Oguz and Gok Turk People of the Same Race 

Turkmen khakan - Work of turkmen artist

Turkmen khakan – Work of turkmen artist 

Some of the Turkish tribes that had gatheredwithin the structure of the Gok-Turk khanate since the 6th century formed a union amongthemselves just like some other Turkish tribes. They had established the Dokuz-Oguz(Nine-Oguz) khanate within the region of Tolga-Selenga Rivers. Oguz people that weredefeated by Ilteriþ (Inek Gölü War) in the year of 682 were in this situation. Thestele of Baz Kagan who was the ruler of the Oguz State was erected in the tomb of IlteriþKagan. 

We have dealtwith the attitudes and rebellions of Oguz people in the period of the Gok-Turk khanate. Onthis occasion, the expressions within the inscriptions indicate that there was not anydifferentiation between Oguz and Gok-Turk people. Furthermore, it was stated that Oguzpeople constituted the base for the khanate. Therefore, it was already accepted that Oguzpeople and Gok-Turk people were of the same kind. ….

However, ThomsenV considered Oguz people as “a tribal union under the high sovereignty of Turks”within his las article that he allocated in the inscription of Tonyukuk. This historicalreality was then considered as an “ethnical” difference and the issue wasstudied in details with new researches. Thus, there has aroused an important point ofconflict in relation with the consideration of Oguz people as Turks and or any otherethnical organisation. The first important issue that is related with this matter iswhether such a community existed in return for Oguz people. 

It is possible togive a negative reply to this question. Actually, it has been cited that the name of”Turk” was a political name used for the expression of an “ethnicalidentity” with the meaning of power-strength. Therefore, they are included within thesame ethnical community together with the Oguz people that came from the lineage of”Turk”. In other words, the Oguz people and Gok-Turk people were of the samekind. Now, as for the second issue: which “Turkish” community founded theGok-Turk State. 

As it has beenknown, this state was founded by an ancient Turkish ruler dynasty called as “Aþina”through the support of the groups with “Turkish origin” around this dynasty.These groups must have been the Turks (in other words Oguz) that had formed a tribalunion. W. Barthold had the opinion that “the Gok-Turk rulers were from the origin ofDokuz-Oguz”. This opinion proves the relation between Aþina family and the membersof this Oguz unio. However, it has been cited within the Chinese resources that theTurkish (Gok-Turk) community in the 6th-7th centuries were directly composed of this groupof Oguz people. Within the documents pertaining to the T’ang period (T’ang-su and KiuT’ang-shu almanacs and 4 state translation), the nine tribes (the “Dokuz-Oguz”people in the inscriptions) were sometimes cited as the “nine tribes of Turks(Gok-Turks) or “the Turks (Gok-Turks) of Nine tribes, and sometimes as “ninetribes of Töles people”. 

Therefore, theDokuz-Oguz people of Töles people and the Dokuz-Oguz people of Gok-Turk people were thesame groups. In other words, the Oguz tribes constituted the community that formed theGok-Turk State. In the Chinese resources, the Oguz people were not cited as a separategroup (for example; directly as “Oguz” people) in the period of the Gok-TurkKhanate and the word of Oguz was translated as Nine tribes (Kui-sin) in these resources.This situation displays that there was not any need for the identification of thecommunity that was composed of T’u-küe (=Turk) under a different name. Due to the samereason, the name of “Oguz” was not cited in the period of 1st Gok-Turk Khanatewithin the inscriptions. However, in the period of interregnum, the members of the Aþinadynasty became puppets in the service of the Chinese palace. 

Upon this event,some of the tribes got organised among themselves and they founded a “state”.This state was the “organised” Oguz union that rebelled against the ruler’sdynasty in the period of the 2nd Gok-Turk Khanate. The government tried to suppress theserebellions of this union. Afterwards, the term of “Turkish tribal union” thatwere stated within the inscriptions implied the groups that were directly under thedomination of the ruler doubtlessly. Within the inscriptions, the ruler had uttered that”Oguz tribal union belonged to the Turkish tribal union”. 

It is difficultto observe a contradiction between this statement and the rebellions of Oguz people.Actually, the subject matter was composed of the struggle of the “people”against the dynasty that they supported and exalted. (There are some other examples forthis situation in the Turkish history). The resistance of Karluk people against Kara-Hanlipeople, the resistance of Turkmen people against the Seljuk sultans and the fight ofSultan Sencer that was an Oguz in origin against the rebellious Oguz people, etc…). 

Web Resource: Oz Turkler