<<>><<>><<>><<>>________________________________________<<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>><<>>_____TURKISTAN NEWSLETTER...ISSN:--1386-6265____<<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>><<>>____________________________________________<<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>><<>>________Editor/Manager: Mehmet Tutuncu______<<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>><<>>______Business:S.Bogut,H.Savas______________<<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>><<>>___Features: I. Noyan-Izmirli,Y. Puersuen___<<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>><<>>______Technical: T. Ates, K. Cagiltay_______<<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>>______Associate Editors: A.Baguirov, A. Eren,Z.Kadir____<<>><<>>
<<>><<>>____Editorial Board:Dr.Robert M.Cutler, Dr.H.M.Hubey____<<>><<>>
<<>><<>>___Dr.T.Kocaoglu, Dr. H.B. Paksoy, Dr.N.Sariahmetoglu___<<>><<>>
<<>><<>>________________________________________________________<<>><<>>
<<>><<>><<>><<>>.....Volume:97-1:25b--22--July--1997.....<<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>>________________________________________________________________<<>>
<>Uze kok tengri asra yagiz yer kilintukta ekin ara kisi ogli kilinmis<>
<<>><<>>________________________________________________________<<>><<>>
<<>><<>>_______Archives of the Turkistan Newsletter are at:_____<<>><<>>
<<>><<>>___<http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/turkistan.htm>_____<<>><<>>
<<>><<>>____________________________________________________<<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
Review by Prof. Peter Golden
Rutgers University
Review of I.Kafesoglu, H.D. Yilïdiîz, E. Merçil, M. Saray, A Short History
of Turkish-Islamic States (Excluding the Ottoman State), Ankara : Turkish
Historical Society, 1994, Pp. XIV +436.
This review was also published in TSAB Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring 1997)
Pp. 31-36.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
This work is the first fruit of the Islamic Conference Research Centre for
Islamic History, Art and Culture which is engaged in a variety of research
projects organized regionally and thematically. A second, follow up volume
devoted to the Ottomans is promised. In his prefatory comments, Ekmelddin
Ihsanoglu, director of the Centre, taking note of the "globalization of
world affairs," places an understandable emphasis on the need to know and
understand other civilizations and cultures so that a more "harmonious
coexistence between nations and communities" can be achieved. This work is
intended to contribute to that laudable goal by "providing reliable,
objective references about the history of different nations" in the hope of
undoing biases and prejudices. These efforts are aimed not only at
Non-Muslim audiences, but at Muslim readers as well in whose national and
historical traditions or current interpretations of the latter biases and
misrepresentations of the history of other Muslim states may be found. This
is not a detailed histoy, but rather one that attempts to provide an
overview, present a certain orientation and to "fill the gap of information
and references caused by the scarcity of academic publications about the
history of the Turks." The authors represent an interesting generational
cross-section of Turkish scholars, there is one chapter by the late Ibrahim
Kafesoglu (1914-1984) a leading specialist on the Seljuks, Khwârazmshâh
state and the author of a number of other studies, including the survey
Tuük Milli Kulturü (Ankara, 1977, 3rd ed. Istanbul, 198 and Turk
Bozkurt Kultur (posthumously published in 1987) who produced the
introductory chapter "A General Survey of Pre-Islamic History and
Culture." The sections on the "The Turks' Adoption of Islam" and the
"Early Muslim Dynasties" and the Akkoyunlu and Karakoyunlu states were
written by the Hakkï Dursun Yïldïz, author of Islâmiyet ve Türkler
(Istanbul, 1976). The chapters dealing with early Islamic Turkic states
(Karakhanids, Ghaznavids, Seljukids as well as the various Anatolian
Beyliks and the Moghul ("Baburid") dynasty come from the pen of Erdogan
Merçil, himself the author of a work, very similar in scope to the volume
under review here, Musluman-Turk Devletleri Tarihi (Istanbul, 1985).
Merçil and Yïldïz alscollaborated on the concluding chapters dealing
with state organization of the various Turko-Islamic polities. The section
on the "Turkish- Islamic States of Central Asia" was prepared by Mehmet
Saray who specializes in the Modern History of Central Asia and has
authored volumes on Azerbayjan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and
Türkmenistan in the series "Yeni TürCumhuriyetleri Tarihi."
In a book of this size, with a team of authors attempting to cover
so much ground there are, inevitably, problems. Most striking are the
absence of common themes and a genuinely comparative approach. Presumably,
this should have been the raison d'etre for a work of this type. The study
of a number of Turkic states, indeed, all of the Turko-Islamic states
exclusive of the Ottomans, should provide us with some insights into how
the common inheritence of the various Turkic groupings stemming from the
Kök Türk state (and still much in evidence in, for example, the Qarakhanid
state) was adapted to an Islamic environment. A case in point is the thorny
question of succession, made very complicated by the persistance of
pre-Islamic Turkic notions of the collective sovereignty of the ruling
charismatic clan, a tradition of political legitimation which bedevilled
some Turkic states (e.g. the Ottomans) and undid others. It is nowhere
discussed in anything approaching a comparative framework. The tensions
that developed between sedentarizing chieftaincies, now being transformed
into traditional monarchies based on Near Eastern, largely Iranian
traditions and grafted onto local state institutions, and the tribesmen
that brought them to power are not discussed. The complexities of the
Turko-Islamic symbiosis are barely touched on.The Qutadghu Bilig of Yûsuf
Khass Hâjib, a remarkable reflection of that symbiosis, merits only three
passing references.The book, thus, often reads as a catalogue of thumbnail
sketches strung together with little or no attempt at comparative analysis.
For a work that has as its goal to be a "reliable objective
reference" there are a surprising number of inaccuracies and
interpretations (hotly disputed elsewhere) which are presented as
universally accepted. For example, Kafesoglu (p.1) presents the tenth
century as the principal period of the Islamization of the Turkic peoples.
Thereafter, he writes, there are only "relatively small groups with limited
significance in the broadspan of Turkish history" that maintained their
Pre-Islamic religions. The tenth century is, to be sure, extremely
important in the dissemination of Islam among the Turkic peoples. It is the
period in which the Volga Bulghars, the Oghuz and the tribes of the
Qarakhanid state embrace Islam. Ibn al-Athîr (Beirut ed., VIII, p.532) in a
famous notice s.a. 960 reports that some "200,000 tents of the Turks" were
converted, a reference, probably, to the Islamicizing activities taking
place within the emergent Qarakhanid realm. But, this ignores that fact
that equally significant Kimek (later Qïpchaq) union was largely untouched
by this. Indeed, the Qïpchaq tribes did not Islamize in sizable numbers
until they were under the rule of descendants of Chinggis Khan who were
pursuing policies of conversion, e.g. Özbek Khan of the Ulus of Jochi (the
future Golden Horde) in the early fourteenth century. Mass conversions in
the Eurasian steppes tended, as elsewhere, to be "top down" affairs.
Rulers, for a variety of reasons, personal and political, converted and the
new faith, now associated with the prestige and charisma of the ruling
house, trickled down to the mass of tribesmen (among whom missionaries were
also active) or was forced on them.
Kafesoglu, in particular, indulges in many problematic statements.
For example, he identifies the Turks with the Hsiung-nu (Asian Huns), for
which there is no concrete evidence (although Turkic peoples were, in all
likelihood, brought into their tribal union) and following other, unnamed
scholars, derives the ethnonym Türk,which he translates as originally
meaning "force, power," i.e. "a man of power" from the "Tu-ku or Tu-k'o,
the family or tribal name of Mo-tun, the emperor of the Huns in Asia." He
is particularly concerned about the "unfounded views of some medieval
European scholars regarding the Mongoloid origin of the Turks" and is at
some pains to show that the Turks were of the "Caucasian race" and "in
history have had no relations whatsoever with the Mongols, either
linguistically, culturally or even racially and as far as their conceptions
of belief, law and government are concerned" (p.2). But, in the next
sentence goes on to note that "similarities of linguistic and facial
features between the Turkish and Mongol peoples living in certain parts of
Asia are the outcome of hereditary relations and linguistic contacts
necessitated by long periods of co-existence." These are complicated
issues. The most recent attempts by L. Jisl ("Wie sahen die alten Türken
aus" Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, 40, 1968) and V.P. Alekseev and I.I.
Gokhman (Antropologiia aziatskoi chasti SSSR, Moscow, 1984, esp.
pp.164-165) to answer this question point, rather, to an original Turkic
population of a more Mongoloid type, but one which had been mixing with
Europoids (who were predominant in Mongolia until the Hsiung-nu and Altaic
peoples took over) from very early on. This, of course, was certainly never
an issue in Turkic history written by Turks (until racial theores were
injected into it by European influences) in which a highly mobile
population mixed with most if not all the populations of Inner and Central
Asia (and later the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans). The
absorptive powers of the Turkic peoples is one of the remarkable features
of their history. Kafesoglu, however, castes a very wide net for Turks.
Thus, he informs us (p.4) that "although no reliable evidence exists, some
scholars have maintained, on the basis of some observations on religious
practices, that the Chou Dynasty of China (1050-256 B.C.), for example, was
of Turkish origin; while some other scholars have even claimed on
linguistic evidence that the Sumerians...were also probably of Turkish
origin. Inner and Central Asian influences (dynastic, cultural etc.) on
China are undoubted. Indeed, a recent study by a Chinese scholar has (once
again) made a claim for the Inner Asian (Hsien-pi) origins of the T'ang
(see S. Chen, "Succession Struggle and the Ethnic Identity of the Tang
Imperial House" Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 6/3 (Nov., 1996),
pp.379-405). But, if the evidence is not "reliable" why raise the issue in
a work that is meant to be an objective reference ? As for the Sumerians,
no comment ! Other examples of extravagant claims can be seen in statements
regarding Attila (the ethnic affiliations of the European Huns are by no
means satisfactorily determined) such as (p.5): "When Pope Leo I declared
that Rome had surrendered, the regions extending from Western Europe to
Lake Balkhash in Central Asia...were brought under Turkish hegemony." There
is no need to detail further the many questionable or fanciful statements
in this section. These nationalist claims are much less in evidence in the
rest of the book.
Hakki Dursun ïYildiz traverses familiar ground, tracing the earliest
direct contacts of the Muslim world with the Turkic peoples (in the course
of the Arab conquest of Iran) and the role of various Turkic peoples in the
Battle of Talas (751, the defection of the Qarluqs to the Arabs which
contributed to their victory, however, is not noted). This victory which,
combined with the domestic troubles of the T'ang which followed it
(exploited by the Uyghurs) secured the Arabo-Muslim hold over Iranian
Central Asia and as Yildiz correctly noted prepared "the ground for the
gradual dissemination of the Islamic faith among the Turks" (p.30). There
is then a brief discussion of the role of the Turkic ghulâms in the affairs
of the 'Abbâsid Caliphate, the principal focus of the author's study noted
above. While noting that the "Turks were attracted particularly by
manufactured goods from Muslim countries" (p.37), Yïldïz cites the
following as the primary causes for the acceptance by the Turks of Islam :
the identification of Tengri ( the eternal, celestial God of the Turkic -
and other Inner Asian peoples) with Allâh, the "affinity between their
concept of world conquest" (nowhere spelled out) " and the Islamic ideal of
jihâd," the pre-Islamic belief that one's heavenly reward would be
determined by the number of enemies killed now placed in an Islamic
context, the Hadîths about the Turks which "helped to foster a feeling of
sympathy among the Turks for Islam," the "transformation" of the Turkic
shamans (qams) into "Walîs and Murshids" and the similarities between
traditional Turkic life and the rules of Muslim society (p.42).
The rest of the volume is taken up with brief sketches of
individual Turkic dynasties and even briefer overviews of prominent Turkic
political figures.There are occasional anachronistic and other lapses that
might prove troubling to those with little background in Turkic history.
Thus, (p.63) Constantinople of the tenth century is referred to as
"Istanbul." The Qarakhands are presented as being of Qarluq origin, an
interpretation that is not universally accepted and the name, correctly
explained as an artificial coinage by "orientalists" based on the usage of
the word qara in the titles of the rulers, "qara" is translated, however,
as "strong" (p.75).A more widely held view is that qara ("black") reflected
the traditional Turkic color coding of points of orientation, "black"
representing the "North;" the Qara khans were rulers of the North. Given
the complexities of Qarakhanid political history it is very difficult to
present a simplified outline of events and the author, Merçil has had no
greater success than others in doing so. In his chapter on the Ghaznavids,
we are informed that Turkic states had "starting emerging" on the territory
of Afghanistan "from the IIth century B.C. on" - an extravagant claim. He
further states as fact that the Ghaznavid state that took shape there "was
not based merely on the soldiers of Turkish orgin in the army of Alp Tegin.
It is certain that the Turks who were already settled there formed the
basis of the Ghaznavid state while the Turks coming later from the North
helped in the expansion of the state." Thus, he has transformed what is
generally recognized as ghulâm state (a prototype of the later Mamlûks)
that imposed itself onto the local Iranian and later Indic populations into
an autochthonous entity !
The term "Altïn Orda" (Golden Horde) is used consistently for the
Chinggisid ulus of Jochi and his successors, a common but anachronistic
practice since the term itself is not really attested before the sixteenth
century. Mehmet Saray, the author of this section, mentions the appearance
of "certain new peoples, like the Chaghatais, Ilkhânids and Jujis"(p.257).
The latter, must be a reference to the Jochids, the descendants of Chinggis
khan's oldest son. This name, however, unlike that of his younger brother,
Chaghatai, never became associated with a people. A number of important
Turkic peoples, however, emerged out of the amalgamations of various Turkic
groupings under Jochid rule, e.g. the Volga Tatars, the UÖzbeks, Qazaqs,
to name just a few. Saray makes the interesting observation that the
"powerful, centralized and authoritarian system of government of the Altïn
Orda had a positive effect on the Russian Knezes (the author regularly uses
this term, the Turkish rendering of Russian kniaz' "prince" which the
translator has left untranslated, pbg). The Altïn Orda played an important
role in the improvement of the lot of the Russian people" (p.259). This is
an extremely complicated and much debated issue which, at the least,
requires much further discussion than the author provides. Several
centuries of Russian scholarship on this question have come to a very
different conclusion. There are some important lapses in this section as
well. The Jochid Berke (1257-67), whose conversion to Islam is not
mentioned, is presented as dying on the battlefield in the struggle with
his Ilkhânid kinsmen, when he actually died in Tiflis following a loss to
the latter. Similarly, the last ruler of the "Great Horde" (i.e. the Golden
Horde), Ahmad (1466-81) is described as dying of grief at the destruction
of his capital, Saray, by Crimean Tatar artillery (p.262). Russian sources,
however, say that he was killed by the Siberian khan Ibaq and his Noghay
allies who overran his camp and murdered him in his bed. The foundation of
the Qasimov khanate, a problem inextricably intertwined with the origins of
the khanate of Qazan, is presented as the result of a policy pursued by
Ulugh Muhammad, usually considered the founder of the khanate of Qazan) "to
keep a close watch on Moscow." The Qasimov khanate, however, as Saray,
himself subsequently comments, ended up being used as a "tool which the
Russians used against Turkish lands" (p.264) i.e. the Volga Tatars and
others.Indeed, another widely held interpretation is that it was Vasilii II
of Moscow who created the Qasimov khanate for his friends, Ya'qûb and
Qâsim, sons of Ulugh Muhammad, who fled to Moscow after their brother
Mahmutek killed their father and seized power. Vasilii, of course, planned
to use the new khanate as his watchdog on the other Tatar groupings.
The discussions of the Central Asian Chinggisid and
post-Chinggisid successor khanates make no mention of the ethnic
complexities of these states, the interaction of Iranian and Turk that has
been one of the constant themes of history in this region. Indeed, the
Özbeks are described as "a group of Central Asian Turks, known as Özbeks
because they were descendants of Özbek khan (712-741/1312-1340), one of the
rulers of the Altïn Orda State, were the founders of the Khânate of Özbek"
(p.286). Why the mass of Eastern Qïpchaqs and Qïpchaqicized tribesmen of
the Great Horde came to be known as the Özbeks is nowhere spelled out in
our sources. Presumably, it was because they had been associated with Özbek
Khan who was instrumental in the Islamization of the Great Horde. This was
also an era in which the detribalized (to a degree) nomadic armies of the
Chinggisid khans were adopting the names of prominent leaders as their
political designations (e.g. Noghai, Chaghatai, Osmanliï etc.). Over time,
these names took on ethnonymic colorations, especially with the
retribalization of many of the Chinggisid armies.The Qazaqs, one of the
classic examples of these newly emerging groups, are frequently mentioned
as the "Cossacks." The Russian Kazak, of course, is derived from this
Turkic term, but they should never be confused as they are here.
The concluding sections of the volume deal with state organization
and culture. Here, at the very least, one would have expected a more
comparativist approach. From an Ottomanist perspective alone this would
have been extremely valuable. Regrettably, it is completely overlooked.
Once again, we find a series of brief sketches and a number of questionable
statements. Thus, the author remarks that various Turkic groups "embraced
partially though it might have been, such faiths as Buddhsim, Manichaeism,
Judaism and Christianity...peoples of Turkic origin embracing these
religions lost their national identity within a short period of time"
(p.329). What, then, is one to make of the Uyghurs who maintained their
various religions (Manichaeism, Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity) well
into the Chinggisid era along with their national identity ? What of the
Buddhist Yellow Uyghurs of today ? What of the Cuman-Qïpchaqs who fled to
Hungary in the thirteenth century from the Mongol invasions, converted to
Christianity slowly (and under some pressure) and retained a sense of
identity even after they had Magyarized linguistically ? During the
Reformation they became Calvinists thereby retaining a distinct presence in
Hungary. We might also take note of the Yakuts and Chuvash who while
nominally adopting Orthodox Christianity have maintained many earlier
traditions.
There is, surprisingly, little discussion of the forms of Islam
which became prevalent among the Turkic peoples.The richness of Turkic
contributions to Sufism and various types of heterodoxies are largely
ignored. The Safavids, who pose, of course, a number of problems, do not
even merit a sketch of their own. On a more positive note, the regrettably
but understandably brief treatment of the Anatolian principalities provides
one of the very few discussions of their history in English.
This volume has many imperfections and may be recommended to
students only with numerous caveats. On the other hand, it is one of the
few works in English that provides a survey of the whole of Turkish-Islamic
history (exclusive of the Ottomans).
Peter B. Golden
Professor of History
Rutgers University
Dept. of History
Conklin Hall
175 University Avenue
Newark, NJ 07102
tel. (201) 648-5410 (dept.), 648-1054 (office)
fax : (201) 648-1193
pgolden@andromeda.rutgers.edu
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
TURKISTAN-N (TN) is an electronic newsletter whose purpose is to report
on the "Land of the Turks". By the use of the word "Turkistan" we mean,
in general, lands where Turkic peoples live, without any geographical
restriction and without specific reference to Central Asia or political
boundaries. TN reports on all the the Turkic peoples from Kyrgyz, Kazaks,
and Uzbek to Anatolian and Thracian Turks, but also about much less known
Turkish/Turkic peoples like the Gagauz, Tuvinians, or Yakuts. TN was
established on 9 May 1997 as an initiative of S.O.T.A. Book reviews,
commentaries, articles, and letters from the readers can also be published
in TN. At this moment, TN has more than 950 subscribers.
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>> To subscribe: send to <majordomo@turkistan.org> the message
<<>> subscribe Turkistan-N
<<>> To unsubscribe: send to <majordomo@turkistan.org> the message
<<>> unsubscribe Turkistan-N
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>> Send your questions and contributions to:
<<>> owner-turkistan-N@turkistan.org>
<<>>
<<>> Articles from Turkistan-N may be distributed without explicit
<<>> permission if credit is given to Turkistan-N and S.O.T.A.
>Research Centre for Turkestan, Azerbaijan, Crimea, Caucasus and Siberia<
<<>> S.O.T.A., P.O. Box 9642, 2003 LP Haarlem, The Netherlands
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
<<>><<>> e-mail: <mtutuncu@turkiye.net> or <sota@euronet.nl>
<<>><<>> Turkish World Home :<http://www.turkiye.net/sota/sota.html>
<<>> Crimean Tatars Home: <http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/krimtatar.html>
<<>> Turkistan-N Archives: <http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/turkistan.htm>
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>