Evaluation

According to social anthropological theory, the use of force defines the difference between primitive and advanced societies. In the former, individuals have the right to seek redress; in the latter, the state is sovereign. Tribesmen regulate political organization, economic exchange and so forth through kinship and descent. Civilized people regulate these and more complex relationships within a society, through specialized institutions (Sahlins 1968: 4-13; Barfield 1993:1-18). According to modern histories, not having developed beyond tribal organization, nomadic pastoral empires either stem from the charisma of one person or are basically a confederation of tribes that mimic a powerful sedentary neighbour in their attempt to regulate relationships with it (Khazanov 1994: 228-62, 295-302; Jagchid and Symons 1989; Waldron 1990: 36; Barfield 1996, 1993: 149-58; Kradin 2002, 2005). They remain barbarians until fully assimilated into sedentary civilized society (Grousset 1970). In the main Turkish historians likewise treat the characteristics of pre-Islamic Turkic polities as tribal, such as Ibn Fadlan’s most recent translator Şeşen (1975: 111-42; see also Divitçioğlu 2005), even if they see the Hsiung-nu, Kök Türk and Uygur empires as the most powerful examples of Turkic statecraft prior to the Great Seljuq and Ottoman empires. This view is most prevalent in Kafesoğlu’s Türk Milli Kültürü (Turkish National Culture). In this work western European historiography is reviewed from the perspective of the Vienna Diffusionist School, with the result that the structure and functions of statecraft proposed as Turkic are from polities not only centuries apart but also thousands of miles from each other (1994). The book’s final section is devoted to the adaptation of Turkic culture to the IranoIslamic world by the Karakhanids, Ghaznavids and Seljuqids, but adds nothing new to the views Kafesoğlu expressed in his article on the Seljuqs in the IA. Nevertheless, the work is useful for identifying which institutions prevailed in a specific Turkic polity. More recently Togan and Ögel’s former student, the Sinalogue Çandarlıoğlu, a specialist on the Uygurs, has attempted to distinguish a common Turkic sociopolitical structure (family, clan, tribe, nation, state), political ideology (freedom, country, folk, law), concept of sovereignty and divine favour, statecraft (councils, head of state, First Lady, regent, other offices, the army), religious beliefs

(ancestor worship, Celestial Supreme Being), economic life, etc. in pre-Islamic times (2003: 91-101), but she does not refer to her sources. In contrast, the economist Divitçioğlu’s in-depth anthropological analysis of the Kök Türk Empire (553-745), now in its third edition, is period-specific (1987, 2000 and 2005). The work’s strength lies in its application of what is known historically; this enables Divitçioğlu to avoid many of the pitfalls of modern social anthropological theory as applied to nomadic pastoral polities (Sneath 2007), even though he accepts most of the structural functionalist school’s segmentary kinship model. As a result, Orta-Asya Türk I˙mparatorluğu: VI.–VIII. Yüzyıllar (Central Asian Türk Empire: VI.–VIII. Centuries) can be said to provide a thorough analysis of Kök Türk politics, society, economics and religion. Divitçioğlu has applied this methodology to aspects of Karakhanid, Seljuq and early Ottoman history as well (1987, 1992, 1994 and 1996), but with mixed results. His opus on the establishment of the Great Seljuq Empire is too brief to be of extensive use in addressing the problems their history raises. There are also İnalcık’s papers on the influences of Iranian and Turko-Mongol ideology on the Ottomans (1993a, 1993b and 1998). These are of interest only because of their interpretations of the eighth-century Orkhun stone inscriptions and the eleventh-century Kutadgu Bilig by Yusuf Has Hajib, both of which are also referred to by Turkish historians on the Great Seljuqs with regard to their concept and execution of statecraft. The Oguz referred to in the Orkhun stone inscriptions were situated near Lake Baykal. Although most accepted Kök Türk supremacy, according to recent excavations, some appear to have migrated from Inner Asia, reaching the region between lakes Balkash and Issyk-Köl during the sixth to seventh centuries. However, none of the names of the lineages known to have made up these Oguz reappear among their namesakes between the Caspian and Aral seas in the tenth century. According to Barthold and Minorsky (see Esin 1980a), the tenth-century Oguz may have been lineages united by the Şul (from Çöl or desert), who were in Jurjan, south-east of the Caspian Sea, from at least as early as the fifth century. This does not mean they were not part of the Kök Türk Empire, quite the opposite. These latter Oguz included lineages known to have been affiliated to the Kimek and the Peçenek from Inner Asia. Consequently, the Orkhun inscriptions can be referred to for Great Seljuq ideology and Türkmen cultural expectations, more so since Kıpçak lineages were also affiliated by the Seljuqs. As for Yusuf Has Hajib; he was from Balasagun, which is thought to have been near Lake Balkash (Bozkurt 1992: 100). His opus, Kutadgu Bilig, which was finished in Kashgar, was dedicated to the Karakhanid Tabgaç Buğra Kara Khan (r. 1056-1103). Kashgar was situated on the westernmost part of the Tarim Basin, where the trade routes from China converged after branching off to the Indus Valley at Yarband. Not surprisingly, the influences in Kutadgu Bilig have been traced to the Iranian, Chinese and Indian literary traditions, as well as specifically to the Islamic philosophers Farabi (870-950) and Ibn Sina (980-1037) (Dilâçar 1988; Arat IA/6: 1038ff; İnalcık 1993a; Divitçioğlu 1992: 130-207). Although Kashgar is known to have come under Türgiş rule (632), this was short-lived.