You are not connected. Please login or register

Old Pecheneg-Qangars during the periods of the Old Turkic Qaghanate

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

The place of settlement and political role
of the Old Pecheneg-Qangars during the
periods of the Old Turkic Qaghanate as an
element of the Kazakh peoples (Through
the analysis of Old Chinese documents
excavated from the Astana tombs of the
Turfan Basin of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous
Region of China)

Takashi ÔSAWA
As. Professor of Osaka University of Foreing Studies/Turkic Studies.
(OSAKA, Japan)

It is well known that the Yili Steppe has been strategically important regions for
the nomad leaders who had placed the headquarters here since the ancient period.
And many itinerants such as Iranians, Indians, Chinese came and went here for
going travel or trading through their network connecting the Eurasian regions.
This view is effective under the Western Turkish Qaghanate in the latter half of
the 6th century AD. According to the analysis of a stone statue that has Sogdian
inscriptions discovered in the place named Mongolküre, Zhaosu district around the
Tekes Steppe of the Xinjiang uygur Autonomous regions, I clarified a close relation
in political, diplomatic and cultural fields between Sogdians and the ancient Turkish
peoples under the early Western Turkish Qaghanate(ÔSAWA 1999: 355). Such a
relations between them must be formed through the continual contact not only in
the courts of the Western Turkish Qaghans, but also in the Sogdian colonies not so
far from the Qaghan’s courts of the Yili Steppe. As we know, the same evidence can
be pointed out also in the Eastern Turkish Qaghanate of Mongolia on the basis of
the ancient Chinese sources, while it seems ploblematic where Sogdian colonies is
established (Pulleyblank 1952; Mori 1967; 61-93; Rong 2001: 77-78; De la Vassairre
2003). From this viewpoint, there is an interesting source discovered in Astâna
of the Turfan Basin. In this document a fortressed city named “Gongyue cheng,,
Gongyue (fortressed) city” is repeatedly registered. And in a Chinese chronicle, this
city is clearly recorded as a relay exchange point of the State managed rout from
Beiting city (Bishbalik) to Suyâb city through the three defences of the detachment
of Heishui, Donglin and Xilin, the Shiqi river, the Cheling Mountains, Gomgyue city,
the Sihun River, Zheshimi city, the Yili River (XTS 40: 1047; cf Yan 1985: 602-605;
Chavannes 1969: 12-13). According to the historical-geographical researches, it
can be located in the place near Yining city at present (cf.Map of this paper) ,while
it has been discussing on the origin of this name until now1. In Japanese historian
Prof. Dr. MATSUDA’s view, it seems that this city was called after the “Gongyue”
tribes as one of the Turkic tribes under the Western Turkish Qaghanate by the mid-
7th century, however, in the latter half of the 7th century this tribes moved into the
Western sides of the Yili River and placed their centre along the Narin River that
poured into the Isiqqul lake (MATSUDA 1974: 355; NAITO 1988:284-286). In this
paper, through the analysis of this Turfan document (No. 61) I would like to clarify
the significance of this city as the military and trading center among Sogdians,
Turks and Chinese, and to point out the tract of the Qanghar’s settlement place and
their political role during the ancient Turkic periods.
1 The contents and translation of the Chinese document from No.61
This document belongs to one of the 12 ancient Chinese documents unearthed
from the No.61 tomb of the northern area of Astâna in Turfan in 1966 (Xinjiang Uygur
Autonomous regions museum, The Exibition group 1973: 18) and is consisted of
10 fragments. A record of the life of the deceased person was also discovered from
this tomb, and we can assum that it was written in the date of the 4th of Xianheng
year (673 AD), so it means that his document must have been written in 673 AD
at the latest. Some one calls it to the protectorate-general duhufu of Anxi by Gaochang (Qôchô) district of Xizhou
prefecture>, the other one called it shortly, because
the term of is often repeated. As for the content of this text, it is a
manuscript of a memo of a lawsuit and a deposition obtained from both the plaintiff
Sogdian merchant Caolushan and the accused Chinese merchant Lishaojin,
which later it should be presented to protectorate-general (duhufu) of Anxi by the
Gaochang district of Xizhou prefecture.
Until now, many peoples mentioned partly, however, it is not seemed to be
sufficient consideration except Prof. Huang’s one as ARAKAWA told before (Huang
1983; ARAKAWA1997: 188).
In the following, I try to transcribe and translate this document, comparing
Huang’s work. In the first two lines of this document, however, there is a part of
memorial to the throne, so it seems that it has no relation with the following part,
therefore I omit this. In each line, I put the number.
sides on the lawsuit of Caolushan against Lishaojin, addressed to the protectorategeneral
duhufu by Gaochang (Qôchô) district of Xizhou prefecture under the Tang
dynasty> (66TAM61:17(6), 23(b), 27/2, 27/1(b), 22/(b), 26(b), 27/5(b), 24(b), 16(b),
25, transcript TFCW 6, pp.470-479; manuscript TFCWF 4, pp.275-276; Catalogue,
pl.100, The museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous regions 1972, p.25, pl..42-43).
As to the words underlined in this text, it shows proper nouns such as place
name or personal name etc. The mark of square blank such as □ around a Chinese
character shows that this is reconstructed from the remained part of letter of original
text. And the mark of a blank such as [ ] shows that there was space to be written in
original text. Chinese characters in square shows constructed ones from remaining
parts of a letter, and small letters over the blank line show ones to be estimated
from the context.
Fragment (1)
Admitted to the protectorate-general duhufu of Anxi by Gaochang district with
Caolushan, who is thirty years old.
Submitted respectfully. In the lawsuit of the aforementioned plaintiff is as follows:
“I (admit) to the prefect of Xizhou prefecture. In Gongyue city, there is a Chinese
named Li that recorded in the household registers in the Capital (Changan), …he
had borrowed 275 silk cloths from my elder brother, then went away to Qiuci (Qucha).
(My elder brother?) also went toward Qiuci (Qucha) in pursuit of him, from Gongyue
city. My brother has also some horses, two camels, 4 cattle, a donkey, flower (vase)
and vessel worth 100 silk cloths, moreover treasures worth 100 silk cloths, a saddle
made of China, clothes and goods. This Lisan (Lishaojin) is a Chinese, however, I
make an impassioned speech, I myself an Iranian (hu, i.e. Sogdian) and I cannot
understand Chinese. I myself clearly grasp the circumstances, …
(text contains lacunae)
Fragment (2)
In …there was the place where he came back. I entreat you to take him into
custody and examine him”, he (Caolushan) sued.
Therefore in the deposition obtained from the first questioning of Caolushan
[by the said bureau] is as follows: “Lishaojin went away toward Gongyue city with
my elder brother. Moreover, Caoguoyi and Caoer, and my nephew that I live with
went toward Gongyue city. The said Caoguoyi and Caoer stayed in Gongyue city.
After Lisan had borrowed silk cloths from my elder brother, he went traveling toward
Anxi again. Lisan has already reached Anxi (Qucha), however, my elder brother
(only) has not reached there. This is why I sued Lishaojin, there is no cause to….”
He testified.
Furthermore, in the deposition obtained from the second examination of
Caolushan and likes, “Since I parted from my elder brother, it has been four years.
Caoguoyi and Caoer witnessed with written seals and surnames, and it was Lisan
who went toward (Gongyue city) with them, and there borrowed silk cloths from my
elder brother. I went away in pursuit of Lisan with my nephew (toward Gongyue
city). The said Caoguoyi and Caoer were Iranians (hu, i.e. Sogdian), who live in
“Jinshi” the capital Changan of the Tang dynasty with their family. On the date of
my starting (from Gongyue city) toward Anxi, Caoguoyi and Caoer still stayed in
Gongyue city. Now I have not been in Gongyue city as well as them. When Lisan
was going to come toward Anxi with my elder brother, Gongyue city…”
(text contains lacunae)
Fragment (3)
In the deposition obtained from the third questioning of Caolushan [by the said
bureau] in as follows: “Caolushan is… , and when my elder brother, Caoguoyi and
Caoer etc. was going to start away from Anxi with Lisan, my elder brother would
like Caoer and Caoguoyi to supply with what he needed on the way as the debt of
gratitude, then went toward together with them, at last they succeeded to reach the
castle of Gangyue in safety. Then it was in last year that Lisan stayed in the castle
of Gangyue and borrowed 275 silk cloths from my elder brother. In this case, there
is no record in the regard to the day when he had borrowed from my elder brother,
as for all contracts, my elder brother carried with him. And he also carried many
varieties of goods. After borrowing silk cloths, his repayment to my brother might
have been done after coming back to Anxi. Lishaojin also is a Chinese who was
recorded in the permanent registers of Jingshi (Changan) , and he was a son-inlaw
of the sub-prefect of commandery (Sima) of Anxi prefecture, however, I did not
know his name at that time. Now Lisan has been in Anxi, but my elder brother only
has not reached yet. This is why I am requesting you to examine him”.
Lishaojin has now reached here to be examined. In the deposition obtained from
the first questioning of Lishojin is as follows: “First, I (Lishaojin) did not borrowed
silk cloths from an Iranian (hu, i.e. Sogdian), and I did not intended to return back
toward Anxi along with this Iranian (hu, Sogdian). It is true that I did not go traveling
toward Anxi with an Iranian, and I do not know where he has gone then”.
In the deposition obtained from the second questioning of Lishaojin is as
follows: “When I went traveling toward Gongyue city, I saw that westerners on move
(Sogdian merchants) was going to go traveling toward Gongyue city from Anxi.
On the way, there were Sogdians along with whom I went traveling in front of and
behind me at that time, but I cannot remember how many peoples there are and
what were they called in this company (of this caravan). When I started to return
back to here Anxi, there was nobody being along with me. I cannot plead guilty to a
charge that you investigate, and it is not the truth what he stated.
(text contains lacunae)
Fragment (4, 5, 6)
[Caoyanyan and Caobisha] were captured and taken away [by the officers of the
fortress garrisons (zhen), or forts (shu), or the defense detachment (shouzhou)].
And there are a Chinese commander belonged to…, the manager of horses and
the clerk polishing the horse’s bit escaped, but at last they died. Moreover, in the
distance around 100 Li from Gongyue city, I came across four persons who had
come from Anxi. They told me that when they were going to come here, their bows,
arrows, saddles and horses etc. were plundered by Turks (Tujue). They met me
(Lishaojin) there on their way (toward Gongyue city), so they can be testified to you
that I was not going to come toward Anxi with the Sogdian. I require you to inspect
it. They were ambassadors. Two of them were bringing the imperial letter in their
hands toward the military base established along the Yuhe river, and the other two
persons were going to go toward the military base controlled by the supervisor
Xiangliu2. They said that they have started from Anxi in February of the same year
when I saw them. Now with a memo I require the latter ambassadors to examine
whether they saw an Iranian (hu, Sogdian) going toward Anxi in pursuit of me or
not. So I convinced that the truth will become evident”.
Moreover, in the deposition obtained from the third questioning of Lishaojin is
as follows: by the examination whether [Iranian Caoyanyan?] went in pursuit of
me (Lishaojin) or not, and on the date of his arriving at Gongyue city, Lishaojin
[answered as follows:]…
(text contains lacunae)
Fragment (7)
(text contains lacunae)
it is the truth that [near Gongyue city, Caolushan’s elder brother] Caoyanyan
fought with Caobisha, at last the former [was taken away to Gongyue city
by the officers of the garrisons]. On the date of my borrowing silk cloths [from
Caoyanyan], Caobisha and Caoguoyi were witnessed to our contract. On the day
of my (Lishaojin’s) departure toward Anxi, Caobisha and Caoguoyi have stayed in
Gongyue city yet. Then they intended to leave westwards more than Gongyue city.
I do not know at all whether they are staying in Gongyue city or not, where they are
at present…”.
In the deposition obtained from the fourth questioning of Lishaojin is as follows: “
On the date of my departure from Gongyue city, [Caoyanyan] fought with Caobisha,
then they are captured and taken away to the castle [of Gongyue] by the officers.
This is the truth. Moreover, since I reached Anxi, I has not heard of them. In the first
place, Caolushan suited that … and his elder brother and Lishaojin returned toward
Anxi together, however, it is true what I just answered to you. And Caolushan told
you that he recorded my surname, but Lishaojin has not known the Iranian (hu,
Sogdian) before. Caolushan is insincere, made up a story, and throughout he told
me his name. It is the truth that I Lishaojin went travel toward Gongyue city with the
front and rear of a group of a caravan, including Sogdian merchants, but I did not
go along with his elder brother”.
In the deposition obtained from the fifth questioning of Lishaojin is as follows:
“With the regard to the contract document, Caoyanyan himself kept it. And as to the
contract drawn up… , in the first place Caolushan suited that Lishaojin does not pay
back [the silk cloths that he had borrowed from my elder brother in Gongyue city].
(text contains lacunae)
Fragment (Cool
(text contains lacunae)
It is true and not false that I had borrowed silk cloths from Caoyanyan. At that
time I have not acquainted with Caolushan. At present, however, I recognize that it
is not deniable fact that he Caolushan is the little brother of Caoyanyan. And now
it became evident that he Caolushan does not lie. Therefore I admitted you that
Caolushan should
totally receive 275 silk cloths from me as the repayment, and I would repay to
him those silk cloths in the government office”.
[In the deposition] obtained from the fourth questioning of Caolushan is as
follows: “I (Caolushan) concedes with respectfully that I had not been beside my
elder brother [on drawing up the contract] and Lishaojin had borrowed totally 200
silk cloths from my elder brother and Lishaojin had signed the contract with my
elder brother that he would repay to my elder brother after returning to Anxi.
(text contains lacunae)
2. The component and content of this text
As Prof. Huang and Prof. Wang stated (Huang 1983: 349-350; Wang 1985;
171), it is easy to understand this contents although it has lost and damaged pieces
in it. First from the 3rd line of the fragment (1), we can know that this is a civil
suit addressed from Gaochang (Qôchô) district to the protectorate-general of Anxi
prefecture. Furthermore, in details, it has many careless mistakes in writing and
overwriting with Chinese ink by the Chinese officers. Moreover, it has no official
seal mark of the Gaochang district as generally acquainted in the formal memo.
Such mistakes and being no official seal cannot be made if this is the real memo
that had been submitted to the government office. Therefore we can regard that
this is a manuscript of a memo. In regard to this subject, we can see it from the
fragment (1) that the plaintiff Caolushan requested the accused Lishaojin (Lisan) to
repay 275 silk cloths that Lishaojin had borrowed from Caolushan’s elder brother
Caoyanyan (his name ‘yanyan’ is transcribed from Sog. y(’)my’n having meaning
of the favour of the God Yami) (cf. ARAKAWA 1997: p.202 n.37; cf. Sims-Williams
1992: 81) in the castle of Gongyue, and to clarify the unknown whereabouts of his
elder brother that must have returned back toward Anxi along with Lishaojin. As to
the meaning of Caolushan, a Chinese character Cao means that his native country
was ‘Ishtikhan, the capital of which was Ishtikhan fortressed city’ as one of nine
oasis countries of Sogdiana as well as Kang-Samarkand, An-Bukhara, Shi-Kesh,
Shi-Chach, Mi-Maymurgh, He-Kushaniyya, Huowun and Wudi ) named “Jiu Xing
Zhao Wu” (XTS221: 6243), or “Jiu Xing Hu” in Chinese sources of the Tang period.
And his name that was constructed of two Chinese characters “Lushan” can be
transcribed from Sog. “Ruxshan” having meaning of ‘illumination’ (Henning apud
Pulleyblank 1955: 15 with n.37 on 11; Vaissiere 2002: 138)3. As long as we can
know, many Sogdian merchants formed their colonies in the cities of Jamûkath,
Talas, Navaket/ Krasnaja Rechka, Panjîkath/ Kysmychi, Suyab/ Ak Beshim
around the Semirechiye region and the cities of Aqsu, Qucha, Subashi, Duldur
Âqur, Kachgar, Khotan, Mazar Tagh, Dandan Uiliq Qiemo, Waxxari, Carklik Turfan,
Beshbaliq Qocho/ Astâna, Dunhuang, Hami etc. along the Tarim Basin along the
Silk for the purpose of dwelling there and trade there since the Han dynasty. And
many Sogdian merchnats already had advanced into the capital of China such as
the chief cities of the Chinese dynasties such as Lingzhou, Pingliang, Changan,
Loyang, Taiyuan, Daixian, Quyong, Dingxian, Yingzhou, Beijing, Caoyang, Jixian,
Kaifeng, through the cities of the Ganzu such as Jiuquan, Guzang, Liaozhou
according to the Ancient letters of Sogdian merchants from Dunhuang documents
and the Chinese sources since the early 4th century (Pulleyblank 1952; IKEDA
1981; Rong 2001: 37-110; Vaissiere 2002: 117-153). Therefore it seems possible
that the grandfather or father of Caolushan, his elder brother Caoyanyan and his
nephew etc. from Ishtikhan country had come and stayed in Chinese prefectures
and districts in the periods of the Bei Chou, Bei Sei, Sui dynasties before the Tang
dynasty as well as the Sogdinan families of Samarkand, Bukhara, Kesh etc., and
later had gained the permanent residence recorded in the household registers in
Changan city.
As regard with construct of this text, Prof. Huang analysed that this is composed
of 6 parts, however, in my view, it should be regarded as 4 parts.
The first part is regarded as the places between the 5th line of the fragment
(1) and the 1st line of the fragment (2). Here is contents of the suit. Moreover,
as assumed by Prof. Huang, according to the sentence that “Now I present to
the government-general of Xizhou prefecture…” of the 5th line of the document
(1), we can propose that this is addressed to the government-general of Xizhou
prefecture, which has been established by the Tang dynasty in 640 AD after the
destruction of the Gaochang kingdom and located in the Turfan Basin, but this was
resent from Xizhou prefecture to the Gaochang district to examine Caolushan and
Lishaojin. The subject of the 1st part of this fragment is as follows: 1. Lishaojin (or
Lisan, Lishao) borrowed 275 silk cloths from Caoyanyan who was the elder brother
of Caolushan in Gongyue city, 2. Caoyanyan carried some horses, 2 camels, 1
donkey and flower base and vessel worthy of 100 silk cloths and a Chinese saddle,
clothes and articles worthy of 100 silk cloths, 3. His elder brother and Lishaojin
doubling back toward Qiuci (Qucha) from Gongyue city, however, only his elder
brother did not reach there, therefore he requested the officer of Gaochang district
to look for his elder brother, 4. From the following of “Lisan is Chinese and I cannot
understand Chinese”, we can estimate that the plaintiff Caolushan discussed and
resolve this matter with Lishaojin, but it did not succeed, so at last Caolushan suited
to the government-general of Xizhou prefecture.
The second part is the place between the 2nd of the fragment (2) and the 9th of
the fragment (3). Here are consisted of three elements with beginning at the same
phrase of “In the deposition obtained from the questioning of (Cao)Lushan” and the
contents answered by Caolushan. In this part, Caolushan was examined on the
questionable regards as follows: 1. Whether it is the truth that Lisan borrowed from
Caoyanyan, 2. When and how long he borrowed silk cloths, 3. Who presented in
the contract as a witness and who had kept this document since then. Moreover,
Caolushan added that his elder brother Caoyanyan went along with Lishaojin in
going and coming between Anxi and Gongyue city, and his elder brother, Caoguoyi
(his name “guoyi” can be his official title as a military service from the Chinese
government. His having this title makes it easy to take a permit from prefectures
and districts under the Tang dynasty to go travel to trade in the Northwest regions.
I think that he had an Sogdian name as an original name as well as Caoer (Cao
+ er, that is Chinese naming) is called Caobisha after his Sogdian naming in this
document. On the ward “Bisha” ,however, at present I can not know what it means
in Sogdian language. In the view of Prof. Huang, this can be transcribed into a part
element Vi´sa of Sanscrit ‘Vi´sravana’, having meaning of the God Viesravana/
Vaisravana that means a guardian deity in the North direction of the Buddhism
believes (cf. Huang 1983; 357-358). Sogdian merchants such as them also had
permanent residences recorded in the household registers of “Jingshi” (the capital:
Changan). And according to the fact that Caolushan’s nephew dwelled in Changan
with Caolushan’s family and they went in pursuit of Caoguoyi and Caoer from
Qucha toward Gongyuecity, we can suppose that Caolushan and his nephew
also had the permanent residences in Changan as well as Lishaojin who had a
permanent residence in Changan and he married with the daughter of the subprefect
of commandery (Sima) of Anxi (Qucha) prefecture.
The subject of the 3rd part is concerning the contents Lishaojin answered to
the questioning, that began from the phrase of “ in the deposition obtained from
the questioning of (Li)shaojin”. According to Prof. Huang’s analysis (Huang 1983;
351), he regarded the part from the 1st line to the 4th line of the fragment (4) as the
answer of Lishaojin and he named it the 3rd part of this text. As long as I analysed
this, however, because the parts from the 1st line to the 4th line of the fragment
(4) is considered to be fitted for the contents of the fragment (4) and the 1-2nd
lines of the fragment (7) and it is nobody but Lishaojin who can testify the details
of the events on the way from the castle of Gongyue toward Anxi, I can make a
judgment that this sentence also belongs to the 3rd part. In this case, this part can
be composed of 5 paragraphs. In this, it is recorded that Lishaojin denied that he
had borrowed silk cloths from Sogdian merchants, he went along with the Sogdian
merchants who had permanent residence recorded in the household registers and
on his doubling toward Gongyue city, he went along with Sogdian merchants toward
Anxi. Moreover, he deposed the events on the way from Gongyue city toward Anxi,
and he told that an Chinese officer caught someone, in around 100 Li distant from
Gongyue city, he came across four official ambassadors that had departed from
Anxi for the base of the Yuhe military and Xiaoxiang military under the supervisor
of Xiangliu in February of the same year that Lishaojin returned toward Anxi. Then
by showing circumstance evidence like this, he tried to demonstrate his truth.
And he added that on the date when he had borrowed silk cloths, Caoguoyi and
Caobisha presented signing a contract as guarantors. Furthermore, he told that on
his doubling back toward Anxi, they still stayed in Gongyue city, then they intended
to go westward from there, he himself does not know where they went at present.
After questioning him, Lishaojin answered that it is the truth that he borrowed silk
cloths from Caoyanyan who was an elder brother of Caolushan, as for the document
of contract, Caoyanyan carried in his hands, Lishaojin would repay silk cloths to
Caolushan according to the decision of the judgment of the government and it were
275 silk cloths that he must repay to the Sogdian merchant in the contract.
The 4th part is the place between the 4th line to the 6th line of the fragment (Cool,
which began from the phrase of “ [in the deposition obtained from] the questioning
of Caolushan”. Here is the deposition from Caolushan who consented on the
repayment of Lishaojin, and Caolushan declared that on the date of entering into
contract, he did not present there, and according to the contract, Lishaojin must
have totally repaid to his elder brother Caoyanyan after their reaching Anxi.
Now what became evident by questioning to both the plaintiff Caolushan and
the accused Lishaojin can be enumerated as follows:

View user profile
(1) When a Chinese merchant Lishaojin went from Qucha toward Gongyue city,
he belonged to rather a caravan including the many Sogdian merchants such as
Caolushan’s elder brother Caoyanyan, Caoguoyi, Caoer (bisha).
(2) Caolushan himself and his nephew also went from Qucha toward the same
place in pursuit of his elder brother.
(3) After arriving at the castle of Gongyue, Lishaojin borrowed 200 silk cloths from
Caoyanyan, and they signed a written contract under the guarantors of Caoguoyi
and Caoer. In contract, it was registered that Lishaojin has to repay back 275 silk
cloths with interest to Caoyanyan after arriving at Qucha. And Caoyanyan had the
contract in his hands.
(4) Caoyanyan had not only many silk cloths, but also had some horses, two
camels, four cattle, a donkey, a flower base and a vessel worthy of 100 silk cloths
and treasures and a Chinese saddles, clothes, goods worthy of 100 silk cloths.
We can suppose that the caravan including him had rather a large scale. And from
a judgment that he carried the Chinese saddles, clothes and goods, he intended
to sell to the Chinese peoples of Gongyue city and the garrisons or forts and the
defense detachment along the state managed post road under the Tang dynasty.
(5) Caoyanyan, Caoguoyi and Caoer were Sogdian merchants who had
permanent residence recorded in the household registers in the capital of the Tang
dynasty, Changan as well as Caolushan and his nephew. And Lishaojin was also
a Chinese merchant who had permanent residence recorded in the household
registers in Changan and a son-in law of the sub-prefect of the Commandery (Sima)
of Anxi prefecture.
(6) After staying in Gongyue city for a year, on the date of departure of Lishaojin,
he witnessed around there that Caoyanyan and Caoer (bisha) had troubled and
fought each other, so the official of the defence detachment came, arrested and
took away them toward (Gongyue?) city.
(7) In the distance of around 100 Li from Gongyue city, Lishaojin met four
ambassadors carrying the imperial letter with them that had started from Anxi in
February of the same year when Lishaojin started from Gongyue city. Two person
of them intended to go travel toward the military of Yuhe, the other two person
intended to go travel toward the military of Xiaoxiang under the supervision of
Xianglie, however, on the way from Anxi toward Gongyue city, their bows, arrows
and horses were plundered by “Tujue” i.e. the Turkish tribes under the control of the
“Ashina” (Sog. Ashinâs4) royal family of the Western Turkish Qaghanate.
(Cool On the date of Lishaojin’s departure from Gongyue city, Caoguoyi and Caoer
(bisha) intended to go travel westwards more than there. But he did not know where
they were at that moment. Moreover after he reached Anxi, he did not know their
(9) At the beginning of the deposition from the questioning of Lishaojin, he
denied that he went travel with along the Sogdian merchant Caoyanyan toward
Gongyue city and he borrowed 275 silk cloths from a Sogdian merchant. But after
several examination of him, he recognized that he borrowed 200 silk cloths from a
Sogdian Caoyanyan who was the elder brother of Caolushan, and he contracted
that he would repay 275 silk cloths with interest to Caoyanyan after arriving at Anxi.
And according to the judgment of the government-general of Xizhou prefecture,
Lishaojin promised the repayment of 275 silk cloths to Caolushan.
(10) According to the result of this consideration, Lishaojin borrowed silk cloths
at 37.5 percent for two or three months that it was necessary for travelers to reach
from Gongyue city to Anxi. That means with rate a month between 18.75 and 12.75
percent. Until now it is known that 8 contract documents concerning the loan and
lend of the almost same periods from 660 to 670 AD were discovered from the
4th tomb of the Astânâ of the Turfan Basin, and there are 4 contract documents
concerning the loan and lend on a silver basis, that show the rate between 10 and
15 percent a month, and the other 2 contract documents concerning the loan and
lend, that show the rate of 13.3 percent a month (Huang 1983: 362; Cheng 1983:
237; Lu 1992: 244). From the viewpoint of the rate on a silk cloth basis, it seems
probable that this rate is very close ressemble with that of the document under the
3. On the meaning of “Anxi” and the made period of this document.
As Chinese researchers Prof. Huang and Prof. Wang stated, on the location of
Gongyue city, it seems no doubt that there had been around Quldja (Nine fortressed
city of the Yili in the Qing dynasty, Yining city of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous
regions at present), although in details it has been discussed among historical
researchers whether it can be identified as the place named “Tulufan Yuzigu cheng
(Tulufan Yuzigu fortressed city)”, where was located in the distance ca.25km
southwards from the Yili river and in the distance ca.20km southeastward from
Yining city at present, or in the place named Almalig city where the headquarter
of the Chaghatay Qaghanate was established in the 13th century (cf. MATSUDA
1970: 336-341). Recently Prof. Meng Fanren insisted that it should be regarded
as Tulufan Yuzigu (fortressed) city from the historical geographical point of view,
basing on his survey in this region (Meng 1979:129-133). This identification is to be
confirmed by the archaeological excavation of the site in future.
As contrast with this, as to the identification of “Anxi” of the text in this document,
it seems problematic whether it means Xizhou prefecture or Qiuci (Qucha). For
example, on the identification of Anxi in the deposition of the 5-7th lines of the
fragment (2), Prof. Huang regarded it as Qucha, which is different from the Anxi
of the 3rd line of the fragment (1) which means Xizhou prefecture. And based on
this interpretation, he supposed that Lishaojin went traveling from Xizhou toward
Gongyue city, after staying there for one year, he borrowed silk cloths from
Caoyanyan and went toward Qucha, but on his way from Gongyue city to Qucha,
he came across an accident accident and could not go on traveling to Quch. Then
he returned back to Xizhou prefecture through Gongyue city. It is evident that Prof.
Huang’s interpretation was caused by that he regarded the subject of the second
sentence of “but did not reached Qucha” of the 12th line of the fragment (1) as
Lishaojin and Caolushan’s elder brother. But we cannot approve him, because his
identification of Anxi in this document is not enough to be accepted because it is
not explained by rational reason that reflects the historical background around Anxi.
On this problem, first we have to cause the attention to the description such as that
“Lisan have reached Anxi, but my elder brother has not reached” of the 6-7th lines
of the fragment (2). And in the deposition of the following fragment, there are same
expressions which bears closely resemble to one of the fragment (2). Therefore
we can regard that the subject of the sentence of the 12th line of the fragment (1)
can be identified as Caolushan’s elder. Therefore we should regard Anxi of the 6-
7th lines of the fragment of (2) as Qucha. Furthermore, this view can be supported
by how to express on the way from Gongyue city to Anxi. That is the usage of the
Chinese character “hai”, which has the meaning of “to return back” also used in the
6th and 11th line of fragment (3). From this point of view, we can understand on
this situation that Lishaojin and Caolushan’s elder brother intended to double back
toward Anxi through Gongyue city, however, only Lishaojin could reach Anxi, elder
brother could not reach Anxi. So we should consider that “my elder brother” as the
subject the sentence of 12th line of the fragment (1) was omitted. Prof. Arakawa
also interpreted as well as me.
Now we can see that this memo would be addressed to the Xizhou prefecture
where the government of the protectorate-general of Anxi had been moved back in
670. From this, we should consider that in this text of the deposition obtained from
each aside can be reflected the historical events of the period when the government
of the protectorate-general of Anxi was moved back from Qucha to Xizhou. If it is
so, in all depositions of this document except the lawsuit of the fragment (1), Anxi
should be expressed as Qucha, however, it was not called so. This is why the
persons concerning the lawsuit remembered and answered the historical events
vividly using the term Anxi, which meant Qucha before the government of the
protectorate-general of Anxi had been moved back to Xizhou. On the other hand,
in the fragment (1), the arrested Caolushan used Anxi in the title of the lawsuit
basing on the fact that the protectorate-general of Anxi was moved back to Xizhou
prefecture on March 670. However Caolushan used Qucha in the text of the first
lawsuit, in my view, it is why he wanted to avoid the confusion between Anxi which
meant Xizhou at that time and Anxi which had meant Qucha before 670 AD.
As Prof. Huang introduced , this manuscript of the memo is written in verso of
the formal document written in 665 AD to be submitted to the Government. As it is
known, according to the rule of the 43rd Statute of the Tang dynasty, it is prescribed
as follows:
“Official documents should not always be kept, each document should be
disposed of in three years”. (NÎDA 1933:602; cf. Huang 1983: 353-354)
Based on this description, Prof. Huang considered that this document might
have be drawn up by 668 AD at the earliest. On the latest period, by the period of
the epigraph discovered from the No.61 tomb with these 12 documents, it became
obvious that the person named “Haisheng” who died on 17, March of 673 AD and
was buried on 23, March of 673 AD. So we can regard that this document was
drawn up by 673 AD at the latest. On the other hand, Prof. Arakawa considered
the latest period of this document as the date of March, 673 AD, and he regarded
the earliest period of this document as the date on 22 April of 670 AD because
this document must have been addressed to the Xizhou prefecture where the
protectorate-general of Anxi was changed from Qucha on 22, April of 670 AD. I
think that this period should be accepted.
Generally speaking, a civil suit should have been entrusted to the hands of
the administrative where the trouble had happened as a rule. As to the fact that
the lawsuit gave back to the Gaochang district from the prefect-commander of
the Xizhou prefecture, and later it would have been presented to the protectorategeneral
of Anxi prefecture, Prof. Huang explained that the plaintiff Caolushan had
a permanent residence recorded the household registers in the Capital (Changan),
so the prefect-commander of the Xizhou prefecture did not receive his lawsuit
and order the Gaochang district to examine the person concerned and present
to the protectorate-general of Anxi. And he think it possible that Caolushan could
have been a Sogdian who had a permanent residence recorded in the household
registers in Gaochang district yet.
This hypothesis is very interesting, but until now it has been problematic subject
whether it could have been applied under the control of the Code and Statutes
of the Tang dynasty. But on this, recently Prof. Arakawa demonstrated that it was
applied under the rule even in the Tang period. It is generally known that itinerant
merchants such as Chinese Lishaojin and “the westerners on move (xing hu;
Sogdian merchants)” such as Caolushan, Caoyanyan, Caoguoyi and Caoer (bisha)
that had the permanent residence recorded in the household registers in the capital
(Changan) were prohibited from traveling and staying apart from the permanent
residence and being engaged in trading in the other regions along the state
managed post roads and district roads between the capital and all prefectures.
However, as we see this from this document, in the practical case, they could go
travel from the capital as far as the northwest regions of the Tang Empire. They
were officially recognized as alienated from permanent residence recorded in the
household registers and were allowed to temporarily stay with their acquaintance
and to register as an another type of inhabitants except the officially registered
peoples in the prefectures and districts inner Tang dynasty. In this case, they had
no duty to pay the transit and commercial taxes to the state administrative office
where their permanent household registers was recorded, but were subjected to the
tax levies linked with registration in the prefectures connected with the commercial
activities. Under such rule, they could go travel with issued guosuo passports that
were given by the prefectures. From the legislative point of view, this practice can
be reflection of that the itinerants belongs to ones under the so-called “jimizhou”
which means “the prefectures controlled under the rule of government such as
controlling horses” as well as the people of the oasis countries and the nomadic
tribes in the North western territories such as regions of Sogdiana and Tukharistan
across the Pamîrs Mountains under the control of the Code and Statutes of the
Tang dynasty (Arakawa 2002).
The fact that Caolushan could present to the Xizhou tells that he was ones
who had been registered as temporary inhabitants of Xizhou or Qucha where the
protectorate-general of Anxi at present or in old times. In my view, it also means
that Caolushan had moved from Changan to Xizhou, Yanqi, Qucha and Gongyue
city along the stated managed routs (horse roads) with issued passport. Moreover
from the fact that the said lawsuit had been addressed to Xizhou prefecture under
the protectorate-general of Anxi although the matter had happed in Gongyue city
under the management of Qucha, we can understand that the protectorate-general
of Anxi prefecture had been changed from Qucha to Xizhou prefecture at that
time when the suit had first been presented to Xizhou. So I can consider that this
manuscript of the memo is drawn up between 670 and 673 AD.
As I pointed out in the 3rd chapter, the contents of from fragment (2) to (Cool
belongs to the periods that the protectorate-general of Anxi prefecture had been
existed in Qucha, that is, must have been the earlier than the date of March, 670.
And we can point out that it has been 4 years since Caolushan parted from his elder
brother in the periods from 670 to 673 AD. So in calculation it seems probable that
Caolushan met his elder brother Caoyanyan in the periods from 666 to 669 at the
latest. Furthermore as the second point, we should notice Lishaojin’s deposition in
the 4-5th lines of the fragment (3). From this, we can know that it was “last year”
that Lishaojin had started from Anxi to Gongyue city. This deposition was obtained
from Lishaojin at the time when he went travel from Gongyue city toward Anxi. And
according to the reason that the word of “last year” was used in the period when
he went back to Qucha where the protectorate-general of Anxi prefecture had still
existed, we can regard it as 669 at the latest.
Then is it possible to go back to Qucha in 670? In my view, it is very hard
to suppose it from the following reason. At first, we have to take notice that at a
distance of 100 Li (ca.5,6 km) from Gongyue city, Lishaojin had met ambassadors
that had started from Qucha in February in the same year that he went travel toward
Anxi, and secondly that it must have taken two or three months to reach Qucha at
that time by the Chinese sources. Then it means that Lishaojin would meet them
in April or May about 100 Li from Gongyue city, so he could reach Qucha in June
or July of the same year. But we know that Qucha fell into the hands of the Tibetan
Empire on April of 670 AD, according to the ancient Chinese source as follows:
On the date of 22, April of the Xiangheng the 1st year (i.e. 670 AD), our (Garrison
of the protectorate-general of ) Anxi prefecture fell into the hands of the Tufan (the
Tibetans). Therefore we abolished the defence system by 4 Garrisons in the Anxi
region. (THY 73: 1570)
So we think it very difficult whether in such condition Lishaojin could travel
toward Qucha. Moreover, in pursuit of him, Caolushan also might have returned to
Qucha to meet his elder brother, and later went to Gaochang of Xizhou prefecture
through Yanqi prefecture to present the lawsuit. Then at present I think it possible
that Lishaojin had doubled back to Qucha in 669 AD than in 670 AD.
At this present, according to my analysis, I can regard that Caolushan had
met his elder brother in 666 at the end. And his elder brother and Lishaojin went
traveling to trade from Qucha to Gongyue city in 668. After staying with relatives or
acquaintance there for one year, they started from Gongyue city in April of next year,
669. And after Qucha was occupies by the Tibetan Empire and the protectorategeneral
of Anxi was changed from Qucha to Xizhou in March of 670, Caolushan
had to go as far as Xizhou to present his lawsuit along the horses roads.
4. The place of the Kangar’s tribe and their political role during the
Old Turkic Periods
As wellknown, since the Xiung-nu periods there was the nomad people named
Kangu who settled near the Sirderya River, and it seems that it can be attested with
Turkic nomad tribes named or . Especially it is recorded
that in the Old Turkic inscriptuin tribes arose rebellion against the
2nd Eastern Old Turkic Qaghanate under the Qapghan Qaghan in ca. 710 A. D..
S. G. Klyashtornuyj identified this tribes with tribes of Han dynasty and
or tribes of the periods of Mongol Empire in the 13-14th
centuries. On the other hand, in the middle 7th century we can point out that the
that can be identified with of Old Turkic inscription settled
down in the north place of the Narin River and can be registered that they often
united with Shule (Qashgar) oasis country and the Tufe(TheTibetan Tribe) in the
struggle against the Tang dynasty.
(Su) Hazhengi and (Ashina)
buzhen chased and subdued. The army under Haisei went around and arrived
at the south of the Shule. Gonyue also combined with the people of the Tufen
came to blocked the Tang troop. Haisei did not dare to battle with them because his
strategists were old, at last he offered a bribe to the Tufen with his war funds and
werw reconciled and came back. (CFYG 449:5324).
This event is registered as one of 662 A.D.. And later as to the Kangu tribe later,
it is written as follows:
In the intercalary 3rd month of the Linte year (665), Shule and the Qongyue tribe
combined with the army of the Tufen tribe, and attacked the Yutian country. The
Tang emperor ordered Cuizhibian who was appointed to the prefect (Dudu) of the
Si prefecture and Caojishu who was appointed to Suomu weijiangjun (The general
of the left wing), led their army and helped them. (CFYG 995: 11687).
From this, we can confirm that in 660 years Gonyue who can be identified as
the Kangar tribe sent their nomad lives from the Southwestern region of the Issik
Kul to the region of the lower of the Narin River as Matsuda once had indicated.
And in early periods of the 7th century, I can consider that the Qongyue tribe settled
mainly in the Qongyue city as attested by the Turfan document of No. 61 mentioned
above. That is, we can assume that the Kangar tribe settled in the region along the
Tekes and Kunduz River of the Yili district in early 7th century, having relationship
with Sogdian colony. Therefore I can also point out that that was
described in the context corresponding with the contribution of the Uyghur tribes
to the Tai Zong of the Tang dynasty in the 1st half of the 7th century, in my view,
that can be related to the campaign to the Turkic tribes led by Ashina Hele in the
4th line of the Northern side of Tes inscription that was elected in 750 A.D. can
be also attested as them that had lived in the region along the Tekes and Kunduz
River of the Yili district. And we can consider that they had played an important role
in the development of the Old Western Turkic Qaghanate in the Yili Steppe of the
Tienshan Mountains areas from the political and economical points of view.
Conclusions – Toward resolution of the historical role of Gongyue
From this document, we can see which function Gongyue city had in the
administrative, economical and military points of view. As we know, Ishbara
Qaghan, Helu of “Ashina” (Sog. Ashinas) royal family of the Western Qaghanate
arose a rebellion against the Tang dynasty in 750 AD and for some years he had
ruled the Yili Steppe from Beiting (Bishbalik, at present Jimsa) to Chach through
Suyab in the northern side of the Tianshan mountains. Then Ishbara Qaghan Helu
placed his headquarters in Beiting city and the place along the “Shiqi” River. And
when he fought with Chinese troops, he and his troops were garrisoned in the
headquarter near the “Jinya shan” Mountain along the Yili River, but his army was
defeated in 657. According to MATSUDA and Meng’s views, the name “Jinya” of
this Mountain can be identified as the name “Gongyue” of Gongyue city, and two
names can be the same one and be regarded as the Western Turkish Qaghan
Helu’s headquarter (MATSUDA 1970:350; Meng 1985: 128-129). Then Helu was
escaped from here and was defeated in Suyab city by the military troops of the
Tang dynasty, at last he was caught in Chach (Tashkent) and captured to Changan.
In 660s AD, the Tang dynasty gained the influence upon the “Duolu” tribes that
involved the 5 Turkish tribes of the Eastern wing and the “Nushibi” tribes that
involve the 5 Turkish tribes of the Western wing of the Western Turkish Qaghanate.
In particular, it is serious that the Tang dynasty decided to establish the government
of the protectorate-general under every 6 leaders of the Western Turkish tribes
even inside the Yili Steppe. Furthermore, at the same time, the government of the
protectorate-general of Anxi was again moved from Xizhou prefecture to Qucha,
and it meant strategically managing the oasis countries of the northwest frontier of
the Tang dynasty expanded as far as Sogdiana and Tukharistan under the rule of
the Code and Statutes of the Tang dynasty. On the contrary, the Tang’s influence
upon the oasis countries such as Qashghar, Qucha and Yanqi had not been safe
in order at all, because there at that time the Tibetan tribes struggles with the Tang
dynasty, having a close military alliance with the “Jiwangjue” Qaghan who was the
leader of the 5 “Nushibi” tribes of the Western Turkish Qaghanate since 667 AD.
For example, this cooperation is decribed as follows:
In the second year of Qianfeng (667AD), two Qaghans of the Western Turkish
Qaghanate has died yet. The (Turkish) peoples left behind took the Tibetan tribes
aside. (CFYG 967: 11372). And the struggles on Qucha between the Tang dynasty
and the Tibetan tribes are recorded in the Chinese sources as follows:
On April, of the Xiangheng the 1st year (i.e. 670), the 18 prefectures involving
Bai (Qucha) prefecture fell into the hands of Tufan (the Tibetans). Then Sue Rengui
who was Commander-in Chief of Wei-ei was appointed Commander-in Chief of the
huge Rasa province Expeditionary
Army.Ashina Daozheng (of Western Turkish tribes) who was Commanderin
Chief of the Left wing of the Army and Ministry Councillor and Guo Dai(feng)
who was Commander of the Left wing of the Army were appointed to his assistant
generals. Then they were ordered to proceed to subdue Tufan (the Tibetans), and
intended to send relief to the Tuguhun (tribe, i.e. Azha in Tibetan sources)’s return
back to their own homeland (CFYG 986: 11579).
And on the same event, according to an another source, it is described as
In the summer, in April the 18 prefectures of Xiyu (the Western oasis countries)
fell into the hands of Tufan (the Tibetens), and it (Tufan) attached the Bahuan
cheng of Qiuci (Qucha) with Yutian (Khotan), then they occupied there. (TheTang
dynasty) abondoned the 4 Garrisons of Qiuci,Yutian, Yanqi (Tokha. Agni; at present
Karashakhr), Shule (Kashghar). Xinhai, Great Protecting General of the Right Sue
Rengui was appointed to Commander-in Chief of the huge Rasa Province
Expeditionary Army. And Commander-in Chief of the Left of and the Ministry
Councillor Ashina Daozheng (of Western Turkish tribes) and the Commander of
the Left Guo Dai(feng) were appointed to his assistant generals. Then they were
ordered to proceed to subdue Tufan (the Tibetans), and intended to send relief
to the Tuguhun (tribe, i.e. in Old Tibetan sorces, Aza)’s return back to their own
homeland. (ZT 201: 6363)
From the Chinese records, at the beginning of the Garrison of Anxi, the 4 defence
city fell into the hands of the Tibetan Empire in the April of 670 AD, then we can see
that it seems very dangerous for merchants to go travel between Qucha, which was
under the Tibetans and Gongyue city. On the details of the Tang’s campaign to the
Tibetans in the late summer (August or September) of the same year, it is described
in the following of the ZHTJ cited above. Now it can be summarized as follows:
As the said Sue Rengui once was Guo Daifeng’s collegue in the Tang’s Army,
he did not follow him. So as to this campaign, at the first stage, the Tang Army was
overwhelming the Tibetans, however, as Sue Rengui did not follow Guo Daifeng’s
military tactics, at last the Tang military troops were completely defeated. So the
said three Chinese Generals escaped from the battles, made a peace with a
Tibetan General and returned back to China. (ZHTJ 201: 6364;
MORIYASU 1984: 9-10; Beckwith 1987: 35-36).
From this, we can understand that the Garrisons around the Tarim Basin, in
particular southwestern oasis countries including Qucha were completely fell under
the Tibetans (Beckwith 1987: 30, 34-36), while the Garrisons of the northern side
of the Tianshan Mountains must be ruled namely under the Tang dynasty, however,
subsequently under the Turgish tribes of the Western Turkish Qaghanate. There
is the description of that the ambassadors from Anxi toward Gongyue city that
Lishaojin met on the way were plundered by the Turkish tribes, this can be regarded
as this situation.
Now we can consider the traffic system at that time when the itinerant peoples
went travel in the territories under the Tang Empire.
As I mentioned above, Sogdian merchants such Caolushan, Caoyanyan,
Caoguoyi and Caoer (bisha) and a Chinese merchant such as Lishaojin had each
permanent residences with his family in Changan. In this case it was generally
strictly prohibited the merchants from going travel toward the another territories
in China itself under the rule of the Code and Statutes of the Tang dynasty.
Nonetheless, the fact that they could go travel in pursuit of interest to the oasis
countries of the Northwest territory demonstrates that there was the traffic and
transport system that allow the itinerant peoples to go travel and trading in the long
distance. This is the guosuo passport system. As Prof. Arakawa explained before
(ARAKAWA 1993: 45; 2002: 7-Cool, this passport system was supported by the view
that the itinerant peoples were regarded as the peoples of the Northwest regions
that the protectorate-general managed under the control of the Tang dynasty since
659 AD. They might have been allowed to go travel in order to transport military
goods, foods and livestock to Gongyue city that had a function of the Garrison or
the Defence detachment under the rule of the Tang dynasty. So it is likely that many
of Caoyanyan’s commodity such the horses, cattle, Chinese saddle, clothes and
goods were sold to the Chinese troops that was garrisoned at Gongyue city. But
we also notice that he carried many treasures (i.e. gold and silver goods), many
silk cloths, very expensive flower vase and vessel worthy 100 silk cloths. We know
that Sogdian merchants brought such treasures and luxury goods along the oasis
countries in the long distance trade and in particular they brought to supply them
to the nomadic leaders as tax to gain a guarantee to utilize the steppe rout or trade
with nomadic peoples under the Western Turkish Qaghanate. In this case, it seems
probable that as Sogdian Caolushan, Caoyanyan, Caoguoyi, Caoer and Chinese
Lishaojin had been staying in Gongyue city for a year, they had been engaging
themselves in trading with the dwelling peoples and the nomadic peoples around
Gongyue city and neighbouring countries under the Western Turkish Qaghanate.
Especially Caoguoyi and Caoer went westwards more than Gongyue city, they had
gained their passports to go travel to western oasis countries such as Suyab, Talas,
Chach and Samarkand from the Chinese officers of Gongyue city. However these
steppe regions must have been actually governed by the Western Turkish peoples,
in particular, the Turgish tribes as MATSUDA pointed out before (MATSUDA 1974:
338-341). For example according to a Chinese source, it is recorded as follows:
Once Wuzhile stayed in the Northwestern city westwards from Suyab, later
attacked and surrendered Suyab city, then placed his headquarter here. He called
the headquarter the point near the Suyab river, and his sub-headquarters Gongyue
city and the point near the Yili river (XTS 215, 6066).
From them we can understand that when leader named Wuzhile established
the Turgish Qaghanate and his stayed in Suyab city as his headquarter in the
early periods of the 7th century, the point near the Yili river and Gongyue city were
the sub-headquarters. We can consider that Gongyue city was the strategic place
from the viewpoint of the development of the Turgish tribes. As the result of their
development, as to the importance of Gonyue city in the Turgish Qaghanate, we
can see it in the Chinese record as follows:
Turgish leader named Wuzhile belonged to the other tribes under the Western
Turkish Qaghanate. In the beginning, he was subjected to Huseluo (who was the
Western Turkish Qaghan) and he was titled as Baga Tarqan. Later since Huselou
punished the peoples severely, they all trembled with fear. Contrary to this, Wuzhile
feed and kept the peoples well, so Iranians (hu, Sogdians) came him from places
near and far to follow him. (XTS 194: 5190: cf. Chavannes 1969: 79).
From this we can see that an Turgish leader named Wuzhile had already
placed his headquarter in Gongyue city before he placed his large headquarter
in Suyab, and gradually gained a political influence upon the Turkish peoples and
Sogdian peoples in the Yili regions. Thus, Gongyue city had a important role not
only economically, but also strategically. And there must be many variety of the
cultural and religious contacts between the Turkish peoples and Iranians such as
Sogdian, Indian and Chinese peoples as well as the cities of Suyab, Talas and
Navaket etc. of Semirechie (Klyashtornji 1959: 10-11). I can suppose that their
close relationship must have been formed among them as we can see from the
record of Zemarchos who went to the headquarter of Dizaboulos (Istemi Qaghan of
Казахстан и всемирная история
the Western Turkish Qaghanate) around the Yulduz Steppe as one of the envoys
of Byzantian Empire (Blockley 1985: 119-120; NAITO 1988:380). This can be also
confirmed from trading scenes between Sogdians and the Turkish peoples drawn in
the relieves carved on the screens of the funeral coaches of Sogdian “Sabao” that
can be transcribed in Sog. S’rtp’u (Sartpau) meaning “a caravan leader”, who lived
in China itself in the second half of the 6th century, which had been discovered from
the tombs of “Anjia”, “Tianshui”, “Yuhong” and “Shijun” around Shanxi district, and
funeral coaches owned in Miho Museum, Shigaraki and unearthed from “Anyang”
owned in Museum of the fine Art, Boston etc. belonging to the Bei Qi, Bei Zhou and
Sui Dynasties (Rong 2001: 135-149; Marshak 2002: 18-22; Vaissiere 2002: 205-
208,and Plts.II-III).
From the analysis of this Chinese document, we can understand that Gongyue
city was one of the trading cetre between Sogdians and the Western Turkish peoples
in the second half of the 7th century, and in Chinese record, it can be attested as
one of the headquarters of the Western Turkish Qaghan, Helu, Ishvara Qaghan
in 650s. And as I already clarified on the basis of my philological and historical
analysis of the stone statue that has Sogdian inscription and some Chinese souces,
the Western Turkish Qaghan such as Apa Qaghan, Niri Qaghan, Churi Qaghan
placed their headquarters around the Yili Steppe including the Yulduz Steppe,
the Kunges Steppe and the Tekes Steppe. Above all, it is remarkable that Churi
Qaghan leaded a nomad life around the territories of the “Wusun” tribes in the old
times, and as one of his headquarters can be attested as the place around Zhaosu
district along the Tekes River. And we can point out that a Sogdian craftsman of
irons named sog. ‘kwcyk; ‘kwc’yk (cf.Sims-Williams 1992: 40-41) that means “one
who was born in Qucha” or a Sogdian craftsman of gold and silvers named sog.
m’x vntk (cf. Sims-Williams 1992: 56) that means “Slave of the Moon God” went to
the Gaochang Kingdom of the Turfan Basin as the ambassadors of the Western
Turkish Qaghan during the reign of Apa Qaghan according to the Turfan documents
such as 60TAM 307: 5/1(a); 5/a(b) (ÔSAWA 1999: 359-360). From this condition,
we can assume that a settlement of itinerant had been also established in the point
near the headquarters of Niri and Churi Qaghans around the Tekes Steppe as well
as Qucha. Thus, as MATSUDA also suggested before (MATSUDA 1974: 338-339),
the origin of Gongyue city of the Tang period can be dated back to the trading
centre that had been already established in the second half of the 6th century as
the trading centre between Sogdians and the Turks under the Western Turkish
Qaghanate. In this regard, it should be considered more concretely on the basis of
the archaeological and historical surveys in future.
Catalogue: Tokyo National Museum, The association of the Cultural exchanges between
Japan And China, Yomiuri newspaper Company (ed.),An Catalogue of the exhibition of
ancient art treasures of the People’s republic of China-Archaeological finds of the Han
to Tang dynasty unearthed at sites along Silk Road-, Tokyo, 1979.
CFYG: Ce fu yuan gui (The original Tortoise, Precious Treasure of the Document Store),
1000 juan, compiled by Wang Qinruo and others between 1005 and 1014, Zhon hua
shu ju, Beijing 1960.
Sog.: Sogdian.
TD: Tong Dien (Comprehensive History of Regulations) 200 juan by Do You(735-812), 5
vols., Zhong hua shu ju, Beijing 1988.
TFCW: Tulufan chutu wenshu vol. 1-10. (In Chinese), The ancient Philological Research
Institute of Chinese. The Philological research group of the National Cultural Antiquity
Management Bureau, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous region Museum, School of the
Historical research of Wu-han University (ed.), Wen-wu publishing, Beijing 1981-1991.
TFCWF: Tulufan chutu wenshu (Facsimiles compared with transcription), Chinese Wen-wu
Institute, Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous Museum, School of the Historical research of Wu
han University (ed.), Vol. 1-4, Beijing, 1992-1997.
THY: Tang huiyao (Essential Regulations of the Tang), 100 juan, by Wang Pu (922-982),
completed 961. Shanghai, SHanghai Guji, 1991.
XTS: Xin Tang shu (New Chronicle of the Tang dynasty, 618-907), 225 juan, compiled by
Ouyang Xiu (1007-1072), Song Qi (998-1061 and others in 1043-1060), Zhonghua
shuju, Beijing 1975.
ZT: Zizhi tonjian (Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government), 294 juan, by Sima Guang
(1019-1086) and others, presented to the throne in 1084, Chonghua shuji, 1956.
ARAKAWA, Masaharu (1993) Chûô Ajia Chiiki ni okeru Tô no Kôtsûunyô ni tsuite (On a
Traffic Management of the Tang Dynasty in the Central Asia) (In Japanese). Kyôto,
Tôyôshi kenkyû (The study of the Oriental History), 52/2, pp.23-51.
ARAKAWA, Masaharu (1997) Tô Teikoku to Sogudojin no Kôekikatudô (The tang Empire
and the trade activities of the Sogdians) (In Japanese). Tôyôshi kenkyû 56/3, Kyôto,
ARAKAWA, Masaharu (2002) The Transit Permit System of the Tang Empire and the
Passage of Merchants. Memoirs of the Reseach Department of the Toyo Bunko, Tokyo,
The Oriental Library/ Tôyô Bunko 59, pp. 1-21.
Beckwith, C. I. (1987) The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, New jersey, Princeton Univ.
Blockley, R. C. (1985) The history of Menander the Guardsman, Liverpool.
Chavannes, E. (1969) Les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) occidentaux, Taipei (orig. St-Peterbuorg,
Cheng Guocan (1983) Tangdai de Mingjian Jiedai – Tulufan, Dunhuang deng Disuosyu
Tangdaijiedaiqiquanshutan (Private loan and lend of the Tang Dynasty) (In Chinese).
Dunhuang tulufan wenshuchutan (The preliminary study of the documents of the
Dunhuang and Turfan), Wuhan, Wuhandaxue, pp.217-274.
Cheng Xilin (2000) Tangdai Guosuo Yanjiu (The study of the guosuo passport of the Tang
dynasty), Zhonghuashuju.
Cheng Zhongmian (1958) Xi Tujue shilaio Buque ji Kaozheng (The Complement
and Consideration of Sources on The Western Turks) (In Chinese), beijing,
Huang Huixian (1983) Tangxizhou Gaochangxian shang Anxiduhufu diegao weilu shang
xunwen Caolushan su Lishaojin liangzao biancishi shi. (The case concerning the
registration of the deposition from the plaintiff Caolushan and the arrested Lishojin
addressed to the protectorate-general of Anxi by the Gaochang district of Xizhou under
the Tang dynasty )(In Chinese) Dunhuang tulufan wenshuchutan (The preliminary study
of the documents of the Dunhuang and Turfan), Wuhan, Wuhandaxu, pp.344-363.
Klyashtornji, S.G. (1959) Sogdiitusi v Semirechie, Sovetsukaya Etnografiya 1, pp.7-11.
Lu Xiangqian (1992) Dunhuang Tukufan Weishu Lungao (A collection of essays on the
Dunhuang and Turfan Documents) (In Chinese), Jiangxi renming.
MATSUDA, H. (1970), Kodai Tenzanno Rekishi chirigakuteki kenkyu (The historical and
geographical studies on the regions along the Tian Shan mountains in the ancient time)
(in Japanese), Waseda daigaku shuppanbu, Tôkyo.
Marshak, I. V. (2002) Central Asia from the third to the seventh century. (Juliano, A.L., Lerner,
J. A. ed.) Nomads, traders and holy men along China’s Silk road (papers presented at
a symposium held at the Asia Society in New York, November 9-10), 2001, Silk Road
studies 7, Brepols.
Meng Fanren (1979) Gongyue cheng he Alimali cheng Fangweikao (Consideration on the
bearing of Gongyue city and Almalik city) (In Chinese). Zhonguoshi Yanjiu (The study of
Chinese history) 4, pp.129-135.
Meng Fanren (1985) Beitingshide Yanjiu (The historical geographical study of Beiting) (In
Chinese), Wulumuqi, Xinjiangrenming.
MORI, Masao (1967) Kodai toruko minzokushi kenkyû (Historical studies of the ancient
Turkish peoples) I (in Japanese), Yamakawa shuppansha, Tôkyo.
MORIYASU, Takao (1984) Toban no Chûô Ajia Shinshutsu (The advance of the Tibetan
Empire) (In Japanese), Kanazawadaigaku Bungakubu ronsyû 4, Kanazawa, pp.1-85,
+ plts.
NAITO, Midori (1988) Nishi Tokketsushi no kenkyû (Historical studies of the Western Turkish
peoples) (in Japanese), Waseda daigaku shuppanbu, Tôkyo.
NîDA, Noboru (1933) Torei shûi (The studies of the law documents named Tang-lei collected
and reconstructed)(in Japanese). Tôkyô daigaku shuppankai, Tôkyo.
ÔSAWA, Takashi (1999) Shinkyô irikawaryûiki no sogudogo meibun sekijin ni tsuite-
Tokketsu syosei no ôtô ni kansuru ichi shiryô (A stone statue with a Sogdian inscription
along the Yili River in Xinjiang: As a source of the royal genealogy of the early Turkic
Qaghanate periods) (in Japanese), M.Matsubara etc (ed.) Kokuritsu minzokugaku
hakubutsukan kenkyû hôkoku betsusatsu 20, pp. 327-378, The national Museum of
Ethnology, Osaka.
ÔSAWA, Takashi (2002) Batı Göktürk Kaªanlıªı’daki A¶inaslı bir Kaªan’ın ¶eceresine ait bir
kaynak. Türkler 2, pp.79-88, Yeni Türkiye yayınları, Ankara.
ÔSAWA, T. (2004) A new historical aspects of site and inscription of Bugut in Mongolia -
Preliminary Study based on the Mongolian and Japanese joint researches in 1997, A.
K. Narain (ed.) Central Eurasia Studies, India (forthcoming).
Pulleyblank, E. G. (1952) A Sogdian Colony in Inner Mongolia. Toung Pao, XLI, pp.317-
Pulleyblank, E. G. (1955) The background of the rebellion of Anlu-shan, London.
Rong Xinjiang (2001) Zhonggu Zhongguo yu wailai wenming (The middle ages of the
Chinese and Forign civilization) (In Chinese), Beijing, San lian.
Sims-Williams, N. (1992) Sogdian and other Iranian Inscriptions of the Upper Indus (Corpus
Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part.II, Vol. III / II) II, London.
Su Beihai (2000) Xiyu Lishi Dixian (Historical geography of the Western regions in China) 2
(In Chinese), Wulumuqi, Xinjiang Daxue.
De La Vaissiere, E. (2002) Histoire des Marchands Sogdiens, Collège de France Institut des
Hautes Études Chinoises, Paris.
Wang Binghua (1993) Sichou zhi Lu Kaogu Yanjiu (Archaeological Study of the Silk Road)
(In Chinese), Wulumuqi, Xinjiang Renming.
Wang Mingzhe (1985) Tulufan chutu youguan Gongyuecheng wenshu chuxi (The analysis
study of the document concerning Gongyue city unearthed from Turfan).(In Chinese).
Xiyushiluncong, I, Wulumuqi, Xinhjiangrenmin, pp. 171-181.
Xingjian Uygur Autonomous regions Museum (Xinjiangweiwu erzizhiqu bowuguan) (ed.)
(1972) Tulufanxian Asitana – Halahezhuo gumuqun qingjianbao (The brief report in the
arrangement of Qara Qhoja tombs in the Astâna of the Turfan district) (In Chinese),.
Wenmu 1, pp.8-29 + some plates.
Xingjian Uygur Autonomous regions museum, the Exibition group of the discoveries (ed.)
(1972) Xinjiangweiwu erzizhiqu bowuguan, Shutuwenwuzhanlangongzuozu (1972)
Sichouzhilu shan Xianfaxian de Han Tang Zhiwu (Silk Cloths of the Han and Tang
dynasty discovered along the Silk Road) (In Chinese). Wenwu 3, pp. 14-19.
Xu Xuya (2000) Tangdai Sichouzhilu yu Zhongya Lishi Dili Yanjiu (Silk road of the Tang
Dynasty and the study of the historical geography of the Central Asia) (In Chinese),
Xian, Xibei Daxue.
Xue Zongzheng (1995) Anxi yu Beiting (Anxi and Beiting) (In Chinese), Haerbin, Hei Long
Jiang Jiaoyu.
Yan Gengwang (1985) Tangdai Jiaotong Tukao (The study of the traffic of the Tang dynasty)
2, He Long Qi Xi qu, Zhonghuamingguo, Taibei.
YOSHIDA, Yutaka. (1998) Sino-Iranica. (In Japanese) Seinan Ajia Kenkyû (The historical
study of the Southeastern Asia) 48, Kyoto university, pp.33-51.
1 On the original shape of Gongyue, it has been discussed among researchers.
MATSUDA attested it as Qanghar which is descripted as the Turkish tribes where
settled in the steppe along the Syrdariya River. On the other hand, Cen attested
it as Kunges/ Kungez of the Kunges River where this city was lacated . Beckwith
attested it as *Qöngül whoc was the Turkish tribes(MATSUDA 1970: 354-355; Cen
1959: 191; Beckwith 28, not. 85).
2 This military system is recorded in TD 24: 674-676, however, it can be first
confirmed by this description (Su 2000:311-312). But Su interpreted this term as the
military base controlled by Liu, not by Xiangliu like me.
3 According to YOSHIDA, it is still problematic reconstruction because there is
no proper noun to be attested in the Sogdian literatures until now. (YOSHIDA 1998:
4 This word was confirmed by YOSHIDA Yutaka in new investigation of Bugut
inscription of Mongolia in 1997 (cf. ÔSAWA 2004).

View user profile

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum