Send message to Author

Abstract:

This paper investigates the ambitions and strategies of the Tang Dynasty, Tibet, and Arabs to assert control over the lands of the former Western Turkic Khaganate around the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries. Following the collapse of the Khaganate, the Tang dynasty subsequently implemented a dual-Khagan system to respectively govern its western and eastern territories and exerted pressure on surrounding areas like Ferghana. Tibet, in response, strategically appointed single nominal supreme Khagan in Ferghana between A.D. 693-700 aiming to control the Khaganate’s territories piecemeal. Conflict with Tibet and its local agents led the Tang to adjust its strategy to appoint a single governor. The paper then challenges the notion of a ‘silent’ period in Ferghana from around 700 to the arrival of Arabic troops and the appointment of a ‘new’ king by Arabs and Tibet. It introduces overlooked materials to explore potential movements of the Tang dynasty in Fergana in this interval.

The practices of the Tang, Tibet, and Arabs introduced new meanings to the traditions and created new entanglement. These great powers had to compromise and adjust themselves to a Turkic ruling tradition while manipulating it as a rhetoric of their ambitions towards the former lands of Khaganate. The emperors from Tibet, Tang, and possibly Arabs positioned themselves as ‘the Khagan of Khagan’, creating a position beyond the supreme Khagan to bestow new Khagan. The adoption and deviation reveal how the imperial centers did not simply conform to tradition at the instruction of local agents, but actively created tradition to suit their own objective.

This paper elucidates the interplay between the strategies of the Tang Dynasty, Tibet, and Arabs, while considering how the Turkic ruling tradition was involved in their maneuverings. By uncovering such a comparatively ‘negative’ and unaggressive voice the study responds to prevailing paradigms. It argues that in contexts characterized by highly asymmetrical power relations, the focus on Great Powers’ contests has obscured the significance of local perspectives. Furthermore, the binary judgment regarding the continuity or discontinuity of pre-existing conventions ignores the constant flux and bi- directional nature of social discourses and practices. By contextualizing the power dynamics of the Tang and Tibet’s ambition, the Arabic conquest of Central Asia, and the responses from local elites, this study contributes to a broader understanding of a more comprehensive and inclusive narrative of Central Asian history.