Chinese lists say, or an office that was not handed from father to son
Im Text · 3
  • Gerard Clauson's interpretation of the Ongi inscription stands against this. He holds that among the Göktürks šad named an office and was not a rank handed from father to son. He suggests governor-general and commander-in-chief as the nearest modern equivalent.
  • The Armenian text makes that Šad his son. The Chinese tradition makes the Shad of 627 a nephew of the yabgu. The two do not agree.
  • Whether the title is Turkic or borrowed is argued, and an Iranian derivation is the commonest proposal.

Sheep

  • Whether the sheep of the Chinese lists include goats, which the Chinese word yang can cover

Sifakurz

  • Whether 俟發 is a shortened or faulty form of 俟利發, silifa

Silk in the Steppe

  • Whether the Göktürks of the 540s came to the frontier to buy silk or to sell it
  • Whether the Sogdian golden age of 550 to 750 rested on the windfall of Chinese silk or on a trade that already existed
Im Text · 1
  • The sources do not agree on whether the Göktürks came to buy silk or to sell it. Border Markets sets the interpretations side by side.

Skull Cup

  • What the cup meant: the victor taking the dead man's power into himself, or a steppe custom handed down from the Scythians
Im Text · 4
  • The word has also been explained from Turkic. Some scholars compare jinglu with Teleut kyngyrak and with qingrak of Eastern Turkestan, "knife", and take the likeness for a proof that the Xiongnu were Turkic.
  • Others call it the oldest Turkic word on record and set it beside Middle Turkic kıŋrak, "large knife", which lives on in modern Turkic languages.
  • Still others take jinglu, together with Turkic qïŋraq and Mongolic kingara, for a loan from an Iranian word for "sword".
  • A fifth view calls the skull cup a state custom of the Xiongnu and the Göktürks, whereas among the Scythians any man who killed an enemy could make one. If so, the cup of the Göktürk khan Bumin, made from the head of the Rouran khan, was the symbol of the founding of the khaganate.

Tally Sticks and the Golden Arrow

  • Whether the arrowhead was of gold or simply of metal
  • Whether the arrow was sealed under wax with the notched wood or used to stamp the seal

Tamgakurz

  • How far the variation between related marks encodes an actual genealogy
Im Text · 2
  • It is an open question how far the variation between related marks encodes an actual genealogy, and how far it follows a convention.
  • The finders think that the tamga on a standing stone at Dövön may belong to the Yaglakar, and that the one beside a text at Dukhyn Buuts may belong to the Ediz.

Tarkhan

  • Whether the title is Turkic in origin, or Iranian, or older than both

Tegin

Im Text · 1
  • Painted texts on the Tayhar rock at Hoyto Tamir carry the title in short names, among them Tigin Bars and Kara Tegin. The readings are uncertain.

Terkenkurz

  • Whether the title belonged to women alone or to rulers of either sex
  • Whether terken goes back to teŋriken, and whether the word is Rouran in origin
Im Text · 4
  • Turkic Atlas treats that word under kunçuy. Some scholars take terken in later usage to be the title of the chief wife of a ruler and kunçuy the title of his other wives.
  • The origin of the word is not settled. One derivation takes the ending -han and a stem ter- and thinks the word probably Rouran in origin.
  • A second takes terken for a worn form of teŋriken.
  • A study of the title rejects this, because both forms stand in texts of the same period and the change does not fit the rules of Turkic sound and word formation. On that view the two words share only an ending.

The Göktürk Oath

  • Whose rite the white horse of 626 was
Im Text · 1
  • The chronicle calls this army Khazar. Whether it was Göktürk is disputed.

The twelve-year animal cycle

  • Whether the cycle reached the Turkic peoples from China or is older than that contact
  • Whether the animal year and the Julian year cover the same twelve months
  • How the cycle stands against the Zhou Shu's statement that the Göktürks had no calendar
Im Text · 4
  • Older editions found a date in the cycle in the first line of the second stone of the Talas valley, a monkey year and a number. A recent study of the signs rejects the reading.
  • Whether the Turkic peoples took it from China, or whether both drew on something older in Inner Asia, is argued. The question has been argued on linguistic grounds. The animal names are Turkic words, not loans, which shows translation at least and possibly more.
  • A fourth sees in it an old Turkic reckoning that the Xiongnu, the Tuoba and the Bulgars already used.
  • Turkic Atlas sets out the letter under the embassy. A hundred and fifty years separate that statement from the Orkhon monuments, which is room enough for a reckoning to be adopted. In addition, a Chinese observer describing a people who counted by the pasture may simply not have recognised a twelve-year run as a calendar.

The Twenty-Eight Ranks

  • How the Tongdian's ten early grades relate to the twenty-eight grades of the Zhou Shu

Tölis and Tardush

  • Which half of the realm each name denotes
  • Whether the Chinese titles 突利 and 達頭 render Tölis and Tarduš
  • Whether the Tölis are the Tiele of the Chinese sources

Tongpu Duwei

  • How much the Xiongnu took from the oasis states in grain, labour and goods: the Han Shu says only that the office levied taxes and drew wealth from them

Töre

  • Whether törü, Tengri and Göktürk share a root
  • Cremation or inhumation as the normal rite: the Chinese account and the excavated graves disagree
Im Text · 3
  • Scholars have argued whether törü, Teŋri and Türk go back to one root, and the question is not settled. The link between law and people is the more plausible of the two. The link between law and god is the less plausible, since the Töre is conspicuously the part of Göktürk life that owes nothing to belief.
  • Some scholars find two laws of succession in the two legends of origin. They take the legend of the she-wolf and the cave for the state's own account of its origin, and the story of the Suo for a popular tale. In the second it finds both laws: the eldest son leads first, and the youngest wins at the tree.
  • One account goes further. It holds that the customary law of the steppe was a single system from the Scythians through the Göktürks, Oghuz, Bulgars, Khazars and Uyghurs to the Mongols. In this view the system kept the old law of the local community inside the conquered states.

Toy

  • Whether the word toy itself is attested for the Göktürk period or is a later Turkic term applied back to it
  • The location of the ancestral cave where the annual assembly met
Im Text · 3
  • Its meaning is disputed, and there are four views. The first takes it as "member of the assembly", from toy.
  • The Chinese sources are said to give the word as ta-guan, and the second identifies that Chinese title with tarkan.
  • On the same account the Xiongnu state took its form from the steppe and not from China: a central command, an army ordered by tens, wings to the left and right, and an assembly of the ruling men.

Trade Routes of the Steppe

  • Which lake Zemarchos reached on his way home, the Aral or the Caspian
  • Which pass Xuanzang crossed to reach the Great Clear Lake, the Muzart or the Bedel
  • How far a li of Xuanzang reached: his sums vary between about 270 and 470 metres to the li and do not fix a place
Im Text · 2
  • Which pass he crossed to reach it is disputed.
  • The lake has been taken both for the Aral and for the Caspian.

Tribute Missions and Bestowals

  • Whether the exchange was tribute paid to China or payment made by China to the steppe
  • How far the Chinese words for the exchange described the facts

Tudun

  • Whether the title is Turkic, Iranian or taken over from an earlier steppe administration
Im Text · 1
  • Modern accounts disagree on whether the title is Turkic or borrowed. The proposals run from an Iranian derivation to a term taken over from an older steppe administration.

Tuğ

  • Whether the Göktürk standard descends from a Saka and Xiongnu tradition or from the banners of the Chinese armies
  • How many tails a khan's standard carried, and whether the number was fixed
Im Text · 4
  • A couplet in the preface of the Kutadgu Bilig has the cloud beat the kettledrum and the lightning flash. Some scholars identify the second half with the khan's standard. Dankoff understands it as the khan's sword, and the next couplet speaks of one thing brought out of its scabbard, so that the verse is no evidence for a divine drum or standard.
  • The question of descent is open. Scholars argue it on national lines as much as on evidence. One theory traces a single tradition of standards through the Saka, the Xiongnu and the Göktürks. It interprets the common features (the animal finials, the colours, the sacred function) as continuity. It does not interpret them as the convergence of peoples living the same way in the same country.
  • A second theory traces the earliest banner types of the Eurasian steppe to the Sarmatian era, possibly borrowed from central Asian traditions under Chinese military influence. This would make the steppe standard an adaptation rather than an inheritance.
  • A third theory sets the Turkic word beside the Chinese 纛, a banner with a tail or tuft. Its supporter himself finds the derivation hard to state with certainty.

Türgesh and Karluk Coinage

  • Whether the Vakhshtuva coins are Karluk issues of the mid-eighth century, as one typology has it, or earlier issues attributed to a Lord Farn-Khutava
  • Whether the coins of Arslan Irkin and Arslan Küli Irkin belong to the eighth century or, as one dating has it for the latter, to the second half of the tenth
  • Whether Taraz was an independent mint or received its coins from other centres of the valley

Tutuk

  • Whether the word is read tutuk or totok
  • Whether the word is a loan from Chinese 都督 or a Turkic formation from tut-
Im Text · 3
  • There are two views on how the word is to be read. One derives it from the Chinese dudu and reads the vowels as o, so that the word is totok and must not be read tutuk.
  • The other also takes the Chinese loan and reads the word tutuk.
  • On the origin there are three views. The first and the second regard the word as a Chinese loan. The third regards it as a Turkic formation like buyruk, from the verb tut-, "to hold". One form of this view holds that the Chinese took the word from Turkic and not the other way round.

Uyghur Farming

  • How large a share of the food of the Uyghurs came from their own fields: the report of 757 lists grain for the army, and the account of 821 speaks of farmland on a stretch of the road, yet the herds remained the base of the economy
Im Text · 1
  • The Arab envoy Tamim ibn Bahr travelled to the Uyghur capital, probably in 821.

Uyghur Horse-Silk Trade

  • Whether the trade was a payment forced on the Tang or an exchange from which both sides drew a gain
  • How the payments of the 820s add up: the Jiu Tang Shu gives 200,000 bolts for 827 and 230,000 for 829, the Xin Tang Shu 500,000 for the first years of the emperor Wenzong

Wagons of the Steppe Peoples

  • Whether the Chinese name Gaoche, high carts, describes the wagons or renders a Turkic word for wheel or hoop
  • Whether the Huns lived in their wagons or used them to move tents and goods
Im Text · 2
  • The name may also relate to a Turkic word for circle or hoop, and not only describe the wagons.
  • Maenchen-Helfen likewise regards the earlier names of the people, among them ti-li and ting-ling, as variants of a Turkic word for wheel.

Warfare of the Steppe Empires

  • Whether the northern army of the Albanian chronicle, called Khazar there, is the Göktürk army of the Caucasus campaign
  • Whether the Turks of the Strategikon are the western Göktürks
Im Text · 2
  • After the march to the Iron Gate, Tonyukuk says, gold, silver, girls and women and goods in abundance were brought. The verb can be understood as "carried home", which makes the goods booty, or as "brought before us", which makes them gifts of the submitted peoples.
  • The identity of the northern army with the Göktürks is disputed.

Women among the Turkic Peoples

  • Where the word katun comes from: Sogdian, a Xianbei form, or a Turkic formation
  • Whether the Zhuanqu Yanzhi who set up Huyandi in 85 BC and the Zhuanqu Yanzhi set aside in 68 BC are one woman; the Han Shu uses the title for both
  • Which of Suluk's wives sent horses to the Tang garrison at Anxi, and what the governor meant by calling her an Ashina woman
Im Text · 3
  • One study ranks the katun as the khan's chief wife and kunçuy as the next rank at court.
  • One study finds the rank name qaghan in her name.
  • The text does not make clear which of his wives it means.

Worthy Kings of the Left and Right

  • Why the left stood higher: a ranking taken over from China, or the east-west division of the steppe
  • Whether the Left Tuqi King of the Shiji and the Left Worthy King of the later lists were one office

Xiongnu Agriculture

  • How far the Xiongnu themselves tilled the ground: the Shiji denies it, the Han Shu records Xiongnu crops and granaries, and the excavations are uneven
  • Whether grain growing among the Xiongnu was an old native practice or a borrowing from settled neighbours and Chinese captives
Im Text · 1
  • Some Turkish scholars go a step further. They hold that Xiongnu wheat and millet were an old native practice and not only a gift from settled neighbours, and they carry the same practice to the Göktürks.

Xiongnu Herds

  • Whether the Shiji counts a million cattle and sheep or a million sheep in the booty of 127 BC
  • What the three rare equids named jueti, taotu and tuoxi were
Im Text · 1
  • The two figures are not the same.

Xiongnu Ironworking

  • Whether iron-making was widespread and seasonal, as the slag of one valley suggests, or the work of a few workshops, as the furnace of one fortress suggests
  • How much of the iron came from Han China and how much was smelted in Xiongnu land

Xiongnu Pottery

  • How far differences in the share of decorated vessels between camp sites mirror differences of social rank
Im Text · 1
  • One of the two produced one of the two largest vessels, 26 centimetres across the mouth. The excavators read this cautiously as a possible sign of small differences of social status between the people of the valley.

Yabgu

  • Whether the title is Turkic or borrowed, and from which language
  • Whether Istemi's yabgu was a subordinate command or a co-rule in all but name
Im Text · 2
  • Both views are defensible, and the difference between them is the central question of the khaganate's history. A yabgu who conducts his own foreign policy across three thousand kilometres is either a viceroy of unusual latitude or a co-ruler under a modest style. Which of the two he was, the division after 584 answered retroactively.
  • That is a position and not a finding. The competing derivations are real and are held by serious people.

Yi Khankurz

  • Whether the house khans held an office with sacral functions, or the title was only a form of address among great families

Religionen

Alara

  • Whether any folklore record stands behind the water fairy Alara of the popular retellings

Altaian Creation Story

  • Whether the dive for earth is made by the first man or by the creator himself
  • Whether the Altaian Erlik continues the Ärklig of the Old Uyghur texts
  • How much of the story the Altaians owe to Iranian, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian tales
Im Text · 1
  • A lord of the dead appears in Old Uyghur texts under the name Ärklig. Scholars argue whether the Altaian Erlik continues him.

Ancestor Cult

  • Whether the cave of the annual sacrifice is the cave of the origin story, and where it lay
  • Whether the felt images the Chinese report for the Göktürks are memorials of ancestors, images of gods, or a cult of the common people
  • Whether the ancestors were the core of the old religion, one of three pillars, or the founders of a dynastic order
  • Whether the images that Bögü Khan ordered burned were images of ancestors
Im Text · 3
  • The cave rite is the one act directed to the forefathers that the Chinese record for the khans. It is recorded as a yearly act. The place is not named. Where the cave lay is argued, as is whether it is the cave of the wolf in the origin story.
  • What the images were is not said. Whether any of them were figures of ancestors is open.
  • Scholars understand differently whether the old religion rested on the ancestors. The sources give the acts and the words without saying how the two joined.

Animism

  • Whether the nature cults of the Göktürk sources are animism in Tylor's sense or reverence for the places and things themselves
  • Whether the owner-spirits recorded among the Altaians, Tuvans and Yakuts from the eighteenth century go back to the period of the khaganates
  • How animism, shamanism and Tengrism stand to one another
  • How the name of the mountain 勃登凝黎 is to be read
Im Text · 3
  • How far those reports reach back to the khaganates is an open question.
  • The third view asks whether the Göktürks revered the natural beings themselves or the hidden powers in them. Scholars have answered it both ways.
  • Scholars have read the name as Böd Teŋri, as But Tengri, the Buddha, and as Budun İnli, the spirit that protects the people. None of the readings is settled.

Arçura

  • How the name Arçura is to be analysed: half-man, man plus a class of spirits, or a Tatar derivation from an Arabic word
  • Whether the Arçura and the Tatar Şüräle are one figure under two names
  • Whether the forest spirit of the Volga is a continuation of a Turkic or Mongol class of spirits, and whether it has any place in the belief of the Göktürks
Im Text · 4
  • The analysis of the name is open. There are four explanations. The first derives the Tatar Şüräle from a Chuvash word for “sharp” and a word for “hand”, so that it means “pointed hand”.
  • The second divides the Chuvash name into ar, man, and a word for half, and takes it as half-man. The neighbouring Votyak, Mordvin and Bashkir names (Palesmurt, Alid, Yarımtıq) also carry this meaning.
  • The third takes ar as man or helper and çura as the name of a class of spirits. It relates the name to the Tatar household spirit Biçura and to a family of spirits called çor or çura in Turkic and Mongolian.
  • The fourth derives the Tatar form from Arabic şerr, harm, and Turkic el, hand, so that Şüräle would mean the evil-handed one.

Asena the She-Wolf (Gök Börü)

  • Whether the wolf descent is a Göktürk claim or a Chinese literary convention applied to them
  • Whether the golden wolf's head marks descent, rank, or both
Im Text · 6
  • The relief is worn. According to some scholars, the figure can now hardly be made out.
  • Three interpretations are current. The first takes the Chinese accounts as recording a genuine Göktürk tradition, which the monuments omit because a funerary inscription for an imperial house had no use for an animal ancestor.
  • The second takes the wolf as a literary convention of the Chinese histories, which regularly give the northern peoples animal descents. On this view, the wolf is a statement about Chinese writing rather than Göktürk belief.
  • Other interpretations concern the making of the legend itself. Some scholars take the wolf ancestor for no totem. Descent ran in the father's line, there was private property, one animal was sacred, there was no mana, and the wolf was not worshipped.
  • A survey understands the three origin legends as the sign of a composite people. It takes the wolf as a possibly Iranian element that tied part of the Göktürk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wusun. The authors call this a suggestion made with the utmost caution.
  • One interpretation of the caves takes them for underground mines in which the people of Bumin worked iron for the Rouran.

Ay Ata

  • Whether the testimonies of different peoples and periods describe one deity or several
Im Text · 1
  • The phrases are found in titles only after the conversion. Therefore it is not settled whether the sun and the moon came to be named as givers of Kut through Manichaeism or from an older local belief.

Buddhism among the Göktürks

  • Whether the Bugut inscription is Buddhist in content
  • Whether Taspar's conversion left anything behind after his death
  • How far the Sogdian communities of the khaganate carried Buddhism into it independently of the court
Im Text · 4
  • That view is not secure, and the stone is damaged.
  • By the first reading the text was written by a man who knew Sogdian very well, perhaps a Tarkhan called Buqa. He used terms from the Avesta, which speaks against his being a Buddhist.
  • There are three views on whom the stone was set up for. One dates it to 582 and sets it up for Taspar. A second places it about 584. A third makes it the monument of Mahan Tegin, a younger brother of Mukan who acted as regent under Mukan and under Taspar, and takes the text to tell events of the years 572 to 580.
  • Some also take the book's ascetic, Wide Awake, for a Buddhist figure. Others reject this, because the names of the four figures are allegorical and the ideal of the ascetic is at home in Islam as well.

Burial and the balbal

  • Whether the balbals represent slain enemies, loyal followers, gifts, or ancestors
  • Whether the balbal set up for İltiriš Khan in the Kül Tegin inscription is the first stone of a line or the enemy ruler Baz Khan
  • Whether the body was burnt, as the Chinese accounts say, or buried with the horse, as excavation finds
  • Whether the wooden marker of the Sui Shu and the stone of the Zhou Shu describe one rite or two
  • Whether the painted house of the Sui Shu belongs to the rite of the Göktürks before 581 or to what Chinese observers learned later
Im Text · 9
  • When İltiriš Khan flew away, the Kül Tegin inscription says that a balbal was set up for him. The line can be understood in two ways.
  • In the first, baš balbal means "the first balbal", and the first stone of his line is set up at his grave. In the second, a name is read: for his father the khan they set up Baz Khan as balbal, the Baz Khan of the Nine Oguz whom the inscription names among the enemies in the passage before.
  • This Baz Khan has been identified with the khan of the Nine Oguz at the time of İltiriš's rise, who may have fallen at the Tola.
  • Others have taken them for followers, gifts from followers, or ancestral figures. The etymology of the word is contested too.
  • Balbal has also been derived from Chinese.
  • Another derives it from a Mongolian verb meaning to cut into pieces, which would allow a Proto-Mongolian origin, and a third proposal connects it with a word for flame.
  • The wrecking of the monument has been dated to 745, when Uyghur rule replaced Göktürk rule, and this is considered likelier than the Kirghiz raid of 840.
  • Whether the great monuments of the Orkhon mark graves or are memorial halls is argued. Some take the stone chests of the lesser sites for real coffins. For others the sites are memorial places set at some distance from the graves, with the balbals and statues standing directly before them. A third notes that a body burned after six months leaves no bone, so that the absence of bones proves nothing.
  • Cremation is attested among Turkic-speaking peoples of the Yenisei and in some periods of the steppe. The two rites may have coexisted or succeeded one another. The Chinese accounts may equally be describing one practice they saw and generalising it.

Church of the Eastkurz

Im Text · 1
  • William of Rubruck found in 1253 that the Nestorians of the region used the language and script of the old country of Organum in their services. This language has been identified with Sogdian in the land of Argu.

Dochiakurz

  • Which Turkic word the Greek form renders

Erklig

  • Whether an Old Turkic lord of the dead existed before the Buddhist and Manichaean texts that name one
  • Whether the Altaian Erlik continues that figure or a later one
Im Text · 2
  • In the Manichaean texts the same title belongs to the Just Judge, who sits in heaven and not in hell. This has been taken as a sign that the name was a local god's before either religion came.
  • Two different questions remain open. The first is whether the Altaian Erlik continues the Ärklig Qan of the Uyghur texts. The second is whether the Uyghur figure continues something older that the inscriptions had no occasion to write down. The sources answer neither.

Fire Worship

  • Where the Göktürk reverence for fire came from: from Zoroastrian Persia, or from older fire cults independent of Iran
Im Text · 2
  • The origin of the reverence is disputed.
  • Others see no need to bring the Göktürk reverence for fire from Iran, since the belief that fire is the purest thing is held almost everywhere.

Gaoche Thunder Rite

  • What 喜致震霆 says: that thunder often struck among the Gaoche, or that they were fond of thunder
  • Whether the opening words are sound, or a textual corruption and the whole rite an exorcism of the evil omen
  • How the willow twigs were set up: round about, in the Wei Shu's 回竪之, or bent, in the Tongdian's 曲竪之
Im Text · 4
  • A third view sets the wording of the opening phrase aside.
  • It takes the phrase for a textual corruption.
  • Steppe peoples fear lightning, which strikes man and beast on the flat plains where no tree stands.
  • In that case the ceremonies are meant to exorcise the evil omen.

Göktürk Face-Cutting

  • Whether the mourning wounds of the Huns in Jordanes and those of the Göktürks are one tradition or two customs of the same kind
Im Text · 1
  • Neither source states whether they show one tradition carried across the steppe or two peoples who mourned alike. The question belongs to the debate over the Huns and their origins.

Horse Sacrifice

  • Whether the rite recorded in the Altai of the nineteenth century continues a rite of the Göktürks
  • Whether the journey through the heavens belonged to the horse sacrifice from the start
  • Whose rite the white horse of an oath was, the steppe's or the Chinese
Im Text · 8
  • The texts speak of burning, and the graves show burial. The sources do not decide between them.
  • Both studies give Herodotus at second hand. They pose the question whether the Scythian or Massagetan rite has any link with the Turkic one, and they do not settle it.
  • Their dates are not settled.
  • Three readers have read the single line of Kurgak I, and no two agree.
  • A phrase of it may be a call to kill the dead man's horse.
  • On the Jabogan stone, line 1 puts the dead man in heaven and his stallion on earth, with one voice and one soul between them, according to one reader.
  • Line 3 names horses by colour, with saddles of different metals.
  • Nothing in the Chinese or Greek records decides between the two.

Islam

  • When the rulers of the Turkic steppe first accepted the religion

Iye

  • Whether the owner-spirits recorded from the nineteenth century go back to the period of the khaganates
  • Whether the Turkic iye comes from Old Turkic idi, as the grammar of Old Turkic has it, or from another root
  • Whether the owners are good, evil or both: servants of Erlik who fell to earth, protectors in the Turkish literature, or a class of their own
  • Whether the owners form a rank under a great owner of the land or each stand alone in their district
  • How the phrase idi oksuz of the Kül Tegin inscription is to be read
Im Text · 5
  • Between the Orkhon stones and the first collectors lie more than a thousand years. Whether the owners of the collectors are the owners of the khaganates is an open question. The evidence for it rests on the word and on a few Chinese notices of spirits.
  • The phrase idi oksuz kök türk near the beginning of the Kül Tegin stone has been read both ways. The majority reading takes it as the intensifier, "wholly free". The other takes idi as master, "the masterless".
  • The origin of the word is not settled. A Turkish thesis of 2025 reports three views. The first derives it from Persian or Indo-European. The second takes the variant in or en, "owner", as a sign that it has been Turkic from the earliest period. The third derives iye from ene, "mother", through a variant ine, "god, owner of the sky", and links it to the figure of the Mythological Mother.
  • A historian of the Turks and Mongols sees the khan's part in the first catch of a drive as the sign of a belief that the owners of the game must not be angered, since the animals take revenge for their dead as men do.
  • A fifth is that the owners of the Altaian reports preserve the religion of the Old Turkic period, as the ethnographer of the Altaian hunt argues from the hunting practice.

Kam (Turkic Shaman)

  • Whether the wuxi of the Chinese accounts are the same office as the later qam
  • Whether the Göktürk specialist held political rank, as he did among neighbouring peoples
Im Text · 2
  • Another account lists Atakam and Eskam among the names of Attila's house that have been given Turkic etymologies.
  • The continuity there is of a practice rather than of a doctrine. Purification by fire is widespread, and the Zoroastrian fire cult lay directly on the Göktürk south-western frontier. Shared origin is therefore one explanation among several.

Kün Tengri

  • Whether the god of the sun and of the moon in the titles of the Uyghur khagans comes from Manichaeism, from an older Central Asian belief or from the steppe tradition of the Xiongnu
  • Which reigns of the Uyghur khaganate bore the sun in the title
Im Text · 2
  • Modern lists of the titles in Turkic form do not agree on the reigns. One gives the sun to the khagans of 821 to 832, a second to the khagan of 832 to 839.
  • Whether Kut was given by the sun and the moon through Manichaeism or came from an older belief is not settled. See also Kut and Ay Ata.

Manichaean Diet of the Uyghurs

  • What the lost character in the Karabalghasun phrase named: a meal of some kind, or, in one translation, rice in place of meat
  • What 湩酪, the milk the Manichaeans refused, means in the Xin Tang Shu: milk and butter, fermented milk, or kumys
Im Text · 1
  • One translation renders the first phrase as a people that once ate meat and will now eat rice. It renders the second as a land where killing was common and the good will now be urged.

Manichaeism

  • Which Uyghur khan commissioned the Karabalghasun inscription
  • The date and the depth of the Uyghur conversion, which the Chinese and the inscription present differently
Im Text · 1
  • The priest's head is circled by a red disc with a yellow crescent. The describer took the disc and crescent for sun and moon and asked whether it showed Mani himself. A second high-priest painting of the same kind faced it on the same wall, which makes that identification doubtful.

Omens and Divination

  • Where Chula Khan's divination belongs in time: before his stay at Bingzhou in 620, or a year later as the New Book of Tang places it

Peri

  • Whether purhan as a name for the shaman comes from Persian perihon or from Buddhist burhan
  • Whether the jinni addressed in the Divan formula for sick infants is a peri
Im Text · 2
  • Whether a peri is meant is open.
  • One further name may go back to the same compound. Purhan, which stood in some places for the shaman, may be a worn form of perihon. It has also been derived from the Buddhist burhan. The derivation is not settled.

Purification by Fire

  • Whether Zemarchos passed through one fire, as Menander says, or between two flames
  • Whether the later fire rites of the Bashkirs, Kazakhs and Anatolian Turks continue the Göktürk rite

Raising on the Felt

  • Whether 隨日 means that the turns followed the course of the sun or that all nine were made in one day
Im Text · 1
  • The felt on which the khan was raised may be a sign of law and rule.

Riding Round the Dead

  • Whether the riders at Attila's funeral circled the body while singing, as Jordanes has it, or ran horse races, as some suppose
  • Whether the Kirghiz went three times round the dead, as the Xin Tang Shu says, or wailed three times, as the Tongdian has it

Sacred Mountains

  • Whether a sacred head, ıduk baş, is a summit or a source of water, and whether the heads of Tamag and of 701 are one place
  • How the Göktürk name of the bare mountain is to be read, and whether it belongs with the sacred Earth-and-Water of the inscriptions
  • Whether Kut flowed from Ötüken, was granted at Ötüken, or is said in the inscriptions of the ruler alone
  • Whether the mountain was worshipped as a being or honoured for the spirits that dwell in it
Im Text · 4
  • Another view asks whether Ötüken was at once a mountain and a goddess of the earth. A Manichaean Turkic text speaks of the kut of the Ötüken of the land, and the Mongols called the earth goddess Atugan or Itugan.
  • Whether the mountain belongs with the Earth-and-Water of the inscriptions is open, because neither text mentions the other's earth power.
  • It remains open whether ıduk baş is a kind of place or one name.
  • A scholar of the Altai found the claim of descent from a mountain in a single report and judged a general conclusion misleading. The Turkish account sets the many folk tales against him.

Sacrifice and the year

  • Which river the Zhou Shu means by 他人水
  • Whether the mid-fifth-month rite and the cave rite are two occasions or two accounts of one
  • How the Zhou Shu's denial of a calendar stands against the year names in the inscriptions
Im Text · 1
  • A hundred and fifty years lie between the account of Göktürk custom in the Zhou Shu and the Orkhon monuments. The two statements therefore need not contradict each other. The cycle may have come in between. Alternatively, the Chinese observer may have been describing what he could see of a reckoning he did not recognise.

Scapulimancy

  • Whether the scraped bones in Jordanes were shoulder blades held in fire, or bones read as they were
  • Whether the reading of shoulder blades recorded among Kirghiz, Mongols and Altaians continues a practice of the steppe empires of the sixth to the eighth century
Im Text · 2
  • A monograph on the subject therefore declines to decide which form the Huns used. The discussion of the passage regards the Hunnic method as the eastern one. Its ground is that the Huns cannot have borrowed the method from their neighbours and subjects in Hungary and on the western steppe.
  • Kashgari's gloss gives only the general sense, and the connection with bones is a modern proposal.

Shamanism

  • Whether shamanism is a religion, one part of a religion, or a set of acts performed when they are needed
  • Whether the sky cult of the state and shamanic practice were separate in the khaganates
  • Whether the shamanism recorded since the eighteenth century continues the practice of the steppe empires
  • Whether the wu of the Chinese accounts hold the same office as the later kam
  • How far rock carvings and graves of the Bronze Age can be interpreted as shamanic
Im Text · 2
  • A national-historical interpretation goes further. It treats shamanism as a matter of magic and not as a Turkic system of belief, and it rejects totemism as the faith of the state.
  • The shamanism of the ethnographers comes from small communities without a state. The Göktürks of the inscriptions were an imperial court. Whether the one continues the other has not been shown.

Soul Words

  • Whether Kut in the inscriptions is a favour that Heaven grants to a ruler or a life force that any living being can have
  • Whether the six souls of the Altaians of the nineteenth century describe a belief of the Göktürk age
Im Text · 2
  • A runiform text of the Altai, the Jabogan stone, speaks of the dead man as "the blind one in heaven".
  • Whether the khan's Kut was one of these, the whole of them, or the favour of Heaven alone is open.

Stone Figures

  • Whether the figures show the dead man himself, an ancestor, or enemies he had killed
  • Whether the cup in the hand marks the dead man's share in the funeral feast or a ritual vessel of another kind
  • Whether the figures with a three-horned headdress are noble women, a goddess or a shamaness
  • Whether the Xiao Hongnahai figure dates from 599 and shows Niri Khan
  • Who struck the heads from the figures at the Orkhon monuments, and when
Im Text · 8
  • The excavator sees the ditch as a sign of the sun and the bones in it as the remains of sacrifices to Tengri.
  • He takes the figures for a custom that came to the steppe in the time of the Göktürk khaganate and spread among the Proto-Bulgars of the Western Khaganate.
  • Some date the inscription to his death in 599, when his son Heshana Khan, whom the Chinese call Chuluo, took over. It concludes that figures of this kind existed in the last quarter of the sixth century.
  • The year of Niri's death is itself argued, and the Chinese sources point to dates from before 600 to 604.
  • The first explanation rests on the inscriptions. The Kül Tegin inscription says that the khan set up the Kirghiz khan as balbal. On one reading of another line, Baz Khan was set up as the first balbal for the khan's father.
  • The women raise a separate question. The three-horned headdress may be the sign of the goddess Umay or of a shamaness. A different explanation is that the women are noble Göktürk women, wives of the men shown beside them. The man above and the woman below on one stone at the Chuya would then repeat the husband and wife who sit together in the scenes of tents. The pair may refer to a marriage between the Ashina and the Ashide.
  • The heads were struck off so that the damage could not be repaired. Some scholars date the wrecking of the Kül Tegin monument to 745, when Uyghur rule replaced Göktürk rule, and hold this likelier than the Kirghiz raid of 840.
  • After the fall of the Uyghur khaganate, people may have settled again on the old land and partly restored the old temples.

Stravakurz

  • Whether the word is Hunnic, as Jordanes presents it, Slavic, meaning a funeral feast, or Germanic; some scholars hold that a single word cannot be assigned to any language

Sword of Marskurz

  • Whether the story is a report of a Hunnic cult or a folk tale shaped by Herodotus's account of the Scythian sword-god

Tengri

  • Whether Tengri in the inscriptions is a personal deity or the sky itself, and whether the distinction was made
  • The reading of öd tengri yasar, which supports three different words
  • Whether the Xiongnu Chengli is the same word
Im Text · 9
  • The stones cannot settle whether this is because the distinction did not exist for the Göktürks, or because commemorative inscriptions had no occasion to draw it.
  • National-historical scholarship holds that the Tengri of the inscriptions was one creator without an image. It ranks the sun, the moon and the Earth-and-Water below him as lesser sacred beings.
  • That last line is less secure than its usual translation suggests. The middle word is written with three consonants and no vowels. It supports at least three readings: yasar, arranges; yaşar, lives; aysar, if he commands. The fatalism of the usual translation is therefore a choice among them, not a fact of the text.
  • Some scholars think that the Göktürk khan was no son of Heaven. Heaven sent him, as a messenger is sent, while the Chinese emperor was the son of Heaven.
  • The phrase gives political disorder and cosmic disorder together, as one thing. Some scholars take this as the picture of a state whose order was bound to the order of the world. When Heaven and Earth are stirred, the order of the state and of men is lost.
  • The second element and the gloss are argued over, and Turkic Atlas carries that argument under Xiongnu and Kut.
  • Some scholars regard the second word of the title as kut and not as "son", so that the title would speak of Heaven's kut.
  • Whether the Mongol word meant a personal god or the sky as such is itself argued over. That is precisely the difficulty in reading Mongol evidence back into Turkic religion.
  • Neither is accepted as an etymological connection. Both are typological resemblances at most, and the first has been carried far past anything that has been argued philologically.

Tengrism

  • Whether the Göktürks of the sixth century held the beliefs the eighth-century inscriptions attest
  • Whether the Han Shu's own gloss of Gutu as 'son' or the Turkic reading as Kut is correct
  • Whether material recorded among Altaian and Siberian peoples in the modern period can be projected back onto the Göktürk period
  • Proposed etymological links between Tengri and Sumerian dingir or Indo-European Dyeus
  • Whether törü, Tengri and Göktürk share a root
Im Text · 5
  • In a modern interpretation, Ötüken itself is a source of Kut. Holding the centre confers the fortune, and the fortune is what lets a man hold the centre. As a description of the politics of the place, this works well. The Ötüken region was the seat of Rouran power before it was the seat of Göktürk power. Each new confederation took it because it was where a khan sat. The text, however, says sacred, not fortunate. The two words are best kept apart.
  • Whether the Mongol tenger denoted a personal god or the sky as such is itself disputed. The difference is precisely what is at stake in projecting Mongol evidence back onto Turkic religion.
  • Even there the continuity is of a practice, not of a doctrine. The practice is also widespread enough that shared origin is one explanation among several. The Zoroastrian fire cult lay directly on the Göktürk south-western frontier.
  • Two comparisons recur in the popular literature: Tengri with the Sumerian dingir, and with the Indo-European sky-god Dyeus. Neither is accepted as an etymological connection. Both are typological resemblances at most. The dingir comparison in particular has been carried far past what anyone has argued philologically.
  • Whether Bumin's generation held the beliefs the eighth-century inscriptions attest cannot be established from any source of their own time.

The three worlds

  • Whether a lower world existed in Göktürk belief and simply had no occasion to be written
  • Whether the tiers counted in the modern material are seven, nine or another number
Im Text · 1
  • The relationship between the inscriptions and the later three-world traditions remains a question of historical continuity.

Turkic Mythology

  • Whether the tiered cosmos and the world tree of the later Turkic material can be carried back to the Göktürks
  • Whether the Huns of Attila spoke a Turkic language
Im Text · 13
  • The western sea of this version may lie west of Turfan. The wolf flees to a mountain that lies north-west of Turfan, and the water would therefore have to be the Aral Sea or Lake Balkhash and not Kokonor.
  • The Chinese compilations record five Göktürk myths in all. Two are accounts of origin: the wolf legend and the story of Suo. Scholars argue whether they are two tellings of one myth or the separate traditions of tribes that joined.
  • One survey reads the three origin legends, the wolf legend, the Suo story and the Youyang zazu legend of Shemo, as the sign of a composite people. It takes the wolf as a possibly Iranian element that tied part of the Göktürk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wusun. The authors call this a suggestion made with the utmost caution.
  • The caves have been taken for underground mines in which the people of Bumin worked iron for the Rouran.
  • The wolf-and-cave legend may be the state's own account of its origin and the Suo story a popular tale. The second contains both laws of succession: the eldest son leads first, and the youngest wins at the tree.
  • Scholars have not decided whether it is the story of the Ashide, of a tribe named Sheli, or of all the Göktürks.
  • The line does not say who made them. Two studies do not take it as proof of a creator Tengri: it names no maker and does not use the verb yarat-, to create.
  • Scholars argue how their language should be classified, and whether it was Turkic.
  • The legend of Oghuz Khan is kept in a manuscript in Uyghur script. It is sometimes treated as a witness for the early Turkic peoples. The story may be older than Modu and have been laid later over his youth.
  • The wolf legends of the Wusun, the Gaoche and the Göktürks have been taken as one line that begins inside the Xiongnu realm, with the story of the Wusun as the oldest wolf legend of Central Asia.
  • On this argument the wolf belongs to the Turks and not to the Mongols. It sets the wolf ancestress of the Turks against the Mongol descent myths, which run through light and the dog. It adds that the mother line was lost among the Turks and the father line grew.
  • It also holds that the Göktürks saw themselves as continuing the Xiongnu state, and names their titles as proof.
  • A third account holds that Orkhon Turkic carries Samoyed or Ugric loanwords, that the goddess Umay has a Mongol origin, and that many Göktürk names, among them Nivar and Ishtemi, cannot be explained from Turkic.

Ülgen and Kayra Khan

  • Whether Kayra Khan is a god of his own, the father of Ülgen, or an epithet of the great spirits
  • Whether the Orkhon inscriptions know Ülgen
  • Whether Ülgen continues an old Turkic god or took shape under Iranian, Buddhist and Mongolic influence
Im Text · 2
  • The statement stands as a position and not as a finding.
  • The etymology is not settled.

Ulukayın (Turkic World Tree)

  • Whether the great tree of the Zhou Shu legend is a world tree or simply a landmark
  • Whether the Altaian world tree can be read back into the Göktürk period
Im Text · 1
  • It is nonetheless an inference. The text itself supports only the narrower interpretation: the tree is where the assembly met, and the leap was measured against it.

Umay

  • Whether a comparison in one inscription and an invocation in another establish a cult, or only a figure known to the audience
  • Whether the material recorded among Altaian and Siberian peoples continues the same figure
Im Text · 4
  • Some scholars note a line of the Altın Köl inscription in which the speaker gives his name as Umay Beg, and take it for a man's name, so that the name could be borne by men as well.
  • One survey takes the goddess Umay for a figure of clearly Mongol origin.
  • Scholars argue whether Umay was a goddess in her own right or a protective spirit, an iye. Some scholars deny the Göktürks any goddess at all.
  • A household protectress and an imperial theology can share a name and share very little else. The two lines in the stones do not decide which of the two the Göktürks had.

Water Cult

  • Whether the Göktürks revered water itself or the spirits and owners said to live in it
  • Whether the Earth-and-Water of the inscriptions is a sacred power or only the homeland
  • Where the river of the fifth-month sacrifice lay, and whether it was a river, a lake or a spring
  • Whether a sacred head, ıduk baş, is a summit or a source of water
  • Whether the avoidance of washing among the Oghuz was reverence, protection of the water, or a report coloured by the observer
Im Text · 2
  • Three or four places bear the name. The texts do not decide whether ıduk baş is a kind of place or a single name, or whether it is mountain or spring.
  • Whether such beliefs reach back to the khaganates is the question of the historiography of Tengrism. The reports describe the Altai of the nineteenth century. Between them and the Orkhon lie more than a thousand years.

Yada Stone

  • Whether the weather-working of Nishidu and of the Yueban sorcerers is the later art of the yada stone
  • Whether the stone of the Turks of the tenth and eleventh centuries and the stone of the Altaian yadachi are one belief

Yer-Su Spirits

  • Whether Yer-Sub is a second deity beside Tengri or the land under a sacred aspect
  • Whether the earth-spirit mountain of the Zhou Shu belongs to the same conception
  • What ıduk marks: consecration, inviolability, or ownership by a power
Im Text · 7
  • Tekin's rendering makes the three withhold their approval of the betrayal. A second interpretation turns the line against the uncle. In it, Heaven and the Earth-and-Water did not consent to his rule, and the Nine Oguz left their land and water for that reason.
  • Some scholars take the sacred Earth-and-Water for a single goddess and not for the spirits of the land in the plural, and see an ambiguity in the plural of the German translation.
  • Several interpretations of the word are on offer. One derives ıduk from the verb ıd-, to send, and takes the sacred Earth-and-Water as the land that Tengri sent and gave to the Göktürks.
  • A second translates iduk as "released", in the way the Mongols set territories free when they make them protected ground. It rejects both an indivisible divinity and a single place, the Ötüken forest with the source of the Tamir.
  • The Manichaean Turkic texts from Turfan speak of the kut of the Ötüken of the land. The Mongols later called the earth goddess Etügen. Some scholars therefore ask whether Ötüken was a goddess of the land as well as a mountain.
  • In modern Kyrgyz the pair jer-suu means land fit for fields and herds, and jer-suu tayımak means to ask the land and water for help with an offering. Some scholars take this for the sense the pair had under the Göktürks.
  • Two limits hold here. The Chinese transcription has not been read back to a Turkic phrase that anyone can demonstrate. The equation of that mountain with the Earth-and-Water of the inscriptions is a modern inference rather than a statement of either source.

Yol Tengri

  • Whether yol in the name means the road or the fortune met on it
  • Whether the figure is a distinct deity or an aspect of Tengri
  • Whether the omen book's divine vocabulary is Göktürk or Uyghur-period
Im Text · 1
  • The first interpretation has the stronger context, since the book is about journeys. Neither interpretation can be pressed, and the two senses were most likely not held apart.

Sprachen

Chinese transcriptions of Turkic

  • How far a Chinese spelling lets the Turkic sound be recovered, and which system of Middle Chinese the reading rests on
  • Whether 俟利發 stands for the Turkic title ilteber
  • Whether the Han title 翕侯 and the Tang title 葉護 write one Turkic word, yabgu
Im Text · 2
  • The same character begins 俟利發, which is usually equated with ilteber. The study finds the phonetic match inexact and the equation doubtful.
  • The second case is the title that the Tang histories write 葉護. The Han Shu writes the title of nobles among the Wusun, the Yuezhi and the Kangju 翕侯. The same study takes it for the title later used by the Turks as yabgu, and notes that the Chinese initial consonant is troublesome for the equation.

Oghur Turkic

  • Whether Oghur is a branch of Turkic or a language beside Turkic that is closely related to it
  • Which peoples of the steppe spoke it: the Huns, the Khazars, the Avars, the Sabirs
  • When and where the Hungarians took their Oghur loanwords
Im Text · 8
  • When and where the Hungarians took these words is argued. One account has the Hungarians live as part of Bulgar confederations, especially the Onogur union, and borrow their words there.
  • A second account says that the Hungarians had very close contact with Oghur peoples, but that it is not clear if or when they had it with the Onogurs.
  • A second account sets Oghur beside Turkic, not under it. Some hold that it is not Turkic at all but a form of Altaic very close to Turkic. One scholar wrote that the ancestor of Chuvash and of Common Turkic formed a unity, which he called Pre-Turkic.
  • Claims that the Oghur peoples were Turkicised Ugrians have been made without proof.
  • - The Sabirs are Oghur in speech by one view and Common Turkic by another.
  • - One account says that Turkic, in an Oghur and possibly in other forms, was spoken within the Avar confederation. It points to Turkic titles and names recorded for the Avars and to runiform texts at Avar sites. A second view regards the Avars as speakers of Common Turkic, and the first account says that this cannot be established with certainty.
  • - The Huns are held by some to have spoken an early Oghur. See the Hunnic language.
  • - The Khazars show few specifically Oghur words, and the question is open. See the Khazar language.

Oghuz and Kipchak speech in Kashgari

  • Whether the dividing line of the dialects lies between the Oghuz with the Kipchak and the Chigil, as the translators read it
  • How far Kashgari's account of the western dialects rests on first-hand knowledge
Im Text · 4
  • The translators of the dictionary draw two conclusions from these passages. The first concerns the dividing line. By their count, the most significant cleavage of the dialects is between the Oghuz, with the Kipchak, on one side and the Chigil, with the Tukhsi and the Yaghma, on the other. Kashgari does not call these differences a matter of purity, since he counts all of these peoples among those who speak "pure Turkic".
  • The second concerns the Oghuz. Kashgari seems to hold two views of them. On one side, the Oghuz dialect has "suffered much admixture from corrupting elements", and the Oghuz neighbour the Arghu, so that there is admixture in their speech. On the other side, it is "pure Turkic" and "the lightest of the dialects". The translators note that Kashgari also speaks of the "refinement" of the Oghuz, and they understand the whole as an ambiguous attitude.
  • The handbook also records the view that the Orkhon language stands close to Oghuz. The view rests on the hortative in -(A)lIm and the future in -dAčI, and the handbook says that it deserves further consideration.
  • Some scholars hold that he knew very little of the Turkic dialects of the west, and what he knew was second-hand.

Old Turkic

  • Whether the language of the Yenisei inscriptions is a dialect of the Orkhon language or a separate variety
  • Whether the change of d to y marks a dialect or a later stage of the language
  • Whether Old Turkic is the ancestor of the modern languages or one branch beside their ancestor
  • Whether the language had primary long vowels as a distinctive class, or whether the spellings that suggest them are orthographic
  • Whether the dative-directive and the locative-ablative are one case each or two; the texts use one ending for both jobs
  • What the Zhou Shu means by saying the sixth-century Göktürks had writing resembling that of the Hu
Im Text · 7
  • This is why the equations between a Chinese form and a Turkic name are so often argued and so rarely settled. The name Bumın behind 土門 is a reconstruction, not a transcription.
  • The same biography calls the officer who led Xuanzang to the yabgu's camp 答摩支. This may be the title tamaci, a kind of escort officer, rather than a name. The title is known later among the Mongols and the Khitan.
  • That clause may report the runiform script, a Sogdian chancery hand of the kind the Bugut stone uses, or something else again. Under the script, Turkic Atlas takes up the question.
  • Whether the language also had long vowels as a separate class is argued. Some take a set of spellings in the inscriptions and in the later material as evidence for primary long vowels inherited from an earlier stage; others treat them as orthographic and holds that length was not distinctive.
  • Whether kaŋım kagan, "my father the khan", belongs to the same type is argued. It may be an apposition, in which each noun keeps its own weight.
  • A hundred and fifty years lie between the two, which is room enough for the cycle to have been adopted in the interval. The contradiction is not necessarily an error on either side.
  • Whether the Yenisei epitaphs are the same language as the Orkhon monuments, a neighbouring dialect, or the ancestor of the Kirghiz material of later centuries, is argued and not settled.

Old Uyghur

  • Whether the differences between Old Uyghur texts are differences of dialect or of stage
  • Whether the manuscripts in Brahmi script represent a dialect of their own
  • How Buddhism reached the Uyghurs and which language carried it
  • Whether the runiform inscriptions of the Uyghur steppe empire belong to Old Uyghur or to Orkhon Turkic
Im Text · 7
  • Other scholars draw the line elsewhere. One etymological dictionary of Old Turkic sets a group "Türkü" apart, with the Orkhon language, the runiform manuscripts and the Manichaean texts that keep the palatal nasal. It then counts two close Uyghur dialects, and its "Uyghur" covers the runiform stones of the steppe empire as well as the manuscripts.
  • The manuscripts in Brahmi script were once held to represent a dialect of their own. The handbook does not accept this. Two Brahmi texts also exist in Uyghur script, and scribes put Brahmi glosses and akṣaras into manuscripts in the Uyghur script.
  • One explanation sees in this a language in transition. A second sees in it a scribe whose speech had lost the ñ and who changed it sporadically while copying.
  • A third view holds that the differences once taken for dialects are really stages of development.
  • How Buddhism reached the Uyghurs is argued. One theory has the Sogdians bring the Turks to Buddhism in the sixth century. An important support of that theory was a word on the Sogdian Bugut stone that was read as saṃgha. It has since been shown to be the Iranian word for stone.
  • See the Bugut inscription. A second theory holds that the Uyghurs came to Buddhism through Chinese and Tocharians after their defeat by the Kirghiz in 840, when great masses of them moved into the Tarim basin.
  • In that case all the major early Buddhist texts are translations from Tocharian.

The Hunnic language

  • What language the core of the Huns spoke, for which scholars give six answers: an early form of Oghuric Turkic; Turkic, to judge by the tribal names; Altaic, between Turkic and Mongolic; not to be classified on the evidence; Turkic for part of the leadership only, with other names neither Turkic nor Altaic; or an early form of Arin, a Yeniseian language, and the language of the Xiongnu too
  • Whether the Germanic names of Attila's house are Germanic names or Hunnic names in Gothic dress
  • Whether strava, medos and kamos are Hunnic words at all
Im Text · 2
  • Several names of Attila's house have been given Turkic etymologies, among them Mundzuc "bead", Dengizich "sea", Ernak "small man" and Attila from the Turkic name of the Volga, Etil.
  • The Gothic theory explains Rua and Attila from Gothic, against a Turkic majority among the Huns.

The Khalaj language

  • Whether Khalaj is a branch of Turkic of its own or an Oghuz variety
  • Whether Khalaj descends from the speech of the Argu
  • Whether Old Turkic also had an initial h
Im Text · 4
  • Whether Old Turkic itself had the sound is argued. The Orkhon language may have had h as an actual sound, because the runiform letter for a is sometimes written where the comparison leads one to expect a and never where it leads one to expect ha.
  • Others find this evidence scant and inconclusive. The runiform and the Uyghur scripts have no letter for the sound, and the scripts that could show it, Manichaean and Indic, do not. In the Tibetan-script catechism of the tenth century the words whose Khalaj cognates begin with h are written without it. They hold that no h can be posited for Old Turkic proper.
  • Khalaj has been derived from the speech of the Arghu and called a new Arghu. Against this, the Bactrian documents show the Khalaj as a people in northern Afghanistan before the Arghu appear in the sources.
  • Its opponents treat it as an Oghuz speech.

The Khazar language

  • Whether the Khazars spoke an Oghur or a Common Turkic language
  • Whether Istakhri's remark that the Khazar language was like that of the Bulgars refers to an Oghur speech
  • Whether the runiform marks of the Khazar lands are letters and what language they write
Im Text · 9
  • The words look Turkic. How near they stand to the Common Turkic of the Orkhon inscriptions, and how near to the Oghur languages of the Bulgars, is the question.
  • The name is analysed as sar-kel, and the first element is taken to be an Oghur word for "white" or "light", of the shape that Chuvash keeps. Only this one name on the list may be specifically Oghur, and even here the matter is not clear.
  • The two remarks seem to contradict each other. Some scholars resolve them through the Oghur languages. The Bulgar language was akin to Chuvash, and the Khazar language was akin to it. An Oghur dialect, with l and r for š and z, would not be understood by speakers of Common Turkic, and this may be what Istakhri means by saying that the Khazars do not speak Turkic.
  • Others hold that Istakhri contradicts himself and that his information, which is not first-hand, is suspect. They take his remark on the Bulgars to refer to an earlier time, when Oghur reigned in Volga Bulgaria.
  • The first places the Khazars with the Oghur peoples and sets Khazar beside Bulgar, on the strength of Istakhri's remark.
  • The second rests on the word list. It finds little in the list that is specifically Oghur, concludes that the Khazars were Turks, and leaves open which kind.
  • The third holds that Itil, Sarkel and a few other names are the oldest layer of Khazar, and that the other words belong, by their sound, to the northern Oghuz, the Pecheneg and Uz, with whom Khazar mixed in the ninth and tenth centuries.
  • The runiform inscriptions of the Khazar lands would be the one direct witness. About thirteen of their signs are close to signs of the Orkhon stones, and the language behind them is thought probably Turkic.
  • The Hebrew Kiev letter was once thought to contain a runiform word, and that interpretation is now disputed.

The Old Turkic script

  • Whether the letters derive from an Aramaic alphabet carried east by Sogdian scribes, from the tamgas, or from both
  • Whether the script was already in use under the First Göktürk Khaganate
  • Whether the script arose in Mongolia or in the south of Siberia
  • What the Zhou Shu means by writing that resembles that of the Hu
Im Text · 10
  • One reader holds that the script reached the Tian Shan by way of the Altai, because the signs of the Kyrgyz stones are closest to those of the Altai stones.
  • A runiform word once read in the Khazar letter from Kiev is now taken for a later Hebrew note.
  • There are several theories about the origin of the letters. The question is not closed.
  • The second theory derives the letters from the tamgas, the property and clan marks that were already cut into rock and burned into hides across the steppe. The tamgas were reshaped into a set of sound-signs.
  • The third takes both. An alphabet known through Sogdian gave the idea and part of the inventory, and the tamgas gave shapes for the rest.
  • The fourth theory looks neither to Sogdian nor to the tamgas for the model. Some letters resemble those of the early Semitic alphabets, and the complications of the script in the voiceless sibilants recall Semitic spelling. A Semitic-based script, one used for instance in the Caucasus, where Turkic presence appears to have been early, may therefore have been known to whoever devised the letters.
  • A further argument against a Semitic origin rests on the names of the letters. Semitic letter names begin with the consonant and end in a vowel, as in ba, bi, bu. The Old Turkic signs have values that begin with a or e and end in the consonant: ab, eb, ad, ed, ak, ek.
  • The debate over the origin of the letters names the positions and the men who hold them. On one assessment, the origin cannot be settled as long as no older Turkic monument has been found that stands closer to a Sogdian model.
  • A jug from the fortified village of Lombitepe in Uzbekistan lay in a layer of the sixth or seventh century and has seven runiform signs on its handle. The dating rests on the layer and on the shape of the signs, and the reading of the signs as a wish of three words is that of its editor.
  • The opposite view takes Bugut at face value. One edition of the Orkhon texts draws the same conclusion. It holds three faces of the stone to be Sogdian and the fourth Sanskrit, so that no face is in Turkic. On this view, the stone shows that the Göktürks still had no script of their own at the end of the sixth century.

The Sogdian language

  • Whether Maniakh's letter of 568 was Sogdian or Turkic written in Sogdian letters
  • When the Sogdian alphabet was first fitted to Turkic sounds
  • What the Zhou Shu means by writing that resembles that of the Hu
Im Text · 1
  • The language of the embassy of 568 is disputed.

The Turkic languages

  • Whether Khalaj is a branch of its own or an isolated Oghuz variety
  • Where Kyrgyz belongs: with Kipchak, with the Siberian group, or between them
  • Whether the Turkic family is related to Mongolic and Tungusic by descent or by contact
  • Which of the recorded steppe peoples spoke Turkic at all: Xiongnu, Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Khazars
Im Text · 10
  • The two are far enough apart that the split must be older than any written Turkic. How much older it is has been estimated and is not known.
  • - Before the eighth century. Turkic appears mostly as names and titles inside foreign texts: in the Chinese annals, in Sogdian, in Greek. Whether any of it is Turkic at all is argued case by case. The Xiongnu question is the largest of these arguments.
  • - Khazar — the language of the Khazar khaganate is usually placed here on the strength of a handful of words and titles. The evidence does not carry more than a guess.
  • - Hunnic and Avar — claimed for this branch by some and denied by others; neither people left a text.
  • - Pecheneg — usually placed with Oghuz, on names alone.
  • - Kyrgyz — Tian Shan; classed with Kipchak, with the Siberian group, or between the two.
  • - Old Kyrgyz — the language of the Yenisei epitaphs, claimed as the ancestor of this group.
  • - Khalaj — central Iran. It keeps sounds the rest of Common Turkic lost, which is why it is given a branch of its own rather than counted among the Oghuz languages that surround it.
  • The second is which of the peoples of the steppe spoke Turkic at all. The Xiongnu, the Huns, the Avars, the Pechenegs and the Khazars are each claimed for the family and each denied it. In every case the evidence is a short list of names and titles in a foreign transcription.
  • The third is the family's own ancestry: whether Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic descend from one language or have grown alike through a thousand years of contact.

Speisen und Getränke

Ayran

  • The derivation of the word: from the verb ayır- 'to separate', from Mongolian ayiraγ, from a language of the Huns, or from ürüŋ 'white'
  • Whether the soured milk the Sui Shu has the Göktürks drink every day was ayran, kumys, or both
Im Text · 1
  • Where the word comes from is disputed, and four derivations stand.

Bread

  • Whether the army in whose camp the Albanian visitors were given fried bread was Göktürk or Khazar
Im Text · 1

Grape Wine in Central Asia

  • Whether the Chinese word for the grape, 蒲陶, reproduces a word of Ferghana from an Iranian source or descends from Greek botrys
  • What the sweet wine served at Istemi's camp in 569 was: kumys, beer, mead and rice wine have all been proposed

Kamoskurz

  • Whether the word kamos is Turkic, from the word for kumys, or an older word of Pannonia
  • Whether medos was a Germanic or an Illyrian word
Im Text · 1
  • The name has two explanations.

Kumys

  • Whether the 酪 that the Han princess among the Wusun calls her drink was fermented mare's milk
  • What the sweet wine served at Istemi's camp in 569 was: kumys, beer, mead and rice wine have all been proposed

Millet

  • How far the herding peoples grew grain themselves: the Shiji and the Roman writers deny agriculture to the Xiongnu and the Huns, while the Han Shu records Xiongnu crops and excavation finds grain in Xiongnu and Sarmatian settlements
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars count the Chinese notices on the Xiongnu and the Göktürks together. They find wheat and millet among both from early times, as a native practice and not only as a gift from settled neighbours.
  • The same scholars count the Xiongnu among the Turkic peoples whose grain growing was old and native, and they extend the same practice to the Shiwei and the Sushen in Manchuria and northern Mongolia.

Millet Beer

  • What the sweet drink was that the Göktürks served the Roman envoys in 569: kumys, beer or ale, mead and rice wine have all been proposed
Im Text · 1
  • Scholars dispute whether the word is Turkic or older than the Huns.

Steppe Diet

  • How much food the hunt supplied: the Chinese histories make hunting a livelihood of the Xiongnu, while the bones from Xiongnu settlements show little game
Im Text · 1
  • One account says that the Turkic peoples never kept or ate pigs, and that the pig cult grows towards the east among the Proto-Mongols. In the prayers of the Altai peoples the wild boar is the worst of the spirits.

Tutmaç

  • The origin of the name: Kashgari's tutma āč, 'do not leave hungry', or a stem with a suffix

Bräuche und Zeitvertreib

Culture of the Turkic Peoples

  • Whether the customs the Zhou Shu and the Sui Shu call like those of the Xiongnu are the same customs continued
  • What the Göktürk men's game chupu and the women's ball game were
  • What the balbal stones represent
  • Where the letters of the Old Turkic script come from
Im Text · 1
  • There are several theories about the origin of the letters, and the question is not closed.

Er At

  • Whether er at in line E31 of the Kül Tegin inscription is a man's name, a military rank or a military force
  • Whether the verb of that line is boltı, 'became', or buldı, 'found, got'
  • Whether such a name was conferred at an age or won by a deed
  • Whether the hunts of Kül İç Čor's boyhood are deeds by which such a name was earned
Im Text · 3
  • The custom rests on a handful of lines. The same lines have also been understood as having nothing to do with a name.
  • The formula is found in the Altai as well. A text at Kyzyl-Kabak gives the dead man's name with the same words, "his name as a man is Kut Bermish", and ends with his tribe and land.
  • A study of the hunt in the Old Turkic texts takes the ages as those of a youth's first successful hunts. It reads the hunts as the deed by which a youth proved himself and took the man's name, and follows an earlier view that held the same.

Göktürk Games

  • Whether chupu was a game of knucklebones, of dice, or of throwing
  • Whether in 599 Yami lost the gifts to Dusuliu, as the Sui Shu can be read, or won them from him, as one rendering has it

Horse and Camel Races at the Xiongnu Sacrifices

  • Whether the line on the sacrifices in the Hou Han Shu reads three yearly sacrifices, 三歲祠, or three dragon sacrifices, 三龍祠
  • Whether 走馬 means a race, a display of running horses or riding in circles

Hunting among the Göktürks

  • Whether kiyik in line 8 of the Tonyukuk inscription means deer or wild game in general
  • Whether the man of the twelfth omen of the Irk Bitig fell to the ground or practised shamanic tricks
Im Text · 6
  • Some scholars identify the spared animals as the totems of his own people and the killed ones as those of other peoples, since an enemy killed was thought to serve his killer in the next world.
  • The ages are understood as those of the hunts by which a youth earned his man's name.
  • In the sixty-third omen of the Irk Bitig, the khan takes the roe with his own hand. This has been seen as the leader taking on the hunt's blood-guilt, in keeping with a rule that the blood of game was not to be shed.
  • One interpretation of the verb has him fall. An earlier interpretation has him practise shamanic tricks on the mountain.
  • A wall painting in temple 9 of the monastery of Bezeklik near Turfan shows an armoured rider on a white horse. A greyhound runs beside him, and armed men are at his side. One description understands this part of the picture as a prince riding out to a hunt.
  • Another description concerns a similar group at Bezeklik: an armoured rider received by two women and attended by eight companions, among them a dog keeper, an axe bearer, a club bearer, an archer and a standard bearer. It identifies the rider as a guardian god of the yaksha class. The two descriptions may concern the same painting.

Knuckleboneskurz

  • Whether the signs on the astragali mark a kin group in divination or in play, or something else
Im Text · 2
  • Among them are a pair of two-toothed signs and a group of six signs that some read as a tamga text.
  • The authors who describe the bones call the assignment of the signs to tamgas or runes unproved and doubtful.

Stakes and Wagers

  • Irk Bitig 29: whether the omen tells of a gambler or of a man who took part in a contest of hollowing out the entrails of slaughtered animals
Im Text · 2
  • Scholars dispute how this omen is to be read.
  • Scholars dispute how to read the first words.

The Battue

  • The year of the Wei hunt: the Wei Shu chapter on the Gaoche dates it nowhere, and the annals enter the campaign in the second month of 399
  • Whether the Gaoche stood in the ring as beaters or were its captives

The Chile Song

  • The language in which Hulü Jin sang: the Yuefu shiji says the song was first in the Xianbei language, and Hulü Jin was a Chile
  • Whether Hulü Jin made the song or performed it: the Bei Qi Shu and the Zizhi tongjian have 作, which can mean either, and the passage quoted in the Yuefu shiji has 唱, sang
Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars hold that it was not a Xianbei song but a song of the Chile themselves. The dying Gao Huan speaks of Hulü Jin as a Chile, in contrast to an elder statesman who was a Xianbei.

The Gaoche Wedding

  • Who rode out of the pen: the bride's party, or, in one English translation, the prospective groom
Im Text · 1
  • The Chinese does not name the one who rode out of the pen. The English translation of 1990 supplies the prospective groom as the rider. The sentence before it gives the choice of horses to the bride's party, and that party is the usual reading of the rider.

The Göktürk Feast

  • What the sweet drink served to Zemarchos in 569 was: kumiss, beer, mead and rice wine have all been proposed
  • Whether the army whose camp Movses Dasxuranci describes was Göktürk or Khazar
Im Text · 1
  • The chronicle calls the army Khazar. Whether it was Göktürk is disputed.

The Three Xiongnu Assemblies

  • Whether Dailin was the name of a place or of a rite of going round the trees of a wood
  • Whether the Hou Han Shu speaks of three dragon sacrifices, 三龍祠, or of three yearly sacrifices, 三歲祠
  • Where Longcheng lay, and whether it was a town or a camp of tents
  • Whether a dragon cult stands behind the name of Longcheng
Im Text · 4
  • In that case the order of the Xiongnu state, with a central command, an army ordered by tens, wings to the left and right and an assembly of the ruling men, was of the steppe and not of China.
  • Longcheng has also been placed in the valley of the Ongin river.
  • Another argument takes the "dragon" of the Hou Han Shu as the place name Ongin and denies a dragon cult among the Xiongnu and the Göktürks.
  • A third argument holds that the dragon came to the steppe from China in very early times, and finds it in the name of the meeting place.

The Xianbei Spring Assembly

  • Whether the original wording is the Hou Han Shu's 饒樂水上, 'on the Raole river', or the Wei history's 作樂水上, 'made music by the river'

Turkic Songs at the Tang Court

  • Where Wu Yanxiu learned the Huxuan: among the Göktürks on one view; the Jiu Tang Shu describes it as the dance of the music of Kang, Samarkand

Wooden Horses

  • Whether the Sui Shu's 'riding wood' of the northern Shiwei and the 'wooden feet' of the Bayegu name the same device as the wooden horse of the Basmil
  • Whether the Jiegu of the Tongdian are the Kirghiz

Quellen

Afrasiab paintings

  • Whether the two figures in feathered caps are envoys of Goguryeo, of Silla, or a stereotyped image of Koreans in general
  • Whether the figure at whose feet the Göktürks sit is the king or a lost deity
  • Whether the west wall records one arrival of embassies or a composite of geopolitical claims
  • The date: about 660, after Varkhuman's appointment by the Tang in 658, or without that link
  • Which New Year the west wall celebrates: the spring festival of the Zoroastrian calendar, or the festival moved to the summer solstice, which in seventh-century Iran was also the opening day of taxation
  • Whether the building was a royal palace or the residence and reception hall of an official
Im Text · 4
  • Some scholars tie the paintings to Varkhuman's appointment of 658 and date them shortly after it, while others reject the link.
  • The two accounts agree on who is in the room. They differ on what the seated group is doing, and the destroyed upper register is the reason.
  • Who the two are is argued. Anazawa Wako holds that the two emissaries in jougwan were most probably of Goguryeo origin. Roh Taedon identifies them as envoys from Goguryeo seeking military allies with a Tang war coming. Kim Won-yong first took them for men of Silla, without excluding Goguryeo.
  • A further doubt runs underneath all three: whether the figures record an actual embassy that came to Samarkand or reproduce a stereotyped image of Koreans in general.

al-Balādhurīkurz

  • How much of the Arabic narrative of the Ardabil battle and its aftermath is history and how much romance
Im Text · 1
  • The Arabic accounts of the revenge that followed have the marks of romance.

al-Iṣṭakhrī

  • Whether the Khazar chapter was composed from two parts, one of them older
Im Text · 1
  • The chapter may have been composed from two parts. A source from about 800 may lie behind the older part, but the evidence for that source is not strong.

al-Masʿūdī

  • How far his account of the Khazar double kingship describes an institution and how far a tenth-century arrangement
Im Text · 1
  • The limit is the one that binds all three of the Arabic and Persian witnesses here. He wrote in the 940s and 950s. The Khazar khaganate he describes is the state of his own century, a generation before its fall. The double kingship he reports may be an old institution or a late arrangement. His text alone cannot decide it.

Altai runiform inscriptions

  • How the texts read; the three readings of the inscription of Kurgak I differ in most words
  • Whether the Altai texts show an archaic form of the script that came before the Orkhon script
  • Whether the script came to the Tian Shan by way of the Altai
Im Text · 8
  • Vasilyev's decipherment of the four texts, A-47 to A-50, gives short personal sentences. Three contain the cry of grief esiz, "alas", and one names a man, Bert Apa, for whom the writer wrote.
  • Vasilyev takes them for visitors' notes at a holy place on an old road.
  • One text calls a land kara bölöŋ, which he takes for Tibet, because the word bölön names the envoys of the Tibetan khan in the Kül Tegin inscription.
  • Three readings have been published, S. G. Klyashtorny and V. Kubarev in 2002, L. Tybykova, I. Nevskaya and M. Erdal in 2012, and Nurdin Useev in 2013, and no two agree. All three find the name Temir Apa, the cry "alas" and an address to a son.
  • Two other texts show the range of the group. A text at Kyzyl-Kabak gives the dead man's name with the formula "his name as a man is Kut Bermish" and ends with his tribe and land. A text at Tuekta says that the writer will cut his writing into an everlasting bare rock.
  • Single signs of the alphabet of the South Yenisei inscriptions occur in some Altai texts, which has been taken as a sign that the writers knew that alphabet.
  • Two views give the Altai a place in the history of the script. According to D. D. Vasilyev, the Altai and Sayan texts show an archaic form of the runiform script that came before the Orkhon script; see the debate on the origin of the script.
  • According to a second view, the script reached the Tian Shan by way of the Altai, because the signs of the Kyrgyz stones are closest to those of the Altai stones; see the inscriptions of Talas and the Tian Shan.

Altın Köl Inscriptions

  • Dates
  • Whether the word read umay in the third line of stone I is the goddess Umay, a man called Umay Beg, or the goddess with the title beg
  • Whether ärklig in stone I names a power of the dead or is the plain adjective mighty
  • Whether bars in stone I is a comparison, a personal name or the name of a clan
  • Whether the stones are the memorial of the Kirghiz khan Bars Beg and date from 711, or monuments of twin siblings of the Bars clan from the end of the ninth century
  • How the opening line of the broad face of stone II reads: a people called Bolšar, a conditional sentence on erdem, or a boast
Im Text · 11
  • The study argues that most Yenisei epitaphs are memorial texts in which the dead man says what he thinks as he leaves his relatives. A god at the border between life and death is therefore a likely sense of the word. The study adds that there is no evidence that the Altın Köl word is the god of the later Uyghur texts, and it judges the equation fairly probable.
  • An account of the religion of the Turks and Mongols reads the clause, in its own numbering of the line, as almost certainly a witness of the god of the dead, Erlik, and so moves the figure back by about a thousand years.
  • Others separate the stones from Bars Beg. According to Kormushin, the two stones resemble each other in the shape of the slabs, in the order of the lines and in content, and they were set up for twin siblings.
  • The inscription for the elder says that they belonged to the Bars, the ruling clan of the Kirghiz.
  • The inscription for the younger, on stone II, is said to contain a phrase that belongs to Manichaeism.
  • Kormushin dates both stones to the end of the ninth century on the letter forms. He adds that the events told in Yenisei epitaphs cannot be tied to a known event or person, so that a date can rest only on a comparison of letter forms.
  • Kormushin read a different sentence altogether: "he who has valour does not stray from the true path; if I stray, praising Zervan, I shall regain valour". He therefore read the name of the Iranian Zervan.
  • A study of 2019 rereads the signs against photographs. It finds a sign for z where Radloff and Mori had taken an n. It therefore finds a verb, attımız, "we threw out", and reads "because we are heroes, we threw out the people, the strong people; I am a great, virtuous hero".
  • Sertkaya takes bolsar for a verb and reads that when the dead man found heroism, his people were not able to protect him.
  • The two readings differ in whether bolsar names a people or is a verb.
  • The end of the ninth century follows from the letter forms and from the rule that a Yenisei text cannot be tied to a known person.

Ammianus Marcellinus

  • How much of the Hun chapter is observation and how much is the commonplace of older writing on the Scythians
  • Several details rest on editorial readings: the meat warmed on the horses' backs, where the main manuscript reads otherwise, and the bent legs of the Huns

aṯ-Ṯaʿālibī

  • The author: aṯ-Ṯaʿālibī the anthologist, by the attribution of one manuscript and the evidence of the text, or the unknown al-Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad al-Marġanī named in another

Begre inscription (E 11)

  • Dates
  • The date of the stele: the second half of the seventh century, 756 to 757, 842 to 843, or the second half of the ninth century
  • Whether Tör Apa is the dead man's name, the name of his chief, or a title
  • What the seven wolves, the barïš and the kökmäk are: animals hunted, or tribal names
  • What the last word of the text is: a verb meaning to die, written with the ligature ñy, or a word beginning azd-
Im Text · 5
  • The word after it is read in two ways. Radloff, Orkun, Malov and Vasilyev read its last sign as a z.
  • Osman Fikri Sertkaya takes the sign for a ligature, a single sign that joins the letters ñ and y. He reads the word as añydım.
  • On his reading the verb is añy-, "to die", and the line closes with the man's death at that age.
  • Most Turkologists read the animals as hunted game. They take the barïš for a leopard or panther and the kökmäk for a deer or roe. More recently the second has also been taken for a stag or the Siberian panther. One editor leaves the word untranslated, since the animal may have been taboo. A different explanation is that the seven wolves are not game but tribes tied to a wolf cult, and that the barïš and kökmäk are tribal names as well.
  • There are three explanations for the names. The first makes the dead man an anonymous ičräki who served a chief called Tör Apa. The second takes Tör Apa as the dead man himself and sees no title in the text. The third reads tör apa ičräki as the name and rank of one person.

Bilge Khan inscription

  • Date of the monument: conventionally later than the Kül Tegin inscription of 732, but given as 732 by some
  • The words after Tokuz Oğuz in D 1: eki ediz kerekülüg, ‘the two Ediz with their tents’, or kidiz kerekülüg, ‘with felt tents’
  • yut in D 31: ‘famine’ or ‘die-off of livestock’
Im Text · 10
  • The same name stands among the mourners at D 5. What it names is argued in the Bökli debate, which spells the name Bökli.
  • One view sees in the Uygur Elteber not a rank but tribes bound by tribute to the Oghuz, who ruled over the Uyghurs.
  • Čorak is understood either as a place name or as the common word for barren ground. The line is damaged.
  • A second proposal takes the first word as kidiz, "felt", so that the lords are those "of the felt tents".
  • According to the second proposal, the phrase "two Ediz" has no parallel in the other runiform texts.
  • Another proposal takes yut here as a die-off of livestock, caused by the climate or by a large army wintering in a small camp.
  • kalıŋ (D 25). The translation has "tribute". Another proposal glosses kalıŋ as "goods, wealth", as in Kazakh kalıŋ mal, "bride price", so that the khan brought back their goods. The line is damaged, so both are only interpretations of a broken sentence.
  • The edition gives 732.
  • The conventional dating puts the Kül Tegin monument in 732 and Bilge Khan's later, after his death. The question is open.
  • Tekin's edition puts the Chinese text of the Bilge Khan monument in August 735. It puts the raising of the stone in September 735, after the khan's death. It calls the monument the work of his son Tengri Khan.

Bilge Khan's Golden Crown

  • Dates
  • Whether the hoard was laid down in 735 for Bilge Khan or later, when another cult place was built
  • Whether the crown belonged to Bilge Khan, to another man, or to a woman of the Uyghur age
  • Whether the bird tiara is a local work or an import from Tang China
  • Whether the crown was worn by a khan or marked another office
Im Text · 6
  • Whose it was, and when it was laid in the ground, is disputed.
  • Two explanations of the crown rest on that parallel. The first takes the bird tiara for ceremonial headgear of the eastern court in the first half of the eighth century. It was probably an insignia of supreme military command. It was probably not worn by the khan himself, because a khan and a tegin would then have worn the same thing. The first explanation suggests that the diadem was part of Bilge Khan's old insignia from the years when he was shad, and that it had been out of use for some time.
  • It also holds a local workshop at an eastern residence, perhaps with a Chinese or Central Asian master, more probable than an import. It compares the tiara with the pheasant hat of Chinese military officers.
  • The second finds the closest forms in the crowns of Buddhist figures of Asia, with a metal band of three or five points on a cloth headband. It sets them against the three-pointed crown that marks women on Göktürk statues.
  • The excavator of 1958 gives the crowns of Kül Tegin and of his wife a third origin. He takes their form from the west rather than from East Asia, and the eagle on the brow from the art of Central Asia.
  • If so, the hoard was not Bilge Khan's treasure but that of a lady of the Uyghur age.

Bugut inscription

  • The reading of the Sogdian text and the identification of the khans it names: Yoshida and Moriyasu's reading of 1999 against the older one of Klyashtorny and Livshits, which finds Bumin and Mahan Tegin in the text and which Yoshida's reading does not
  • For whom the stone was set up and when: Mahan Tegin, by the first published reading, or Taspar Khan, in 582 or 584
  • Whether the wolf figure on the top of the stone is a wolf; some find it now hard to make out
  • Whether the Brahmi text on the reverse is Sanskrit and Buddhist, and what it says
Im Text · 9
  • Klyashtorny and Livshits published the first decipherment in 1971 and 1972. They took the stone to have been set up for Mahan Tegin, a younger brother of Mukan. Mahan Tegin acted as the khan's deputy under Mukan and under Taspar.
  • The name Mahan Tegin stands five times in the Sogdian text and in no other source.
  • A later study finds that the words read as Mahan Tegin were read altogether wrongly. They stand in lines B1-3, B2-4 and B2-6.
  • Much of the text is lost. According to the first decipherment, the text tells of events in the years 572 to 580 and names a Hare year, most likely 571.
  • The stone therefore has three accounts: it was set up for Mahan Tegin, for Taspar in 582, or for Taspar in 584.
  • The relief is worn. According to one account, the figure can now hardly be made out.
  • Yutaka Yoshida and Takao Moriyasu read the name of the Ashina in line B1-1. The sentence can be rendered as 'The Turk Ashina kings made this nom bitig', the book of the law. From the words nom bitig it is concluded that one face carried Brahmi script.
  • The same study corrects other words of the first publication. It reads 'Tatpar Khan' for Taspar, and 'erect the nom stone' for 'make a new samgha'. In line B2-6 it reads umna qagan, and not bwmyn, 'Bumin'.
  • Where the first edition had Bumin and Mahan Tegin, the later one has neither.

Cefu yuangui

  • The year of Tong Yabgu's death: the chapter on marks of favour enters it under 627; the Jiu Tangshu's notice on the Tiele gives 628; Xuanzang's visit has been taken to show that he was still alive in 630

De administrando imperio

  • When the Kabar secession took place
  • Whether the secession was a result of a religious conflict in Khazaria
Im Text · 3
  • Many modern readers connect the revolt with the Khazar conversion to Judaism, and that connection is a conjecture.
  • Others read it as a typical break of tribes inside a nomadic state.
  • A date between 780 and 881 has been proposed, and the span decides whether the revolt came before or after the conversion.

Epitaph of Qarï Čor Tegin (Xi'an)kurz

  • Dates
  • How the runiform lines are to be read: the editions differ in details
  • Whether sın, 'grave', is a Chinese loanword, and from which Chinese word
  • Whether atı in the phrase qan totoq atısı means 'grandson' or 'nephew'
Im Text · 5
  • In line 12, one reading has karı çor tegin sını yoγı tawγaç kan yoγladdı.
  • The word sın means "grave". It is the first time it appears in a runiform text.
  • Tekin and Clauson derive the word from Chinese, and Clauson from a word for the rear hall of an ancestral temple. Aydın ties it to the Chinese word 寢, which can mean "to sleep" and also the grave of a ruler.
  • In lines 6 and 7, Ölmez reads the phrase qan totoq atısı with atı in the sense of "grandson". The usual rendering is "nephew".
  • The Tariat inscription has a word on its south side, line 5, that has been read in at least eight ways. Some readers take it for a form of sin, "grave", and others for "you" or "in your hand". Aydın argues that the back vowel of sın in Xi'an means the word of Tariat cannot be read sinläg.

Han Shu

  • Whether the gloss of Gutu as 'son' in the Han Shu is correct, or a Chinese reading imposed on a Turkic word
Im Text · 3
  • Some scholars identify this title with yabgu. They find yabgu already among the Xiongnu and at the courts of the Yuezhi and the Kushans, as a sign that the Xiongnu administration was Turkic.
  • Some scholars take the western names in the letter as a sign that the Xiongnu came from the west, and Mongolia as the left wing of their empire. They reject the view that the Xiongnu empire was a Mongolian state.
  • Chengli is generally understood as Tengri. What Gutu is remains open, and so does the question whether the Han court's own gloss can be trusted against what the word looks like. The articles on Tengrism, Kut and the ethnogenesis debate turn on that question.

Hou Han Shu

Im Text · 1
  • Some scholars take the Donghu, and with them the Wuhuan and the Xianbei, for Proto-Mongols, and separate them by a desert from the Xiongnu, whom they take for Turks.

Hoyto Tamir inscriptions

  • Dates
  • How the texts read: the editors call every reading provisional, and for the text of the first monkey year a second reader reads other words
  • Whether the dated texts belong to 753 and 756, since the conversion of the animal years is one reckoning's and the editors differ from it over one day
  • Whether the three texts that speak of travelling name the city of Beshbalik
Im Text · 6
  • Text II has been read in two ways. In Harcavbay's reading the writer went in the seventh month to a place whose name is uncertain, spent the summer on a hill, and reached in autumn a place called Toriyın Taş. Harcavbay takes this for the old Turkic form of the Mongolian name Tayhar. Bazin reads the first place name as tabçag and the last verb as "I returned" where Harcavbay reads "I reached". The editors find Bazin's reading possible and do not decide between the two.
  • In text XV a word that the editors do not explain stands before the name.
  • The readings give personal names and titles, several of them with the editors' question marks. In text V the writer calls himself İbris Apa Çor and says that he wrote at the age of twenty-eight, in the editors' reading, where Granö's copy has a different number word. The same text names Töles Bilge Beg, Toñy Begi and Tagay İrkin.
  • The titles çor, irkin, tarkan, tegin and beg are among them; see chur, irkin, tarkhan, tegin and beg.
  • Text VI names a Tengriken Alp Kutlug Bilge Kan in its first line and speaks in its fifth of the land of an Alp Kutlug Bilge Kagan. Two other copies give other readings for several of its lines, and the editors do not identify the khan with any ruler known from elsewhere.
  • Names of peoples occur as well. Tardush stands in texts III and XIV and Türgesh in texts VIII and XIII, in lines too damaged to say whether they are tribal names or parts of personal names.

Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam

  • Which of its notices rest on older material and which on the state of things in 982
Im Text · 1
  • The Ḥudūd is therefore a witness of the first order for the tenth century and a witness of the last order for the sixth. Where a notice in it evidently rests on older material, it can preserve a statement about the older period. Which notices those are is itself argued.

Ibn Fadlan

  • How much of the Khazar material is his own observation and how much is report

Ibn Rusta

  • How early the passage on the Khazar king was first written

Irk Bitig

  • Whether the year of the tiger in the colophon is 930 or 942
  • Whether the book dates from the ninth century, as its language suggests, or from 930 or 942, as the colophon gives
  • Whether the book is a manual of divination in use, a copying exercise, or a devotional reader
Im Text · 5
  • These fragments have been placed in a Manichaean setting of the tenth century.
  • The name refers to the spelling of the old palatal nasal ñ as ny, where most Uyghur texts have y. Whether such a spelling marks a dialect or an older stage of the language is argued.
  • The colophon is the reason this manuscript can be placed more exactly than most. It says the book was written on the fifteenth day of the second month in a year of the tiger. This is a date in the twelve-year cycle with no era attached, which is why it resolves to either 17 March 930 or 4 March 942.
  • The 1993 edition holds the ninth century more probable than either date, because of the language.
  • Zieme reads two elder brothers, Isig Sangun and It Açuk, and gives the scribe a name, Murwā Khurshid, which is Iranian.

Issyk inscription

  • Dates
  • Whether the signs on the cup are Old Turkic runiform letters, signs of a script used by Iranian-speaking nomads, or neither
  • Whether the language of the text is Turkic
  • Whether the Saka, the Huns and the Göktürks used one script in succession
  • The date of the cup: the fifth to the fourth, the fourth, or the fourth to the third century BC
Im Text · 8
  • Its signs have been taken for early runiform writing and tied to the Göktürks through the Saka and the Huns.
  • A second explanation takes them for the script of Iranian-speaking nomads.
  • From this the study concludes that the earliest texts in the Göktürk script did not divide their words.
  • The runiform script is held to reach back to the fifth century BC, and the cup is counted among its earliest pieces. This view adds a rock carving in the Kurday mountains and holds that the script passed from the Saka to the Göktürks, with the Huns as the link between them.
  • A second study reports that theories calling the language of a piece from Issyk Turkic, and its script one of the earliest phases of the Göktürk script, had gained ground by 2000.
  • A second explanation finds signs that look runiform on the cup and on a trilingual stone from Dasht-i Navur. It takes them for the script of the Iranian-speaking nomads of Central Asia, whom it calls forerunners of the Turkic peoples.
  • It states the link as a condition. If it can be shown that the script of the Saka and the Yuezhi passed into the early forms of the runiform script, the stock of letter forms would be about a thousand years old or older.
  • The same study dates the making of the standard alphabet to the sixth or seventh century AD. It takes that making for a reform of sign forms that already existed.

Jabogan inscriptionkurz

  • Dates
  • How the text reads; only line 3 counts as fully deciphered, and the readings of the third saddle differ
  • The date of the stone, for which the study of the reading gives none
  • Whether a line of the text concerns a post
Im Text · 6
  • Line 3 has been interpreted as naming three horses by colour, each with a saddle of a different metal: a white horse with a gold saddle, a dark grey horse with a silver saddle and a brown horse with a bronze saddle.
  • Part of the reading goes back to H. Şirin User, and M. Erdal doubted the rendering of the second colour as grey for a horse.
  • Nurdin Useev agrees on the first two saddles and gives the third as juniper wood.
  • Line 1 runs close to a rock text of Chiyin Tash in the Tian Shan of Kyrgyzstan, with the words in reverse order. The likeness is her own observation.
  • For a phrase of the text, bitig belde, "the letter is at the waist", one scholar proposed that the whole text could be about the medieval post.
  • Useev places the stone in the ninth century on the strength of the verb ending -gAy.

John of Ephesus

  • The year of Zemarchus's embassy: the seventh year of Justin II in John, the fourth in Menander

Jordanes

  • How many of the passages on Attila come from Priscus: six are marked as his, and further passages are assigned to him on grounds of style
  • Whether Jordanes was the bishop of Crotona who was in Constantinople with Pope Vigilius in 551
  • Whether Jordanes was a Goth, as he says, or of Alan descent, as some scholars infer from his family history
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars made him an Alan from the form of his father's name, which the manuscripts give corruptly.
  • One identification makes him the bishop Jordanes of Crotona, who was with Pope Vigilius in Constantinople in 551.

Karabalghasun inscription

  • The identity of the Heavenly Khaghan of the Chinese face
  • The date of composition, given only as the early decades of the ninth century

Kartlis Tskhovreba

  • Whether the eristaw Djibghou of the chronicle is the Göktürk yabgu who met Heraclius before Tiflis

Kül Tegin inscription

  • idi oksuz in E2: 'wholly free' or 'kinless, without master'
  • baş balbal in E11: 'the first balbal' or 'Baz Khan as balbal'
  • ıduq Ötüken in E23: sacred; the rendering kutlu, 'blessed, possessed of Kut', is Yavuz's gloss and is not what the transcription gives
  • öd tengri yasar in N10: 'Heaven apportions the time', 'Heaven lives on', or 'if Heaven commands'
  • Bökli and Čölgil in E4: one people or two
  • tuygun in N13: a name, a title, or an ethnonym
Im Text · 45
  • Idi oksuz is understood as "wholly free", as "without master and kin" or, with a verb supplied, as "very disorderly".
  • Bökli Čölgil is taken as a name, as "peoples of forest and steppe" or as "foreign powerful peoples", and whether it names one people or two is argued in the Bökli debate.
  • The sevens may be the sacred number of the Göktürks, and the figures a tale, not a count.
  • The line is rendered "as the first balbal", as "Baz Khan as balbal" or, with baz as a common word, as "the subject khan as balbal".
  • {kommentar} The address may be aimed especially at the Oguz and concern the break-up of the Göktürks and the flight of many of them to China.
  • Altı çub sogdak is understood as the Sogdians of "six districts", çub being a Chinese loan for "district", or as the Sogdians of the "Six Čub", the land on the Chu river.
  • {kommentar} The yinçü ügüz, the "Pearl River", is identified with the Zarafshan, the river of Sogdiana, or with the Syr Darya.
  • Alp Šalčı is taken here as the name of the horse, while Tekin's glossary lists Šalčı as a personal name.
  • The stone gives no year: one account puts the battles in 714, a second puts the revolt after the death of Kapgan in 716, and Thomsen puts the five battles in 730.
  • One account puts the winter at Amga in 715, and another puts the attack on the camp perhaps in the spring of 717.
  • Öd teŋri yasar is rendered "Heaven apportions the time", as "Heaven lives on" or, as aysar, as "when Heaven commands".
  • Mongolian translators render it as "eyes and brows would swell" or "eyelids would fall", as in weeping.
  • Thomsen reads the numerals instead as days of the sixty-day cycle, and on his count the funeral falls on 6 October 731.
  • {kommentar} Tekin's translation glosses the yinçü ügüz as the Syr Darya, while Thomsen identifies it with the Zarafshan.
  • Tekin translates kiçig tegmedim as stopping a little short of the sea and of Tibet, and Thomsen takes kiçig as an intensifier of the negative, "not at all".
  • Isgiti is glossed as silk and as a loan from Chinese, while Thomsen and Orkun take it for a kind of grain, because the Bilge Khan text puts a word for crops before it.
  • {kommentar} Bisük has no sure sense: the translation reads "cradle", Tekin's glossary has "relative", and Thomsen leaves the word untranslated.
  • {kommentar} Boşgur- is glossed "to teach, to advise", and Thomsen reads it as "to incite".
  • Tekin reads the closing question as igid bar gu, with igid glossed "lie", while Thomsen takes igid-bar- as a compound verb and finds the line doubtful.
  • Thomsen holds that Chinese craftsmen cut the Turkic text into the stone, and that Yollug Tegin, who names himself as its writer, did not cut it.
  • {kommentar} The word erig is interpreted in many ways, from "barren" to "much frequented" and "holy place".
  • A Kazakh parallel suggests a camp on the migration route, so that the eternal stone stands where travellers pass.
  • idi oksuz kök türk (E3). The phrase can be understood in two ways. In the first, idi is an intensifier, "wholly unsubjected, entirely free". This is the majority view and the one the translation gives. In the second, idi is "master" and oksuz is "without arrow, without kin", giving "the masterless, kinless Türk", rendered elsewhere in German as "the orphaned Göktürk".
  • A third interpretation is that of Tekin's edition of 1998. It takes idi as an intensifier, "very", and oksuz as "without organisation". It also supplies a verb, iti, "set in order", which the stone-cutter left out. In it the founders set in order a Göktürk people that lived in great disorder, and the phrase says nothing about freedom.
  • kök türk (E3). "Blue" or "sky" Göktürks is the established rendering and the origin of the modern name Göktürks. "Great" and "numerous" have both been proposed. The compound is essentially a single attestation.
  • Tekin's edition reads etmiş, "did", in this line and in the parallel line of Bilge Khan's stone, and translates "acted thus".
  • baş balbal (E16). "As the first balbal" is the rendering of the translation. The alternative reads a name, "Baz Khan as balbal". It is supported by the fact that Baz Khan of the Nine Oghuz is named as an enemy in the previous line.
  • Tekin's edition reads başlayu baz kağanığ balbal tikmiş, "first they set up the subject khan as balbal". It takes başlayu as "first" and baz kağan as a common noun, "subject khan", and not as a name.
  • One account identifies this Baz Khan with the khan of the Toquz Oghuz whom Ilterish defeated, and notes that no Chinese source names him.
  • That gloss is not what the text reads. The difference matters, because it separates Ötüken as sacred ground from Ötüken as a source of royal fortune. The articles on Kut and Tengrism follow the transcription.
  • öd teŋri yasar (N10). The middle word is written with three consonants and no vowels. It supports "apportions" (yasar), "lives on" (yaşar) or "if it commands" (aysar). The serene rendering of the translation is a choice among three.
  • Tekin's edition prints the third form, öd teŋri aysar, and translates it "when the god of Time commands, the sons of men are all created to die".
  • A Mongolian parallel suggests that ay- means "to say, to command", a root that Mongolian keeps in words for speaking and ordering.
  • Bökli Čölgil (E4). The phrase is understood either as one people with an epithet, the Koreans of the steppe, or as two states, Koguryŏ and a "realm of the Čü" identified with the Northern Zhou. The translation keeps both words and decides nothing.
  • Tekin's edition reads eşilik kız oglın, "daughters who were to become ladies", from eşi, "lady".
  • yeti yegirmi yaŋıka, tokuzınç ay yeti otuzka, yetinç ay yeti otuzka (≈N13). The translation counts toward the decade, so that the numerals give the seventeenth day of the Year of the Sheep, the twenty-seventh of the ninth month and the twenty-seventh of the seventh month. Thomsen reads the numerals as days of the sixty-day cycle and not of the month. On his count the Turkic dates lag seven days behind the Chinese ones, the date of the monument agrees with the Chinese date of 1 August 732, and the funeral falls on 6 October 731.
  • kıdmaz (S5). The translation has "they spare neither his clan nor his people". Tekin's edition reads kıd- as "to kill" and translates that the Chinese do not kill the whole clan of an offender, down to the cradle.
  • Tekin's edition reads matı, "loyal, obedient", and translates "loyal Turk people". He derives matı from a Mongolian word, and that derivation is his own position.
  • A Kazakh parallel suggests that azman is a common word, a gelding, as in Kazakh azban, and not a name.
  • The word erig has been interpreted as "barren", "suitable", "crossroads", "much frequented", "holy place" and "bustling".
  • A Kazakh parallel suggests that erig is a temporary camp on the migration route, so that the eternal stone stands where travellers pass and can read it.
  • That sense rests on the editors' interpretation of undated texts, which also allows that the word could be a form of address.
  • This may be the picture of a state whose order is bound to that of the world. When Heaven and Earth are stirred, the order of the state and of men is lost.
  • The stone gives no year for the revolt. One account places the battles in 714, the winter at Amga in 715, and the move of the Nine Oguz to China in 716.
  • A second account places the revolt after the death of Kapgan in 716, the attack on the camp perhaps in the spring of 717, and the move to China in 718.

Küli Čor inscription

  • Dates
  • The date of the stone: 719 to 723, 722 to 723, 720 to 725 or 723 to 725, according to the editor or catalogue
  • Whether the dead man grew old under Ilterish or under Kapgan
  • Whether the dead man is called Küli Čor or Kül İç Čor
  • Who wrote the text: a man called Tärbän, a man called Bantır, or no name read
  • Whether the broken first lines carry the title Apa Tarkan beside the name Tonyukuk
  • Whether the Tezik named in the text are Tajiks or Arabs
  • Whether the word azıglıg in the hunting line means tusked or ferocious, and whether the nine-year-old killed a boar or nine men
Im Text · 3
  • A study of the hunt understands the two ages as the first hunts of a youth who is proving himself, and sees in the deed the one by which a man won his name. The stone does not use the words er at.
  • Hayashi and Ōsawa and Berta take the first animal for a young wild goat in place of a gazelle.
  • A study of 2007 takes azıglıg, here and in an epitaph from the Uibat valley, for "wild, ferocious" and not for "tusked".

Kutadgu Bilig

  • Whether the ascetic Wide Awake stands for a Buddhist ideal or an Islamic one
  • Whether the copy presented to the khan was written in Uyghur or in Arabic script
Im Text · 2
  • One reckoning identifies him with Hasan, son of Süleyman Arslan Khan, and has the book finished in the fourteenth year of his reign. The length of that reign is known only from a court document of Yarkend. The book itself gives no such name.
  • The copy presented to the khan may have been in Uyghur script.

Liang Shu

  • What its statement about the Hephthalite language is worth, given that it reports what a southern court learned from the envoys of 516, 520 and 526 and from the north
  • Whether the nine states that the Hua marched against were subject to them
Im Text · 1
  • The list may name the states that came under Hephthalite rule. The entry itself says only that the Hua marched against them.

Life of Xuanzang

  • The year of the meeting with the Yabgu Khan: at the beginning of 630 in one reckoning, in 627 or 628 in another
Im Text · 3
  • The year of the meeting is disputed. One reckoning starts from the Life's date of departure, the eighth month of 629, and allows for the pilgrim's long stays on the way.
  • It brings him to the khan in the first months of 630. Tong Yabgu was therefore alive in 630 and died soon after the pilgrim passed.
  • A second reckoning takes Tong Yabgu's death in 628, as the Jiu Tangshu gives it in its notice on the Tiele. It moves the journey back, with the meeting in 627 or 628.

Menander Protector

  • Whether Theophanes of Byzantium drew on Menander or Menander on Theophanes; the surviving summary of Theophanes is too brief to show it
Im Text · 2
  • Some scholars set the letter beside the Zhou Shu's remark that the Göktürks wrote like the Hu, and beside the Sogdian stone of Bugut.
  • They conclude that a script based on the Sogdian alphabet probably existed under the first khans.

Murfatlar inscriptions

  • How the texts are to be read
  • Whether the signs are closer to the Old Turkic and Székely runes or to the Old Bulgar and Cyrillic letters
  • Whether the four signs above the image of a saint read Pohan, John the Baptist or Enoh
  • Whether the Bulgars wrote them, and whether they are Turkic at all
Im Text · 3
  • The same study sets the signs beside other writing systems. The signs of Nagyszentmiklós stand nearer to the Old Turkic script and to the Székely runes. The signs of Murfatlar show the influence of Old Bulgar and Cyrillic: fourteen of them, a third, have a parallel in Cyrillic and seven in Old Bulgar.
  • One scholar identifies the inscriptions of the Danube, the Volga, the Don and the North Caucasus together as monuments of dialects of Bulgar. This scholar names Murfatlar among the find-places.
  • Four signs stand over the picture of a saint on one of the stones of the Dobruja. Three readers have read them differently, as Pohan, "heathen" (Tryjarski), as John the Baptist (Popkonstantinov) and as Enoh (Georgiev).

Nalaikh Inscription

  • Whether the piece is a genuine inscription of about 730 or a later fake made for tourists
  • Whether the two phrases that one account quotes are the whole of what the four lines give
Im Text · 1
  • One proposal reads a Yenisei stone from Altın Köl as giving her the title beg, which is a title of rule as well.

Nan Qi Shu

  • Whether the tenth year in which the Dingling drove the Ruirui south is the tenth of the Yongming era, 492

Narshakhī, History of Bukhara

  • Which parts of the text are Narshakhī's and which belong to the translator, the abridger and the later hands
  • Whether the oasis legend of Abrui rests on an event, and whom the Turkish lord Qara Jurin is meant to be

Nikephoros

  • Whether the 'chieftain of the Turks' whom Heraclius crowned was Tong Yabgu himself

Old Tibetan report on the northern kings

  • Whether the name 'Bug chor, which the report gives the Göktürks, means the eastern Göktürks under Kapgan or the country around Lop Nor
  • Which ruler Zha ma Kha gan is: the last khan of the Second Khaganate, Mukan, Bumin, İstemi, an ancestor of the Uyghurs, or the name of the Ashina
Im Text · 2
  • The report calls the Göktürks 'Bug chor. The name may be the Tibetan form of the title that the Chinese give as Mochuo, the title of Kapgan Khan. It would then refer to the country of the eastern Göktürks. A different explanation is that it names the country around Lop Nor, west of Gansu.
  • The identity of Zha ma Kha gan has been explained in several ways: as Ozmish, the last khan of the Second Khaganate, as Mukan, as Bumin, as İstemi, as an ancestor of the Uyghurs, and as another name of the Ashina clan itself.

Ongi inscription

  • Dates
  • The date of the stone: the year of the father's death is read as a Dragon year or as a Sheep year, and the proposals run from 716 to 740
  • Who the forefather Yama (Yamı) Khan was: Istemi, Bumin or another ruler
  • Whether the first line reads Yamı or Yama
  • Whether Bilge Ishbara Tamgan Tarkhan is the speaker or the dead man, and whether the stone is of two generations or three
  • Whether Täŋrikän in the fifth and sixth lines is a name, a title, or an epithet of Ilterish
  • Whether the stone names its dead man Taçam or addresses him as 'my dear father'
  • Whether kamïg balïk in the ninth line means 'all cities' or names the city of Komul
Im Text · 12
  • The ram is held to be a sign of the Ashina, and the line through the S-shaped sign is damage, not part of the sign.
  • Other descriptions differ. Some see the mountain goat of the Kül Tegin stele with two added signs, others a mountain goat with a line running down from its middle and bending left.
  • Ölmez reads the verbs of the line as "set in order, gathered, routed, overran", and holds that kısmış rests on a verb that does not exist.
  • Clauson takes the word for a title, "sacred majesty", and the ruler of the eleventh line for Ilterish, so that Radloff's reading Baga Täŋriken as a name is impossible.
  • Ölmez's translation takes baga for a name or title of the father and täŋriken for the form of address "my lord".
  • A word in lines 5, 6 and 10 that stands nowhere else is the name of a tribe. It is read doubtfully as Atığ, and Tekin reads Atığ Oğuz as two tribal names.
  • Clauson already took the word for a place name, without proposing one.
  • Ölmez supports Tekin with Old Uyghur forms of qamıl, and still calls the first word doubtful.
  • In the twelfth line the speaker says that he held the funeral rites and, it seems, set apart the ground for the grave.
  • Another interpretation turns the roles round. It takes Bilge Ishbara Tamgan Tarkhan to be the dead man, with El-etmiš Yabgu as his father, and the speaker to be the dead man's own son, who is not named. The text then shows three generations.
  • Two more datings stand apart. One reads the main text with a Sheep year, in the seventh month, and the addition with a Dragon year, ulu yıl, as the year in which the stone was written. It gives no year numbers.
  • The other puts the stone in 740, the Dragon year in which the Tang gave Tengri Khan his title, and takes the "sacred Bilge Khan" of the last lines for Tengri Khan and not for his father.

Priscus

  • When the embassy to Attila took place: 448 in the older reckoning, 449 in a second
  • Whether the account of the siege of Naissus refers to 442 or 447, and how far it borrows from Thucydides
  • How far Priscus's picture of the government of Theodosius II reflects the interests of the senatorial class

Procopius

  • Whether his Hephthalites are Huns in any sense beyond the Greek habit of calling every steppe people Huns

Protobulgarian sign corpus

  • Whether the marks are letters, property marks or magic signs
  • What the commonest sign means: the god Tengri, Greek letters, a cryptogram for Jesus, the Supreme God or the sign of the ruling house
  • Whether the signs derive from the Old Turkic script or from Greek
  • What the seven-armed rosette of Pliska is
Im Text · 6
  • Whether the marks are letters, property marks or magic signs is not settled.
  • Five interpretations of it have been proposed, and others have rejected each of them. The first takes the sign for the name of the god, Tangra, the Bulgar form of Tengri. The second reads Greek letters that mean "great", a title found in the khan inscriptions. The third sees a cryptogram for the name of Jesus. The fourth reads "Supreme God". The fifth takes it for the sign of the ruling house, of Boris or of Simeon. Some readers add a protective function.
  • A seven-armed bronze rosette from Pliska carries signs in the centre and two signs on each arm. It has been taken for a cavalry badge, for a charm of the sun, the moon and the five planets, for a sacred calendar and for a seal in Greek vowels that stand for the planets.
  • Many researchers derive the Bulgar signs from the Old Turkic runiform script. Tryjarski, by contrast, takes the runic texts of Pliska, Byala, Murfatlar and Šudikova for Greek texts, written in signs of Asian origin that the Protobulgars brought with them.
  • The archaeologist who surveys the marks follows Kızlasov, who holds the Eurasian runiform writing to be supra-ethnic, with local graphic variants.
  • A different study reads all runiform inscriptions of the Danube, the Volga, the Don and the North Caucasus as monuments of dialects of Bulgar.

Record of the Western Regions

  • The year of composition: 646, in the twentieth year of Zhenguan, or 648
Im Text · 2
  • One reckoning dates the finished Record to 646, the twentieth year of Zhenguan.
  • A second reckoning dates it to 648.

Rock inscriptions found in Mongolia, 2018 to 2021

  • Dates
  • How the short rock texts are to be read: each reading is the reading of one scholar
  • Whether the rock text of Zamyn Buuts records the passing of Ädiz men and horses or an Ädiz camp
  • Whether tuŋrač at Khöshööt Tolgoi is a man's name or the name of the Tongra
  • Whether čur in the texts of Bayankhongor is a title or part of a name
  • How the rock text at Dukhyn Buuts is to be read: the two published readings differ completely
Im Text · 10
  • The survey that reports the finds is not an edition. The readings in it come from the first readers, above all Tsend, Rinchinkhorol and Doğan, and they are given as readings.
  • At Zamyn Buuts in Bayankhongor, one line on a small rock may belong to the age of the Uyghur Khaganate. Three readers have read it as naming the Ediz (ädiz). They differ on whether it records that Ädiz men and horses passed twice or marks an Ädiz camp.
  • At Khöshööt Tolgoi in Govi-Altai, five letters read tuŋrač or toŋrač. The first readers think it likely a man's name. Others propose that it is the name of the Tongra.
  • Two texts in Bayankhongor name a čur. At Deed Tsokhiot the text reads qar čur. At Havtsgaityn Havtsal three lines read qarlïγ čur, followed by a verb that is read either as "crossed and came down" or as "sat in good health".
  • At Tavan Tolgoi in Sükhbaatar, 29 letters in two lines are read as yegän irkin orun a olurtïm a / törtinč ay olurtïm a. The first reader translates: "I, Yegän Irkin, sat on the seat. I sat in the fourth month."
  • At Dukhyn Buuts in Bayankhongor, two published readings differ completely. One reads bilgä tayla ayas, the other bilge bay anča ay, "Bilge is rich, say so".
  • The finders suggest a link with the legend of an Uyghur-period coin.
  • The finders think a tamga at Dövön may belong to the Yaglakar, and one at Dukhyn Buuts to the Ediz.
  • In 2021 a standing stone was found at Dövön in Govi-Altai. It carries a tamga, a text in Uyghur script and a runiform text of two letters, read taš, "stone". A third sign between the letters may be a tamga as well. It is the fourth inscription found where runiform and Uyghur writing stand together.
  • The smallest finds are of one to a few words, for example uluγ qaya, "great rock", at Davirtyn Buuts, and qut bar[ïŋ] yorïγ at Dund Tsokhiot. Their readings are uncertain, with query marks and brackets in the edition.

Runiform finds in Mongolia, 1990 to 1999

  • Dates
  • Whether the four-line text of Del Uul belongs to the years of Tang overlordship, about 630 to 680
  • Whether the Ikh Bichigt tamga with the ibex is that of the Ashina
  • Whether the vessel of Tsetsuuhey is of the Göktürk age
Im Text · 3
  • The study gives a translation of the text of four lines. It reads that "our wise elder brother and we did not receive the title irkin".
  • The finder names them as the ibex tamga of the Ashina, the tamga of the monument of Tonyukuk, and a hook tamga that occurs at Ongin and on other monuments.
  • The report dates the tower to the sixth to eighth century. It takes the word as a sign that the vessel belongs to the Göktürk age.

Runiform inscriptions of the Khazar lands

  • Whether the signs were written by Khazars, Bulgars or Alans, or are tribal marks and not letters
  • Whether the language behind them is Bulgar Turkic or Common Turkic
  • Whether the Hasaut tombstones carry one text in two scripts
  • Whether the letter from Kiev contains a runiform Khazar word
  • How far the script came to the Volga and the Kama with Karluk and Western Göktürk groups
Im Text · 17
  • The language is probably Turkic. Bulgar Turkic and Common Turkic are both possible, and the surveyor holds the first more likely.
  • The same surveyor holds that the script arose in the seventh or eighth century on the model of the Göktürk letters.
  • The author reports tombstones in early medieval rock graves at the pass of Hasaut. On them, he holds, the same text stands in two forms of the script, which he calls the Göktürk and the Old Uyghur type.
  • He counts more than a hundred different sign forms. Hard and soft consonants are still kept apart, as on the Orkhon and Yenisei stones.
  • In the south-east of the Crimea, stone blocks of the walls of Sudak and Mangup, tiles, potsherds and grave slabs of the eighth to tenth century carry signs like tamgas. Whether they are marks of a tribe or letters is not settled.
  • The authors of the survey set them with the Turkic Bulgars of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture. They call that assignment secure for only part of the tile signs, and doubtful for the Saltovo-Mayaki monuments of the Crimea in general.
  • A first attempt at an interpretation for the whole Khazar realm had worked from material of the Alans in the same culture.
  • Astragali, or knucklebones, of the eighth to tenth century from Tepsen carry scratched marks, among them a pair of two-toothed signs and a group of six signs that some read as a tamga text.
  • One piece is a candidate for runiform letters in the proper sense. A fragment of schist from the burnt layer of the tenth century in the fortress of Gurzuf is covered with signs that some take for runiform letters. Two drawings of it disagree in many details.
  • The Hebrew letter called the Kiev letter, of the tenth century, was long thought to contain one runiform word of Khazar, hokurüm, "I have read". Several scholars, among them Pritsak and Ligeti, took this view.
  • Harmatta argued instead that the word is not runiform at all but a Hebrew note added later. He also read the place name in the letter as Canopus in the Nile delta, not Kiev.
  • North and east of the Khazar lands, a hoard and some single pieces carry runiform marks as well. A study of 1983 presents seven such find-places between the Volga, the Kama and Fergana.
  • The signs may be a call to a woman named Umay.
  • In a hoard found in 1927 at Turuseva on the Kama, two Byzantine silver vessels carry scratches of several owners. The reader takes them for notes of ownership, and says himself that the photograph is poor and the signs can be guessed more than seen.
  • A silver plate from Kerceva on the Kama has a short inscription on its underside whose reading is not certain.
  • On a rock near Bolshoe Mikushkino on the Sok, a tamga has its nearest parallel on an iron strap end from an Avar grave at Keszthely-Csákberény in Hungary.
  • The same author draws a route from these finds. Karluk and Western Göktürk groups carried the script west to the Urals, the Volga and the Oka. From there it may have reached the Carpathian basin with a late migration of the Avars.

Russian Primary Chronicle

  • Whether the town taken in 965 was Sarkel
  • Whether the scene of the Khazar Jews at Vladimir belongs to the original chronicle
Im Text · 3
  • Whether the town of the entry is Sarkel is disputed.
  • Two interpretations follow. One sees a single great campaign of 965, and the other sees two phases, with Sarkel taken in 965 by the Rus of Kiev and Atil and Samandar in 968 by others.
  • Many critics hold the disputation scene to be an interpolation. The presence of Khazar Jews at Kiev is not in itself a problem.

Sebeos

  • Whether the author is Sebeos, bishop of the Bagratunikʿ, who signed the canons of Dvin in 645
  • The date of Smbat Bagratuni's eastern campaign and of the Göktürk intervention in it: 597–598, or 614–615
  • Whether the notice on the Pass of Chor describes the Göktürk invasion of 627, and whether it stands in its right place
  • Whether Chembukh and Chepetukh render the Göktürk title yabgu
  • Whether the khagan whose daughter bore Hormizd IV was Istemi
Im Text · 3
  • The attribution is therefore a supposition, and the author and the original title are unknown.
  • Whether that khagan was Istemi is not settled.
  • Whether the yabgu of 627 was Tong Yabgu himself is disputed.

Shahnameh

  • Whether the epic is independent of Tabari for the war of 588

Šine-Usu inscription

  • How much of the text is recoverable; the stone is badly worn
  • The date of the stone: 759, about 760, or 760 to 761
  • Whether the stone is the khan's own account or a memorial set up after his death
Im Text · 5
  • According to one view, the stone is a memorial. It was set up in connection with a burial complex, in memory of the khan, who died in 759.
  • The date of the stone itself is a separate question. One order of the three Uyghur stones puts the stone about 760.
  • Another order puts it in 759.
  • A third puts it in 760 or 761, because the tomb and the rites after the khan's death took time.
  • The stone lists herds, goods, girls and widows among the booty of the khan's campaigns. It says that he took an enemy's katun prisoner.

Sogdian Ancient Letters

  • Dates
  • The date: 313, by the reckoning that ties Letter II to the sack of Luoyang in 311, against 196, which ties it to the events of 190
  • Whether the xwn of Letter II, the Xiongnu of the Chinese sources and the Huns of the European sources carry one name, and whether one name means one people
Im Text · 3
  • One reckoning therefore dates the letters to 313. A second argued for 196, and a later study returned to the first. The date now generally given is 313.
  • Letter II gives the Xiongnu who sacked Luoyang the name xwn, the Huns. This is sixty years before the Huns of Europe crossed the Roman frontier.
  • The letter settles what the Sogdians of Gansu called the Xiongnu of their day. It does not settle what the name implies. The Chinese 匈奴, the Sogdian xwn and the name of the Huns of Europe may be one name that travelled with a people. Others allow the name and deny the people. The question belongs to the Huns and to the Xiongnu, where both positions are set out.

Sogdian inscriptions of the upper Indus

  • Whether the names xwn prove a Hun conquest of Sogdiana followed by a fusion of Sogdians and invaders, as some scholars hold
  • Why the Sogdian graffiti cluster at Shatial: the end point of Sogdian trade, a sanctuary, or a halt at the crossing of the Indus
Im Text · 3
  • Some scholars go further. It sets the end of the Sogdian graffiti in the first half of the fifth century. Their argument rests on a weak sign, and they say so: among the sixteen inscriptions that name a xwn, none uses the name as a father's name.
  • They explain the end by the expansion of the Hephthalites south of Sogdiana, over the roads that joined it to the upper Indus.
  • A Sogdian father who names his son the Hun presupposes Huns in Sogdiana. The names may be the trace of a Hun conquest of Sogdiana. A period of calm followed, in which Sogdians and invaders mixed, not before the end of the fourth century and more probably in the fifth.

South Yenisei inscriptionskurz

  • Which people used the alphabet; no text names one
  • Whether the alphabet is related to the runiform scripts of eastern Europe and Central Asia
  • Whether the alphabet is Turkic in its origin; one proposal allows a Samoyed origin
Im Text · 4
  • Single South Yenisei signs also turn up in texts of the mountain Altai, which the authors take as a sign that the writers knew the alphabet. They add that the Altai material does not prove both alphabets in use at the same time and place.
  • The authors tie the texts to the Göktürks of Tuva on the evidence of the graves and stelae. They also say that the texts name no people and that the script need not have had a single bearer.
  • Another proposal allows a Samoyed origin of the alphabet, and names two objections to it: the finds lie among Turkic archaeological objects everywhere, and Samoyeds in the Kyzylkum cannot be explained.
  • Some sign forms of the alphabet recur in eastern Europe, and the authors infer from this a kinship with the scripts of the Don and the Kuban and of Central Asia. They allow that the southern Siberian material is too thin to decide the question.

Suji inscription

  • Dates
  • The date of the text: before 780, the end of the eighth century, or after 840
  • The first sentence: 'I, Yaglakar Khan Ata, came', 'I drove the Yaglakar khan out', or 'I came from the land of the Uyghurs, from Yaglakar Khan'
  • The religion of the teacher called mar: Manichaean or Nestorian
Im Text · 9
  • A Turkish translation of the twenty sentences differs at several places. It has ten pens where Klyashtorny's translation has ten households. It gives the hundred bay horses to the children, in the speaker's lifetime. It has no teacher.
  • The first line is read in three ways. The first reading takes Yaglakar Kan Ata for a personal name: "In the land of the Uyghurs I came, Yaglakar Khan Ata."
  • The second reads Yaglakar Kan, at-a keldim, "I drove the Yaglakar khan out". It goes with a date after 840.
  • The third reads Yaglakar Kan ta keltim, "I came from the land of the Uyghurs, from Yaglakar Khan". It takes -ta as the ending "from", set off from the name by a colon as in other Yenisei texts.
  • The transcription quoted above has keltim, which belongs to the first and third readings. The translation "I drove out" belongs to the second.
  • The two therefore come from different readings. They do not disagree with each other by a misprint. One reader rejects the first reading because ata, "ancestor", is not usual as a title. He rejects the second reading for two reasons. The verb at-, "to throw, to drive away", has no parallel in Turkic in this use. The Uyghurs also sat in the Ötüken for at least seventy years after the end of the Yaglakar house in 780.
  • The text then falls before 780, in the second half of the eighth century. The stone is no work of the Kirghiz period. It belongs with the Uyghur stones of Tes, Tariat and Šine-Usu.
  • By another count, the Yaglakar house ended in 780, not in 795.
  • Whether the text has a teacher at all depends on how the passage is read. The Turkish translation that has no teacher takes the two words in question as "in my lifetime" and "as I lived".

Szarvas needle case inscriptionkurz

  • Whether the marks form a text or are property marks like tamgas
  • Whether the language is of Bulgar type
Im Text · 4
  • The needle case and the signs on the vessels of Nagyszentmiklós are the two larger monuments of what one survey calls the late Avar script.
  • One suggestion is that the text is in a language of Bulgar type. It rests on an archaeological finding: at the end of the seventh century a new nomadic people settled in the Carpathian basin, probably Bulgars, perhaps after the Bulgar realm in the Caucasus broke up under Asparuch in 680.
  • The author of this suggestion calls it very probable, and he describes his whole picture of the runiform systems of eastern Europe as quite hypothetical.
  • Others start from the opposite premise. It holds that Avar graves of the Carpathian basin carried signs of the Orkhon and Yenisei type or close to them, and so it looks for a route by which the script came from Central Asia.

Tabari

  • Whether Tabari, Masʿudi, Thaʿālibī and the Shahnameh are independent of one another for the Sasanian period: all four are derived from the lost Middle Persian royal chronicle
  • Who the Turks of the Peroz narrative are: the text says Turks and means the Hephthalites

Talas and Tian Shan runiform inscriptions

  • How the Talas stones read; many early readings rest on wrongly identified signs
  • Whether the second Talas stone names a monkey year in its first line
  • Whether the script came to the Tian Shan by way of the Altai
Im Text · 8
  • Many readings of the Talas stones are not reliable. The reasons are poor squeezes and wrongly identified signs, above all on the stones 2, 11 and 12.
  • Earlier readers read the first line of the second stone as a date: a monkey year, followed by an age or a number. Rysbek Alimov rejects this. In his reading the first sign is a word divider, not a p, the number twenty would be spelled differently in the runiform script, and the word for "monkey" is spelled with a voiced beginning elsewhere.
  • A reading of the same stone by Çetin Çumagulov has a man call himself Kara Çor and say that his enemy cannot stand against him, and it names his father Tugan and his son Sugpash.
  • D. D. Vasilyev counts it among the Asian finds of the type known from eastern Europe.
  • At the Kuru-Bakayır pass in the Talas Ala-Too range, two inscriptions were found at the end of 1981. One is transcribed kutçor and the other şarga. Klyashtorny explains şarga as the Sogdian word for "lion".
  • Five of the eight begin with the formula "my man's name is Asıg". Rysbek Alimov reads it so, and Çumagulov reads the words as er atım adıg on ok yer eşim without translating them.
  • The Kök-Say texts share sign forms with the Talas inscriptions that are rare on the Yenisei and not found in Mongolia, and the same opening formula. Alimov takes this to mean that they belong to the same time.
  • The script may have reached the Tian Shan by way of the Altai, because the signs of the Kyrgyz stones are closest to those of the Altai stones.

Tariat inscription

  • Dates
  • The date of the stone: 750, 753, between 753 and 756, or 754 and 755, in different datings
  • Who had the stone set up, and whether line 5 of the north face names two narrators
  • The word in line 5 of the south face that sets the scene of the assembly of 748: eight readings, of which only some understand it as a burial ground
  • The word read as 'woodland' or 'valleys' in lines 4 and 5 of the west face
  • Whether the enthronement belongs to 747, as the Chinese histories have it, or to 748, as the inscription's animal year gives it
  • How the opening lines reckon the length of earlier Uyghur rule, and what they count
Im Text · 10
  • The stone may be a boundary stone. After a mythical opening it gives the first years of the Uyghur state, then its borders, tribes and dignitaries.
  • Others put it in 753, in 752 or 753, between 753 and 756, or in 754 or 755.
  • In the line before the naming of the khagan, the people speak. Editors have read the word that sets the scene in eight ways.
  • A few editors read it as a burial ground, the one of the ancestors.
  • Others take it for an address, "you" or "in your hand", or read it as "sound".
  • Since then, a grave, sın, has appeared in a runiform epitaph found at Xi'an in 2012. The word has a back vowel. On that evidence it has been argued that the Tariat word cannot be sinläg, "burial ground".
  • Eight editors have read the rest of the line in nine versions. They disagree on whether Yagma is a tribe or a name. They disagree on the meaning of the next word, and on the word for the two men named at the end.
  • The line may say that two narrators told the events and the tribal names. These narrators were the khan's uncles, who bore the names Kutlug Bilge Sengün and Kutlug Tarkan Sengün.
  • This rests on a word that stands nowhere else. Its author marks three of its words with a query.
  • Editors have read the word before "my fields" in line 4, and the word before "Ötüken" in line 5, in five ways. A sixth reading takes both as "woodland". Then the khan names "my woods and my fields" and "my inner woodland, the Ötüken region".

Tes inscriptionkurz

  • Dates
  • The date of the stone: about 750, about 761 or 762, or after 760–761
  • Who is said to have died in the fifth line of the west face
  • Whether the stone is a boundary stone
Im Text · 5
  • The fourth line of the west face begins with the year taqïγu yïl, the cock year. Volker Rybatzki notes that it could be 757.
  • In the fifth line, after a gap, stands yasï tägip učdï, "he reached his age and died". Árpád Berta takes the man who died for El-Etmiš, that is Bayanchur Khan.
  • On the south face stands čït tikdi örgin yaratdï, which Rybatzki renders "he drove a stake into the ground and made the throne".
  • Rybatzki connects Šine-Usu with a tomb and takes Tariat and, probably, Tes for inscribed boundary marks. The phrase about the stake on the south face points, in his view, to a boundary stone.
  • The three Uyghur stones have been put in different orders. S. G. Klyashtorny places Tariat at about 753 to 756, Šine-Usu at about 760 and Tes at about 761 or 762. Berta puts Tes first, at about 750, then Tariat in 752 or 753 and Šine-Usu in 759. Rybatzki puts Šine-Usu in 760 or 761, Tariat before it and Tes after it.

The Khazar correspondence

  • Whether Joseph's reply is authentic, in whole or in part
  • Whether Bulan and Obadiah were historical rulers and what the tale of the conversion preserves
  • When the conversion that the reply describes took place
Im Text · 5
  • Only the reply reports this reform, and some scholars date it to about 800.
  • Others regard the figure of Obadiah as a later insertion.
  • Later critics doubted the reply too. Steinschneider called it a later fabrication, and Poliak took the two letters for a work of the eleventh century written in the conventional form of letters.
  • A study of 2013 calls some of the sources on the Khazar conversion pseudepigraphic.
  • Whether the text speaks for the Khazar court of 960 depends on its authenticity, and that question is still open.

The Kievian letter

  • Whether the letter was written at Kiev
  • Whether the line at its end is a Khazar word in runes or a Hebrew note
  • Whether the letter dates from the tenth or the eleventh century
Im Text · 2
  • Golb and Pritsak published the letter in 1982. Pritsak saw in the closing line a Khazar word in runes, read hokurüm, "I have read". Ligeti, Haussig and others followed him.
  • János Harmatta argued that the line is not runic at all. He read it as a Hebrew note added later, šhdnwlh[w], which he took to mean "we redeemed him from the punishment". He also argued that the place name in the Hebrew text is Kahannub, that is, Canopus in the Nile delta, and not Kiev.

The Schechter letter

  • Where and when the letter was written
  • How far its account of the wars and of the conversion can be trusted
  • How its report of the Rus campaign fits the chronology of the Rus chronicle
Im Text · 3
  • The text is dated to the middle of the tenth century, in the years of Joseph. It may have been written at Constantinople.
  • Constantine Zuckerman starts from a difficulty. According to the Russian Primary Chronicle, Oleg had been dead for almost thirty years in 941, so Zuckerman redates the reigns of Oleg and Igor and places the Khazar conversion after 861.
  • Kokovtsov derived the letter from the Sefer Josippon. That derivation has been rejected.

Theophanes of Byzantium

  • Whether the Kermichiones, the Persian name that Theophanes gives the Göktürks, were the Göktürks or the Ouarchonites who came to Europe as the Avars
Im Text · 1
  • Others hold that the passage says only that the Massagetae, the Göktürks and the Kermichiones occupied the same country one after another. They identify the Kermichiones with the people who came to Europe as the Avars.

Theophanes the Confessor

  • Whether Ziebel is a name or the title yabgu, and whether its bearer, 'second in rank after the Chagan', was Tong Yabgu or his younger brother Mohe Shad, as Mikhail Artamonov proposed
  • The year of the meeting before Tiflis: the chronicle enters it under 624/5, and its dates for Heraclius's campaigns run a year early
Im Text · 1
  • Who bore it is disputed. It was either Tong Yabgu himself or, as Mikhail Artamonov proposed, his younger brother Bagha Shad.

Theophylact Simocatta

  • The date of the civil war Theophylact reports: about 598 for Artamonov and Gumilev, 581 to 582 for Czeglédy, about 580 to 582 according to a third view, which dates the khagan's letter to the start of Maurice's reign
  • The identity of the three khagans the khagan called to his aid: Sparzeugun, Kunaxolan and Tuldich are unidentified; one view offers Ishbara Yabgu for the first with a question mark
  • Whether the passage on the religion of the Göktürks records observation or a familiar literary pattern
Im Text · 1
  • Artamonov and Gumilev dated the revolt to about 598 and connected it with the flight of Ogur tribes to the Avars in Pannonia. Czeglédy dated it to 581 and 582.

Tomb of Kang Yekurz

  • Whether the office of sabao was bound to Zoroastrianism

Tomb of Shi Jun

  • Whether the king in the yurt on the north wall is a Hephthalite ruler
  • Whether the second figure in a winged crown, who is the chief figure of the banquets and the hunt, is Shi Jun or a Hephthalite ruler
Im Text · 1
  • He may be another Hephthalite ruler. Alternatively he is Shi Jun himself, because on the Sogdian monuments it is almost always the dead man who stands out in banquets and hunts.

Tonyukuk inscription

  • Date of the monument: 716, as Radloff read it from the silence about Bilge Khan's reign; about 720, by Thomsen's later dating, or between 720 and 725, as Tekin has it; or 732 to 734, after the Kül Tegin monument
  • Whether Tonyukuk is the Ashide Yuanzhen of the Tang histories, as Hirth held; the histories let Yuanzhen fall in battle against the Türgesh before Ilterish died
  • Line 49: seventeen battles with China, as the runes read, or seven, as Thomsen's rendering has it
  • Lines 4 and 5: the words after the shad's order, read as 'join me' or as 'speak for me' or 'give counsel'
  • Lines 5 and 6: the verb of the saying about the lean and the fat bulls, bilser or bölser
  • Line 8: the enemies round about were like a hearth, and the Göktürks in the middle of it like food, like birds of prey, or like the fire
  • Lines 8, 29, 33: kürüg, a fugitive, a messenger or, as long read, a spy
  • Line 16: the size of the Oguz army, restored in a gap as three or as six thousand
  • Line 33: the word after küreg, kiši or yiyi, 'one after another'
  • Line 51: whether Tonyukuk seated Kapgan on the throne or Kapgan took the throne, and whose age the twenty-seven is
  • The Sir of the phrase türk sir bodun: the Xueyantuo, Sir Tarduš, or another people
  • Which Türgesh khan fell at Bolchu, and in which year: 710 or 711
Im Text · 50
  • Tekin puts it five to ten years after 716, most probably between 720 and 725.
  • A second dating, which Sertkaya has argued, takes the monument for Tonyukuk's answer to the Kül Tegin inscription. It then falls between that monument and the Bilge Khan monument, in 732 to 734.
  • A separate question is whether he is also the Ashide Yuanzhen of the same histories, the Chinese-trained Göktürk who went over to Ilterish in 682 and commanded his army as Apa Tarkan. Turkic Atlas argues it under Tonyukuk. Hirth said yes. The Tang histories let Yuanzhen die in battle against the Türgesh before Ilterish himself died, which makes the equation hard to hold.
  • A reading ötmiš, “abandoned”, does not fit. The verb öt- means “to pass” and not “to leave”.
  • {kommentar} Sir is read as an ethnic name. It is the first syllable of the Chinese name Sie-yen-t'o, which is the Xueyantuo, also called Sir Tarduš.
  • The word may also mean “united (?)”.
  • Thomsen instead takes Čogay for a plain on the southern spurs of the Khangai.
  • In Tekin's reading, the enemies are “like a hearth”, with the Göktürks like the food in its middle. Thomsen read the word as “birds of prey”.
  • A reading “from Khotan” does not fit. Khotan lies about 2000 kilometres from Ötüken.
  • {kommentar} The Kök Öŋ is a river, which one study identifies with the Ongi. The verb yogur- here means to cross a hard barrier such as a great river.
  • The words inigek kölekin are read either as “with cattle and pack animals” or as a pond or marsh named Inigek by the Tola.
  • Tekin reads them as a phrase, “robbing (him) of his sleep”, so that the khan lay in his camp unable to sleep.
  • Other readings give “a man of the far Az”, “a foreign Az” or “a steppe guide”.
  • Tekin reads ugur kalıtdım as “I gained time”. By taking the army across the river, Tonyukuk shortened the way.
  • The rendering has “had them gather”, as Thomsen read the words.
  • {kommentar} The “pass of Ibar” is doubtful. Tekin reads ı bar baš as “the wooded peak”, with a sign that elsewhere has the value baš. He does not read it as a place name.
  • {kommentar} The purpose of the halt is read in two ways. The rendering has “to count the men”. The other reading derives the verb from asın-, “to climb”, so that the men dismounted in order to climb.
  • The rendering has “we opened a way”, while Tekin restores [usı]n, “their sleep”, so that the lances break the sleep of the Kırgız.
  • The title may also be ini il kagan, “Lesser Khan”.
  • {kommentar} Tekin glosses yelme as a scouting party and kargu as a watch-tower, so that the khan's order is “set scouts and watch-towers well”, not “do not ride out”.
  • {kommentar} The begs' saying arıg ubutı yeg is read as “for the pure, humility is better”.
  • Tekin reads it as “the shame of one who has not been beaten is better than the shame of one who has”, so that turning back unbeaten is preferred to defeat.
  • Tekin reads them as a remark about the crossing. “The coming was hard,” they said, but they hardly felt the hardship.
  • Tekin takes basa berti as “helped”. On his reading, the gods “helped” where the rendering has them deliver the enemy.
  • {kommentar} Tekin reads anı ertdimiz as “we passed them”. Tonyukuk sent the army of the Ten Arrows ahead, then followed and overtook it on the road.
  • Tinsi is the Chinese tianzi, “Son of Heaven”. Tekin takes the mountains of that name for the Tian Shan, whose Turkic name he reads as Ak Tag.
  • The line is damaged. In Tekin's rendering, these peoples, with the Sogdians of the next sentence, submitted to Inel Khan.
  • The rendering gives the name of their leader as Suk, after Thomsen, while Tekin reads Aşok.
  • The proposal that he was a Sogdian ruler Aşoka is not decisive.
  • {kommentar} Idi yok ermiš is read in the rendering as “there had been no master there”. Tekin reads idi as the adverb “at all”. On his reading, the sentence says that the Göktürks had never gone so far.
  • The verb is read olgurtdum, “I had them set up”, and not ulgartdım, “I made great”.
  • {kommentar} Tüğünlüg may mean “with knotted tail”, a horse made ready for a raid, and not “branded”.
  • kanın bolmayın (line 2). The rendering takes the clause as a statement about the Göktürk people, "not having a khan of their own". Thomsen's German of 1924 reads it as Tonyukuk's own words: "I will not be khan of the Türk people (?)".
  • A note says that his Danish of 1922 had "if only I might not live to see a khan of the Türk people (?)". He no longer held that reading.
  • Giraud and Tezcan took the words to mean "give counsel" and "the one who gave counsel". Tekin takes them to mean "speak in my name" and "his spokesman".
  • The epigrapher who recorded the stone in 1997 to 1999 reads the second letter of the verb as a sign of the n series and so reads bölser or bülser. Clauson and Sprengling had read the verb with l, and Aalto and Ergin with a nasal. He still renders it "to know".
  • Tekin reads aš <t>eg, "like food", with the t of teg left out by the carver. The Göktürks were like the food in the middle of the hearth.
  • Another reading has isig.
  • Thomsen read birds of prey with a query. The Wikisource rendering reads "we were the fire", which neither Tekin's text nor his explanation gives. The sense of a small people ringed by enemies survives every reading.
  • üč küreg yiyi kelti (line 33). The word after küreg stands in a blank of the runic text. The epigrapher who recorded the stone reads it yiyi, "one after another". He holds that the plate of the first edition had been retouched so that two of its signs read as k and š; Aalto reads yiyi too. Tekin's edition has kiši, "three fugitive men". The rendering takes yiyi.
  • türk sir bodun (lines 3, 11, 60–62). The stone pairs the Türk with a people called Sir, four times, and once speaks of "the land of the Türk Sir people". Thomsen rendered the word as "united (?)"; Radloff already connected the Sir with the Xueyantuo, the Sir Tarduš of the Chinese sources. That identification has been the usual one since. It is an identification, not a reading, and the rendering keeps the name Sir. Thomsen's German of 1924 has "united (?)" in each of the lines where the word occurs: 3–4, 11 and 60–62.
  • If the identification holds, the restored state understood itself as the union of the Göktürks with the people who had ruled the Orkhon between 630 and 646. The Xueyantuo article discusses this.
  • Sertkaya takes Kapgan for a title that the man won after his raids on China, with Čor and then Bögü as his earlier styles. He argues this from the broken line 51.
  • kapgan kagan olurtdum (line 51). In the readings of Tekin, of the epigrapher who recorded the stone, and of Li, the verb ends in the first person singular. Tonyukuk then says he seated Kapgan on the throne.
  • Radloff, Orkun, Ergin, Giraud and Sertkaya read olurdı or olurtı, "he sat down on the throne", in the third person.
  • The rendering follows the first reading. The damaged start of the line gives "twenty-seven" with a gap on either side. It has been taken for Kapgan's age when he took the throne, for his age when Ilterish died, and for the end of his time as čor. Clauson took it for Tonyukuk's age when Kapgan took the throne.
  • Ramstedt had read yatıgma, "lying", and so a mountain "where the Son of the Son of Heaven lies". Tekin names that reading and does not follow it.
  • Which mountain, in Sogdiana or beyond it, is not settled.
  • The epigrapher who recorded the stone reads the first word as bintegi, from ben and teg, "one like me", which supports that view.
  • Tekin keeps bünt(e)gi, "such a one", and renders "such a statesman".

Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós

  • Whether the runiform inscriptions are later than the vessels
  • Whether the hoard was hidden before the ninth century or after the fall of the Avar khaganate in the early ninth
  • Whether the signs belong to the Old Turkic script, to a Bulgar-type script or to neither
  • Whether the treasure has anything to do with the Pechenegs
Im Text · 4
  • Archaeologists, by contrast, have put the treasure before the ninth century. It therefore has nothing to do with the Pechenegs, to whom one scholar had ascribed the runiform signs.
  • The signs of Nagyszentmiklós and those of a bone needle case from a late Avar cemetery at Szarvas are grouped together as a late Avar script. Eight or nine of the signs have the same form as signs of the Székely script. One interpretation suspects a text in a language of Bulgar type and links it with the arrival of a new nomadic people in the Carpathian basin at the end of the seventh century.
  • A study of the signs places those of Nagyszentmiklós nearer to the Old Turkic script and to the Székely runes than to the Cyrillic or Old Bulgar letters.
  • One scholar counts Nagyszentmiklós among the find-places of Bulgar dialect monuments.

Ulaangom inscriptionkurz

  • Dates
  • The name in the first line: Boğaz Tegin, Dugas Tegin, Bars Tegin or Bugra
  • The date: the first half of the eighth century, which rests on the reading Türgesh in line 5
  • Whether the stone belongs to the Uyghur Khaganate
Im Text · 10
  • The text is written in Uyghur letters but in a language of the Orkhon kind. Its language still has features of Old Turkic of the Göktürk age, and in style and composition it stands close to the epitaphs of the Yenisei.
  • One account calls it the oldest text cut in stone in Uyghur letters.
  • The name in the first line has been read in four ways. A. M. Ščerbak reads Boğaz Tegin, and so do E. Vanduy, S. G. Klyashtorny and L. N. Gumilev. Rinčen, from a rubbing, read Dugas Tegin. Peter Zieme reads Bars Tegin. Osman Fikri Sertkaya reads Bugra.
  • Zieme argues that the Uyghur form of boğaz is boğuz. Ščerbak answers that the language of the stone is not Uyghur, only its letters are, and that in the photograph a vav follows the bä.
  • Sertkaya argues sign by sign: the first sign is b and not d, the second is w, and the third is ğ.
  • In Ščerbak's reading the speaker calls himself Boğaz Tegin. At seventeen he took part in a campaign and captured a thousand horses. Before his nineteenth year he marched against the Tatars and sent the army east. At the end of his twentieth year the text names Tibet and speaks of Türgesh captives, and at twenty-one he marched against Omuz.
  • Ščerbak marks several words with question marks. Zieme reads other words in line 4 and in line 5, where Ščerbak reads Türgeş and Zieme holds that the third letter may be yā, which would make that reading wrong.
  • Ščerbak places the stone in the first half of the eighth century, because the word Türgeş stands in line 5.
  • Zieme rejects the reading and with it the date.
  • Volker Rybatzki holds that the stone has not been shown to belong to the Uyghur Khaganate at all. In content, he says, it is closer to the runiform inscriptions of southern Siberia.

Wei Shu

  • Three points on which the chapter and a second account differ: the blow that broke Datan (429 against 424), the victory over the Gaoche (Chounu in 516 against Anagui after 520), and the Rouran chancery (no writing against Chinese secretaries)
Im Text · 1
  • On three points, the chapter and one modern account differ. The first is the blow that broke Datan, 429 in the chapter. The second is the western victory over the Gaoche, Chounu's in 516 in the chapter. The third is the Rouran chancery, which the chapter denies.

Yenisei inscriptions

  • Dates
  • The date of the corpus and of single stones: the seventh century, the eighth, or the ninth and tenth
  • Whether the language of the epitaphs is a dialect of the Orkhon language, a separate variety, or the ancestor of later Kirghiz
  • Whether the monuments can be assigned to the Kirghiz, since none of them names the Kirghiz
Im Text · 9
  • The rougher and more varied letter forms of the Yenisei, Tuva and Altai inscriptions are not taken as a sign of greater age. They are explained by their place on the edge of the writing area.
  • The same authors tie the alphabet to the Göktürks of Tuva on the evidence of the graves and stelae. They add that the texts name no people and that the script need not have had a single bearer.
  • A different explanation takes them for monuments of twin siblings of the Bars, the ruling clan of the Kirghiz. It dates them to the end of the ninth century on the letter forms.
  • One editor reads a stone from the Uibat valley, found in the early 1960s, as a lament for a beg named Tirig Beg.
  • In the third line this editor reads that Tirig Beg took the league of the Üč-Kurıqan. He went as envoy to the Göktürks. He also killed units of a pack of grey wolves. The same editor dates the stone to the first half of the eighth century.
  • A second editor reads the third line with an Uyghur khan in the place of the league, [küç] uyγur kan yärin aldukda.
  • Three Tuvan epitaphs contain the words tokuz ogdamdam. The words may be the name of a people, "the Nine Ogdamdam", on the model of the Nine Oguz and the Nine Tatar. An older explanation translates them as "nine wounds".
  • There are three theories about the language of the Yenisei epitaphs. The first holds that the Yenisei monuments were written in the single literary language of the Old Turkic world of the eighth and ninth centuries, the language of the Orkhon stones.
  • The second sees in the language of the epitaphs a neighbouring dialect. The third regards it as the ancestor of the Kirghiz material of later centuries.

Kontroversen

Archaeogenetics of the Steppe Empires

  • Whether the genetic mixture of the Xiongnu says anything about the language of their ruling stratum
  • Whether the Xiongnu are linked genetically to the Huns of Europe
  • Whether the Ashina descended from the Xiongnu, a claim the genomes at hand cannot test
Im Text · 5
  • The genetic evidence enters three debates. The first concerns the language of the Xiongnu. The authors of the 2020 review conclude that the predominant part of the Xiongnu population probably spoke Turkic. They see the genetic mixture of western and eastern ancestry as mirroring a linguistic picture with an Iranian component and a Turkic one. They find the Yeniseian hypothesis unsupported by genetics.
  • The Ket of today lack the Iranian-related ancestry of the Xiongnu and are close to their Samoyedic-speaking neighbours.
  • By contrast, one recent linguistic study says that its identification of the Xiongnu and Hunnic language as an early Yeniseian form augments and confirms genetic and archaeological studies.
  • The second debate concerns the Huns. The 2018 summary has the mixed Scythian and Xiongnu groups, moving west, form the Hun traditions of the fourth and fifth centuries.
  • The review of 2020 finds the evidence for continuity between the Xiongnu and the Huns of Europe very weak. It notes that no genome of the Hunnic period in the Carpathian basin had been reported.

Climate and the steppe empires

  • How much of the sixth century the climate explains: some give it weight as a cause, and the palaeoclimatologists themselves ask for caution about the causal nexus
  • Whether the eruption of 626 and the cold summer of 627 stand behind the fall of the eastern Göktürk khaganate in 630
  • Whether the drought of 783 to 850 undid the Uyghurs, or the Kirghiz did
Im Text · 1
  • The two studies do not agree on the date at which the cold began to matter for Mongolia. Büntgen's Altai record has the coldest decade in the 540s, before the Göktürk revolt. The lake has the good years running to about 600, so that the first khaganate rose in favourable conditions and broke in bad ones.

The Bökli question

  • Whether bökli čölgil is one name with an epithet or two separate states
  • Whether Bökli is Goguryeo
  • Whether čölgil is 'of the steppe' or Čülüg el, the realm of the Čü, that is the Northern Zhou
  • Whether the first word is one word or two, and whether it means Bökli, the land of Bök, or the people of the forest
Im Text · 6
  • The word bökli stands twice in the Kül Tegin inscription. Both times it marks the eastern edge of the Göktürk world. It is the one place where the Göktürks' own monuments may name a Korean state, and the common view is that they do so. It is not the only view, and the difference is large. On the first view the east of the world is Korea. On the second it is a Chinese dynasty.
  • Li Yong-Song has argued that Čölgil is Čülüg el, the realm of the Čü, and that this is the Northern Zhou. In that case the two words are two states, not a name and its epithet. The second of them is a Chinese dynasty.
  • In a paper read to the Turkish History Congress of 1976, Masao Mori divides it into two words, bök eli.
  • He takes the second for the state of Gaogouli, the Chinese name of Goguryeo, east of the Göktürk realm.
  • Tekin, in his edition of 1988, reads bük(e)li instead, "people of the forest". He did so without knowing Mori's reading.
  • The scholar who reports both readings holds the forest reading to be wrong.

The Göktürks and the Xiongnu

  • Whether the Ashina descended from the Xiongnu, as the Zhou Shu states, or are linked to them only by a Chinese comparison and by the Xiongnu houses of the Gansu frontier
  • Whether the likenesses in title, rite, rank and custom show descent, a stock of institutions common to the steppe, or the habit of the Chinese compilers in writing of the north
  • Whether the ruling stratum of the Xiongnu spoke Turkic, Yeniseian, an Iranian language or one that cannot be classified
  • Whether Chengli Gutu Chanyu renders Teŋri Kut Tanyu, or Gutu means son, as the Han Shu glosses it
  • Whether 頭曼 and 冒頓 render Duman and Bagatur or personal names that cannot be recovered
  • Where the Ashina took shape: in the Xiongnu country, in Pingliang and the Northern Liang, in Eastern Turkestan or in the state of Suo
Im Text · 17
  • Pulleyblank counted the Gaoche among the Turkic-speaking peoples. He did not take the Wei Shu statement seriously.
  • Edwin Pulleyblank put it more bluntly in 1990. He held that the connection with the Xiongnu probably rests on nothing more than the likeness of their role on the Chinese frontier under the Sui and the Tang to that of the Xiongnu under the Han.
  • Ahmet Taşağıl identifies the "various hu of Pingliang" as Xiongnu.
  • He holds that the Zhao, the Xia and the Northern Liang carried on a Turkic culture in north China.
  • The Turkish literature draws the wolf story into the argument for descent. Bahaeddin Ögel understands the wolf legends of the Wusun, the Gaoche and the Göktürks as one line that begins inside the Xiongnu realm.
  • He holds that the wolf belongs to the Turks and not to the Mongols. In his view the Turkic family is built on the father's line and the she-wolf is the great mother.
  • Pulleyblank held in 1990 that the Xiongnu words in Chinese transcription cannot be interpreted as Turkic or as any other Altaic language.
  • Paul Pelliot found gutu again in the title of a Rouran khan. He regarded the Göktürk titles that end in -fa as a Rouran legacy of Mongolic form.
  • Others decline to reconstruct either name. They regard 頭曼 and 冒頓 as personal names that cannot be recovered.
  • He holds that the Göktürks saw themselves as the continuation of the great Xiongnu state, as the many Xiongnu titles in their state show.
  • İbrahim Kafesoğlu holds that the Xiongnu state took its form from the steppe and not from China. He names a central command, an army ordered by tens, wings on the left and the right, and an assembly of the ruling men.
  • He regards the Tuge, the leading Xiongnu tribe of the third and fourth centuries, as the people whose name stands behind that of the Turks.
  • Kafesoğlu holds it very probable that the Ashina came from the family of Modu. He bases that on the Chinese statement of descent, the wolf legend and the story of the survivor of the Ashina after the fall of the Northern Liang in 439.
  • Faruk Sümer counts the Chinese derivation of the Göktürks, the Uyghurs and the Kirghiz from the Xiongnu among the main proofs.
  • Sümer also sets the left and right wings and the twenty-four commanders of the Xiongnu beside the two branches and twenty-four tribes of the Oghuz. He does not accept that Oghuz Khan was Modu, because the Oghuz epic was written some fifteen hundred years later and knowledge of the twenty-four tribes goes back no further than the eleventh century.
  • Zeki Velidi Togan accepts the identification, which de Guignes and Bichurin had proposed. He names marvellous arrows and horses, a division into four and twenty-four, a son and successor Gün Han, and the killing of the father on the hunt.
  • A Turkish national-historical view, set out by İbrahim Kafesoğlu, treats the Xiongnu realm as the first of a single line of Turkic states and as the model of the later ones.

The Huns and the Xiongnu

  • Whether the Huns of Europe continue the Xiongnu of Inner Asia, and in what sense: by descent, by name, by the continuity of a state, or not at all
  • What language the core of the Huns spoke, and whether it was the language of the Xiongnu: an early form of Arin, a Yeniseian language, for both in one recent proposal
  • Whether the northern Xiongnu can be followed west from the Ili after 158, or whether each later stage of the route is an inference from notices of other peoples
  • Whether the king of Sute in the Wei Shu was Attila's son Ernak
Im Text · 20
  • The first position identifies the Huns with the Xiongnu and holds that the elite of both was Turkic-speaking.
  • İbrahim Kafesoğlu regards the Huns of Europe as descendants of the Asiatic Xiongnu. He gives four groups of reasons. The first is Greek and Latin notices that place the Huns east of Bactria and on the maps.
  • The second is Hirth's interpretation of the Wei Shu and Ammianus on the conquest of the Alans in the years 355 to 365.
  • The third is the Sogdian letter on Luoyang.
  • The fourth is the names and language of the ruling house.
  • He holds that the ruling house was Turkic by descent and that the mass of the Huns spoke Turkic.
  • Maenchen-Helfen objected that a gap of two centuries without written evidence does not allow the equation. Kafesoğlu rejects the objection and gives no counter-evidence.
  • Zeki Velidi Togan holds the Huns, the Xiongnu and the Turks to be one line. He regards the Xiongnu state before the Common Era as a union of widely spread Ogur tribes that rested above all on the Oghuz tribes, and gives its general name as Kun.
  • Bahaeddin Ögel seeks the beginnings of Attila's Huns in the events of the age of Modu. He cites Parker, who made Attila's Huns the children of Mete and the Göktürks those who stayed behind. He finds that Parker's view concerns very distant regions and much later times.
  • Kafesoğlu holds that the rulers called themselves by a word that means 'people' in Turkic, and he sets out a sound history for the name, from Kwan and Gun through Kun to Khun. Maenchen-Helfen objected to the equation, and Shafer defended it.
  • Pulleyblank derived Xiongnu from a form with an initial cluster, close to the Greek Phrounoi of Apollodorus, as Haloun had proposed. He held that this does not exclude a link with the Indian Hūṇa and the Hunni of the western writers.
  • He doubted, however, that the Chinese historians were right to count the early northern peoples called Hunyu and Xunyu among the ancestors of the Xiongnu on the strength of their names. He doubted that Sima Qian thought the names the same.
  • Bahaeddin Ögel gives the view of Klaproth, Hirth and Franke that the Xiongnu who went west in 91 settled between Lake Balkhash and the Aral lakes. He does not clearly adopt it. He regards the Yueban as the old Xiongnu of the Tian Shan and the newcomers of 91 together.
  • These names may be the trace of a Hun conquest of Sogdiana. The conquest came not before the end of the fourth century and more probably in the fifth. A mixing of Sogdians and invaders followed.
  • Another view looks to the Tian Shan, where a group of graves of the first centuries AD, best known from the cemetery of Kenkol, shows deformed skulls of men, women and children, Chinese silk, bows stiffened with bone plates and a wooden saddle. A. N. Bernštam regards the group as part of the Xiongnu union and as ancestors of the Huns.
  • Kafesoğlu lists many of them. Mundzuc is explained as boncuk, 'bead' or 'standard', Dengizich as dengiz, 'sea', Ernak as 'small man', and Attila as Etil, the Turkic name of the Volga.
  • Rásonyi prefers Etil too. He notes, however, that Schönfeld derives Attila from Gothic Atta-ila, and that Hungarian scholars explain the name in yet another way.
  • He lists other peoples that scholars have made of the Huns: Finno-Ugrians, Slavs, Germans and Caucasians. Pelliot and Grousset saw a mixture of Turkic and Mongolic.
  • A survey of Avar genetics draws a line of its own. It notes that the Y lines Q and N, found among the Xiongnu, also occur among part of the Avars, among Huns and among Magyars. It reads this as a continuity from the Xiongnu to the Huns and to later Turkic-speaking peoples.
  • The identification and a Turkic-speaking elite remain the first position.

The Khakas name debate

  • Whether Xiajiasi is a Chinese spelling of the name of the Kirghiz or the name of a medieval Khakas state
  • Whether Khakas was a name of the people of the Minusinsk basin before 1917 and 1918
  • Whether the modern self-name khaas, khaash goes back to a medieval form
Im Text · 2
  • Butanaev's line of reply was continued after the exchange. Mikhail A. Chertikov holds that most Khakas descend from Yenisei Kirghiz who came back from Dzungaria, to which they had moved in 1703 and 1706.
  • He calls the Fuyu Kirghiz of north-eastern China the surviving ethnic group of the Yenisei Kirghiz and an isolated group of the Khakas.

The Khazar–Ashkenazi hypothesis

  • Whether Khazars contributed anything to the ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews, and how much
  • Whether the Khazar elite converted to Judaism at all
  • Whether any genetic method can detect a Khazar contribution of small size
Im Text · 1
  • Shaul Stampfer denies even this and calls the conversion a legend without factual basis.

The Kirghiz descent from Li Ling

  • Whether the Kirghiz kept a memory of their descent from Li Ling or took the claim up to gain a special relation with the Tang house
  • Whether Li Ling ruled the Jiankun, as modern accounts have it, or was made Right Worthy King, as the Xin Tang Shu has it
Im Text · 1
  • Some count the Xiongnu among the Turks. This position takes the derivation of the Göktürks, the Uyghurs and the Kirghiz from the Xiongnu in the Chinese sources as one of its main proofs.

The Kirghiz origin debatekurz

  • Where the Jiankun, the ancestors of the Kirghiz in the Han sources, lived: in north-western Mongolia, on the Yenisei or in the eastern Tian Shan
  • Whether the Xiongnu set Li Ling over the Jiankun in the Minusinsk basin
  • Whether the Kirghiz were Turkic from the start or a Samoyedic or palaeo-Siberian people Turkicized later
Im Text · 1
  • The answers to the question of their first home differ. They name north-western Mongolia, the Minusinsk basin and the eastern Tian Shan.

The language of the Xiongnu

  • Whether the language of the ruling stratum was Turkic, Yeniseian, Eastern Iranian or none of these
  • Whether the Jie whose couplet the Jin Shu preserves were a branch of the Xiongnu at all
  • Whether the Eastern Iranian words are a stratum of the language or loans into it
  • Whether the language of the ruling stratum, and that of the Huns of Europe, was an early form of Arin, a Yeniseian language, as one recent hypothesis proposes
Im Text · 26
  • Pulleyblank's own case of 1962 rests on sounds as well as words. The Han transcriptions show no aspirated stops. Common Mongol is thought to have had strongly aspirated ones, and Turkic is not. To that extent he found the sounds closer to Turkic than to Mongolic.
  • He judged nevertheless that the language was not closely like any form of Turkic or Mongolic that is known, and was unlikely to have been Altaic at all.
  • He ruled out Sino-Tibetan, and found no sign of a genetic tie to Indo-European.
  • The Yeniseian languages remained. One of his comparisons was the Hu word for 'boot', sak-dak, which Ligeti had already set beside Ket sagdi.
  • Harold Bailey offered an Iranian origin for the same word, which Pulleyblank gave in a note and did not rule out.
  • A further one set the reconstructed Xiongnu word for 'son' beside Yeniseian words for 'son'.
  • The Turkic interpretations of the title go further. F. W. K. Müller identified chengli gutu with Old Turkic täŋri qut, 'holy majesty'.
  • Pulleyblank judged that Müller's identification becomes less plausible once the Han-period form of the word is reconstructed. He reconstructed the Han form of the word as something like \kwala, with a foreign l in the second syllable.
  • Kurakichi Shiratori rejected Müller's identification too. He regarded gutu as a Tungusic word, hutta, 'son'.
  • Pulleyblank doubted that as well, because the phonetic resemblance is vague once the Han form is reconstructed.
  • Two further Turkic comparisons concern the title shanyu and the Xiongnu word for the ceremonial sword. Gerard Clauson suggested that the title shanyu is the Turkic yabgu.
  • Togan made the same equation, and Esin interprets the whole title as the Turkic phrase 'Tengri Kut Yabgu'.
  • Pulleyblank rejected the equation. The Han form is a poor phonetic match for yabgu. The Han Chinese also had a good transcription of yabgu of their own, xihou, which they used for officers of the Wusun and the Yuezhi.
  • Bahaeddin Ögel holds that the title yabgu was already a first-rank office among the Xiongnu, as it later was among the Göktürks. He holds that the Kushan rulers took it from them.
  • The sword word, Chinese jinglu, has been set beside Turkic kıŋrak, 'large knife', and has been called the oldest Turkic word on record.
  • Pulleyblank found the match in meaning and sound striking. He pointed out that the Turkic word probably has a connection with Iranian words for 'sword' as well.
  • By 1926 he regarded the Xiongnu as a mainly Mongolic people with some Tungusic admixture. He regarded shanyu as a Chinese expression, and yanzhi and gutu as Tungusic words, and called the attribution to the Turks a long-established habit of Western scholars.
  • Harold Bailey argued for Eastern Iranian. Lajos Ligeti and Edwin Pulleyblank argued for Yeniseian. In 1962 Pulleyblank set that case out, and also described the Turkic position as the most widely held one in Western scholarship. He noted that the Chinese statement of descent has little evidential value in itself. By the time the Göktürks appeared in the sixth century, the Xiongnu had long since disappeared.
  • He named the equation of chengli with tängri as the main support of the Turkic position.
  • Zeki Velidi Togan regarded the Xiongnu as a Turkic people, perhaps the ancestors of the Oghuz and the Kipchaks.
  • Faruk Sümer counted them among the Turks and took the Chinese derivation of the Göktürks, Uyghurs and Kirghiz from them as one of the main proofs.
  • İbrahim Kafesoğlu adds sky, power, wolf, realm, camp, standard and sabre. He takes the lists back to Shiratori's work of 1900 and De Groot's of 1921, and holds that the ruling stratum and the dynasty spoke Turkic.
  • He also holds that the rulers called themselves by a word that means 'people' in Turkic. Otto Maenchen-Helfen objected to this equation, and Shafer defended it.
  • A second argument draws on culture, not on words. Kafesoğlu points to the steppe way of life, the cult of Heaven and the family built on the law of the father. He adds that Turkic herders kept horses and sheep, and that the Mongols and the Tungus kept pigs.
  • Ögel likewise holds that the Xiongnu and the Turks kept no pigs, and that the Donghu kept many.
  • Paul Pelliot took a different line on the titles. He found the element gutu again in the title of a Rouran khan. He regarded the endings in -fa of several Göktürk titles as a Rouran legacy of Mongolic form.

The making of Tengrism

  • Whether the Altaian and Siberian material of the modern period continues Göktürk religion or replaced it
  • Whether a comparative reconstruction of this kind can establish anything about the eighth century
  • Whether Tengrism is a religion, a scholarly construct, or a modern movement
Im Text · 7
  • One strand of Turkish writing goes back further still. It derives the sky religion of the Zhou dynasty in north-western China from Turkic tribes and regards it as the oldest layer of Turkic sky worship.
  • One scholar of early Turkic iconography saw in these notices evidence that the Xiongnu and the Göktürks worshipped a dragon god taken over from China, and a god of time taken over from India.
  • The answer identifies "dragon" in the Hou Han Shu as a place name, the country of the Ongin river, and denies a dragon cult among both peoples. It holds that the dragon of the Göktürk calendar is only the name of a year. It holds that the god of time rests on a misreading of the inscription's öd tengri yasar, which it understands to say that Tengri orders the time.
  • Another proposal is that the dragon came to the Turks very early as a motif from China, and that the Xiongnu named their capital after it.
  • The scholar who gave that answer also denied that the wolf ancestor of the Göktürks was a totem. His reasons were patrilineal descent, private property, a single sacred animal, no belief in an impersonal power and no worship of the wolf. He took the shaman for a kind of magician, not for the bearer of a Turkic belief system.
  • He held that the Tengri of the inscriptions was one creator without an image, with the sun, the moon and the spirits of earth and water as lesser sacred beings below him.
  • Those years dropped out of the argument. Nobody has shown that the beliefs survived them unchanged. The Turkish synthesis assumed it, and the later encyclopaedias repeated the assumption.

The origin of the Avars

  • Whether the khagans and the ruling nobility of the European Avars came from the Rouran, or the Avars were a composite group that took the name
  • Whether Theophylact's distinction between Avars and pseudo-Avars records a fact, or rests on a chronological error and a literary commonplace
  • What part the Hephthalite realm, the Ogurs and the Töles had in the formation of the Avars
  • Whether a change of language lies between the Rouran and the Avars of Europe
Im Text · 4
  • Durmaz matches the two names of Theophylact to the two parts of the Avars. Var stands for those of Rouran origin and Chunni for Hephthalite remnants, to whom Ogurs were added on the road west. He concedes that this rests on no clear written source.
  • Durmaz joins the two theories. He holds that the Avar migration and the first war of the Hephthalites with the Göktürks fell close together, and that the Avars took in Hephthalite remnants who would not submit. He takes coins of the Kidarite type found in Poland and Hungary as a trace of this.
  • Durmaz objects that N-M178 also occurs among the Xiongnu, the Göktürks and the Tuvans, and the same survey notes that the line occurs among Mongolic speakers too.
  • Durmaz interprets the whole body of data as a mixture: the N, R and Q lines show continuity with the Xiongnu, the Huns and later Turkic-speaking peoples, and the C2b lines show a Rouran part.

The origin of the Old Turkic script

  • Whether the letters derive from an Aramaic alphabet of the eastern Iranian world, from the tamgas, or from both
  • Who made the alphabet, and for what: an embassy, a chancery, or a political turn
  • Whether the Sogdian cursive was already writing Turkic before the runiform letters existed
  • Whether the script was invented once or taken over several times
  • Whether the script began in Mongolia, in southern Siberia, in the Altai or in Central Asia
Im Text · 21
  • Scholars have argued about where the signs come from since Vilhelm Thomsen read them in 1893, and the question is still open.
  • Guzev and Sergey Klyashtorny do not set the two notices against each other. They understand them as two writing systems side by side in the sixth century. One is the script of the Hu. The other is notched wooden sticks, which they count among the forerunners of the runiform signs.
  • Radloff accepted Thomsen's Aramaic origin. He also thought that the runic script of the Goths, whom the Huns met in the west, might have left traces in the Orkhon letters.
  • A second group of theories derives the letters not from an alphabet but from the tamgas. Tamgas were property and clan marks, cut into rock and burned into hides across the steppe. They were then reshaped into a set of sound signs.
  • A third theory combines both. An alphabet known through Sogdian gave the idea and part of the inventory. The tamgas gave the shapes for the rest.
  • Tryjarski holds that the script was not invented once. It was taken over several times, at different moments, on the decision of tribal chiefs and rulers.
  • Besides the Göktürks, he counts the Kirghiz, the Karluks, the Uyghurs, the Chik and the Bulgars among those who took it up. He adds that the Avars and Iranians such as the Alans may also have done so.
  • He reports two ways of sorting the alphabets. Kyzlasov separates an Asian group from a Eurasian group. The Asian group has the Orkhon, the Yenisei and the Talas. The Eurasian group has the Don, the Kuban, the southern Yenisei, Achiktash and Isfara. The script of Nagyszentmiklós belongs to neither.
  • Róna-Tas sets out four phases. The first is the taking over of an Aramaic-type alphabet. The second is the making of new letters for Turkic. The third is the passing of the alphabet to a people with a common Turkic speech. The fourth is the rise of local variants such as the Yenisei texts.
  • Viktor Guzev regards the script as an independent growth. The signs, he says, show every stage of a writing system side by side: pictures, word signs, syllable signs and letters. He holds that this would be impossible if the script had been copied from a finished alphabet.
  • Guzev argues against both the Aramaic and the Sogdian derivation. His argument rests on how the script is built, not on its shapes. A script copied from an alphabet would keep its inner form. The runiform signs keep word and syllable values that no alphabet has.
  • For the outer form, he finds the tamgas a better match than Sogdian letters.
  • Guzev and Sergey Klyashtorny put the matter differently. In their view, the script was not invented in the sixth or seventh century but reformed then. Existing sign forms were sorted into a standard alphabet. Some of them received new sound values.
  • They list three ways in which the Göktürk state could meet its need for writing. It could keep a foreign script for the chancery. It could bend the Sogdian cursive to Turkic. Or it could make a script of its own out of the signs already in use. The first was the course of the First Khaganate. The second led to the Old Uyghur script.
  • They also find runiform-looking signs on a silver cup from the Issyk mound near Almaty (see the Issyk inscription). They find such signs on a trilingual stone from Dasht-i Navur in Afghanistan as well. If these prove to be the script of Iranian-speaking nomads, they would be forerunners of the Turks.
  • D. D. Vasilʼev holds that an archaic form of runiform writing existed first in the Altai and the Sayan. It is found in short texts on rock at natural places of cult. The Orkhon script is, he says, this older writing, reformed under strong Sogdian influence in the second half of the seventh century.
  • He argues against an early derivation from Sogdian in the oases of eastern Turkestan. No early runiform texts have come from there, and the oldest and most primitive ones are found in the Altai.
  • A. M. Şçerbak places the birth of the script in southern Siberia, because most of the runiform texts are found there.
  • He holds that it arose most probably under the Second Khaganate, since no earlier runiform text is known.
  • Kasımcan Sadıkov thinks it more probable that the script took shape in Central Asia and spread from there to the Altai and the Orkhon valley. He thinks it less probable that it travelled west from the Orkhon and Yenisei region.
  • Guzev takes the opposite view of the signs. He reads the signs for ok, ök and ık, and the cluster signs such as nt, nç and rt, as word or syllable signs of the form vowel plus consonant, not as letters.

The origin of the title Khan

  • Who first bore the title: Shelun of the Rouran about 400, or a Xianbei chief of the third century
  • Which language the word comes from: Mongolic, the speech of the Rouran, Eastern Iranian, an Old Hunnic form, or the speech of the clan
  • Whether khan and khagan are one title or two ranks, and whether the shorter form comes from the longer
  • Whether the title stands in a line with the Xiongnu chanyu or replaced it
Im Text · 3
  • The two positions differ on the case of 261, where the word is part of a name for Shiratori and the title for the other.
  • Ümit Hassan argues from the other side. Before the word was a rank, he says, it was a manifestation of the order of the clan. He cites the old name of the Great Bear, Yatıkan, the mountain names Akbakan and Ötüken, and the shaman called kan by some peoples.
  • Hassan criticises both writers for treating the matter as a history of titles, and not as a history of social organisation.

The steppe before the Xiongnu

  • Where and when pastoral nomadism arose: spreading from west to east, arising in South Siberia and northern Mongolia, or arising at about the same time across the whole steppe
  • Whether cavalry warfare began on the steppe or among the Assyrians
  • The ethnic identity of the Cimmerians, and whether their name was an ethnonym at all
  • When elements of the Turkic-speaking peoples took up equestrian nomadism; the late fifth century BC is Golden's possibility, not a finding
Im Text · 3
  • One national-historical view regards the Andronovo culture as the culture of the ancestors of the Turks. It rests on the physical type of the skeletons and on the spread of horse and sheep.
  • The home of the Turkic-speaking peoples has been sought in the Altai, between the Irtysh and the Urals, south-west of Lake Baikal, east of the Altai and in the Khingan range.
  • Outside the Minusinsk basin that culture belonged to equestrian pastoral nomads of probable Scytho-Saka origin, organised in tribal unions. The famous burials of Pazyryk in the Altai are its best-known example. An older view of the 1950s assigned them to the second century BC and to the culture of the great Xiongnu state, against the dating to the fifth to third century BC.

The Turkic ethnogenesis debate

  • Every proposition in the debate is a position, held by a named author on stated grounds
Im Text · 8
  • The names of the two Xiongnu founders bear on the question directly. The Chinese wrote 頭曼 and 冒頓. The Turkic school takes them to be Duman and baġatur, the second being a word the steppe kept for two thousand years. A second view regards them as personal names that cannot be recovered. The article on Bagatur sets out how the reconstruction is arrived at and what it rests on.
  • In 1908 he added that the runic script of the Goths, whom the Huns met in the west, might have left traces in it.
  • The Székely of Transylvania count themselves descendants of the Huns. According to one theory, their runic script rests on the Old Turkic one.
  • L. Yu. Tugusheva goes furthest. She derives the Old Turkic script from the writing of an "Old Europe" that existed before the Indo-Europeans. Her ground is Marija Gimbutas's interpretation of Old European signs as a script. In her account, the Huns took the script over in Europe, and the Göktürks could have received it from them.
  • She argues from likenesses between the two scripts, not from a comparison of inscriptions. Both scripts are said to be phonetic, to have about thirty basic signs, to run from right to left and to serve as a sacred script.
  • These are positions, and the Rouran's own language is unknown. The literature also reports a derivation of the name Rouran from Turkic börü, "wolf", by the Turkologist Bahaeddin Ögel. The Chinese characters give no evident ground for it.
  • There are three interpretations. The first identifies bökli with Koguryŏ and the phrase as "the Bökli of the steppe". This makes Korea the easternmost of the peoples who sent envoys to Ötüken. The second sees two separate polities, of which only the first could be Korean. The third denies the equation altogether. The article on the question sets the interpretations out. What matters is that the word is the whole of the evidence. It is two syllables in a monument of 732, and no Chinese or Korean source names an embassy to match them.
  • Anazawa Wako and Roh Taedon identify the figures as envoys of Koguryŏ. Kim Won-yong first took them for men of Silla. A further doubt asks whether the pair record an embassy at all or reproduce a stock image of Koreans.

The Turkish–Korean friendship narrative

  • Whether the Orkhon passages support any relation between the Göktürks and Goguryeo beyond naming and campaigning
  • How much of the modern narrative comes from the Korean War and how much from the inscriptions
Im Text · 1
  • Whether bökli is Goguryeo at all is a matter of interpretation. One word beside it may not even refer to Korea. The Bökli question sets that out. The proposed pictorial contact is an embassy in feathered caps in the Afrasiab paintings. It rests on an identification that is not settled.

The Yenisei Kirghiz and the Kyrgyzkurz

  • Whether the Kyrgyz of the Tian Shan descend from the Yenisei Kirghiz, or only took their name
  • Whether the Kirghiz came to the Tian Shan from the time of the Xiongnu, in the ninth and tenth centuries, or only under the Mongols
Im Text · 5
  • The runiform script enters the argument as well. Some hold that the script belonged to the Kirghiz alone and not to the Turks at large. They point to the inscriptions found in Kyrgyzstan and to the name Kirghiz in the texts.
  • The origin of other peoples of the upper Yenisei is argued from clan names. Igor Kormushin, who reads the Yenisei epitaphs, holds that the Tuvan clan names Tülüş, Ondar and Kırgıs are certainly linked with the old Töles, the On Uyghur and the Kirghiz.
  • In his account, Ket and Samoyed speakers lived in Tuva in early times. They passed over to a Turkic language.
  • They formed one people.
  • Mikhail A. Chertikov, citing V. Ya. Butanaev, holds that most Khakas descend from Yenisei Kirghiz who returned from Dzungaria. The Kirghiz had moved to Dzungaria in 1703 and 1706.

Turkic-Sogdian Synthesiskurz

  • Whether the Sogdians first met the nomads from their bases in Gansu before the Göktürks, or whether the encounter that mattered took place in Sogdiana after 560
Im Text · 1
  • Others grant the Sogdians of Gansu but find them scattered along a road. In their view, the encounter that gave the Göktürks their script, their chancery and their merchants took place in Sogdiana. Sogdiana was a country of cities, which the Göktürks conquered and governed through its own men.

Xiongnu: Making the First Steppe Empire

  • Whether the unification of China called the Xiongnu empire into being, or the two grew together over centuries, or neither
  • Whether the Xiongnu polity was an early state or a super-complex chiefdom
  • Whether the imperial apparatus of the Xiongnu has a Chinese source
Im Text · 4
  • Another view lets the steppe empire grow out of the margins. Groups of semi-nomads from the edges of China, the Altai forests and the oases moved into the open steppe. There, once they had left the compromises of border life behind, they took the form that appears with Duman and Bagatur.
  • The decisive test lies not in the timing but in the apparatus. The Xiongnu had an army organised on decimal lines, a government of paired offices, imperial rituals, a centralised conduct of trade and diplomacy, and a language of heaven-given sovereignty. An older interpretation, that of Kurakichi Shiratori in 1930, derives the title chanyu, the sacrifice to Heaven and the use of bronze images among the Xiongnu from Qin and Han China.
  • A comparison of the name with Teleut qiŋiraq, "double-bladed knife", has been called striking in sense and sound, but the Turkic word is itself joined to Iranian forms in Wakhi, Sogdian and Persian, and the relation between the Turkic and the Iranian forms remains to be elucidated. The Xiongnu form seems likely to have been closer to the Turkic than to the Iranian forms.
  • A national-historical interpretation takes the whole matter the other way. It holds that the steppe produced one steppe culture, Turkic at its core and resting on the horse and on iron, whose bearers were the Turks from the Andronovo period. On it the Xiongnu, the Huns, the Tuoba, the Göktürks and the later steppe empires carried the culture on.

Fünf Sprachen

Der Atlas in deiner Sprache

Menüs, Chronologien und bewegte Karten stehen in allen fünf Sprachen, dazu 304 Artikel.

Neu, Grundstufe:OʻzbekchaҚазақшаКыргызча