The article examines and reanalyzes the data of written sources, based on which some scholars assumed the existence of dual power in the Turkic Khaganate. First, we are talking about a hypothetical institute of the small khaganate, while the corresponding title is mentioned only in Chinese sources (kit. xiao ke-han). Secondly, it is a version of the division of power between two noble Turkic families, which grew up on the basis of a dual marriage organization, the existence of which among the Turks is also hypothetical. The specific source material does not allow us to speak about the validity of these hypotheses.

Key words: Turks, khaganate, dual power, co-government, small khagan, dual organization.

Dual power is considered a traditional institution for nomadic, in particular Turkic, political entities, but the nature of which, nevertheless, is seen differently by scientists [for literature, see: Doerfer, 1967, p. 161-162; Trepavlov, 1993, p.75-76, 95-96].

During the existence of the First Turkic Khaganate, the title of khagan was quite widespread. The question of the role and place of the so-called small kagans (xiao-ke-han ) and *ev kagans (< i-ke-han) in the state structure remains unclear. About the existence of the latter, the only mention in the sources refers to the period of the First Khaganate [Materials..., 1984, p. 68, 305, approx. 46; History of the Kazakh SSR, 1977, p. 331; History of Kazakhstan, 1996, p. 302; Zuev, 1998, p. 155, 159; Zuev, 2002, p. 212, 280, 289; Tasagil, 2003, p. 114], although nothing specific is reported, except that it is called "The Kazakh language". subordinate meaning in relation to the kagan (Drompp, 1991, p. 94). However, Yu. A. Zuev gave convincing arguments in favor of the fact that i-ke-han" at the dawn of Turkic history " was the title of the leader of the shire [Zuev, 1998, p. 160].

Some authors, apparently following the literal interpretation of the term, compare * ev kagan with the position of the Khazar kagan, who was only a symbolic sacred figure [Golden, 1980, p. 200-202; Golden, 1982, p. 46, 56; Golden, 1992, p. 147; Golden, 1993, p. 225; Trepavlov, 1996, p. 115-116; Kychanov, 1997, p. 97, 280]. But the khagan of the Turks of the VI-VIII centuries is quite an active military leader and political figure.

P. M. Melioransky suggested that the lesser khagan was the second title in the hierarchy of the ancient Turks [Melioransky, 1899, p. 110]. F. Laszlo considered all other holders of the title of khagan, except the supreme ruler, to be minor khagans [László, 1967, p. 23-24]. M. Mori generally considered all holders of the title of khagan as minor khagans. feudal appanage rulers [Mori, 1970, p. 2-3, 4, 5]. D. Avcioglu considered the small khagans to be the leaders of the right and left wings of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate [Avcioglu, 1976, p.752]. According to V. V. Trepavlov, the small khagan is a specific ruler, co-ruler [Trepavlov, 1989, p. 144, 168 note. 29; Trepavlov, 1994, p. 51]. A. Tashagil equates the titles *ev kagan and maly kagan at all [Tasagil, 2003, s. 97, not 560]. E. I. Kychanov pointed out that this is their presence

page 23
It was a consequence of the claims to power of various members of the A-shih clan who wanted to share it with the supreme khagan (Kychanov, 1997, p.107).

In the period of the First Khaganate, there is a case when the younger brother of Ji-min Kagan Su-ni-shi received from his son Shi-bi Kagan (609-619) the title of Yishbar (Sha-bo-lo shad), and from his other son Se-li Kagan the title of small kagan after Tolis surrendered to the Chinese (< kit. Tu-li) khagan (628), the son of Shi-bi, who did not receive the khaganate at one time due to his small age [Julien, 1864(2), p. 234; Parker, 1901(2), p. 241, 242; Liu Maocai, 2002, p. 95; Tasagil, 2003, s 84; Tasagil, 1999, p. 52].

Already in the period of the Second Khaganate in 699, Kapgan (Mo-zho ) khagan appointed his son Fu-ju as a minor khagan with powers above the right and left wing shads [Julien, 1864(2), p. 424; Chavannes, 1903, p. 282, p. 5; Kuehner, 1961, p. 190; Tasagil, 2004, p. 28, 42, 66, 86], which can be considered as an attempt to strengthen one's own power. The latter received the nickname To-si, which, due to misreading as Kyu-si [Bichurin, 1950, p. 270] 1 gave rise to the hypothesis of transcription [Melioransky, 1899, p. 110]. In Chinese sources, the son of Mo-zhuo is also known, who had the title of Yi-ni ke-han (Osawa, 2010, p. 194-195), in whom, apparently, it is possible to see the same To-si (Tasagil, 2004, p. 41). In the Tonyukuk stele, he appears under the title inal qayan (T, stk. 32, 45). O. F. Sertkaya believes that In l2 should be read Ini il, and not Inel qayan, which means 'younger el kagan' [See: Aydin, 2006, p. 3].

Some researchers tend to see signs of co-construction with a weak kagan under the Tasiar (To-bo ) kagan in the period 572-581, along with which the Bugut stele mentions Nivar Kagan [Klyashtorny and Livshits, 1971, p. 129, 130; Kljastornyi and Livsic, 1972, p. 72, 74; Klyastornyi and Livsic, 1992, s. 205, 207]. It is known from Chinese sources that Nivar (Er-fu ) khagan was appointed by Taspar, who was his uncle, as the khagan of the eastern regions [Bichurin, 1950, p. 233; Julien, 1864(1), p. 353; Parker, 1900(1), p. 172; Chavannes, 1903, p. 227. p.; Kychanov, 1997, p. 106; Tasagil, 2003, s. 27, 147] 2. It is also known that around 573, the Qing monk Hui-lin, who was captured by the Turks, convinced Taspar Kagan that "the House of Qi is rich and strong because it observes the law of the Buddha" and "explained to the Khan the natural order of moral retribution." Taspar sent a messenger to the Cis for sacred books and established a Buddhist worship service, in which he took part [Bichurin, 1950, p. 234-235; Julien, 1864(1), p. 354; Parker, 1900(1), p. 168, 172; Liu Maocai, 2002, p. 29; Kichanov, 1997, p. 112; Tasagil, 2003, s. 28, 178]. The Bugut stele mentions Taspar's order "Establish the great New Sangha "(RBkw nwh snk' 'wst rty) (B II, stk. 10) [Kljastornyi and Livsic, 1971, p. 133, 139; Kljastornyi and Livsic, 1972, p. 77, 86; Klyastornyi and Livsic, 1992, p. 226, 236]. Under Taciiape, Nirvanasutra was translated and written into the Turkic language (Julien, 1864(1), p. 354; Parker, 1900(1), p. 167, 172; Liu Maocai, 2002, p. 29, 32; Gaben, 1986, p.170). Theoretically, Taspar could easily have ceded the main powers to the Nivar Kagan, taking the place of a kind of spiritual head himself. It is also characteristic that after Taspar, it was Nivar, the son of Taspar's older brother, who was elected supreme khagan.

There is another piece of indirect evidence that may shed some light on the issue at hand. About Che-bi Kagan (630-649) in a Chinese source

1 Cf. possible interpretation of to-si as 'westward expansion' [Vasiliev, 1897, p. 16 note 3], ' la kagan qui met l'ordre dans l'occident '(the kagan who establishes order in the West) [Chavannes, 1903, p. 282 p. 3], 'holding the west in his hand' [Kunsr, 1961, p. 190], 'T'o-hsi (Genis Bati) anlamli' (T'o-si meaning 'Wide West') [Tasagil, 2004, p. 28, 42].

2 For the identification of the Sogdian spelling Nivar (nw " r) with Er-fu, see [Klyashtorny and Livshits, 1971, p. 129, ed. 14, p. 141; Kljastornyi and Livsic, 1972, p. 76, p. 7; Klyastornyi and Livsic, 1992, p. 207, p. 6; Kljastornyi and Livsic, 1978, p. 55-56].

page 24
it is said that he, being "from the Tuliev aimag", i.e. tolis, the eastern wing, "was inherently a small khan" [Bichurin, 1950, p. 263; Julien, 1864(2), p. 397; Tasagil, 1999, p. 90; Zuev, 2004(2), p. 11 Bichurin, 1950, p. 264; Julien, 1864 (2), p. 397; Kuehner, 1961, p. 187; Tasagil, 1999, p. 90 ;Zuev, 2004(2), p. 12]. The "Xin Tang shu" states that Che-bi did not accept the title of grand khagan, since it was already held by the Seyanto I-nan [Zuev, 2004(2), p. 12; Tasagil, 1999, p.39]3. If we accept the rather shaky but interesting hypothesis of G. E. Grumm-Grzhimailo that Che-bi was the son of Se-li kagan [Grumm-Grzhimailo, 1926, p. 277]4, then all the data from the sources would build a clearer picture. We would have some reason to assume that minor khagans with the rights of a co-ruler were appointed heirs to the throne, or at least those who could claim it in the future.

However, the fact that after the execution of the te-le leaders by the Western Chu-lo kagan in 603, one of the nobles of the qi-bi tribe named Ge-leng was proclaimed kagan, and the se-yan- to leader named Ye-si was proclaimed a small kagan [Bichurin, 1950, p. 339; Pozdneev, 1899, p. 45; Chavannes, 1903, p. 95 (here: Ye-tie); Tasagil, 2003, s. 89, 137, 166; Tasagil, 1999, s. 32-33; Zuev, 2004(1), p. 14; cf.: Kuehner, 1961, p. 39; Borovkova, 1992, p. 102] 5, indirectly testifies to the independent status of the small kagan.

There are still a few minor reports about the institute of small khaganism among the Western Turks. Two minor kagans were appointed under the minor Chullo kagan (603-611) [Bichurin, 1950, p. 279; Borovkova, 1992, p. 101; Kychanov, 1997, p. 107; Tasagil, 2003, s. 89, 107; Tokuda, 2010, p.55]. In 630, the western Si-bi Mo-hae-do khagan, formerly a small khagan, proclaimed himself a great khagan, but caused popular discontent [Chavannes, 1903, p. 26, 54; Tasagil, 1999, p. 92] 6. Subsequently, the small khagan I-li was mentioned , who "rendered great services to the state", but the next khagan Si she-hu (630-633) was executed "on slander" with the whole family (Chavannes, 1903, p. 27; Bichurin, 1950, p. 285; Kychanov, 1997, p. 110; Tasagil, 1999, s. 93]7. However, we don't know who he was. When a new khagan was elected to the throne in 638, the then ruling khagan Sha-bo-lo Si-li-shi wanted to make a small khagan, and to proclaim Yu-gu shad, the son of eastern Se-li, as the supreme khagan [Chavannes, 1903, p. 28, 56; Bichurin, 1950, p. 286; Tasagil, 1999, s. 94. On Se-li's son in the West, see Borovkova, 1992, pp. 110, 114, 168-169, note 2].

There are some data that allow us to correct our understanding of the essence of small kagans. Under Shi-bi in 615, the Sung court granted his brother Chi-chi shad the title of southern khagan (nan-mian ke-han ) [Julien, 1864(1), p. 541; Liu Maocai, 2002, p. 59; Tasagil, 2003, p. 64, 171-172; Klyashtorny, 1964, p. 115]. A similar measure is known in relation to Xie-yan-to, when in 638 "the emperor, fearing that the Yinan might become too strong, made both of his sons minor khans by decree" (Bichurin, 1950, p. 340; Kuehner, 1961, p. 44; Malyavkin, 1981, p. 8; Tasagil, 1999, s. 99; Zuev, 2004(1), p. 19; Hirth, 1899, p. 136]. By that time, the sons had already been appointed by their father as the leaders of the right and left wings. These measures of the Chinese emperor were clearly aimed at weakening the supreme power of the nomads.

3 See N. Ya. Bichurin: "generations wanted to make Khubo a sovereign over themselves: but at this time, Xiayanto declared himself khan, and they succumbed to him" (Bichurin, 1950, p. 263).

4 Yu. A. Zuev does not consider him the son of Shi-bi Kagan at all [Zuev, 2004(2), p.12].

5 In the texts, their titles are voiced as Yi-wu-zhen Mo-he kagan and Yi-si-bo kagan, respectively (Bichurin, 1950, p. 339, 346; Pozdneev, 1899, p. 45; Chavannes, 1903, p. 95; Tasagil, 2003, p. 80,89; Tasagil, 2003). 1999, s. 32-33]. The full title of chief chi-bi is given as Si-lifa Si-jin Chi-bi Ge-leng

6 Wed. at N. Ya. Bichurin: "At the very beginning, he separated the small khanate from the state, and declared himself the supreme khan, which the nobles were dissatisfied with" [Bichurin, 1950, p.284].

7 It is also called I-tsy kagan (Chavannes, 1903, p. 56).

page 25
As can be seen from the above, small kagans were the rulers of some territories, as well as the southern kagan. It is characteristic that Shi-bi himself gave titles to Chinese generals who came over to his side: Gu-chi received the title of Wu-li shad, and Liu Wu-zhou-and even Ding-yang kagan, and Liang Shi-du-Da-du Pi-jia kagan [Liu Maocai, 2002, p. 60, 61; Tasagil, 2003, p. 66, p. 364, p. 174]. In 697, Mo Zhuo, having supported the turmoil in China, appointed Yan zhi wei, who had been lured to his side, as the southern khagan (nan-mian ke-han ) [Klyashtorny, 1964, p. 85; Liu Maocai, 2002, p. 78; Tasagil, 2004, s. 25, 26, p. 101, s. 65, 85]. Hence, the title of kagan was not some unique title. As early as 563, Muhan (Mu-gan ) khagan appointed his younger brother Ah-shi-na Ku-tu with the title Di-tu khagan to govern the eastern lands of the khaganate [Tasagil, 2003, p. 23], and the third khagan is also mentioned under this year in the" Tzu-zhi tung-jian". Bu-li [Tasagil, 2003, p. 144]. The next khagan, Taspar (To-bo), appointed to govern the eastern lands of the khaganate She-tu with the title of Nivar (Er-fu ) khagan, and the western lands-the son of his younger brother Zhu-tan with the title of Bu-li kagan [Julien, 1864(1), p. 353; Parker, 1900(1), p. 172; Chavannes, 1903, p. 227, P.; Kychanov, 1997, p. 106; Tasagil, 2003, s. 27, 147; cf. Bichurin, 1950, p. 233]. After the death of Taspar, three khagans reigned at all: An-lo Yishbara (Sha-bo-lue), Ana (A-bo ), later a certain Tan-han khagan was also mentioned, and, in addition, the title of khagan was nominally subordinate to the supreme eastern khagan Tardu (Da-tu ) in the West [Bichurin, 1950, p. 235, 236; Julien, 1864 (1), p. 365, 366; Parker, 1900(2), p. 2, 4; Tasagil, 2003, s. 35, 150, 195 (Dizin)]. There is indirect evidence for the presence of two small kagans in the Ana Kagan shire (Osawa, 2003).

These evidences give reason to believe that the Turks had neither the title of minor khagan nor the corresponding political institution as such. The Chinese entry xiao ke-han did not denote a specific term, but was only used to refer to holders of the title khagan, who are ranked below the supreme khagan (da-ke-han ).

During the existence of the Second Eastern Turkic Khaganate, Yu. A. Zuev assigns Tonyukuk the main role in the state under the first three khagans, considering him to be a kind of manager of all affairs under virtually powerless khagans [Zuev, 2002, p. 88, 215-218]. Indeed, the Tonyukuk stele is replete with arbitrary phrases, listing the author's merits [Klyashtorny, 1964, pp. 66-67], while the Khosho-Tsaydam monuments belonging to members of the Kagan family do not mention Tonyukuk at all. However, the term ajyuci considered by Yu. A. Zuev [Zuev, 2002, p. 215-216], which is so often found in the Tonyukuk monument, with the meaning 'adviser' [User, 2006, p. 223; Aydin, 2008, p. 50-51], is probably not a position, and Tonyukuk's actions are rather not due to his place in the social hierarchy, but by age status and life experience [Aydin, 2008, p. 51]. The absence of Tonyukuk's name in the Hosho-Tsaydam texts can be explained by his belonging to the group of Kapgan heirs hostile to the Ilterish children, and the latter's unwillingness to recognize his contribution to their own success.

In general, the hypothesis about the special status of Tonyukuk is based on a peculiar understanding of the connection between the two most influential ancient Turkic families - the ruling family of A-shi-na and the family name of A-shi-de, from which Tonyukuk originated.

The question of the marriage system among the ancient Turks cannot be considered sufficiently studied today. Written sources are too scanty, and the substitution of comparative historical and ethnographic factual material cannot provide a reliable basis for any solid conclusions.

Yu. A. Zuev was the first to suggest that the Turkic genera A-shi-na and A-shi-de formed an endogamous dual organization [Zuev, 1967, pp. 16-17; Zuev,

page 26
1981, p. 67] 8. The same idea was expressed by other scientists [see, for example, Mori, 1970, p. 1-2]. Subsequently, this hypothesis was developed in generalizing studies [Torlanbayeva 2003], including those that traced the marriage union of two clans to the beginning of the foundation of the khaganate [Zhumaganbetov, 2003, p. 183, 184; Zhumaganbetov, 2008(1), p. 15; Zhumaganbetov, 2008 (2); Dosymbayeva, 2010] .S. G. Klyashtorny I tried to substantiate this hypothesis based on the similarity of the upper tamga of the Choiren stele and the tamga of A-shi-te in Chinese sources, but as A. M. Shcherbak correctly noted (Shcherbak, 2001, p.85-86), the external similarity of tamgas is an insufficient argument. The only written indication is present in Chinese sources, which mention that Tonyukuk's daughter Po (So?)is the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son.- fu was the wife of Bilge Kagan [Bichurin, 1950, p. 273; Julien, 1864(2), p. 459; Hirth, 1899, p. 24; see also: Julien, 1864(2), p. 475; Tasagil, 2003, s. 56, 76, 92; cf. 1950, p. 278], and a certain Ah-shi-de Mi-mi (probably also known as Ah-shi-de Hu-lu) married the 17-year-old daughter of Kapgan Kagan [Hirth, 1899, p. 278]. 12, Anm. 1; Pelliot, 1912, p. 302, p. 1; Clauson, 1973, p. 211; Tasagil, 2003, s. 70, 88; Baykuzu, 2006, s. 8]. This hypothesis does not take into account two circumstances.

First, there are no specific references to the influence of the Ah-shi-te clan during the First Khaganate. This genus was first mentioned in the Ju Tang shu in 622 with an occasional appearance in the historical arena of Zhe-han Ah-shi-te (Parker, 1901(1), p. 165; Parker, 1901(2), p.236). In his commentary to this fragment, E. H. Parker pointed out that Ah-shi-te is "the second most noble family after Ah - shi-na" [Parker, 1901(1), p.171, p. 348]. The Yuan-he xing zuan (ts. 5, l. 66) and Tung zhi (ts. 29, l. 156) say: "Ashide is a special name for the descendants of the Shan Kagan who lived at the beginning of tujue" [Zuev, 2002, p. 224]. Cf. Hirth, where shi 'origin' is interpreted as part of the name: Shi-shan ke-han [Hirth, 1899, p. 11].

Secondly, Qutlug (Gu-do-lu), the founder of the Second Khaganate, came from the sheh-li tribe, a side branch of A-shi-na. For example, compare tamga A-shi-na [Zuev, 1960, p. 101, 121] against tamga on the Khosho-Tsaydam stelae [Atlas..., 1892, pl. 1, Table XVII], the lower tamga on the Choiren stele (Klyashtorny, 1980, p. 94; Orkun, 1994, p. 359), the tamga on the top of the Onga monument (Orkun, 1994, p. 626), and the tamga of the Sheli tribe (Zuev, 1960, p. 359). 101, 119] and the che-li tribe [Zuev, 1960, p. 101, 120], as well as tamga on the southern side of the Unghetu stele [Mert, 2008, p. 288; Voitov, 1987, p. 331 fig. 5.1] and on the Urga stele [Orkun, 1994, s. 354]. The upper tamga on the Choiren stele [Klyashtorny, 1980, p. 94; Orkun, 1994, p. 359]9 coincides with the inscriptions of the "horned" tamga of the A-shi-de family [Zuev, 1960, p. 359]. 98, 113]. In our opinion, the important role of Tonyukuk is explained rather by the increased power of his Ah-shi-te clan during the anti-Chinese uprising of 679, due to the exclusively personal qualities of its leaders. The hypothesis about the similar role of Edizs as mating with the Kagan clan in the Uyghur Kaganate is also poorly supported by the data of sources [Zuev, 2002, p. 229-230; Zuev, 2004(2), p.13].

An interesting interpretation of the relationship between the two most prominent Turkic families was given by J. R. R. Tolkien. Klosona. J. Klauson considers bösük tütjür, a combination found in later Uyghur monuments (Clauson, 1972, p. 380-381; see also: Old Turkic Dictionary, 1969, p. 597-598), as a traditional institution of dual marriages among the ancient Turks, where bösük means 'a tribe or clan whose members can give their daughters as wives' ('a tribe or clan to members of which one's daughters can be given in marriage'), a tütjür - 'tribe or clan to members of which one's daughters can be given in marriage'

8 We do not touch here on the problem of the basmyl ~ basmal tribe (ba-si-mi also, according to Yu. A. Zuev, was in a marriage union with A-shi-na, but was autonomous to A-shi-de. The basis for this statement, apparently, was the data of "Tzu-zhi tung-jian", "where under 720 it is reported that the Basmal dynasty is A-shi-na, and they themselves are descended from Tu-que" (Zuev, 1960, p. 104).

9 Cf. also tamgi on the Tsrkhin stele and monument from Mogoin Shine Usu [Klyashtorny, 1980(2), p. 84, Table 1, fig. b, c; Klyashtorny, 1983, p. 79, fig. b, c; Klyashtorny 1987, p. 21, Table 2, Fig. b, c].

page 27
a tribe or clan from which daughters can be taken in marriage (Clauson, 1973, p. 211).

In the Begre monument, indeed, the term türjür-imä is found (E-11, stk. 8) [Malov, 1952, p. 31, 32; Kormushin, 1997, p. 272, 273; Kormushin, 2008, p. 104], translated by I. V. Kormushin as 'matchmakers', but used without a defining context [Kormushin, 1997, p. 275; Kormushin, 2008, p. 287]. It is important that in the source the term is used with the determinative jat-da, the semantic connotation of which, as I. V. Kormushin points out, is the constancy of the location of members of the tüijür group, i.e. literally jatda tüijürimä meant ' my relatives from foreign lands, (living) in foreign lands' [Kormushin, 1997, p. 275]. A. N. Bernshtam tried to see this term as an indication of the land lot of the father-in-law [Bernshtam, 1946, p.153-154, 156]. However, the haste and groundlessness of such a statement was immediately noted [Kiselyov, 1947, p. 84]. J. Clawson fixes the termtüijür in Uyghur documents in the sense of 'a tribe (or a member of a tribe) to which daughters could be given in marriage', noting that only later it acquired the meaning of'persons who are currently married'. a person who actually is, or properly could be, a relation by marriage ' (Clauson, 1972, p. 523). According to A. M. Shcherbak, türjür is interpreted as 'a relative by marriage, a kinsman' [Shcherbak, 1997, p. 38]. According to Mahmud Kashgarli, this means 'matchmakers; relatives of the wife, who are brothers, father, mother' ('Dünür. Karmin hisimlan. Bunlar kardas, baba, ana gibi kimselerdir') [Divanyu..., 1985, p. 362], 'a woman's relatives on her husband's side: his brothers, father and mother' [Mahmud al-Kashgari, 2005, p. 1010]. In modern Oguz and Yakut languages, the phonetic variants of this term denote precisely the wife's relatives (Li Yong-Song, 1997, p. 76-77). The same meaning is also clarified in the Yenisei Begre text, which is presented by the husband.

It is more difficult with the second term bösük. In the Khosho-Tsaydam monuments, the term is recorded, apparently in the case form, in the phrase bir kisi janïlsar oyusï bodunï bisükirjä tegi qïdmaz ermis (KT, Xb, stk. 6 = BK, Xb, stk. 4). The first to notice this term was V. Bang, who followed the reading bäsük. Based on consonants in the Turkic languages, he interpreted the term as 'Land, Jurte, Wohnplatz' (Bang, 1896, pp. 11-12, 19). This point of view was fully accepted by P. M. Melioransky [Melioransky, 1899, pp. 61, 88], and then, apparently, by H. N. Orkun [Orkun, 1994, s. 735, 780; cf.: ibid., s. 24, 25] and A. N. Bernshtam [Bernshtam, 1933, pp. 567-568; Bernstam, 1946, p. 103]. A. von Gabain indicated the forms bösük~büsük 'cradle, friend, brother-in-law, lover' ('Wiege, Freund, Werschwägerter, Geliebter') [Gabain, 1950, p. 303, 304]. S. E. Malov read bisük and interpreted it as 'progeny, kinship' [Malov, 1951, p. 372]. R. Giraud translated 'kindred' ('famille') [Giraud, 1960, p.109]. E. R. Tenishev read bisük and associated it with Iransk. * visuka -, translating as ' relatives (?)'[Drevnetyurkskiy slovar', 1969, p. 103]. D. M. Nasilov translated it as 'svoistvenniki' [Old Turkic Dictionary, 1969, p. 440], drawing parallels with bösük 'the term of kinship by marriage (?)', found only in Buddhist Uyghur texts [See: Old Turkic Dictionary, 1969, p. 118; Li Yong-Song, 1999, p. 44]. T. Tekin reads bisük and translates as 'relative, kin' [Tekin, 1968, p. 89, 316], ('akraba') [Tekin, 1998, p. 100; Tekin, 2003, p. 69, 241]. Also translated by M. Ergin [Ergin, 2002, s. 14, 33].

