TARİHTE TÜRK – ERMENİ TEMASLARI SONUCUNDA ORTAYA ÇIKMIŞ BİR HALK: ERMENİ KIPÇAKLARI VEYA GREGORYAN KIPÇAKLAR
| dc.contributor.author | Peler, Gökçe Yükselen Abdurrazak | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-01-20T18:59:36Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-01-20T18:59:36Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.department | Sinop Üniversitesi | |
| dc.description.abstract | Türklerle Ermenilerin temasları, en geç Hunlar dönemine dayanmaktadır. Bu devirden itibaren, iki halk arasındaki temaslar, kimi zaman dostane bir şekilde, kimi zaman ise mücade içerisinde süregelmiştir. Bu ilişkilerin kaçınılmaz bir şekilde ictimai, dinî ve dillik neticeleri olmuştur. Tarihin farklı dönemlerinde, farklı coğrafyalarda Ermeni dinine girmiş Türk toplulukları veya Türkçe konuşan Gregoryan topluluklar ortaya çıkmıştır. İşte, Gregoryan Kıpçaklar veya Ermeni Kıpçakları olarak adlandırılan Gregoryan dinindeki Kıpçak Türkçesi konuşan halk da böyle bir ortamda ortaya çıkmıştır. Kırım'da meydana geldiği düşünülen bu topluluk, daha sonra Ukrayna ve Polonya'da gelişme gösterip zengin bir Türkçe yazılı gelenek oluşturmuşlardır. Ancak 16. yüzyılda dünya genelinde meydana gelen siyasi, askerî ve ticari gelişmeler neticesinde, bu topluluğun kullandığı Ermeni Kıpçakçası denilen dil hem konuşma dili olarak hem de yazı dili olarak kullanımdan düşmüş, yerini Ukraince, Lehçe ve Ermenice gibi dillere bırakmıştır. Miras bıraktıkları Kıpçak Türkçesi ile yazılmış bu zengin kaynaklara rağmen, bu topluluğun etnik kökeni hakkında bir fikir birliği mevcut değildir. Kimileri bunların Ermeni dinine girmiş Kıpçak Türkleri oluklarını ileri sürerken, kimileri de Kıpçaklar arasında dillerini kaybetmiş Ermeniler olduklarını iddia etmektedir. Ancak bu topluluğun dili, dilbilimlik usullerle incelendiği zaman, birinci iddianın daha güçlü olduğu ortaya çıkmaktadır | |
| dc.description.abstract | Introduction and Aim of Study It does not seem possible to determine the outset of Turkic – Armenian contacts in history. Perhaps the most important reason among others for this situation is the impossibility of specifying the homeland of both peoples. Nevertheless historical sources record that Turkic peoples and Armenians have been in contact since the Hunnic period and this contact reoccurred throughout history up until modern times. This recurrent Turkic – Armenian confrontations include Kipchak – Armenian encounters, which took place at least twice in history; first in Transcaucasia and Eastern Anatolia, and later in Crimea. As a consequence Armeno – Kipchaks, a Turkic-speaking people who lived in Crimea, Ukraine and Poland between 13th and 17th (perhaps 18th) centuries, emerged and took their place in history. However, the ethnic origin of the Armeno – Kipchaks is a matter of debate. One of the claims is that Armenians contributed ethnically and religiously whilst Kipchaks contributed linguistically to the formation of the Armeno – Kipchaks, in other words they are linguistically Turkicized Armenians. Another assertion is that Armenians contributed only religiously whilst Kipchaks contributed ethnically and linguistically and therefore they are Kipchaks, who converted to Armenian Christianity. The aim of this study is to find an answer to this debate by examining sociolinguistic, onomastic and celestial data. Methodology Historical data pertaining to Turkic – Armenian contacts have been examined with sociolinguistic, ethno-linguistic and religiolinguistic perspectives. Special attention is given to Turkic conversions to Christianity in Armenian cultural sphere. Particular consideration is given to Kipchak contacts with Armenians and their conversion to Armenian Christianity. The Armeno- Kipchak linguistic data is examined in the context of contact linguistics and with comparison to Turkic (namely Uzbek) – Tajik contact. Additionally Armeno – Kipchak month and day names on top of antroponyms have been viewed with intend to find clues to the ethnic origins of Armeno – Kipchaks. Lexical content of Armenian – Armeno-Kipchak dictionaries is also tackled with sociolinguistic point of view. Findings and Discussion Kipchak interest in almost every monotheist religion they have encountered, namely Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy, Georgian Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Islam and Judaism (Gökbel 2000: 265-342; Ahincanov 2009: 268-276), could be regarded as evidence to the possibility of their conversion to Armenian Christianity in Crimea. Records of Kipchak conversion to Armenian Christianity in Transcaucasia and Eastern Anatolia corroborate this possibility even further. Presence of an Armenian village named Kipchak in Gumry and a monastery in the same village named Hpçahavank / Kıpçak-a Vank “Kipchak Monastery” (Grousset 1947: 26-30; Gökbel 2000: 310; Gökbel 2002: 514-15; Aynakulova 2005: 829) are evidences that Kipchaks converted to Armenian Christianity in Transcaucasia. The fact that builders of this monastery are Kipchaks are confirmed by the epitaph of the building (Alasania 2013: 131). Likewise another Armenian village, which was vacated in 1918, in Ighdir in Eastern Anatolia named Kuchakh (Gökbel 2000: 311; Gökbel 2002: 515; Aynakulova 2005: 829) is another evidence pointing into the same direction. The language of Armeno – Kipchaks resembles the language of Codex Cumanicus, which was compiled in the 13th century, and particularly that of Karaims. It is seen that the differences between Armeno – Kipchak and Karaim are based on religious reasons. The speakers of the Karaim language are followers of a Jewish sect and therefore their language is written with the Jewish alphabet and their religious terminology is copied from Hebrew. On the other hand Armeno – Kipchaks believe in Armenian Christianity and therefore their language is written with the Armenian alphabet and the religious terminology in their language is copied from Armenian (Clauson 1971: 8). It is not very convincing to put forth a different assertion on the ethnic origin of Armeno – Kipchaks, whilst Karaims are accepted to be from Turkic, origin as the two peoples speak almost the same language. General view of language interference, which occurs as a result of language encounters, also could set light to the ethnic origin of Armeno – Kipchaks. Usually the language of the culturally dominated group copies a great amount of words from that of the dominant group. However these copied words do not include the basic vocabulary of the language. Additionally word inflection is not affected. For instance some dialects of Tajik, which are influenced by Uzbek immensely, set a good example to this situation. The basic vocabulary and word inflection in these dialects remain Iranian even though a great amount of words are copied from Uzbek (Doerfer 1967). Likewise a great amount of copied words, which do not include the basic vocabulary, from Ukrainian and Polish exist in Armeno – Kipchak. As a matter of fact these words are more than the Armenian – originated words, which also do not include the basic vocabulary (Clasuson 1971: 8-9). If the Armeno – Kipchaks had been linguistically Kipchakized Armenians, these Armenian – originated words would be expected to include the basic vocabulary of the language. On the contrary Armenian – originated words are words like “priest”, “altar”, “paper”, “book” and etc. (Clauson 1971: 12), which are words to be copied frequently with religious and cultural reasons. The facts that Armeno – Kipchaks used the Animal Cycle Calendar, which historically used to be traditional to the Turkic peoples, and like Karaims and Kirimchaks they had knowledge of the old Turkic day names is remarkable. It should be borne in mind that Rabi David Ilich used calendar terminology when proving that Kirimchaks did not originate from Palestine (Altınkaynak 2006: 14-15). Likewise these materials related to the calendar could be taken as a proof that Armeno – Kipchaks did not adopt their Turkic language later.The names of the individuals of the Armeno – Kipchak society sets another interesting example. As a matter of course the forenames of the Armeno – Kipchaks individuals are Armenian versions of Christian names. However it is observed that their surnames are Turkic. For instance the name of the compiler of the Kamenetse Chronicle is Aksent Der Krikor oğlu Der Hovannes Avakerec torunu (Clauson 1971: 9). It is striking that the name of this individual is not in the form of Aksent Krikorian. The Armenian – Armeno–Kipchak dictionaries pose another intriguing situation. Erward Tryjarski (1968: 19) in the introduction of his Dictionnaire Armeno-Kiptchak puts forth that the reason for compiling these Armenian – Armeno-Kipchak dictionaries is to provide communication between Armenian and Armeno – Kipchak-speaking Monophysite communities in Poland and Ukraine. However Clauson’s (1971: 13) view on the issue is more remarkable. He suggests that providing communication between the two communities could only be one of the reasons but not the most important one, because these dictionaries contain many Classical Armenian words non-existent in the spoken language. Therefore he asserts that the primary reason for the compilation of these dictionaries was to teach the lingua sacra, i.e. Armenian, to the Monophysite Kipchaks. Conclusion As a conclusion it does not seem possible to accept the idea that Armenians contributed ethnically and religiously whilst Kipchaks contributed linguistically to the formation of the Armeno – Kipchaks. On the contrary historical, linguistic, religious and calendar material reveal that Kipchaks contributed both linguistically and ethnically whilst Armenians shaped the community religiously. Nevertheless it is possible to say that in all likelihood a small group of Armenians, particularly the spreaders of the Armenian Christianity, assimilated with the Kipchaks. Claiming that Armeno – Kipchaks are descendants of Armenians, who lost their language under the linguistic pressure of Kipchaks, seem to be against the linguistic data and intrinsically it makes the impression of a political assertion rather than a scientific one. Yet acknowledging that Karaims, Kirimchaks, Urums and even Muslim Tatars, who all have sprung in the same cultural environment with the Armeno – Kipchaks, came from Turkic descent whilst putting forth a different ethnic origin to the latter rings false. | |
| dc.identifier.endpage | 272 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1308-2140 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1308-2140 | |
| dc.identifier.issue | 8 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.startpage | 253 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.trdizinid | 270297 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://www.trdizin.gov.tr/publication/paper/detail/TWpjd01qazNOdz09 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11486/1300 | |
| dc.identifier.volume | 10 | en_US |
| dc.indekslendigikaynak | TR-Dizin | |
| dc.language.iso | tr | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Turkish Studies (Elektronik) | |
| dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Ulusal Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | |
| dc.title | TARİHTE TÜRK – ERMENİ TEMASLARI SONUCUNDA ORTAYA ÇIKMIŞ BİR HALK: ERMENİ KIPÇAKLARI VEYA GREGORYAN KIPÇAKLAR | |
| dc.title.alternative | A PEOPLE EMERGED AS A RESULT OF HISTORICAL TURKIC - ARMENIAN CONTACT: THE ARMENO- KIPCHAKS OR GREGORIAN KIPCHAKS | |
| dc.type | Article |
