Talk:History of the Uyghur people

Toquz Oghuz
At some point during their subjugation, nine Tiele tribes formed a coalition called Tokuz-Oguzes Nine-Tribes which also included the Xueyantuo (Syr-Tardush), Basmyl, Oguz, Khazar, Alans, Kyrgyz, Tuva and Yakut under the leadership of the Xueyantuo.

This is completely wrong. Two lists naming nine tribes of the Toquz Oghuz (Jiu Xing 九姓) are available in Chinese sources

Tang Huiyao 98: txt: "天寶初. 迴紇葉護逸標苾. 襲滅突厥小殺之孫烏蘇米施可汗. 未幾. 自立為九姓可汗. 由是至今兼九姓之號. [...] 其九姓一曰迴紇. 二曰僕固. 三曰渾. 四曰拔曳固. 即拔野古. 五曰同羅. 六曰思結. 七曰契苾. 以上七姓部. 自國初以來. 著在史傳. 八曰阿布思. 九曰骨崙屋骨恐. 此二姓天寶後始與七姓齊列. " engl. tr. "At the beginning of Tien-pao [742], the Hui-ho [Uighur] yabghu I-piao-pi surprised and destroyed the grandson of the little shad of the Turks, Ozmīš qaghan. Before long he set himself up as qaghan of the Chiu-hsing . From this time up to the present day they use the name Chiu-hsing as well [as the name Hui-ho ]. . . . The Chiu-hsing are: (1) Hui-ho [Uighur], (2) P'u-ku, (3) Hun, (4) Pah-yeh-ku , (5) Tung-lo , (6) Ssu-chieh, (7) Ch'i-pi - these seven tribes [ hsing-pu ] appear in historical records from the beginning of the dynasty. - (8) A-pu-ssu , (9) Ku-lun-wu-ku-[k'ong]. I [the editor of the text] suspect that the last two surnames [ hsing ] were first placed on an equality with the seven surnames after Tien-pao" (by Pulleyblank, 1956; quoted & cited in Senga 1990:58)

Xin Tangshu 217a: txt: "悉有九姓地. 九姓者，曰藥羅葛，曰胡咄葛，曰啒羅勿，曰貊歌息訖，曰阿勿嘀，曰葛薩，曰斛嗢素，曰藥勿葛，曰奚牙勿. 藥羅葛，回紇姓也，與仆骨、渾、拔、野古、同羅、思結、契六種相等夷，不列於數，" engl. tr. "[The Uighur qaghan] took complete possession of the lands of the Chiu-hsing. The Chiu-hsing are: Yao-lo-ko [Yaghlaqar], Hu-tu-ko, Ku-lo-wu , Mo-ko-hsi-chi , A-wu-tse , Ko-sa , Hu-wa-su , Yao-wu-ko , Hsi-ya-wu. The Yao-lo-ko was a surname [ hsing ] of the Uighurs. Uighur [being a tribal name] was of the same set with the [names] of the following six tribes [ chung ]: P'u-ku, Hun , Pa-yeh-ku, Tung-lo , Ssu-chieh, Ch'i-pi . I [the editor of the text] do not count these among the Chiu-hsing [because they were not surnames but tribal names]" by Senga (1990:59)

Jiu Tangshu vol. 195: txt: "開元中，回鶻漸盛，[...] 本九姓部落：一曰藥羅葛，即可汗之姓；二曰胡咄葛；三曰咄羅勿；四曰貊歌息訖；五曰阿勿嘀；六曰葛薩；七曰斛嗢素；八曰藥勿葛；九曰奚耶勿" engl. tr. During the period Kai-yüan [713-741], the Uighurs gradually became powerful.... '''The following were the original Chiu-hsing tribe [ pu-lo ]. (1) Yao-lo-ko, the qaghan's surname [hsing], (2) Hu-tu-ko, [(3) Ku-lo-wu , (4) Mo-ko-hsi-chi , (5) A-wu-tse , (6) Ko-sa , (7) Hu-wa-su , (8)Yao-wu-ko , ] (9) Hsi-ya-wu.'''" by Senga 1990.

The authors of the encyclopaedia "The Turks" is only right that the Basmyls were later included in the Tokuz Oghuz (forcibly); yet they also omitted the Karluks Jiu Tangshu vol. 195: txt: "破拔悉密，收一部落，破葛邏祿，收一部落，[...] 統號十一部落. 每行止鬥戰，常以二客部落為軍鋒. " tr. "Each [tribe of the original tribes of nine surnames] [was led] by one tutuk. [The original tribes of nine surnames] defeated the Basmyls, [and] incorporated [them Basmyls] as one [other] tribe; [the original tribes of nine surnames] defeated the Karluks, [and] incorporated them as one [other] tribe [...] In the end, [they] called [themselves] the Eleven Tribes. Whenever they went to battle, the 'guest' tribes (i.e. Basmyls and Karluks) were often used as vanguards" (mine)

Whether Ko-sa 葛薩 were Khazars is still inconclusive & seems unlikely

From the Khazars article

D. M. Dunlop tried to link the Chinese term for "Khazars" to one of the tribal names of the Uyğur Toquz Oğuz, namely the Gésà. The objections are that Uyğur Gesa/Qasar was not a tribal name but rather the surname of the chief of the 思结 Sijie tribe (Sogdian: Sikari) of the Toquz Oğuz, and that in Middle Chinese the ethnonym "Khazars", always prefaced with the word Tūjué (Tūjué Kěsà bù:突厥可薩部; Tūjué Hésà:突厥曷薩), is transcribed with characters different from those used to render the Qa- in the Uyğur word 'Qasar'.

Note: Kěsà (可薩) would have been pronounced something like kha'sat in both Early Middle Chinese/EMC and Late Middle Chinese/LMC, while Hésà (曷薩) would yield γat-sat in (EMC) and xɦat sat (LMC) respectively, where final 't' often transcribes –r- in foreign words. Thus, while these Chinese forms could transcribe a foreign word of the type *Kasar/*Kazar, *Gatsar, *Gazr, *Gasar, there is a problem phonetically with assimilating these to the Uyğur word Qasar/ Gesa [葛薩] (EMC/LMC Kat-sat = Kar sar = *Kasar)

Erminwin (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Karakhanids
Why is this page claiming that the Karakhanid Khanate is a Uyghur Kingdom? I have read a few books on this subject and none of them say anything about Uyghurs? It is primarily a confederation of Karluks, Chigils, and Yaghma tribes. Hzh (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here to say this exact same thing. I am now deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.196.21 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well the text has already been restored because I didn't explain my reasoning. The connection of the Qara Qanids is too dubious to include it in whole in the history section. It may deserve a passing mention. If it is going to be here, you have to present some compelling research to us about the Yaghma connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.196.21 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Uyghur was introduced as a nationality in the 1930s
http://books.google.com/books?id=AtduqAtBzegC&pg=PA214#v=onepage&q&f=false

21:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese wikipedia's policy on Historical Uyghur related articles
People who were called Uyghur "Huihu" 回鶻 at the time of the Uyghur Khaganate, get linked to Uyghur Khaganate. So Bayanchur Khan will get linked to Uyghur Khaganate for his ethnicity.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/回鹘

People who were called wèiwùér 畏兀儿 at the time of the Kingdom of Qocho, get linked to Kingdom of Qocho. So Wang Baobao's mother's ethnicity is linked to Kingdom of Qocho in Chinese wikipedia.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/畏兀儿

Note that Old Uyghur alphabet is called Huihu script and not Old Wéiwú'ěr script in Chinese wikipedia.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/回鹘文字母

Modern Uyghurs get linked to the modern Uyghur people article

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/维吾尔族

The Old Uyghur language has its own separate article from modern Uyghur, on the Chinese, German, Russian and Uzbek wikipedias but nobody created an article about it on English wikipedia yet.

Chinese wikipedia calls it "Huihu" language 回鹘语, and indicates that this was spoken in the Kingdom of Qocho (Gaochang)

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/回鹘语

There are also a Chinese, Russian, and Turkish wikipedia articles on the language of the Turkic Khaganate, Chinese wikipedia calls it "Tujue" language. Note that it is an entirely different article from the Old Turkic language article.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/突厥语

In fact the Chinese article linked to the English Old Turkic language article is a disambiguation page, it lists Tujue language, 回紇 Huihe language (alternate name for Uyghur Khaganate language), and (Gaochang) Huihu language

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/突厥－回鹘语

Rajmaan (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

History of Uygh-ur
Uyghur. After Goturk lost against Muslim Armies, the Uyghur converted to Islam and rebelled, creating the Uyghur Khaganate in 744. In 1209 they declared vassals of Genghis Khan. The Uyghur are mixed with haplogroup 34% J Middle East, 21% R, 10% Chinese, 6% mongol, 5% Uralic and 5% Turk; the women 50% Asiatic.

The Uyghur are descendants of the Tocharian-red haired people who conquered the Gansu pass and West China, called Xirong and then Yuezhi in China. Part of the Yuezhi were pushed out by the Xiongnu-Hünnü to the Ili River (east Kazakhstan) during the 2nd century BCE (the Gansu was repopulated by Wusun as Xiongnu vassals and they became allies of the Han dynasty). From the Ili River were pushes out by the Wusun in 133 BCE. The Yuezhi-Yue Chi-Tocharians are pushed to the current Tajikstan were they form the Kushan Empire around 30 CE from Khwarezm to Pakistan and north India. The Kushan were conquered by Hephthalites, white Hun, or Huna people for Indian, forming the Hephthalite Empire from India to Khwarezm, (the Xionites or Kidari or “red Hun” in Tokharistan, current Tajikistan, were the center of the Hephthalite Empire-White Hun). The Hephtahlite are finally incorporated into the Gotürk Empire. The fall of the Gotürk open the door to the independence of Sogdiana+Tukhara (old Hephthalite and Xionite, red and white hun), Kwarezm and Khazars (Kwarezm and all books were destroyed in the Muslim conquer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:2A40:7201:58A5:9972:E179:AB13 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell me where you are getting this information from? Seems kind of vague and POV like, not only that but the Kushans you speak about found their empire in Afghanistan and the Hepthalites themselves were their descendants. Akmal94 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am going to make a point to remove all this Tocharian nonsense. Uighurs arrived in 840. 71.161.196.21 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)John Dee

What you are saying is compelling, but completely unsupported 71.161.196.21 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Kara Khanids
The Karluks and Basmils defeated the Uighurs in 840. The Uighurs retreated into the Tarim Basin, probably with the Sogdian elements that had taken refuge with them (which explains the culture of Qocho). The Karluks and Basmils moved into Sogdia when pushed by the Krygyz out of Mongolia. Therefore you have these distinct cultures, Qocho, Qara Khanids, and Krygyz who had all previously been fighting eachother. The Yagmhas were associated with the Toquz Oghuz who previously inhabited Trans-Oxiana. The Wikipedia page for them mentions them in the Kashgar in the 9th century. It would be interesting to connect them with the Uighurs and study this more. But to consider them as and extension of Uighurs is rediculous, plus I doubt they even played enough of a role in the Qara Khanids to consider it Uighur. 71.161.196.21 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC) John Dee

When Kara Khanids is removed, only "Kingdom of Qocho" is left in the Uighur Kingdom section. Therefore, the section can be retitled Kingdom of Qocho, which will fit nicely after the Uighur Khaganate. The citation of Millward which includes Uighurs being associated with the yaghmas, which is useful information, will be moved elsewhere. The Kara Khanids, and their history, will be removed. 71.161.196.21 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)John Dee
 * Your reliable sources for your contentions being... where? You keep removing content and declaring that you know better, but you've not cited a single source to support your theory/WP:OR. You will move a source elsewhere. Please read WP:OWN... but, bear in mind that you are being reverted by editors who actions are WP:STEWARDSHIP. Removing content because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an option. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have begun corresponding with the author of the source. During discourse, my issue with this became clear, and I feel rather silly for even bringing it up with him. The claim that the Uighur people MAY be connected with the Qara Khanids through the [Yagmha], "one component" of the Khaganate, does not warrant it being included in the "Uighur Kingdoms" section. The Qara Khanids are not a "Uighur Kingdom". That is why I am recommending moving this statement, and removing overall the summary of the Qara Khanids, which will be hyperlinked anyways. Thus the Kingdom of Qocho is the only "Uighur Kingdom" left, and can become it's own section. 71.161.196.21 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)John Dee
 * Ok, Ok, I will get some sources, hold on. 71.161.196.21 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Here is an interesting little snibbit from our conversation: "I certainly see no reason to exclude discussion of the Qarakhanids from Uyghur history. Nor do the Uyghurs: their shrines and popular histories embrace Satuq Bughra Khan, for example." 71.161.196.21 (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)John Dee

I am backing down because of the above quote, but I am still looking for a way to disprove it as a Uighur kingdom. 71.161.196.21 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)John Dee
 * IP User:71.161.196.21 wrote "but I am still looking for a way to disprove [the Kara-Khanid] as a Uighur kingdom". There's a way: Mahmud al-Kashgari, himself of Kara-Khanid nationality, did not consider his people the Kara-Khanids and the Uyghur contemporaries in Qocho to be the same people (Maħmūd al-Kaśġari. (1982) "Dīwān Luğāt al-Turk". Edited & translated by Robert Dankoff in collaboration with James Kelly. In Sources of Oriental Languages and Literature. Part I. p. 82-86). In fact, Kashgari, a devout Muslim, looked down on the Buddhist Qocho Uighurs and considered them as enemies
 * Maħmūd al-Kaśġari. (1982) "Dīwān Luğāt al-Turk". Edited & translated by Robert Dankoff in collaboration with James Kelly. In Sources of Oriental Languages and Literature. Part II. p. 111. quote: "nevertheless, he raids) the Uighur and captures them [separately?]and sells them all together";
 * Maħmūd al-Kaśġari. (1982) "Dīwān Luğāt al-Turk". Edited & translated by Robert Dankoff in collaboration with James Kelly. In Sources of Oriental Languages and Literature. Part II. p. 272. quote: "then we headed towards Uighur, and conquered Miŋlāq").


 * Toquz Oghuz refugees (including refugees from the Uyghur khaganate), likely contributed to the ethnogenesis of Karakhanids (through the Yaghmas, whose kings were of Toquz Oghuz descent; if the Hudud al-Alam were correct), yet classifying Karakhanids as "Uyghur kingdom" diminishes the roles of Karluks and Chigils. Why is the Kara-Khanid Khaganate considered exclusively "Uyghur kingdom" and not a "Karluk kingdom" or "Chigil kingdom"? Erminwin (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Incoherent statement
"The Uyghur claim is based partly on a word, which they argued to be Uyghur, found in written scripts associated with these mummies"

This hardly makes sense. The mummies pre-date literacy in the Tarim Basin by thousands of years and there are no "written scripts" found with them. Somebody has evidently gotten confused, but was it the Uyghur nationalists or the Wikipedia editor? RandomCritic (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While I don't have access to the cited text, these are other observations from the same compilation. It certainly reads as some form of WP:SYNTH over academically contested premises. I'm tagging the relevant statement for both clarification and cite verification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Uyghur people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306105709/http://www.uyghurcongress.org/en/?cat=132 to http://www.uyghurcongress.org/en/?cat=132

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)