J. Clawson still read besik 'cradle', although he apparently associated with bösük "a person who is currently, or at least could become, a relative by marriage" ('a person who actually is, or properly could become, a relation by marriage') [Clauson, 1972, p. 380; cf.: ibid., p. 96 (translation of the corresponding fragment)]. V. G. Kondratiev has a bic-cc 'progeny' < bic - 'mature' [Kondratiev, 1970, p. 18]. G. Aidarov translated bisukine' do svoistvennikov '[Aidarov, 1971, p. 287]. A. N. Kononov read bisük (bösük), translating '[separate] relatives' [Kononov, 1980, p. 134]. A.M. Shcherbak interprets this as 'a relative by marriage, a kinsman'

page 28
[Shcherbak, 1997, p. 38]. T. Gulensoy gives bésük 'cradle '('Besik') [Gulensoy, 2007, p. 135]. K. O. Kaira also translates ' relatives '(cases: akraba-sina)'[Kauga, 1999, s. 154]. A. C. Amanzholov translates as ' tribe '('kabile-si') [Amanjolov, 2009, s. 85]. A. Inayet translates ' gender, progeny ''(cases: nesil-lerin-i)' [Inayet, 2011, s. 451-452]. As M. correctly notes: However, it is not possible to explain the phonetic transition from boçuk to bisuk [Üstün, 2010, p. 1391].

The hypothesis proposed by D. Nemet and supported by O. N. Tuna about the gradual expansion and coarsening of the root vowel bisuk > besuk > bosuk with a corresponding semantic evolution [Tuna, 1988, p. 59, 64] is not well founded. A. A. Radzhabov was inclined to read eb esik, interpreted by him as 'house with a yard' ('avlulu ev') or 'hearth' ('osaka'), 'family nest' ('aile yuvlasi') [Recebov, 1994, p. 153]. A. B. Ercilasun suggested reading the combination as eb esuk [Ercilasun, 1995, p. 85], which is quite possible from the point of view of ancient Turkic paleography [Üstün, 2010, s. 1392]. In accordance with this reading, A. B. Ercilasun also proposed a new interpretation of the whole phrase as "If one person fell into error, then until he reached his tribe, people, house, threshold, he did not know the limits in killing" ("Bir kisi yanilsa kabilesine, milletine, evine, esigine vanncaya kadar herhangi bir had, hudut tanimadan herkesi öldürürmüs'). H. Ilhan, noting grammatical inconsistencies in the hypothesis of A. B. Ercilasun, actually returned to the point of view of V. Bang, interpreting besik as a ' cradle '('besik') [Ilhan, 2004] . M. Ustyun summed up the results of the work of his predecessors, accepting the interpretation of besik H. Ilkhana, but also retained some corrections to the reading of the phrase proposed by A. B. Ercilasun: "If one person was mistaken, [then] his tribe, his people [did not forgive his family] even to the cradles and children in those cradles, without knowing the limit of murder" ("Bir kisi yanilsa kabilesi, milleti, besigine, besikteki çocuguna kadar (öldürmekte) sinir tanimazmis') [Üstün, 2010, s. 1393]. S. Tezjan also disagreed with A. B. Ercilasun's reading. He suggested a new reading of the entire phrase as bir kisi yanilsar ugusi boduni ewçukine tegi aki idmaz egmis 'If one [any] person made a mistake (i.e., if he went to the territory under Chinese rule), [bringing] his relatives and his subordinate bodun ('people') to unrest and anxiety, the Chinese authorities would not be able to stop him. the leaders of his wealth (property) did not encourage him' ('Bir kisi yanilsa (yani Çin egemenliginde bulunan topraklara gitse), onun akrabalan ve ona tabi olan bodun ("halk") kargasaya düsünceye kadar Çin yöneticileri ona bol (mal) göndermez imis'), where ewsuk~ewisuk is raised to the verb ew-is- 'break away from everyone, run away (to the sides)' ('hep birden acele etmek, kaçismak'), a aki is explained through an exegesis in J. R. R. Tolkien's dictionary. Clauson's aki 'generous, openhanded' {cömert, eli açik} [Tezcan, 2010, s. 276-277; see Clauson, 1972, p. 78]. However, the complexity of the justifications does not allow us to accept this hypothesis.

Thus, we have no direct evidence of the existence of the institution of dual marriages among the ancient Turks. We can only rely on comparative historical parallels, as well as ethnographic and linguistic materials. Therefore, there is no reason to speak confidently about the dual organization of the Ah-shi-na and Ah-shi-de clans, at least about its existence in the Turkic Khaganate in the early period (VI-VII centuries). Although we can not exclude the possibility that at the beginning of the VIII century. it was just beginning to take shape.

Summing up all the above, we have no grounds to speak about dual power among the ancient Turks of the VI-VIII centuries. as an institution that has taken shape. References to individual cases in the sources do not allow us to link them in any particular system, but only to justify each of them by subjective factors, primarily due to the political situation in a particular time period, and to reduce everything to a combination of circumstances. Sources do not allow us to see either the corresponding titulature or any social institutions that contributed to the formation of dual power among the ancient Turks.

page 29
MONUMENT CIPHERS

B II - the first wide, "front" side of the Bugut stele

BK, Khb-small inscription of the Bilge Kagan stele

E-Yenisei inscriptions

KT, Xb - small inscription on the left side of the Kyul Tetin stele

T-stele of Councilor Tonyukuk

list of literature

Aidarov G. Language of Orkhon monuments of ancient Turkic writing of the VIII century. Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1971.

Atlas drevnostey Mongol'i, izdannyy po zapravleniyu Imperatorskoy Akademii nauk V. V. Radlovym [Atlas of Ancient Mongolia published on behalf of the Imperial Academy of Sciences by V. V. Radlov]. Akad. nauk, 1892.

Iz istorii dokapitalisticheskikh formatsiy: sbornik statei k sorokapyateletiyu nauchnoi deyatel'nosti N. Ya.Marra [From the history of pre-capitalist formations: a collection of articles dedicated to the forty-fifth anniversary of the scientific activity of N. Ya. Marra, M.-L., 1933 (Izvestiya GAIMK. Issue 100).

Bsrnshtam A. N. Socio-economic structure of the Orkhon-Yenisei Turks of the VI-VIII centuries. Vostochno-tyurkskiy kaganat i kirghizi [The Eastern Turkic Khaganate and the Kyrgyz People], Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1946 (Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Studies, vol. XLV).

Bichurin N. Ya. [Iakinf]. Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times, Vol. I. M.-L.: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.

Borovkova L. A. The problem of the location of the kingdom of Gaochang (according to Chinese sources). Moscow: Nauka, 1992.

Vasiliev, V. P., Chinese inscriptions on Orkhon monuments in Kosho-Tsaidams and Kara-Balgasun, Sbornik Trudov Orkhonskoy expeditsii, vol. III, St. Petersburg: Tip. Imp. Akad. nauk, 1897.

Vojtov V. E. Stone statues of Angsty // Central Asia: new monuments of literature and art. M.: Nauka, 1987.

Gaben A. (fon) Kul'tura pisma i printirovaniya u drevnykh tyurkov [Culture of writing and printing among ancient Turks]. Issue 1: Ancient Turkic languages and Literature, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1986.

Goldsn P. B. Gosudarstvo i gosudarstvennost ' u khazar [State and statehood among the Khazars]. The power of the Khazar Kagans / / The phenomenon of Eastern despotism: the structure of governance and power. Moscow: Nauka, 1993.

Grumm-Grzhimailo G. E. Western Mongolia and the Uriankhai Region. Vol. II: A historical sketch of these countries in connection with the history of Central Asia. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennyi Rus', 1926.

Dosymbasva A.M. Traditional worldview of the medieval Zhetysu Turks (based on the materials of religious monuments): authorsf. diss.... doctor of Historical Sciences. Almaty, 2010.

Ancient Turkic Dictionary / Edited by V. M. Nadslyasva, D. M. Nasilov, E. R. Tsnishsva, and A.M. Shcherbaka.

Zhumaganbaev T. S. Vlast kagana v drevnetyurkskoy gosudarstvennoi organizatsii [The power of the Kagan in the Ancient Turkic state Organization]. History. 2008(2). Issue 27, No. 134 (35).

Zhumaganbetov T. S. Problems of formation and development of the ancient Turkic system of statehood and law. VI-XII centuries Almaty: Zhsti zhargy Publ., 2003.

Zhumaganbetov T. S. Formation and development of statehood of ancient Turks. (VI-VIII centuries): authorsf. diss. ... Doctor of Historical Sciences: 07.00.02. Karaganda, 2008(1).

Zuev Yu. A. Drsvnstyurkskaya sotsial'naya terminologiya v kitaiskom tekste VIII v. [The Turkic social terminology in the Chinese text of the eighth century]. Вып. 2. Алматы-М.: Гылым, 1998.

Zuev Yu. A. Drevnetyurkskie genealogicheskie predaniya kak istochnik po rannoy istorii tyurkov [Ancient Turkic genealogical traditions as a source on the early history of the Turks]. diss. ... candidate of Historical Sciences. Alma-Ata, 1967.

Zuev Yu.A. Istoricheskaya proeksiya kazakhskikh genealogicheskikh predaniy (k voprosu o sushchnosti i otzhitkakh trialnoy organizatsii u kochevykh narodov Tsentral'noi Azii) [Historical projection of Kazakh genealogical traditions (on the issue of the essence and survivals of the trial organization among the nomadic peoples of Central Asia)]. Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1981.

Zuev Yu. A. Khaganate of the Ss-Yanto and Kimeks (on the Turkic ethnogeography of Central Asia in ser. VII century) / / Shygys. 2004 (1). No. 1.

Zuev Yu. A. Khaganate of the Ss-Yanto and Kimeks (on the Turkic ethnogeography of Central Asia in ser. VII century) / / Shygys. 2004 (2). No. 2.

Zuev Yu. A. Rannie tyurki: ocherki istorii i ideologii [Early Turks: Essays on history and ideology]. Almaty, 2002.

Zuev Yu. A. Tamgi of horses from vassal principalities (Translated from Chinese works of the VIII-X centuries). Trudy IIAE AN KazSSR. Vol. VIII. New materials on the ancient and medieval history of Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata: Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, 1960.

History of Kazakhstan (from ancient times to the present day). In four volumes, vol. I. Almaty: Atamura Publ., 1996.

History of the Kazakh SSR. From ancient times to the present day. In 5 vols. Vol. 1. Primeval and communal system. Tribal unions and early feudal states on the territory of Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1977.

page 30
Kiselev S. V. [Rsc. on:] A. N. Bsrnshtam. Socio-economic structure of the Orkhon-Sniss Turks of the VI-VIII centuries / / Vestnik drevnoi istorii. 1947. № 1.

Klyashtorny S. G. Drevnetyurkskie runicheskie pamyatniki kak istochnik po istorii Srednoi Azii [Ancient Turkic runic monuments as a source on the history of Central Asia].
Klyashtorny S. G. The inscription of the Uyghur Bsgu Kagan in North-Western Mongolia / / Central Asia: new monuments of Writing and Art, Moscow: Nauka, 1987.
Klyashtorny S. G. Runic inscription on a stone statue from Choirsna// Countries and peoples of the East. Vol. XXII. Central and Central Asia. Geografiya, etnografiya, istoriya [Geography, Ethnography, History]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980 (1).

Klyashtorny S. G. Tsrkhinskaya nadpis ' (Predvaritel'naya publishatsiya) [Tsrkhinskaya inscription (Preliminary publication)]. 1980(2). № 3.

Klyashtorny S. G. Tesinskaya stela (Preliminary publication) / / Sovetskaya turkologiya. 1983. № 6.

Klyashtorny S. G., Livshits V. A. Sughd inscription from Bugut // Strany i narody Vostoka [Countries and Peoples of the East], T. X. Geografiya, etnografiya, istoriya, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1971.

Klyashtorny S. G., Livshits V. A. Otkrytie i izuchenie drevnetyurkskikh i sogdiiskikh epigraficheskikh pamyatnikov Tsentralnoi Azii [Discovery and study of Ancient Turkic and Sogdian epigraphic monuments of Central Asia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1978.

Kondratiev V. G. Ocherk grammatiki drevnetyurkskogo yazyka [Essay on Grammar of the Old Turkic language].
Kononov A. N. Grammatika yazyka tyurkskikh runicheskikh pamyatnikov VII-IX vv [Grammar of the language of the Turkic runic monuments of the VII-IX centuries].

Kormushin I. V. The Turkic Yenisei epitaphs. Texts and Research, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1997.

Kormushin I. V. Tyurkskiye eniseyskiye epitafii: grammatika, tekstologiya [Turkic Yenisei Epitaphs: Grammar, Textology]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2008.

Kychanov E. I. Nomadic states from Huns to Manchus, Moscow: Publishing House of Eastern Literature, 1997.

Kunts N. V. Chinese news about the peoples of Southern Siberia, Central Asia and the Far East. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1961.

Liu Maocai. Information about ancient Turks in medieval Chinese sources. from it. V. N. Dobzhanskoi and L. N. Ermolenko, ed. by D. D. Vasiliev] / / Bulletin (Newsletter). Appendix 1. Moscow: IV RAS, 2002.

Malov S. E. Yeniseyskaya pisisnost ' tyurkov: Teksty i perevody [Yenisei writing of the Turks: Texts and translations]. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952.

Malov S. E. Monuments of ancient Turkic writing. Texts and research. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1951.

Malov S. E. Monuments of ancient Turkic writing in Mongolia and Kyrgyzstan. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1959.

Malyavkin A. G. Historical geography of Central Asia (materials and research). Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1981.

Materials on the history of ancient nomadic peoples of the Donghu group. [with kit.] and comments by V. S. Taskina, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1984.

Mahmoud al-Kashgari. Divan Lugat at-Turk / Transl., preface. and comments by Z.-A. M. Auezova. Almaty: Daik-Prsss Publ., 2005.

Mslioransky P. M. Monument in honor of Kul-Tsgin. With two tables of inscriptions // Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society. 1899. Vol. XII, issues II-III.

Mori M. Politicheskaya struktura drevnego gosudarstva kochevnikov Mongolii [Political Structure of the ancient Nomad state of Mongolia]. August 16-23, 1970 Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970.

Pozdnesv D. M. Istoricheskiy ocherk uyghurs (po kitayskim istochnikov) [Historical sketch of the Uyghurs (based on Chinese sources)]. St. Petersburg: Tip. Imp. Academy of Sciences, 1899.

Radlov V. V., Mslioransky P. M. Drevnetyurkskie pamyatniki v Kosho-Tsaidams [Ancient Turkic monuments in Kosho-Tsaidams]. Academy of Sciences, 1897.

Torlanbasva K. U. Institut kaganskoi vlasti (Vtoroi vostochno-tyurkskiy kaganate): avtorsf. diss. ... Candidate of Historical Sciences. Almaty, 2003.

Trspavlov V. V. Altaiskiy geroicheskiy epos kak istochnik po istorii rannoi gosudarstvennosti [The Altai Heroic Epic as a source on the history of early statehood]. Gorno-Altaisk, 1989.

Trspavlov V. V. Gosudarstvennyi stroi Mongol'skoy imperii XIII v.: Problema istoricheskoi prestavstvennosti [The State System of the Mongolian Empire of the 13th century: The Problem of Historical continuity].
Trspavlov V. V. Russia and nomadic steppes: on the problem of eastern borrowings in Russian statehood // East (Oriens). 1994. № 2.

Shcherbak A.M. Rannie tyurksko-mongol'skiye yazykovye svyazi (VIII-XIV centuries) [Early Turkic-Mongolian language relations (VIII-XIV centuries)]. Saint Petersburg: ILI RAS, 1997

Shcherbak A.M. Tyurkskaya runika [The Turkic Rune]. The origin of the oldest written language of the Turks, the boundaries of its distribution and features of use. SPb.: Nauka, 2001.

Amanjolov A. S. Orhun Anitlan Üzcrinc Ycni Çcviri Çahsmalan / / KHKTU III Khal'scharalsch Turkologiya kongress BugYg1 Turkologiyanyn vzekti mseleleri men keleshegi (ortats mm, tarikh zhene eltpe) / A. Y. Ü. III. Uluslararasi Türkoloji kongresi. Ortak dil, tarih ve alfabe, olusturma siireçinde, geçmisten geliçege Türkolojinin meseleleri. 18-20 мамыр-mayis. Turkestan, 2009.

Avcioglu D. Türklerin Tarihi. ikinci Kitap. Istanbul: Tekin Yayinevi, 1976.

Aydin E. Osman Fikri Sertkaya vc Türk Runik Mctinleri // Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies (EJOS). 2006. Vol. IX, № 10.

page 31
Aydm E. Eski Türklcrdc Mcslck Adlan (Eski Turk Yazitlanna Göre) // Journal of Turkish Linguistics. 2008. Vol. 2. № 1.

Bang W. Zu den Kök Türk-lnschriftcn der Mongolei // T'oung Pao. 1896. Vol. VII.

Baykuzu T.D. Çin Topraklanndaki Bazi Türk Soylulannin Kurganlari (VII-VIII. Yüzyil) // Tarih Incelemeleri Dergisi. 2006. Sayi XXI. Cilt I.

Chavannes E. Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux. P.: Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient Adrien Maisonncuvc, 1903.

Clauson G. Turkish Philology in Hungary II Asia Major. 1973. Vol. XVIII. Pt. 2.

Clauson G. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford, 1972.

Divanü Lügat-il-Türk ve Tercümesi / Çcv. В. Atalay. Cilt III. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimcvi, 1985.

Docrfcr G. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Bd. III: Türkische Elemente im Neupersischen. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Wcrlag GMBH, 1967 (Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Komission. Bd. XX).

Drompp M.R. Supernumerary Sovereigns: Superfluity and Mutability in the Elite Power Structure of the Early Türks (Tujuc) // Rulers from the Steppe: State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery / Ed by G. Seaman and D. Marks. Los Angeles: Ethnographies Press, The University of Southern California, 1991 (Proceedings of the Soviet-American Academic Symposia in Conjuction with the Museum Exhibitions "Nomads: Masters of the Eurasian Steppe". Vol. 2).

Ercilasun A.B. Bir Kisi Yaniilsar Ogusi

Boduni Bisükinc Tcgi Kidmaz Ermis (KT, G, 6 = BK, K, 4) ibarcsi Uzcrinc // Türk Dili Arastirmalari Ytlligi, Belleten 1993. Ankara, 1995.

Ergin M. Orhun Ahideleri. istanbul: Bogaziçi Yayinlan, 2002.

Gabain A. (von) Alttürkische Grammatik. Mit Bibliographic Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis, auch Neutürkisch. Mit vier Schrifttafeln und sieben Schriftproben. 2. verbesserte Auflage. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1950 (Porta Linguarum Oricntalium, Sammlung von Lehrbüchern für das Studium der orientalischen Sprachen, herausgegeben von Richard Hartmann, XXIII).

Giraud R. L'Empire des Turcs Célestes. Les règnes d'Elterieh, Qapghan et Bilgä (680-734). Contribution à l'histoire des Turcs d'Asie Centrale. Illustré de 4 cartes en hors texte. Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient Adricn-Maisonncuvc, 1960.

Golden P.B. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1992 (Turkologica, Bd. 9).

Golden P.B. Imperial Ideology and the Sources of Political Unity amongst the Pre-Cinggisid Nomads of Western Eurasia // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. 1982. T. 11.

Golden P.B. Khazar Studies: An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars. Vol. 1. Budapest: Akadcmiai Kiado, 1980.

Gömcc S. Divanü Lügati't-Türk'tc Akrabahk Bildiren Tcrimler // Tarih Arastirmalari. 2002. Cilt 20, Sayi 32/6.

Gülcnsoy T. Türkiye Türkcesindeki Türkce Sözcüklerin Küken Bilgisi Sözlügü: tarihi - yasayan Türk lehçeleri (siveleri/dilleri). Anadolu agizlari ve Allay dilleri ile karsilastirmali: (etimolojik sözlük denemesi). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu, 2007 (Atatürk Kültür, Dil vc Tarih Yüksck Kurumu Türk Dil Kurumu Yaymlan; 911). Cilt 1 (A N).

Hirth F. Nachworte zur Inschrift des Tonjukuk. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert nach chinesischen Quellen // Radloff W. Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Bd. 2: Zweite Folge. St. Pctcrsbourgh: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1899.

Ilhan N. Yanilsar... Bisükinc Tegi Kidmaz Ermis // Firat University Journal of Social Science. 2004. Cilt 14, Sayi 2.

Inayct A. bir kisi : y(a)n(i)ls(a)r : og(u)si : bod(u)ni : bisükinä : t(ä)gi : kidm(a)z : (ä)rm(i)s vc in(i)si : [(ä)c] isin : bilm(ä)z : (ä)rti : ogli : k(a)nin : bilm(ä)z : (ä)rti Ibarelcri Üzcrinc // III. Uluslararasi Türkiyat Arastirmalari Sempozyumu. Orhon Yazitlarimn Bulunusundan 120 Yil Sonra Türklük Bilimi ve 21. Yüzyil. (Bildiri kitabi) / Ed. Ü. Çclik Sayik. 1. Cilt. Ankara, 2011.

Julien S. Documents historiques sur les Tou-kiuc (Turcs) // Journal Asiatique. 1864(1). Scr. 6. Vol. III.

Julien S. Documents historiques sur les Tou-kiuc (Turcs) // Journal Asiatique. 1864(2). Scr. 6. Vol. IV.

Kayra O.K. Orhun Amtlannda Sifatlar, Sifat Tamlamalari vc Bunlara Iliskin Bazi Açiklamalar // Türk Dili Arastirmalari Yilligi, Belleten 1996. Ankara, 1999.

Kljastornyi S.G., Livsic V.A. The Sogdian Inscription of Bugut Revised // Acta Orienlalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 1972. T. XXVI.

Klyastorniy S.G., Livsiç V.A. Bugut'taki Sogtça Kitabcyc Ycni Bir Bakis // Türk Dili Arastirmalari Yilligi, Belleten 1987. Ankara, 1992.

Laszlo F. A kagan es csaladja // Körösi Csoma Archivum 1941—1943. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967. Vol. III.

Li Yong-Song. Türk Dillerinde Akrabaltk Adlari. Istanbul: Simurg, 1999.

Mcrt O. Öngöt Mczar Külliycsi vc Külliycdc Bulunan Damgalar // Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Arastirmalari Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2008. Sayi 36.

Orkun H.N. Eski Türk yazitlari. 3. baski. Ankara, 1994 (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 529).

Osawa T. Aspects of the relationship between the ancient Turks and Sogdians — Based on a stone statue with Sogdian inscription in Xinjiang // Ëran ud Aneran: Studies Presented to Boris Il'ic Marsak on the Occasion of

page 32
his 70th Birthday / Ed. by M. Comparcti, P. Raffctta, G. Scarcia. Vcnczia, 2003 (updated 2006) / / http://www. transoxiana.org/Eran/Articlcs/osawa.ht (Accessed: 18.05.2011).

Osawa T. Mogolistan'da Son Zamanlarda Kcsfcdilcn "Olon Nuurin Khöndii"deki Amt vc Yaziti Üzcrinc 2009 Yilinin Japon vc Mogol Ortak Yüzcy Arastirmalanna Dayanark // I. Uluslararast Uzak Asya'dan On Asya 'ya Eski Türkce Bilgi Söleni, 18-20 Kasim 2009. Afyonkarahisar, 2010.

Parker E.H. The Early Turks (From the PEI SHI and the SUI SHU) // The China Review. 1900(1). Vol. 24, № 4.

Parker E.H. The Early Turks - Part II (From the PEI SHI and SUI SHU, Continued) // The China Review. 1900(2). Vol. 25, № 1.

Parker E.H. The Early Turks Part IV (From the Old T'ang Shu) // The China Review. 1901(1). Vol. 25, № 4.

Parker E.H. The Early Turks - Part IV (From the T'ang Shu; Continued from where it leaves off at Part I) // The China Review. 1901(2). Vol. 25. № 5.

Pclliot P. La fille de Mo-tch'o Qaghan et ses rapports avec Kül-tcgin // T'oung Pao, 1912. Vol. XIII.

Rcccbov E. Orhon-Ycniscy Anitlaninin Incclenmcsindcki Bazi Problemlcr // Türk Dili Arastirmalari Yilligi, Belleten 1990. Ankara, 1994.

Tasagil A. Gök-Türkler I. 2. baski. Ankara, 2003 (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlan VII. Dizi. Sayi 1601).

Tasagil A. Gök-Türkler II (Fetret Devri 630-681). Ankara, 1999 (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlan VII. Dizi. Sayi 160a).

Tasagil A. Gök-Türkler III. Ankara, 2004 (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari VII. Dizi. Sayi 160b).

Tckin T. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Bloomington: Indiana University The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1968 (Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Scries. Vol. 69.).

Tckin T. Orhon Türkçesi Grameri. 2. baski, istanbul, 2003 (Türk Dilleri Arastirmalari Dizisi. 9).

Tckin T. Orhon Yazitlan Kül Tigin, Bilge Kagan, Tunyukuk. 2. baski. Istanbul: Simurg, 1998.

Tczcan S. Yazitlarda Ycni Okuyus vc Anlamlandirma Öncrilcri // I. Uluslararast Uzak Asya 'dan Ön Asya 'ya Eski Türkce Bilgi Söleni. 18-20 Kasim 2009. Afyonkarahisar, 2010.

Tokuda H. Uygur-Çin Ticari Iliskilerinin Gelisimi (8 ve 9. Yüzytllarda): Doktora Tczi. Ankara, 2010.

Trcpavlov V.V. A chief and a priest: temporal and spiritual substances in nomadic sociality // International Journal of Central Asian Studies. 1996. Vol. 1.

Tuna O.N. Bazi Imlâ Gclcncklcri Bunlann Mctin Incclemelerindcki Öncmi vc Orhon Yazitlan'nda Birkaç Açiklama // Turk Dili Arastirmalari Yilligi, Belleten 1957. 2. baski. Ankara, 1988.

User H.S. Eski Türkccdc Bazi Unvanlann Yapisi Üzcrinc // Bilig Türk Dünyasi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2006. Sayi 39.

Üstün M.С. Türk Asilli Türkologlann Orhun Yazitlanni Okuma vc Yorumlamalarindaki Farklihklar Üzcrinc Notlar // Turkish Studies. 2010. Vol. 5/2.

page 33

Permanent link to this publication: