The Eastern Migration of Sauromatians: 敕勒人的東遷（國際英文版）

By Hua-An Chang and 常華安

From the time of the "Chaos of the Eight Princes" (291 IV. Modern Western Literatures) in the Western Jin Dynasty, China suffered from civil strife and foreign aggression. After nearly three hundred years the people lived in extreme poverty until Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty unified China in 589 CE. The continual strife had created a melting p

• Language: English
• Publisher: EHGBooks
• Release date: Nov 1, 2017
• ISBN: 9781647848675

Book preview

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Jeannie Davis-Kimball, Director of Center for the Study of Eurasian Nomads, for her invaluable information. I am also grateful for Professor Mei Jian-jun, Director, Institute of Historical Metallurgy and Materials, University of Science and Technology Beijing. (2005-2013),Fellow, Churchill College, University of Cambridge; Director, The Needham Research Institute. (2014 - present), and his graduate student Liu Hai-feng for their efforts in collecting related archaeological reports from China for me. Last but not least, I also would like to extend my gratitude to, Dr. Alex Kang, for his collecting of the invaluable materials from National Library of China for me during his stay in Beijing.

About Author

I was born in Cheng-du city, Si-chuan Province, China in 1945 after World War II.

My family moved to Taiwan from Beijing in 1948. I graduated from the Department of Law of National Taiwan University in 1967 and Master of Jurisprudence of Howard Law School (without diploma) in Washington D.C. in 1980. I am the author of The Eastward Migration of Sauromatians etc. in 3 diferent Chinese editions. I tried to translate my Chinese edition to English version, but it was a failure, so I asked Dr. Jeannine Davis-Kamball to edit my English version. I am, so far, the only known researcher in Sauromatians in Taiwan and China.

Contents

Acknowledgements

About Author

Preface

Forward

Chapter One. Nomadic Peoples in Northern China: Classification and Discussion

Section 1. Ding-ling, Sau-ro, Ko-ch, and Tie-le

Section 2. The Origin of the Name Koch

Section 3. Is Ko-ch Ding-ling (Dian-len)?

Section 4. The Ethnic Origins of the Northern Chinese Nomads

Section 5. Are the Di-li, the Sau-ro, and the Ding-ling the Same People under Different Transliterations?

Section 6. Is the Sau-ro the Tie-le?

Chapter Two. The Origin of the Sauromatians and their Westward Migratation

Section 1. The Place of Origin of the Sauromatians

Section 2. The Sauromatians in Europe

Chapter Three. The Eastward Migration of the Sauromatians

Section 1. The Reasons the Sauromatians Left the Ukrainian Steppes

Section 2. Evidence of Sauromatians Arrival in Eastern Asia

Section 3. The Eastward Migration of Sauromatians

Section 4. The Relationship between Alani and Sauromatians

Chapter Four. The Ko-chs

Section 1. Sarmatae or Sauromatae?

Section 2. The Sau-ro State in Kasgar, Xinjiang

Section 3. Behaviors and Characteristics

Section 4. Religious Beliefs and Worships

Section 5. Marriage and Burial Customs

Section 6. Attitude towards Widows

Section 7. Physiognomy

Section 8. Is Emperor Tang Tai-zong (Li Shi-min) a Ko-ch Descendant?

Section 9. Horses and Heavy Cavalry

Section 10. Carriages

Chapter Five.  The Early Stage of Sauromatians in Asia(350 CE to September 429 CE)

Section 1. The Relationship between Sauromations and the Asian Nomadic Minorities

Section 2. The Relationship between the Sauromatians and the Powerful Xian-bei

Section 3. The Rou-ran, Avar and Pseudo-Avar

Section 4. The Ko-ch Tribes in the Northern Wei Court

Section 5. Is Feng-lin Castle the Royal Castle of the Rou-ran (Tar–tar)?

Section 6. Are the Saka the Asian Scythian?

Chapter Six. The Sauromatian Tribes under the Reign of the Northern Wei (429 CE to 581CE)

Section 1. Cultivation and Grazing in Inner Mongolia (429-523 CE)

Section 2. The Exodus of Sauromations from the Northern Wei

Section 3. The Six Garrisons Riot and the Establishment of the Eastern Wei and the Western Wei (523-581 CE)

Section 4. The Number of Bronze Age Cultures Found at Yinxu and the Identity of the Caucasoid Skulls

Section 5. Castle Ruins in Mongolia and the Trans-Baikal

Section 6. Abakan Han-style Palace

Section 7. The Y Chromosome Haplogroup of the Sauromatians

Chapter Seven. The Sauromatian Tribes in Southern and Western Siberia (October 429 to 722 CE)

Section 1. Rule under Rou-ran (430-487 CE)

Section 2. The Migration to Dzungaria and the Establishment of the Ko-ch Empire (487 CE to 551 CE)

Section 3. Errors in Chinese Chronicles

Section 4. Rule under Tu-jue (551-630 CE)

Section 5. Six-Hu State Period (630-722 CE)

Section 6. Language and Alphabets of the Sauromatians

Section 7. Cooking Cauldrons and Their Makers

Section 8. Blond, Shi-wei, Mucri, and Jurchen

Section 9. The Iron Age in Southern Siberia

Section 10. Slab Graves

Section 11. The Origin of Hephthalites

Chapter Eight. Dating the Scytho-Sauromatian Artifacts From Eastern Asia

Section 1. Archaeological Results

Section 2. Problems of C14 Dating

Section 3. Calibrating Carbon Dating by Dendrochronology

Section 4. Dating by Typology

Section 5. The Relationship between Scythian and Sauromatian

Section 6. Xiong-nu Art

Section 7. Dating Eastern Asian Scytho-Sauromatian Artifacts

Summation

Bibliography

Preface

Preface

From the time of the Chaos of the Eight Princes (291 IV. Modern Western Literatures) in the Western Jin Dynasty, China suffered from civil strife and foreign aggression. After nearly three hundred years the people lived in extreme poverty until Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty unified China in 589 CE. The continual strife had created a melting pot and laid the foundation for the subsequent Sui and Tang Dynasties.

Among the many ranks of barbarians that migrated into China, one nomadic tribe—the Sau-ro—has been ignored by classical historians. The correct  pronunciation of 敕勒 is Sau-ro, which is a shortened form of the translated word Sauromatae. Sauromatae is the name of their western homeland, probably modern-day Ukraine. During the mid-4th century, the Sau-ro nomads fled because of a great famine that had overtaken their homeland. They nomadized this great distance to Siberia and Mongolia searching for water and fodder for their flocks. Over time their migration continued, this time toward the south in quest of a more hospitable climate. As to be expected, local nomads with superior mobility and combat effectiveness attacked them along the way. The Sau-ro thus suffered defeat in 399 CE and again in 429 CE. Following these vanquishments the Northern Wei took approximately half-a-million Sau-ros, who had settled in central Mongolia and Trans-Baikal, prisoner. They were then again re-settled on the steppes of Inner Mongolia.

Around 430 CE, approximately another half-a-million Sau-ro, who had now occupid southern and western Siberia, were placed into servitude by the Rou-ran. In 487 CE, the Sau-ro migrated to northern Xinjiang where they established an empire that the Chinese designated Ko-ch. Bad luck was again to strike the Ko-ch people of the Sau-ro Empire for in 551 CE the Tu-jue ambushed and conquered them in Xinjiang Province. The Sau-ro Empire was now decimated. In 630 CE the remaining Ko-ch were re-settled in the Ordos. This filled a void as the Tang Dynasty had annihilated the former inhabitants, the Eastern Tu-jue. Because of heavy taxation and hard labor, the Ko-ch rebelled twice, once in 721 CE and again in 722 CE. Following the suppression of the 722 CE insurrections, the remaining slightly more than 50,000 Sau-ros were then re-settled as farmers in southern Henan Province.

Previously, in 429 CE many Sau-ro had been relocated to the Six Garrisons in Inner Mongolia. By 525 CE bureaucratic corruptions had become so oppressive that riots broke out and many Sau-ro were included among the rioters. Because of their loyalty, bravery, wild disposition, and skilled martial arts, a number of Sau-ro emerged, as founding fathers while other became high-ranking officers of the Eastern Wei and Western Wei Dynasties. When they entered China the necessity to comply with the compulsory Chinese Han culture forced the Sau-ro to conceal their identities. They integrated into the Chinese Han culture, took Chinese surnames, and intermarried with the Chinese.

Today, fourteen hundred years later, after erroneous and incomplete historical records since the Sui Dynasty (581-618 CE), the descendants of the Sau-ro know little of their ancestry. They do not know the correct pronunciation of their tribal name, or even less of the contributions their progenitors had infused into Chinese culture. The historical documents of the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE), which may have been manipulated by political forces, considered the Sau-ro to be the Ding-ling or Tie-le people. Historical researchers, studying the documents compiled between 429 CE and 551 CE, have been unable determine the real identies of the many tribal groups. Even the master historian Chen Yin-ke (陳寅恪)¹ was not able to solve this enigma. As this confusion occurred more than a millennia ago, we must now augment the ancient texts with data from archaeological excavations and western research in hopes of finding the missing links in the Chinese historical records.

Since the mid-19th century, Russian and Chinese archaeologists have excavated an enormous quantity of burials and their artifacts in Siberia, Trans-Baikal, Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, and Xinjiang. These have been stylistically identified as Scytho-Sarmatian and as the product of Sarmatian tribes. These archaeological remains are valuable resources that augment inadequate Chinese literature and also serve as a guide to trace the tribal migrations.

In researching the Scytho-Sarmatian burials and artifacts, both Chinese and western archaeologists have relied on C14 dating. This type of dating is problematic as often artifacts belonging to the great grandson are mistaken for those belonging to the great grandfather. This results in artifacts that are labled Xiong-nu in fact do not belong to the Xiong-nu nor Ding-ling nor Tie-le culture.

By correlating Western archaeology and historical literature, both western and Chinese, with that of the interpretations based upon our recent research, it is hoped that western and Chinese scholars will be able to better interpret Sauromatian history and culture.

Forward

Foreword

Through the recommendation of Dr. Jeannine Davis-Kimball, Director of the Center for the Study of Eurasian Nomads, we had the opportunity to read Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age, written by Russian archaeologists and edited by Davis-Kimball. Although quite valuable, the findings reveals that, due to inadequate and incorrect knowledge of Chinese history, the Russian archaeologists have failed to correctly date the relics, especially when there is no reliable textual data for reference (a problem shared by archaeologists worldwide). As dating is regarded as the first step to studying the relics, misdating results in misidentification and mal-inference.

Misidentification

A. The following list illustrates the types of misidentification that have occurred among both Russian and Chinese scholars;

1) Russian archaeologist Dr. Sergey Minayaev misjudged a Sauromatian ko-ch (cart), unearthed from the Tsaram Cemetery in Trans-Baikal as a Han chariot (an imperial gift) given to the Xiong-nu Shan-yu (great leader) by a Han emperor.

2) Dr. Leonid T. Yablonsky mistook central Asian tribes such as Wu-sun, West Ding-ling, Hephathlates, and Western Ko-ch (Sauromatians) for Saka.

3) What former Soviet Union archaeologist Dr. Kemal Akishev thought was a Saka prince of the 5th-4th c. BCE turned out to be a queen of the Ko-ch Empire, who was buried in the Issyk kurgan around 520 CE, wearing a "one-horned Hephthalite cap (a sign that a woman had only one husband).

4) P. K. Kozlov erroneously described the Scythian kurgans in Noin Ula as Xiong-nu kurgans.

5) A Han palace built in 840 CE in Abakan, southern Siberia, by the Kyrgyz for Princess Tai-he of the Tang Dynasty was incorrectly identified by C. B. Kiselev as the Palace of Li-lin, whom the Xiong-nu defeated in 99 BCE.

6) The Pazyryk kurgans constructed in southern Siberia by Western Ko-ch tribes for their Rou-ran rulers, 430-487 CE, were misdated by S. I. Rudenko as the 5th-3rd -centuries BCE Scythian kurgans.

7) M. I. Roslevtzeff misidentified the Alan or Aorsi kurgans in the southern Ural region as Sarmatian kurgans.

8) G. F. Debet, an ethnologist of the former Soviet Union, created a new race —Mongoloid Siberia —for the Sauromatian skulls that were unearthed in Trans-Baikal.

B. Russian archaeologists misidentifications of the Sauromatian kurgans in Noin Ula and Trans-Baikal as Xiong-nu burials have subsequently given rise to the following fallacies:

1) Mongolian archaeologists mistook the Sauromatian kurgans in Mongolia for Xiong-nu kurgans, and the Sauromatian carts for Han chariots.

2) In the Ordos, Chinese archaeologists repeatedly misjudged Sauromatian burials as those belonging to the Xiong-nu as

a. Xian-bei in Hu-lun-bei-er, Inner Mongolia

b. Wu-huan or Xiong-nu in Xi-feng, Liao-ning province

c. Fu-yu’s in Lao-he-shen and Mao-er Mountain, Ji-lin province

d. Mountain barbarian (山戎) in Jun-du Shan, Beijing,

e. Xi Rong (Western barbarians) in Gan-su province, and

f. Guz, in Turpan, Xin-jiang.

3) Chinese anthropologists have also created a new race for the Sauromatian skull unearthed in China: Mongoloid, a type of ancient or modern northern Chinese dolichocephalic.

1) Archaeological evidence has shown that in the mid-4th century CE the population in southern Siberia was sparse and their lifestyle was still Upper Paleolithic or Early Neolithic: hunting, fishing, and gathering. Yet, Russian archaeologists, based on some archaeological patchworks coupled with misdating and mistaken inferences, have put forth the theory that a Siberia civilization was advanced enough to equal, or even to have sparked, the Chinese Shang civilization (17-11 centuries BCE). Russian archaeology has never discovered a mining or smelting site while Chinese literature indicates the only iron-smelting site after the 6th century CE was Kyrgyz; these smelters collected ore from riverbeds.

2) Russian archaeology has not identified the origins of the in Southern Siberia so-called Andnorovo culture, or Karasuk culture, or the Tagar culture.

3) Before the 6th century, the indigenous people in southern Siberia, a branch of Mongolian nomadic Oghuz, had a life without a leader or permanent residence, and in constant search of water and pastures.² While still in the small clan-tribe stage with a relatively low level of socio-cultural integration, evidence does not indicate they had acquired copper or iron mining or smelting techniques.

4) The Sauromatians, who arrived in Siberia around the mid-4th century CE, brought metals with them from the Ukraine. Over time the stockpile of ore was depleted and, not being able to replenish their supply locally, they began to substitute wood, for example, for arrowheads. This substitution would not have been necessary if, as claimed by Russian archaeologists, copper mining and smelting technology had been in place before 2,500 BCE.

5) The tombs of the Afanasevo and the Okunev culture, which Russian archaeologists had excavated in southern Siberia, belong to different clan/tribes of the Oghuz people. However, the tomb construction should be in the 5th century, not 3,500-1,500 BCE as has been published. The accompanying artifacts of copper and painted pottery attributed to the Afanasevo and Okunev would have come from trade with the Sauromatians.

6) The Oghuz is a Mongolian with a high nose, not a specific Caucasoid, as Russian ethnologist G. F. Debet suggested.³ The Okunev culture is also Mongolian in nature. Therefore, the similar Afanasevo culture could not have been part of a Caucasian culture.

7) S. A. Teploukhov classified the Andronovo culture, the Karasuk culture, and the Tagar culture (herein AKT culture) based solely on basic visual observations of the graves, which have varied structures. Tomb structure diversification is a characteristic feature of all Sauromatian burials. The AKT cultures", with their varying burial types, should be considered one Sauromatian culture with sub-cultural clan/tribe.⁴ Their relationship is parallel and contemporary, rather than being perpendicular and inherited as suggested by S. A. Teploukhov.⁵ This explains why a cluster of related cultural relics, attributed to the AKT cultures, are found in the 5th-13th-centuries CE Sauromatian burials in China; some items even bear Runic inscriptions. These artifacts were all produced for, and used by Sauromatians, the same nomads as noted above, who immigrated from Outer Mongolia, Trans-Baikal, and Siberia to China between the late-4th and 6th centuries CE. Moreover, the cultural relics continued to be used by the descendants of the Sauromations.

8) The typology of daggers, arrowheads and horse harness bits, belonging to the three AKT cultures found in Outer Mongolia, Trans-Baikal, and Siberia, is similar to that of the Scythian and Sauromatian artifacts excavated in the Black Sea steppe and the Volga-Don River region. The plastic arts iconography is also similar between the two geographical regions. These facts underscore the idea that the artifacts were all produced by the same Sauromatians and their descendants (as mentioned above), who migrated from the Ukraine around the mid-4th century CE. The same typologies and iconography on specific items continued to be used by their descendants. Influence from 15th-century BCE Chinese immigrants, as suggested by C. B. Kiselev, is not found.

⁶

9) The so-called Tashtyk culture belongs to the Quriqans (骨利幹), ancestors of the Khakas and a northern neighbor of the Kyrgyzs (黠戛斯). Their chronology should be after the 7th century CE, not the 1st century BCE to the 4th centuries CE, as proposed by Russian archaeologists. Silk fabrics displaying Han-style animal images, cloud patterns, and Han characters found in the graves most probably were gifted from Tang Emperors between 647 CE and 694 CE.

10) There is no evidence of any link between the so-called Afanasasevo, Okunev, and Tashtyk cultures and the so-called Andronovo, Karasuk, and Tagar cultures. From an anthropological point of view, G. F. Debet, the Russian ethnologist, is correct when he asserts there is no direct genetic link between the Afanasasevo and Andronovo cultures that occupied the Minusinsk Basin.⁷

11) If dating, and interpretation of archaeological data, are accomplished by experts who have a depth of historical knowledge, the results have the potential to fill gaps and revise errors in historical texts. China is the only country with long history of communication with nations in Siberia, Mongolia, and Central Asia, and keeps volumes of witness records concerning these nations, Chinese experts are in a position to correlate the textual records with the archaeological material; they could date and interpret archaeological record from these nations. The citations of Chinese historical records in Russian archaeological reports frequently reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the foreign language. In reality, it is unrealistic to expect Russian, Kazakhstan, Mongolian, or Western archaeologists and historians, who are not trained in Chinese language and history, to accurately interpret the history.

Beside the central issues of the eastward migration of the Sauromatians, this monograph will also try to provide answers to the following questions concerning Sauromatian specifics, such as:

1) Is Wu Tzer-tian, the sole female Emperorin Chinese history, a descendant of the Sauromatians?

2) Are Huns the descendants of Northern Xiong-nu?

3) Is Saka the Asian Scythian?

4) Who are the Avars and the Pseudo-Avars?

5) What is the missing link between the Turkic Runic script and Gothic Runic alphabets?

6) What is the specific place of origin for Sauromatians and Sarmatians?

7) What is the origin of Hephthalites?

8) When did southern Siberia enter the Iron Age? Where did the iron ore come from?

9) Is the Nine Serial Meandering Castle at Fan-lin Village, Hei-long-jiang Province the royal castle of the Nine Tatars (Toquz-Tatar)?

10) How many different Bronze Age cultures were found at Yinxu (Yin Ruins)? Where did the Caucasoid skulls come from?

11) Where did the blond Mucri, blond Shi-wei, and blond Jurchen come from?

12) Which people does the Slab Grave culture belong to?

13) Who are the people associated with the Pazyryk kurgans in the Altai?

14) Who is the so-called Golden Man of the Issyk Kurgan?

15) Who built the Han-style Abakan Palace? And for whom?

16) Who are the people of the treasure of Tillya-tepe (Gold Hill) in Afghanistan?

In this monograph, we hope to clarify by using Chinese literary sources, all the outstanding historically issues regarding the Eurasian steppe peoples.

Chapter One. Nomadic Peoples in Northern China: Classification and Discussion

Chapter One.

Nomadic Peoples in NorthernChina:Classifications and Discussion

Section 1. Ding-ling, Sau-ro, Ko-ch, and Tie-le

Section 1. Ding-ling, Sau-ro, Ko-ch, and Tie-le

According to Bei Shi, History of the Northern Dynasties,⁸ The Ko-ch are probably descendants of the ancient Chi-di (赤狄), formerly known as Di-li (狄歷). Northerners [meaning Juan-juan] call them ‘Sau-ro’ (敕勒), while the Chinese [Northern Wei and Southern Dynasties] call them ‘Koch’ (高車) or ‘Ding-ling’ (丁零). The word Ko-ch literally means a cart with big wheels and many spokes. The Ko-ch language is said to be similar to that of Xiong-nu; according to legend: the Koch were thought to be nephews of Xiong-nu. The of Koch had many clans such as the Di, Yuan-he (Biao-he), Hu-lu, Jiepi, Hu-gu and Yi-qi-jin. Moreover, an additional . . . at least 12 clan names can be found among the Koch tribes, including the Qi-fu-li, Tu-lu, I-jan (乙旃), Da-lian, Ku-he (窟賀), Da-bo, A-lun, Muo-yun, Si-fen, Fu-fu-luo, Qi-yuan, and You-shu-pei."

The Old Tang Shu, History of the Tang Dynasty,⁹ notes:

"The progenitors of Uy-ghurs are the Xiong-nu. During the time of the Northern Wei, they called themselves ‘Tie-le’ (鐵勒). Their population was rather limited, but they were brave and fierce. They depended on the Ko-ch before being subdued by the Turks, and their recent name is Te-le (特勒). They do not have a supreme ruler or permanent residence, and they seek grass and water as they move along. They are fierce and yet tolerant, good at equestrian and archery, and extremely greedy, often living by looting. When the Tu-jue established an empire, the Tie-le were recruited as auxiliary and helped to conquer the east and west, annexing all of the threats from northern regional lands . . .The original tribes of Te-le (特勒) were Pu-gu, Tong-luo, Uy-ghur, Ba-ye-gu (Baysonqor), and Fu-luo, and the title of their tribal leader was ‘Irkin’ (俟斤).

The name Te-le was later changed to Uy-ghur. Chapter 199 of Tie-le Biography adds, The Tie-le is another branch of Xiong-nu. Since the establishment of the Tu-jue Empire, Tie-le became weak with its tribes disintegrating and dispersing. In early Wu-de era (CE 618-626) of the Tang Dynasty, all Tie-le tribes, including Xue-Yan-Tuo, Qi-bi, Uy-ghur, Du-bo, Gu-li-gan (Quriqan), Duo-lan-ge, Pu-gu, Tong-luo (Ton-g-ra), Hun (渾), Si-jie, Hu-xue, Xi-jie, and Bai-xi, re-gathered and sparingly settled to the north of the deserts [Mongolia and Siberia]. During the era of Da-ye (AD 605) of the Sui Dynasty, the Nijuechuluo Qaghanof Western Tu-jue became powerful, and all Tie-le tribes [west and south of the Altai Mountains] submitted to him.

New Tang Shu (The New History of the Tang Dynasty), Chapter 217, Uy-ghur Biography states that

The Uy-ghurs were descendants of Xiong-nu. They liked to ride on high-wheeled carts; they were called ‘Ko-ch’ or ‘Sau-ro’ during the Northern Wei period. In total there were 15 tribes scattered around the northern deserts [Mongolia and Siberia], including Yuan-he, Xue-yan-tuo, Qi-bi-yu, Du-bo, Gu-li-gan, Duo-lan-ge, Pu-gu, Ba-ye-gu (Ba-qi-gu), Tong-luo (Ton-g-ra), Hun (渾), Si-jie, Hu-xue, Xi-jie, A-de, and Bai-xi.. . . Yuan-he (袁紇), also called ‘U-hu’ or ‘U-he’, became the ‘Wei-he’ in the Sui Dynasty. They were a brave and fierce tribe without a supreme leader, and they moved about with changes of resources. The Wei-he were good riders and archers and often made their living by looting. They bowed to Tu-jue, which took advantage of their resources to conquer northern regional lands.

a. In Bei Sh

i. The Ko-ch was Sau-ro to the northerners.

ii. To the people of China, they were the Koch or Ding-ling (Dian-len).

b. In New Tang Shu

i. The Uy-ghurs was also called Ko-ch or Sau-ro during Northern Wei.

ii. The Tie-le (鐵勒) was the reformed name of Sau-ro (敕勒).

However, the pronunciations and written form of the Koch, Sau-ro, and Tie-le all vary considerably. It is probable that the different names, at different times, refer to the same peoples?

1) According to the Bei Shi records, attribute eighten tribes the Ko-ch. The Old Tang Shu text describes13 tribes of Tie-le. The New Tang Shu enumerate 15 tribes in Tie-le.As the tribal names of Ko-ch are completely unique from those of the Tie-le, question presents itself: could the Ko-ch be Tie-le?

2) The records in Old Tang Shu indicate the Uy-ghur once depended on the Ko-ch. If that were the case, the Uy-ghur could not be the Ko-ch. Then, what has happened to cause the New Tang Shu to state that Uy-ghur were called Ko-ch or Sau-ro by the Northern Wei while Tie-le (鐵勒) was the new form for the Sau-ro (敕勒)?

3) Mr. Yang Jia-luo (楊家駱先生CE 1912-1991) revised both the Wei Shu (History of Northern Wei Dynasties) and Bei Shi. In Chapters 2 and 103 of Wei Shu and Chapter 98 of Bei Shi, he changed the original tribal name of Biaohe Shi (表紇氏) to Yuanhe Shi (袁紇氏). In the revised version, Yuanhe Shi (袁紇氏) is a tribe of the Ko-ch. Yet, New Tang Shu indicates that Yuan-he is a tribe of Uy-ghur. These changes present these issues: Is Biao-he a typo of Yuan-he? Can Ko-ch be the same as Uy-ghur? Or are Mr. Yang’s revisions not sound?

According to the Tie-le Biography in Old Tang Shu,

. . .ever since the establishment of the Tu-jue state, the Tie-le have become weak because its tribes had disintegrated and migrated to other places. . . . during the year of Da-ye (大業) of the Sui Dynasty (CE 605), when Nijuechuluo Qaghan (處羅可汗) of the Western Tu-jue became powerful (their empire was established CE 552), all the Tie-le tribes submitting to the Qaghan.

Yet, according to Sui Shu (History of the Sui Dynasty), Chapter 84 Tie-le Biography,

since the time the Tu-jue had established their empire, the Tie-le were recruited as the vanguard of the empire, conquering both the east and west and annexing all of the threats from the northern lands.

Here we have a dichotomy between the two texts. How could the weakened and disintegrated Tie-le tribes fight for Tu-jue? Could it be that the people who fought for the Tu-jue quagan was not Tie-le, but some other race?

Later historians, based on historical records left from former dynasties, compiled The Bei Shi, Old Tang Shu, and New Tang Shu; they also contained personal opinions. History is a comprehensive and multi-faceted account of the past; it inevitably contains some unintentional mistakes due to the following factors:

1) Insufficient or inaccurate historical data.

2) Changing times and circumstances from the time of occurrence to the time of recording.

3) Historian’s knowledge and class bias (or class consciousness).

In Zhen-guan 3rd year (CE 630), Emperor Tai-zong took the History Office out of the Secretary Department and placed it within the palace, making it an independent institution with maximum control of historical record keeping. Under the feudal regime of the Tang Dynasty, all written historical documents had to be supervised by the Prime Minister and approved by the Emperor.¹⁰ Thus, chroniclers became a tool for the Emperor and high-ranking officials, with the historian’s spirit of seeking truth trampled underfoot. As a result, historical documents written by imperial historians, after the Tang Dynasty are usually of inferior quality compared to those compiled by independent historians. Some intentional editing and inconsistencies were inevitable.

In the era of feudal autocracy, if a new dynasty hindered or terminated the compilation of the of previous dynasties history, and later even removing the History Office from the Secretary Department and placing it within the palace for adroit manipulation of history, then there must be some reason lurking behind this unusual action. This should be explored.

It is our intention to correct, based on original historical data, the above-mentioned errors and inconsistencies in the Bei Shi, Sui Shu, Old Tang Shu, and New Tang Shu.

Section 2. The Origin of the Name Koch

Section 2. The Origin of the Name Koch

The tribal name Ko-ch first appeared in Wei Shu, Chapter 1 Preface, compiled by Wei Shou (魏收). According to Wei Shou, in the year of October of Chien-kuo 26th year (CE 363), the Xian-bei emperor [She-yi-jian] attacked the Ko-ch with great success, returning with 10,000 prisoners and millions of horses, cattle, and sheep. At first, the Xian-bei people did not have a written language. In the year of Shi-kuang 2nd (CE 425), scribes used more than a 1000 Chinese characters to transliterate their language, and referring to it as their national language.¹¹ Therefore, the word Ko-ch (高車) was a Xian-bei or Sau-ro word transliterated into Chinese, with its original pronunciation being Ko-ch. Dervities of Ko-ch have come into western languages, words, such as Kocs, Kutsche, Coche, and Coach. These are all derivatives of the word Ko-ch.¹² The Sau-ro depended heavily on their ko-chs (carts) for transportation; they rode in an endless caravan searching for pastures and water. The big wheels with many spokes deeply impressed the Tuo-ba people of the Xianbei, who had had little chance to see wagons or carts before. This resulted in the Tuo-ba nicknaming the Sau-ro people Ko-ch.

In Wei Shu, Chapter 2 Emperor Tai-zu Biography, it says, In February of Tien-hsien 2nd year (CE 399), all legions rendezvoused, and attacked and destroyed 30 scattered Ko-ch tribes, capturing more than 70,000 prisoners, 300,000 horses and 1,400,000 cattle and sheep. General Biao-qi, Prince Wei (Tuoba Yi) led 30,000 archers and crossed more than 1,000 li (about 415.8 km) through the desert to attack the remaining 7 tribes. He returned with more than 20,000 prisoners, 50,000 horses, 200,000 cattle and sheep, and 200,000 ko-chs.

The Ko-ch tribes in this ancient text are, therefore the Sau-ro.

This is the first detailed account that reveals how abundant and popular ko-chs were among the Sau-ro. Previously unknown to the Chinese, this new ethnicity appeared in northern China with many tribes³ and hundreds of thousands of yurts; the total population of the Sau-ro may have reached one million and, no doubt, their ko-chs would have stretched a great distance over the steppes.

Questions remain however. Where did Sau-ro come from? Were they native to Siberia or immigrants from one or more continents? Were they Mongolian or Caucasian? Then, where did they subsequently migrate to? These questions are the focus of the following discussions.

Section 3. Is Ko-ch Ding-ling (Dian-len)?

Section 3. Is Ko-ch Ding-ling (Dian-len)?

The historiographers of the Southern Dynasties (南朝) were the first to claim that the Ko-ch were the Ding-ling (Dian-len). As they had not actually seen any Ding-ling (Dian-len) or Ko-ch people before, the assertion was probably deduced from Han Shu, Chapter 54 Su Wu Biography, which comments, Ding-ling people stole cattle and sheep from Su Wu when he was herding in the Trans-Baikal area after being banished by the Xiong-nu. The historiographers therefore assumed that the people living in Siberia and Trans-Baikal were Ding-ling. Besides Ding-ling, according to Shi Ji (Records of the Grand Historian), Chapter 110 Xiong-nu Biography, other peoples also resided in Siberia; for example, the Hun-yu, Qu-ye, Ge-kun, and Xin-li. The same historiographers of the Southern Dynasties referred to the tribes north of Xiong-nu as Ding-ling. This actually is a geographic term or a collective name for those peoples, similarly to the Russians, who called all Chinese Qi-tan (Khitan).

However, records about the Ding-ling (Ko-ch) in Nan Qi Shu (History of Qi of the Southern Dynasties) were not completely accurate. For instance, Chapter 59 Juan-juan Biography says, In Yong-ming 10th year (CE 492), the Ding-ling attacked Juan-juan (Rou-ran) from the north and recovered their lost land, forcing the Juan-juan to move south. Yet, according to the Ko-ch Biography of Bei Shi, in Tai-he 11th year (CE 487), the Juan-juan Khan Yu-jiu-lu Dou-lun (豆崙) intended to invade Northern Wei. The Sau-ro leaders A-fu-zi-luo and Qiong-qi were opposed, but their opinion was rejected. The furious A-fu-zi-luo then led his followers to the northwest of Chien-bu (Tu-lu-fan, Xinjiang) where he