Who were the Turks? On the face of it, the question seems simple, but it has fueled heated debates for generations among scholars and the general public alike. The deeper one digs into the origins of the Turkic peoples, the more the certainties dissolve into blank spots, contested theories, and competing claims. In an interview with Qalam, historian Joo-Yup Lee explains why the ethnonym ‘Türk’ originally referred to a small ruling class at the head of a vast empire, and how, over centuries, it expanded to encompass an entire family of peoples scattered across Eurasia.
In your book, The Turkic Peoples in World History, the first Turks appear under the name Tiele, or Dingling, as early as the third century BCE. Who were they and why are they considered the earliest Turkic people rather than the Xiongnui
The Tiele were not a single people. They were a nomadic people made up of different tribes who lived in northern Mongolia. They first appeared in Chinese histories by the third century BCE as one of the peoples who were conquered by the Xiongnu. Later, in the mid-sixth century, they were subdued by the Turks who founded the first Turkic empire in history. So, what we should remember about the Tiele is that, at first, they were not Turks.
The Turks and the Tiele had separate identities. The Tiele rebelled numerous times because they were not the same people, and in the mid-eighth century, they finally succeeded in overthrowing the rule of the Turks and founded the Uyghur Empire. And so, the Uyghurs were Tiele people. Importantly, we consider the Tiele to be the earliest confirmed people to be Turkic speakers.
Uyghur princes. Wall painting from Cave 9 of the Bezeklik Thousand Buddha Caves. 8th–9th century / Ethnological Museum, Berlin / Wikimedia Commons
On the other hand, there is also no evidence that the Xiongnu were a Turkic people. We should also note that some component groups of the Xiongnu likely spoke a Yeniseian languagei
Specialists in Xiongnu history say that the Xiongnu may have included Turkic-speaking inhabitants, but they do not define the Xiongnu as a Turkic people. Looking at recent genetic studies, it is much safer to view the Xiongnu as a mixed group than to define them as a Turkic people.
Gold buckle with a scene of boar hunting. 2nd–1st century BCE. Found at Saksanokhur, Tajikistan / National Museum of Antiquities of Tajikistan / Wikimedia Commons
It is said that the ruling clan of the Turks, the Ashina, may have been of Indo-European origin. Meaning the founders of the first Turkic empire may not have been Turkic by blood. What evidence points to that?
First, I would like to emphasize that I do not claim an Indo-European origin for the Ashina. I only say that this is a possible scenario for several reasons. Peter Golden, the leading historian of the Turkic peoples, suggests that the clan name Ashina was probably an Iranic or Saka word meaning ‘blue’. Further, we find the presence of Iranic titles and terms among the Ashina.
More about
THE ORIGINS OF THE TURKS
Peter B. Golden on Etymology, Identity, and Power in the Early Turkic world
Coin of Shahi Tegin (Sri Shahi), ruler of the Turk Shahi dynasty. After 679 CE / Classical Numismatic Group / Wikimedia Commons
Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky. General view of the Shah-i-Zinda complex. Samarkand, 1905–1915 / Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons
Monuments bearing the Tonyukuk inscriptions, part of the Orkhon inscriptions complex. Mongolia / Vezirtonyukuk / Wikimedia Commons
Fragment of the Tonyukuk inscription, written in the Old Turkic runic script. 8th century / Wikimedia Commons
More about
THE MONGOLS AND THE KIPCHAKS
Why Did the Mongol Elite of the Golden Horde Adopt Turkic Language?
Manichaean priests writing at their desks. Leaf from a Manichaean manuscript from the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho. 8th–9th century. Painting on paper / Wikimedia Commons
Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky. Turkmen woman in traditional clothing and jewelry at the entrance to a yurt. 1911 / Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons