41.Ziebel Libre

8/10/2019 41.Ziebel Libre

1/8

Constructing the seventh century, ed. by C. Zuckerman (Travaux et mmoires 17), Paris 2013, pp.741748.

ZIEBEL QAGHAN IDENTIFIED

by tienne de LV

Several works have dealt with Heraclius Turkic allies during his war with Khosrau IIin 6278, but questions as to the exact identity of these allies are still pending.1In orderto answer them, we need to present in some detail the politics of the two Turkic Empiresduring this period.

Recent epigraphic discoveries have thrown new light on the genealogy of the Turkicimperial Ashinas dynasty.2The genealogies drawn up by Chavannes and Liu Mau-Tsairequire a crucial correction, which has a deep impact on our perception of the sovereignslegitimacy in the context of a sacral kingship.3Thirty years after the victory of the Turksover their Rouran masters, the civil war of 5813 between the sons of the first qaghanssplit the Turkic Empire.4To the East, in Mongolia, the scions of the ephemeral secondqaghan Qara, son of Bumn, managed to grasp the throne, while the scions of Muqan,another son of Bumn and the actual builder of the empire, fled to the West, to thenorthern slopes of the Tianshan. The competition between the two dynasties with equalclaims to the supreme title of great qaghan lasted for thirty years, up to 610, a fact thatremained unnoticed until the recent elucidation of the Mongolkre inscription.5In 610,Muqans heirs were expelled from the West by a third branch of the family, tracing itsgenealogy back to Bumns brother Ishtemi, which retained from the beginning greatpower in the West. To the Ishtemid Shegui, who drove out his Muqanid rivals,6succeededon the throne, some time before 619, his brother Tong.7

1. Earlier studies are analyzed in A. B, Qui tait Jebu Xakan ?, Turcica2, 1970, pp. 724.For more recent studies, see M. D, The nomadic ally of Heraclius, Chronica3, 2003, pp. 38.2. See mainly . de LV, Oncles et frres : les qaghans Ashinas et le vocabulaire turc de la

parent, Turcica42, 2010, pp. 26777, and alsoI., Maurice et le qaghan : propos de la disgressionde Thophylacte Simocatta sur les Turcs, REB68, 2010, pp. 21924.

3. . C, Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux, Paris 1903, pp. 24; LM-T, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Trken (Tu-ke), Wiesbaden 1958,genealogy at the end of vol. 2. See the appendix to this article for an updated genealogical tree.

4. C, Documents(quoted n. 3), pp. 134, 4851, 219215. LV, Maurice et le qaghan (quoted n. 2), p. 221.6. C, Documents(quoted n. 3), pp. 178.7. Ibid., p. 24.


2/8

TIENNE DE LA VAISSIRE742

The eastern branch of the family was not faring well either. Crushed between theSui and the expanding proto-Uyghur confederation in the North, the qaghans had totake refuge on the frontier of China and became the Suis puppets. 8Only after a civil

war had split the Sui Empire could the eastern qaghans regain their position as the mainindependent nomadic power of Eastern Asia, especially under Xieli (62030).9Therelationship between Tong and Xieli was very tense during the 620s. By giving the handof a Tang princess to Tong, Chinese diplomacy strove to ally the Western Empire toChina in order to get rid of Xieli. This is especially true of the years 6268, just beforeTongs death in 628. As the Chinese annals put it: Xieli qaghan, unhappy that theChinese Empire has allied itself by marriage with Tong, several times sent soldiers toraid his country.10However, this hostility remained confined to raids and diplomaticthreats, without ever breaking out into a full-scale war.

The two empires then had little in common, except for a shared past going back some

forty years, a period during which seven qaghans ascended the throne in the East andsix in the West. Xielis Empire was in every respect Eastern Asian: he had no interest inCentral Asia and never tried to conquer it. His network of subject tribes ranged fromMongolia and the Ordos east to the Pacific and Korea. From its centre on the Chinesefrontier, which Xieli never left, he could pillage Northern China much more convenientlythan from Mongolia. This pillage was the main activity of Xielis Turks and the source oftheir wealth. Meanwhile, Tongs Empire had shifted to the West, as he moved his capitalfrom the northern slopes of the Central Tianshan to Semireche, 700 km further west.Its wealth came from the pastures of the Central Asian plateaux and from the taxes paidby the sedentary oases of the region. Although Tong vied with Xieli for the control of

the northern fringes of the Turkic world, on the eastern slopes of the Altai, their actualcontact zone was limited. Tong expanded his empire towards the south-west, towardsBactria, Persia and the Caucasus.11

Byzantine and Caucasian sources describe Heraclius ally Ziebel as the brother of theking of the North, second only to him in the empire (we will discuss the Yabghu qaghantitle below).12This king can only be Tong or Xieli. As regard the former, the difficultyof linking these data with those of the Chinese sources is that none of Tongs brotherscould be viewed as second to him in the empire, and none had a name that could resembleZiebel.13If he is the latter, various hypotheses have been proposed, including an attemptto identify the king of the North as Xieli, and Ziebel as Tong Yabghu qaghan. However,

this purely ad hochypothesis is contradicted by what we have just learned about the

8. LM-T, Die chinesischen Nachrichten(quoted n. 3), pp. 5865.9. Ibid., pp. 134 sq.10. Jiu Tangshu 194.5182, and C, Documents(quoted n. 3), p. 53.11. Compare C, Documents(quoted n. 3), pp. 245 and 523 with LM-T, Die

chinesischen Nachrichten(quoted n. 3), pp. 134 sq.12. Theophanes Confessor: The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor : Byzantine and Near Eastern

history, AD 284813, transl. with introd. and comment. by C. Mango and R. Scott with the assistanceof G. Greatrex, Oxford 1997, p. 447. Movss Dasxuranci: The History of the Caucasian Albanians byMovss Dasxuranci, transl. by C. Dowsett, London 1961, p. 83.

13. Ziebel was for instance identified with Mohe shad, brother of Tong, known for acting as anenvoy to China (C, Documents[quoted n. 3], p. 55). See B, Qui tait Jebu Xakan(quoted n. 1), p. 11.


3/8

ZIEBEL QAGHAN IDENTIFIED 743

actual relationship between the two empires: no source provides the slightest hint ofany dependency of the Western Turkic Empire on the Eastern one, while we do haveabundant proof of their mutual independence. To imagine Tong taking orders from Xieli

is in total contradiction to what we know of both qaghans, in particular regarding thefar West. Seen from the West, the supreme head of the Turks in 6278, named kingof the North, can only be the Yabghu Qaghan Tong.

As for Ziebel, an uncle of Tong, Sipi , fits exactly into his western depictions.Sipi, whom Tong put in charge of part of the Turkic tribes,14carried the singular titlelittle qaghan (), which corresponded precisely to Ziebels title of viceroy (sonsand brothers of Tong had different titles). As for his name, its transcription in Chinese,Sipi, was then pronounced in Early Middle Chinese ih-bjil, where is the voiced retroflexfricative, quite similar to Russian, while the initial Z- in Ziebel could transcribe a z, ,or.15Thus, its Byzantine and Chinese versions match. This identification, so obvious,

has never been proposed since Sipi, Tongs uncle, could not be a brother of Tong, Ziebel.However, who gave this information to the Byzantines and the Chinese if not theTurks themselves? A Turk told a Byzantine scribe that Ziebel was the brother of theking of the North. Similarly a Turk told a Chinese scribe that Sipi was Tongs uncle.The key to the problem is the word they used: ci.In the Turkic vocabulary of kinship,designating with one word several members of the family across generations, cidescribesmales older than egoin paternal line except for the father and grandfather.16Thus it isthe standard word for both paternal uncle and for elder brother. By contrast, the Chinesevocabulary, like ours, more detailed and precise, reserves a word for each position in thefamily in each generation. The Chinese chose systematically to translate ciby paternal

uncle, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. There are at least four cases of false unclesin the Chinese sources, for whom external evidence, such as inscriptions left by qaghans,ascertains the true genealogical links, proving inaccurate rendering by the Chinese of theambiguous Turkic word ci.Ziebel is one of these cases.17He was the ciand viceroyof the king of the North, just as Sipi was the ciand Little qaghan of Tong. For once,western sources are more accurate in their renderingbrothersince Byzantine andCaucasian informants actually met the Turkic elites in the Caucasus, while the Chinesewere far removed from the events.

Not only the name, title and status fit together, but the chronology as well: during thefirst operations of Ziebel in the Caucasus, in 6257, he is consistently under the supreme

command of the king of the North. For 6289, however, there is no mention of asupreme king. Moreover, Ziebel is in deep trouble from 629 on, even reported dead by

14. Xin Tangshu 215.6057, and C,Documents(quoted n. 3), p. 54. The text is: .

15. G. M, Byzantinoturcica, Berlin 1958, vol. II p. 33. The second character, pi, is usedfor names of various other qaghans, for instance in the transcription of the first syllable of Bilg,.

16. K. G, The Turkish system of kinship, in Studia Orientalia Ioanni PedersenSeptuagenario A.D. VII id. nov. anno MCMLIII a collegis, discipulis, amicis Dicata, Hauniae 1953,pp. 1249, and Sh. B, Kk Trk kinship terminology: an Omaha model, Central Asiaticjournal, 37, 12, 1993, pp. 120.

17. For four examples of false uncles in Chinese sources on the Ashinas dynasty, see LV,Oncles et frres (quoted n. 2).


4/8


one source. These elements find explanation in the biography of Sipi: he rebelled againstTong and killed him at some time in the second year of Zhenguan (February 628

January 629).18But in 629, Sipi was himself defeated by Tongs son and had to take refuge

in the Altay, where he in turn was killed in 630.19We know from numismatic data thatthe Augusta was sent to Ziebel in spring or summer 629, that is precisely the short periodduring which Sipi was still the uncontested ruler of the empire, and she was called backwhen news of his defeat arrived, after August 629, that is when Sipi was contested byTongs son. Ziebel and Sipis careers are exactly parallel, save for one point: Nikephorosreports him dead in 629, thus allowing Heraclius cancelation of his daughters marriage.20In fall 629, Sipi was only a fugitive, expelled from the centre of the qaghanate yet, fromthe Byzantine point of view, he was as good as dead for an imperial marriage. In anycase, nobody could verify his whereabouts and the accuracy of the reasons put forwardby Heraclius for cancelling the marriage.

If, however, Ziebel held only the second rank in the empire, how could he obtainthe hand of an Augusta, an unprecedented honor? This marriage can be consideredfrom two points of view: from Byzantine and from Turkic politics. As for the latter, itis an established fact that not only qaghans but also imperial princes sought the handsof foreign imperial princesses. Shegui, the elder brother of Tong and Sipi, before heexpelled the scions of Muqan from the Western Turkic Empire and became qaghan,had benefited from a Chinese imperial marriage. Thus, while only a pretender to thethrone from a lateral branch, he obtained the necessary stature to get rid of the lastheir of Muqan. Enhancing a pretenders prestige by means of marriage was a usual wayfor foreign powers to influence Turkic politics. Ziebel/Sipi was not only promised an

Augusta, he also sought the hand of a Chinese princess, hoping to repeat what his elderbrother Shegui had successfully achieved twenty years earlier with a Sui princess. Andhe was equally successful in destroying the power of his rival. From a Byzantine point ofview, a marriage between an Augusta and somebody who was not yet supreme qaghanmight look less obvious. However, the later proposal to marry the same Augusta to thegeneral of the Arabic forces in Egypt provides a parallel: the patriarch of Egypt wouldcertainly not have dared to propose something so unusual if a precedent was not closeat hand.21The Byzantine and Armenian historians describe her projected marriage to aTurkic ruler without pointing to a problem of inequality of status. From Turkic pointof view, this was only business as usual, reflecting the autonomy of the small qaghans

in their part of the empire and the actual frailty of Turkic unity. Besides, Heraclius hadno other choice.22

18. On the chronology of Tong, see . de LV, Note sur la chronologie du voyage deXuanzang,Journal asiatique298, 1, 2010, pp. 1646.

19. Xin Tangshu 215.6057, and C,Documents(quoted n. 3), p. 54.20. Nikephoros : Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople,Short History, ed., transl. and comment.

by C. Mango (CFHB 13), Washington 1990, p. 67.21. Ibid., pp. 725.22. C. Z, Au sujet de la petite augustasur les monnaies dHraclius, RN152, 1997,

pp. 4738, here p. 478.


5/8


The only remaining problem is the title Yabghu qaghan (JebuXakan) given to theleader of the Turks besieging Tiflis in the History of the Caucasian Albanians.23TheByzantine sources do not mention it, saying only that he was second in dignity to the

qaghan alone. But Yabghu qaghan was the official title of the head of the Western TurkicEmpire according to the Chinese sources, including an eye-witness like Xuanzang, andcould not belong to anybody else. This contradiction between the Armenian and theByzantine sources, on which much has been written, can best be resolved if we pay dueattention to the nature of our Armenian source. For part of its depiction of the events, theHistory of the Caucasian Albaniansgoes back to the testimony of the Albanian catholicosViroy who met Ziebels son in Albania during the winter 6289.24Viroy was not in

Albania during the siege of Tiflis and all his knowledge of the Turkic power comes fromdiscussions with the Turks during a period in which Ziebel had already deprived Tongof his throne and of his life. In other words, Viroy has never heard of any other Yabghu

qaghan than Ziebel, who obviously took this title. I suggest that this title, present inViroys narrative for the years 628 and 629, was projected backward on 627 by one ofthe compilers, for simplicity and cohesions sake. This might have been a member ofViroys entourage (Akopyan), the anonymous compiler of 682 (Howard-Johnston), or theearly-8th-century compiler (Zuckerman).25In any case, when the Viroy narrative usingthis name was integrated with events prior to the return of the catholicos to Albania, theresulting text made use of Viroys more precise terminology. The Byzantine chroniclers,by contrast, derived their data from the stories told by Heraclius soldiers, who metZiebel only in 627, when he was still a small qaghan: accordingly, they never give himthe supreme title, even though Heraclius and his inner circle were surely aware of Sipi/

Ziebels victory over Tong. The contradiction between Byzantine and Armenian sourcesas to the status of the conqueror of Tiflis is solved chronologically: they describe the sameprince at two stages of his carrier, first small qaghan, then Yabghu qaghan.

The error of the Albanian chroniclers has an additional explanation. While Yabghuqaghan was the official title of the supreme qaghan of the Western Turkic Empire, Sipiwas also a qaghan, if a small one. Contemporary Turfan documents, describing the dailylife of this kingdom subject to the western Turks, actually use the title qaghan for thesmall qaghan.26He was surely designated as the qaghan in the oral testimony on the siegeof Tiflis, so that the extension of the title Yabghu qaghan to the siege narrative fromViroys more precise testimony must have been extremely easy.

23. Movss Dasxuranci, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 83.24. Movss Dasxuranci, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, pp. 99 sq.25. .,--x x x,1987,

pp. 188 sq. J. H-J, Armenian historians of Heraclius : an examination of the aims,sources and working-methods of Sebeos and Movses Daskhurantsi, in The reign of Heraclius (610641) :crisis and confrontation,ed. by G. J. Reinink and B. H. Stolte (Groningen studies in cultural change 2),Leuven 2002, pp. 53 sq. C. Z, The Khazars and Byzantium : the first encounter, in Theworld of the Khazars : new perspectives : selected papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International KhazarColloquium, ed. by P. B. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai and A. Rna-Tas (Handbook of Oriental studies.Section 8, Uralic & Central Asian studies 17), Leiden Boston 2007, pp. 399432, here p. 410.

26. See in English T. , Aspects of the relationship between the ancient Turks and the Sogdians :based on a stone statue with Sogdian inscription in Xinjiang, in rn ud Anrn : studies presented to BorisIliMarak, ed. by M. Compareti, P. Raffetta, G. Scarcia, Venezia 2006, pp. 471504, here p. 488.

faut-ilun signediacritiqueassoci auJ ?


6/8


The consequences of the new identification are two-fold. For the history of the Turks,it suggests an explanation for Tongs downfall. Ziebels successes in the Caucasus mayhave helped him to overthrow his brother. He came back to Central Asia triumphant,

enriched by pillaging Tiflis, with the hand of an Augusta. It had taken much less for hisbrother Shegui to overthrow the highly legitimate Muqanids twenty years beforehand.Similarly, his defeat at the hands of Tongs son can be better understood: to keep hisword to his would-be father in law, he had to leave in the Caucasus a huge army underthe orders of his son the Shad. This army would have been of great help in crushing therebels. The text of Ziebels final letter to his son, I did not consolidate my position butimprudently dissipated it over kingdoms unsuited to me, for all its Christian overtonewhich may apply to Albania, describes precisely the overstretched military position ofZiebel, unable to fight both in his brothers domain, Central Asia, and in the Caucasus.

As regards Caucasian history, the consequences might be wider, although entirely

hypothetical. First of all, the Turks attempted expansion to the south of the Caucasusmay be linked with the realignment of their territories in Central Asia. Before the time ofTong Yabghu, Semireche was the pasture land of the western wing of the Western TurkicEmpire. When, however, he moved his own pastures to Semireche, Tong had to ensurethat this would not create conflict with the leader of the western wing by accommodatinghis tribes elsewhere. Since the recently acquired territories in Northern Afghanistan weregiven to Tongs elder son, few options were left other than the Ponto-Caspian steppe,a far better place for important tribes than the middle and lower Syr Daria that laterbecame home to some nomadic groupings. Half a century before Tong, the Turks hadconquered and lost territories in the West, in Crimea and along the north-eastern coast

of the Black Sea. However, it now seems clear that the Turks renewed their control of thesteppe further to the north-east during the 610s, and that Ziebel was there, as a Chinesetext puts it, in charge of part of the Turkic tribes. According to the Chinese sources,Shegui qaghan was the first to expand the territory: to the East, he reached the Altai, andto the West the sea. Whichever sea is meant, Caspian or Black, this depiction of Sheguisreign seems to refer directly to this western expansion, which shifted the whole ulussystemto the West. Triumphant leader of the right wing of the Turkic army established for15 years or so in the West, Ziebel was no longer at home in the centre of the empire, asshown by the immediate opposition to his coup. After his failure, his son the Shad wasleft in the Caucasus with his whole army. We know nothing of his fate and the fate of

the Turkic tribes there, but they were certainly not welcome in a Central Asia controlledby the Shad familys foes. The idea that a Shad left behind in the Caucasus might haveplayed an important role in the birth of the Khazar Empire is an old one. We still donot have the slightest positive proof of this, but the Ziebel-Sipi identification certainlysupports the assumption that this Shad and the right wing of the Turkic army stayedbehind and never came back to Central Asia. The Ashinas-like rituals of the Khazar kingsshould be explained in one way or another, and I would quite agree with the idea that theKhazar Empire was born of the mixing of these Turkic tribes under Ashinas leadershipand the Khazars coming from the Middle Volga, one generation after the siege of Tiflis.27

27. Z, The Khazars and Byzantium (quoted n. 25), pp. 426 sq.


7/8


A1: SA

Names in italics are those of princes who did not pretend to be great qaghans. Whenknown, both actual names and Chinese transcriptions are given.

A2: SMD

The army led by Ziebel in the Caucasus was created in Central Asia and descendedfrom the army of 100,000 soldiers transferred there under Ishtemi in the 550s. Inthe meantime, a strong Sogdo-Turkic synthesis had taken place, well known fromarchaeological, iconographic and textual data. So it is only normal to find some Sogdianfeatures and words in the depiction of Ziebels army by the Armenian sources.

The clearest example is the depiction of the vocabulary at the Shads court. The textof Movss Dasxuranci (II.14) says : They invoked the name of the catholicos like thename of their prince, calling them the god at and the god Catholicos, and they calledthose who had come with him beloved brothers. This is a well-known Sogdian usage,in which the most respectful way of address is to make use of the word , meaningboth lord and Lord, God.28This peculiar address is noted also in Muslim sources, and,too close to paganism, it cost the life of the main Sogdian general of the Caliphs army,theAfn, in 840.29Beloved brother is also a usual way of addressing equals within theSogdian nobility, as attested in the Mugh documents.30It only confirms a well-knownfact that Sogdian was the main language for go-betweens in Inner Asian contacts andthe official language of the Turkic chancellery, as demonstrated by the epigraphy of theTurk Empires themselves.

The second example has been misunderstood in the recent translations of the text.Dowsett rendered the Persian general ahrvarazs address to his troops upon learningof the Turkic invasion of Armenia in 629 as: Now I have turned towards the East and

28. See several examples translated in F. G, . de LV, The last days of Panjikent,Silk road art and archaeology8, 2002, pp. 15596, at pp. 163, 167, 179.

29. . de LV, Samarcande et Samarra : lites dAsie centrale dans lempire abbasside,Leuven 2007, pp. 1356.

30. See for instance . . , . . 2, ,1962, p. 157.

cest bien

en alphabet

grec ?


8/8


have commanded my brave men to trample beneath the hoofs of their steeds the Goths(godestans)who have descended from the North.31As Dowsett noted, it is very strangeto find the Goths here, and the d- in their name is unexpected. However, it seems

to me that Sogdiana is meant, then usually pronounced with metathesis, Sgudestan.32ahrvaraz suggests that he is able to strike into the very heart of the Western TurkicEmpire, Sogdiana.

31. Movss Dasxuranci, The History of the Caucasian Albaniansp. 104.32. W. H, Sogdica, London 1940, p. 9.