![\"\"](\"http:\/\/sites.miamioh.edu\/hst-journeys\/files\/2018\/09\/Kul_Tigin-200x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
By Madilyn Clawson<\/p>\n
The history of nomadic peoples is often lumped into the histories of neighboring sedentary empires, which frequently lack accuracy and detail in their depiction of individuals and events. Many nomadic peoples did not record their own history, because they often moved from one place to another and it simply would not have been practical to maintain an extensive history. The T\u00fcrks were an exceptional nomadic group because they kept records of their empire; this has allowed modern scholars to better understand the T\u00fcrks and their relationship with the Chinese Empire. History appears to have been an important tool for the T\u00fcrks. The T\u00fcrks utilized the recording of history as a source of legitimation for their empire and a source of unification among their people. Additionally, history was used to distribute collective ideas across Inner Asia and to document the important role of the T\u00fcrks in Inner Asia for future generations.<\/p>\n
The T\u00fcrk Empire began slowly after the dissolution of the Juan-juan. The Juan-juan did not leave behind any written records of their own. Therefore, everything that is known about these people has been learned from Chinese records. Unfortunately, these transcriptions \u201ccontain little information of real interest\u201d concerning the Turk\u2019s predecessors.[1]<\/a> Each Chinese dynasty would transcribe the history of the former dynasty in order to have a complete history of the empire but oftentimes these histories were criticized for their inaccuracies or rushed creation. It is possible that the Chinese records left out a great deal of history, especially that of certain people or events that may have seemed insignificant to the great Chinese Empire. The Chiu T\u2019ang Shu<\/em> gives the history of the T\u2019ang dynasty which includes mention of the T\u00fcrks; mainly the founding of the Second T\u00fcrk Empire, which the writer refers to as a \u201crebellion\u201d.[2]<\/a> The founding of the Second T\u00fcrk Empire is also included in the K\u00fcl Tigin inscription, the funerary stele of K\u00fcl Tigin, created by his brother, Bilg\u00e4 Kagan.[3]<\/a> However, rather than simply calling the actions of his father, \u0130lteri\u0161 Kagan, a \u201crebellion,\u201d[4]<\/a> Bilg\u00e4 Kagan gives a more extensive history of the founding of the T\u00fcrk Empire and refers to his father\u2019s campaigns as \u201corganized\u201d and \u201cordered,\u201d which indicates that these military actions were not merely an impulsive rebellion, but rather an act that was facilitated by the Turkish god, so that \u201cthe Turkish people would not go to ruin\u201d.[5]<\/a> This difference in the conception of history may have inspired the T\u00fcrks to record their own history so that their people would know the truth (or the accepted T\u00fcrkic version) about the events that took place between the Chinese and the T\u00fcrks. The K\u00fcl Tigin inscription warns about the \u201cwily and deceitful\u201d Chinese people, so it stands to reason that the T\u00fcrks might not have trusted the Chinese to document their history and would have certainly wanted to produce their own for the people living at the time and in the future.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n The production of history by the T\u00fcrks may have also been a strategy for nation-building. The author of the K\u00fcl Tigin repeatedly addresses the \u201cTurkish people,\u201d as though working to remind readers that they are T\u00fcrks.[7]<\/a> Beckwith writes about the separation between the Western Turkic realm and the Eastern T\u00fcrk realm, saying that \u201cthe two halves of the empire became increasingly separate over time,\u201d which might have contributed to the decline of the First T\u00fcrk Empire around 630 CE.[8]<\/a> The monument establishes the T\u00fcrks as a people by instituting a collective history and giving them advice for the future. It instructs the T\u00fcrkish people to \u201c[h]ear these words of mine well, and listen hard!\u201d because Bilg\u00e4 Kagan wanted the T\u00fcrkish people to not only learn the history, but learn from it.[9]<\/a> Using history to project a certain idea or lesson would have been an effective governing technique, especially in a large area like the T\u00fcrk empires of Inner Asia. The inscriptions on the stele were meant to be read aloud by passersby. This is why it was erected in a high traffic area where many people would be able to hear the words of Bilg\u00e4 Kagan read aloud by literate T\u00fcrks.[10]<\/a> The formation of a common history would have helped to create a sense of unity among the people.<\/p>\n In their individual works, both Denis Sinor and Christopher Beckwith grapple with the question of what made these people T\u00fcrks, which is a very difficult, if not impossible, question to attempt to answer completely. Today, scholars attempt to determine which groups in the past should be considered T\u00fcrks. However, distinguishing T\u00fcrks from non-T\u00fcrks was a problem in the past as well. Sinor writes about \u201cT\u00fcrk splinter groups\u201d that were \u201cethnically and linguistically similar to or identical with the T\u00fcrks proper, but living either on the fringes or beyond the borders of the centrally governed T\u00fcrk states,\u201d who might not have identified as T\u00fcrks even though they spoke the same language and lived near the edge of the state.[11]<\/a> Monuments like the K\u00fcl Tigin inscription would have certainly influenced the way in which its readers viewed themselves. The inscription repeatedly addresses the reader saying, \u201cO Turkish people\u201d five times on the southern inscription alone, which I believe would have had an effect on its audience.[12]<\/a> Hearing the words of Bilg\u00e4 Kagan read aloud describing the history of the empire and chronicling the life of the great hero K\u00fcl Tigin might have inspired the listener or reader to want to identify as a member of this great T\u00fcrk state, rather than be a member of a small group associated with the T\u00fcrks.<\/p>\n According to Chinese sources like the Chiu T\u2019ang Shu<\/em>, the T\u00fcrks were \u201cbarbarians\u201d who were often engaged in fights with the Chinese empire.[13]<\/a> However, according to Sinor, the T\u00fcrks were regularly \u201cfighting or forming short-lived alliances with other Inner Asian peoples.\u201d[14]<\/a> This constant fighting among the Inner Asian people may have been another reason for the T\u00fcrks to record their own history in the form of public monuments. The K\u00fcl Tigin inscription repeatedly warns its reader about the dangers of the Chinese, which may have been another nation-building tactic by the T\u00fcrk leaders. If the readers of the stone could collectively recognize the Chinese as their enemy, they might work together to defend against the Chinese rather than fighting amongst themselves. Also, this notion that the Chinese were the enemy of the T\u00fcrks might have encouraged other groups of people to identify as T\u00fcrks based solely on the fact that they lived in the same area, spoke similar languages, and were enemies of the Chinese as well. This would have helped to create a larger, stronger state full of people willing to call themselves T\u00fcrks.<\/p>\n The writing of history could be seen as a legitimation strategy by the leaders of the T\u00fcrks. The Chinese empires had an extensive history, so perhaps the T\u00fcrks saw historical recordkeeping as an indication of power. After the fall of the Juan-juan, the only record of them was that of the Chinese empire, which described the people as \u201c\u2018another kind of Hsiung-nu,\u2019\u201d or \u201cbarbarian.\u201d[15]<\/a> It is possible that the T\u00fcrks observed this misrepresentation and realized the importance of recording their own history so that future generations would know the true history of the T\u00fcrks. There are a number of discrepancies between the history of the T\u00fcrks according to the Chinese compared to that of the T\u00fcrks themselves. According to Beckwith, some differences between accounts concerning T\u00fcrk invasions are due to the Chinese inventing stories in order to \u201cjustify the subsequent massive aggression by the T\u2019ang against the T\u00fcrk.\u201d[16]<\/a> Historians today have a good understanding of the complexity of the T\u00fcrks, which would not be possible if the only documentation of the T\u00fcrks came from Chinese imperial records.<\/p>\n The T\u00fcrks were a very dynamic people whose history cannot be defined simply as a small part of the history of the Chinese Empire. To the people of Central Asia, history might have represented power. The Chinese employed historians to keep accurate records of their dynasties, so the T\u00fcrks most likely viewed written history as an indication of authority. If you were able to write things down and create actual records, you had a sense of influence and prestige. Unlike the Juan-juan who came before them, the T\u00fcrks are not described as simple barbarians. This is because they kept their own histories that brought into question the Chinese records considered by many to be accurate representations of other groups. T\u00fcrk history cannot be accepted as completely accurate either, but it does allow historians to have a different perspective concerning the same events. The T\u00fcrks seem to have understood the importance of history in all of its uses. The T\u00fcrks utilized history as a way to legitimate their empire, inspire unity among the T\u00fcrks, promulgate their collective ideas concerning other groups, and to keep an accurate record of their important role in Inner Asia.<\/p>\n \u00a0NOTES<\/em><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Denis Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution of the T\u00fcrk Empire,” in\u00a0The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, <\/em>ed. Denis Sinor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 291.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Liu Mau-tsai,\u00a0Die chinesischen Nachrichlen zur Geschichte der Ost-T\u00fcrken (T’u-kiie)<\/em>, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1958), 158.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Daniel Prior, “Unit 5: Turk Empires ” (lecture, History 324: Eurasian Nomads and History, Upham Hall 289, Oxford, November 3, 2017).<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Liu Mau-tsai,\u00a0Die chinesischen Nachrichlen zur Geschichte der Ost-T\u00fcrken (T’u-kiie)<\/em>, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1958), 158.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Talat Tekin,\u00a0A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic<\/em>\u00a0(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), 265.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Talat Tekin,\u00a0A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic<\/em>\u00a0(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), 264.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Talat Tekin,\u00a0A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic<\/em>\u00a0(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), 262.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Christopher I. Beckwith,\u00a0Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present\u00a0<\/em>(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 117.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Talat Tekin,\u00a0A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic<\/em>\u00a0(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), 261.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Daniel Prior, “Unit 5: Turk Empires ” (lecture, History 324: Eurasian Nomads and History, Upham Hall 289, Oxford, November 3, 2017).<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Denis Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution of the T\u00fcrk Empire,” in\u00a0The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, <\/em>ed. Denis Sinor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 289.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Talat Tekin,\u00a0A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic<\/em>\u00a0(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), 262.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> Liu Mau-tsai,\u00a0Die chinesischen Nachrichlen zur Geschichte der Ost-T\u00fcrken (T’u-kiie)<\/em>, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1958), 170-171.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Denis Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution of the T\u00fcrk Empire,” in\u00a0The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, <\/em>ed. Denis Sinor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 312.<\/p>\n