ORTA ÇAĞ ORTA AVRASYA GÖÇEBELERİ ARASINDA DEĞİŞEN TÜRK KİMLİĞİ ALGILARI

Öz

Türk Kağanlığı ve Türk milleti kavramları 19. yüzyılın sonundan itibaren Avrasya'da Türkçe konuşan halklar arasında modern bir ulus inşası sürecinde kullanılmaya başlamıştır. Adın tarihsel önemine bugün Türkiye ülkesi, 1920'lerde Orta Asya'da bir Türk Cumhuriyeti planı ve Sovyetler Birliği'nin dağılmasından sonra ortaya çıkan son dönem Kazak (Tatar) tarihçiliği örnek olarak gösterilebilir. Bu çalışma, Türk Kağanlığı döneminde (6-8. yüzyıllar) Türk kelimesinin ifade ettiği anlamlar üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Türk kelimesinin ilk anlamı, bir etnik topluluk veya milliyet yani genler modelinin kullanımıyla tanımlanan, yüzyıllarca istikrarlı bir siyasi çatı altında yer alan ve toplumun çoğunluğunun ortak bir köken, dil, gelenek ve hukuku paylaştığı bir göçebe kabile birliğidir. Türk adının ikinci kullanımı siyasidir. Türk Kağanı'nın gücüne tabi tüm halkları ifade eder. Türk Kağanlığı'nın yıkılmasından sonra, Avrasya bozkır tarihindeki siyasi istikrar eksikliği nedeniyle her iki anlam ortadan kalkmış ve Orta Çağ'dan itibaren etnik açıdan bir sürekliliğin bulunmadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Ancak, Türk kimliği, dil toplulukları, anonim bir kahraman üzerine ortaya çıkan İslami efsaneler ve yerleşik hayatın karşısında yer alan göçebe yaşam tarzı ile parçalar halinde hayatta kalmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Orta Çağ Tarihi
• Türk İmparatorluğu
• Türk

Changıng Perceptıons Of Türk Identıty Among The Medıeval Nomads Of Central Eurasıa

Öz

The Türk Khaganate and the ethnonym Türk have been used in modern nation-building processes among the Turkic-speaking peoples of Eurasia since the end of the nineteenth century. The historical importance of the name is exemplified by the country of Turkey today, the plan for a Turkic Republic in Central Asia in the 1920s, and the latest Kazak (Tatar) historiography after the fall of the Soviet Union. The study focuses on the meanings of Türk in the period of the Türk Khaganate (6th–8th centuries). Its first denotation is for an ethnic community or nationality, that is, a nomadic tribal confederation defined by use of the model of gens, including a common origin, language, and traditions with centuries of a stable political framework and the majority of society sharing common law. The second aspect of the usage of the term Türk, being political, referred to all peoples subject to the power of the Türk Khagan. After the fall of the Türk Khaganate, both meanings faded away due to the lack of political stability in the history of the Eurasian steppe, revealing an absence of ethnic continuity from the Middle Ages. However, fragments of Türk identity may have survived in the forms of language community, the Islamic legend of descent from an eponymos hero, and a nomadic way of life opposed to the territorial principles of settled civilisations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Medieval History, Turkish Empire, Turk

Kaynakça

1. AGYAGÁSI, Klâra 2012. Language Contact in the Volga-Kama Area. In: É. Kıncses-NAGY & M. BIACSI (eds), Szeged Conference: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics Held On August 20-22, 2010 in Szeged: 21-37. Szeged: Depertment of Altaic Studies.
2. AZARIAN, Reza 2011. Nationalism in Turkey: Response to a Historical Necessity. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1(12): 72-82. . BAIPAKOV, Karl M., Manash K. KOZYBAEV, Bulat E. KUMEKOV, Klavdia A. PUSHCHULİNA (eds) 1997. Istoriia Kazahstana s drevneyshyh vremen do nashih dnei v piati tomah, II [The History of Kazakhstan from Earliest Times to Our Days in Five Volumes]. Almaty: Atamura.
3. BAKRÓ-NAGY, Marianne 2014. Módszerek a nyelvi őstörténet kutatásában: az ugor példa [Methods in the Study of Linguistic Prehistory: The Example of Ugric]. In: B. Sudár et al. (eds), Magyar Őstörténet: Tudomány és hagyományőrzés [Hungarian Prehistory and Preservation of Traditions]: 193–198. Budapest: MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont.
4. BERTA, Árpád 2004. Szavaimat jól halljátok… A türk és ujgur rovásírásos emlékek kritikai kiadása [Listen to My Words… The Critical Edition of the Turk and Uyghur Runic Inscriptions]. Szeged: JATEPress.
5. CLAUSON, Gerard 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CZEGLÉDY, Karoly 1972. On the Numerical Composition of the Ancient Turkish Tribal Confederations. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25: 275–281.
6. DOBROVİCS, Mihály 2004. Hatalom és törzsi rendszer a második türk kaganátusban [Power and Tribal Structure in the Second Türk Khaganate]. Publicationes Universitatis Miskolciensis: Sectio Philosophica 9(3): 53–66.
7. DOSYMBAEVA, Aiman & Mirzatay ZHOLDASBEKOV 2013. Zapadnyi Tyurkskiy kaganat: Atlas [Western Türk Khaganate: Map]. Astana: Service Map.
8. FRENKEL, Yehoshua 2005. The Turks of the Eurasian Steppes in Medieval Arabic Writing. In: R. AMİTAİ & M. Biran (eds), Mongols, Turks, and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World: 201–241. Leiden: Brill. FRYE, Richard N. & Aydin M. SAYILI 1943. Turks in the Middle East before the Saljuqs. Journal of the American Oriental Society 63(3): 194–207.

9. GLADNEY, Dru C. 1990. The Ethnogenesis of the Uighurs. Central Asian Survey (9)1: 1–28.
10. GOLDEN, Peter B. 2008/2009. Ethnogenesis in the Tribal Zone: The Shaping of the Türks. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 16: 73–112.
11. GOLDEN, Peter B. 2015. The Turkic World in Maḥmûd al-Kâšġarî. In: J. BEMMANN et al. (eds), The Complexity of Interaction along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in the First Millennium A.D.: Empires, Cities, Nomads and Farmers: 503–555. Bonn: Bonn University Press.
12. HAARMANN, Ulrich W. 1988. Ideology and History, Identity and Alterity: The Arab Image of the Turk from the Abbasids to Modern Egypt. International Journal of Middle East Studies 20(2): 175–196.
13. HOBSBAWM, Eric 1983. Introduction: Inventing Tradition. In: E. HOBSBAWM & T. RANGER (eds), The Invention of Traditions: 1–14. Cambridge: CUP.
14. ISHAKOV, Damir M. & Iskander L. IZMAYLOV 2000. Etnopoliticheskaya istoriya tatar v VI – pervoy chetverti XV vv [Ethnopolitical History of the Tatars in 6th – First Quarter of the 15th Centuries]. Kazan: Iman.
15. JOHANSON, Lars 1998. The History of Turkic. In: L. JOHANSON & É. CSATÓ (eds), The Turkic Languages: 81–125. London: Routledge. AL-KĀSHGHARĪ, Maḥmūd 1982. Compendium of the Turkic Dialects. Ed. and tr. R. Dankoff in collaboration with J. Kelly. (Harvard University Sources of Oriental Languages and Literature: Turkish Sources VII) Cambridge: Harvard University Print.
16. KLYASHTORNYİ, Sergey 2002. Stepnaya imperiya tyurkov i ee nasledniki [The Steppe Empire of the Turks and its Successor States]. In: Istoriya tatar s drevneyshyh vremen v semi tomah, I: Narody stepnoy Evrazii v drevnosti [The History of the Tatars since Ancient Times in Seven Volumes, I: Peoples of the Eurasian Steppe in Ancient Times]: 218–267. Kazan: Ruhiyat.
17. KUMEKOV, Bulat E. 2013. Kipchakovedenie: konceptual’noe nauchnoe napravlenie evraziyskogo masshtaba [Kipchak Studies: Conceptual and Scientific Tendencies from a Eurasian Perspective]. In: The Collection of Materials: International Conference: The Kipchaks of Eurasia: History, Language and Written Records: 10–17. Astana: Kazakstan Rspublikasy Medeniet zhane akparat ministrligining Til komitet.
18. LEE, Joo-Yup 2016. The Historical Meaning of the Term Türk and the Nature of the Turkic Identity of the Chingisid and Timurid Elites. Central Asiatic Journal 159(1–2): 101–132.
19. MARTİNEZ, Arsenio P. 1982. Gardīzī’s Two Chapters on the Turks. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2: 109–217.
20. MÜHLMANN, Wilhelm E. 1985. Ethnogonie und Ethnogenese: Theoretisch-ethnologische und ideologiekritische Studie. In: Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Studien zur Ethnogenese: 9–27. Opladen: Westdeutscher.
21. POMORSKA, Marzanna 2004. Middle Chulym Noun Formation. Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka.
22. REYNOLDS, Susan 1984. Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
23. RÓNA-TAS, András 1999. Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: An Introduction to Early Hungarian History. Budapest: Central European University Press.
24. RÓNA-TAS, András & Árpád BERTA 2011. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
25. SHUKUROV, Rustam 2012. The Byzantine Classification of the Turks: Archaization or Academic Traditionalism? In: N. ASUTAY-EFFENBERGER & F. DAİM (eds), ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΙΟΝ Spaziergang im kaiserlichen Garten: Schriften überByzanz und seien Nachbarn: Festschrift für Arne Effenberg zum 70. Geburtstag: 273–296. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.
26. SİNOR, Denis 1982. The Legendary Origin of the Türks. In: E.V. ŽYGAS & P. VOORHEİS (eds), Folklorica: Festschrift for Felix J. Oinas: 223–257. Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies.
27. SMİTH, Anthony D. 1998. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. London: Routledge.
28. STARK, Sören 2016. Türk Khaganate. In: J.M. MACKENZİE et al. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Empire, IV: 2127–2142. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
29. SZŰCS, Jenö 1981. Nation und Geschichte: Studien. Budapest: Corvina Kiadó.
30. SZŰСS, Jenö 1992. А magyar nemzeti tudat kiаlаkulásа [The Formation of Hungarian National Consciousness]. Ed. I. Zimonyi. Szeged: József Attila Tudományegyetem Magyar Őstörténeti Kutatócsoportja.
31. TEKİN, Talât 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Hague: Mouton & Co.
32. UBİRİA, Grigol 2016. Soviet Nation-Building in Central Asia: The Making of the Kazakh and Uzbek Nations. London: Routledge.
33. VÁSÁRY, István 2016. Hungarians and Mongols as “Turks”: On the Applicability of Ethnic Names. In: Á. BOLLÓK, G. Csiky & T. VİDA (eds), Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe: Archäologische und historische Studien Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag / Between Byzantium and the Steppe: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honour of Csanád Bálint on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday: 537–543. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
34. WENSKUS, Reinhard 1961. Stammesbildung und Verfassung: Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes. Graz: Böhlau.
35. ZİMONYİ, István 2001. Why Were the Hungarians Referred to as Turks in the Early Muslim Sources? In: L. KÁROLY & É. KİNCSES-NAGY (eds), Néptörténet: Nyelvtörténet a 70 éves Róna-Tas András köszöntése: 201–212. Szeged: SZTE BTK Altajisztikai Tanszék.
36. ZİMONYİ, István 2003. Bodun und El im Frühmittelalter. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 56: 57–79.