Türk Tarihinin Yazımına İlişkin Bazı Sorun Tespitleri ve “Zihniyet Temelli Tarih” Modeli Önerisi
Türkiye’de Türk tarihi, Hunlardan başlayarak Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne kadar kesintisiz bir süreklilikle ve devlet merkezli bir anlatıyla sunulmuştur. Bu yaklaşım, yazım ve öğretimde bazı konjoktürel avantajları sunmanın yanında bazı yapısal sorunları da taşımıştır. Bu sorunları çözebilmenin yolunun “zihniyet temelli yaklaşıma” dayalı bir Türk tarihi modeli olduğu söylenebilir. “Zihniyet”, Türk tarihinin akışına yön veren önemli bir olgu olmasına karşın, hem yazımda, hem de öğretimde göz ardı edilmiştir. Bu ihmalin sebeplerinin başında, bir ders olarak modern tarihin Türkiye’de ilk kez askerî okullarda askerî bir içerikle sunulmasıdır. İkinci sebep ise 20. yüzyılın başında ortaya çıkan “modern bir Türk ulusu yaratma projesi”nin belirlediği devlet merkezli tarih anlatısıdır. Üçüncü sebebi ise Soğuk Savaş sürecinin etkisiyle Türkiye’de askerî zaferlere odaklı bir tarih anlatısının varlığıdır. Bu konjonktürel gelişmelerin, yaklaşık 2200 yıllık Türk tarihinin gerçekçi ve zengin bir biçimde ele alınmasını çeşitli yönlerden engellediği söylenebilir. Bu çalışmada Türk milletinin tarihsel hikâyesinde meydana gelen büyük değişimleri dikkate alan yeni bir tarihyazımı yaklaşımının tartışmaya açılması amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için Türk tarihinin gerçekçi biçimde yazılması için zihniyet temelli bir modelin geliştirilmesi önerilmiştir. Bu öneriye göre Türk tarihi, üç ana dönemde ele alınmıştır. İlk dönem “Eski Türkler”, ikinci dönem “Müslüman Türkler”, üçüncü dönem ise “Modern Türkler”dir. Bu yeni modelde Türk halk ve topluluklarının, Orta Asya’dan göçle daha geniş bir coğrafyaya (Avrasya’ya) yayılması, bozkır kültürü üzerinden irdelenmiştir. Sonrasında farklı coğrafyalarda farklı biçimde İslam’a geçen Türklerin inşa ettikleri Müslüman kültürlerde, kurdukları devletlerin benimsediği zihniyetlerin belirlediği tarihsel gelişmelere dikkat çekilmiştir. Böylece Müslüman Türklerin inşa ettikleri kültür/ ler ve kurdukları yeni siyasi-iktisadi-sosyal-dini yapı/lara odaklanmıştır. En sonunda ise bir zorunluluk olarak ortaya çıkan modernleşme sürecinde Türk devlet ve toplumunda farklılaşan zihniyetle gelişen tarihsel olay ve ortaya çıkan kurumların çözümlenmesine değinilmiştir. Böylelikle Türk tarihinin bütüncül biçimde kavranması için kolaylaştırıcı bir katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmüştür.
Some Problem Determinations Regarding the Writing of Turkish History and the “Mentality-Based History” Model Proposal
Turkish history has been presented with a seamless continuity to the Republic of Turkey, starting from the Huns and statecentered narrative. This approach not only offers some cyclical advantages in writing and teaching, but it also carries some structural problems. It can be argued that the way to solve these is a Turkish historical model based on a “mentality-based approach.” Although “mentality” is an important phenomenon that has guided the course of Turkish history, it has been ignored both in writing and teaching. The major cause for this neglect is represented by Turkish military schools, which have presented it as a lesson in the military context for the first time in modern history. Further, it was influenced by the state-centered historical narrative determined by the “project to create a modern Turkish nation” that emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century. Another reason for focusing on the impact of Turkey’s Cold War military victory in is the existence of a historical narrative. It can be said that these cyclical developments have prevented a realistic and rich approach to the 2,200-year-old Turkish history in various ways. This study aims to discuss a new historiographical approach that takes into account the great changes in the history of Turkey. To this end, it has been proposed to develop a mentality-based model according to which Turkish history may be written in a realistic way. Turkish history is thus discussed in three main periods: (1) that of the “Old Turks,” (2) that of the “Muslim Turks,” and (3) that of the “Modern Turks.” In this new model, the spread of Turkish peoples and communities to Eurasia by migrating from Central Asia is examined through the steppe culture. It then points out the various Muslim cultures created by Turks who converted to Islam differently in different areas as well as the historical developments determined by the mentalities of their established states. Thus, it focuses on the culture(s) built by Muslim Turks and their new political-economic-social-religious structure(s). Finally, it mentions, in the process of modernization emerging as a necessity, the historical events and institutions that had a differentiating mentality in the Turkish state and society. Thus, it is thought that the model will make a contribution to the holistic understanding of Turkish history.
The political history and the state-centered approach in Turkish historiography have led to questioning problems related to the country’s history, in addition to presenting some conjuncture and solution in writing. It can be said that the way to solve these issues is a Turkish historical model involving a “mentality-based approach.” Based on this claim, the study aims to discuss the historiography in the history of the Turkish nation. Finally, it proposes to adopt a mentality-based solution model.
While dividing Turkish history into periods based on mentality and based on the understanding of periodization according to dynasties, attempts have been made to create an alternative to Turkish history, which is seen as a monolith in the context of political history. In our study, Turkish history is handled in three main periods based on mentality. The first of these is designed as the “Early Turks,” the second as the “Muslim Turks,” and the third as the “Modern Turks” (or the modernization process of the Turks). However, studies on the current state of understanding of history in Turkey analyze its historical past before advancing their own theses, and the historical thoughts of the Ottoman period and the early Republican period are among the main topics discussed. Particular attention has been paid to the Turkish history thesis that emerged with the early Republic as it both nurtures an uninterrupted Turkish political history narrative and carries the discussions to the axis of civilization—of course, without failing to emphasize the speculative historical theses that emerged due to ideological reasons and that these theses have turned into meaningless claims for the academic world today.
Continuing with an analysis of the current state of Turkish historiography and understanding of history, it is underlined that the political conjunctural structure of the post-1945 period is as decisive as the legacy from previous periods. Here it is emphasized that, while the understanding of uninterrupted continuity continues to find a place for itself by getting stronger, it sometimes brings along “inconsistency,” unnecessary, “excessive interpretation,” and some new “fictions” in the fields of “antiquity” as well as the civilization/sociocultural understanding that it has proposed. Just as social life in this period (production, belief, social structure, education, etc.) was presented with a realistic conceptualization with the definition of “steppe life” based on the religion of the sky and animal husbandry, the religion of the Göktanri before Islam was made a sham for almost all Turkish peoples and Islam. Excessive interpretations and fictions that emerged from being treated as if they were in an organic bond are exemplified. Another important issue that shapes the current situation of the understanding of history is the Islamization adventure of the Turks, e.g., the Battle of Talas, which is especially highlighted in the official narrative. The phenomenon of mass Islamization, presented as one of the results of the war, is explained by the readiness of the Turks to Islam thanks to their pre-Islamic beliefs. With this narrative becoming canonized over time, the analysis of the existing structure has come to an end.
The model proposed in the study consists of three main mentality-based models and two transition periods. The first period is the one in which pre-Islam Turks—or the communities known as “Ancient Turks”—are discussed. The actors of this period are communities centered in Central Asia, living in the wider Eurasia, geographically dispersed, with the names of various tribes, generally unable to establish good relations with each other, and hierarchically structured under the leadership of one. How the Turks (Ancient Turks) before Islam, which is the first period of Turkish history, lived, what they believed, what they considered important, what kind of culture and mentality they had, and the framework of the “oral tradition” that carries the events of thousands of years are bequeathed through the Göktürks’ Orkhon Inscriptions and described with Turkish epics and The Book of Dede Korkut. Inscriptions constitute the only material that can be used to describe the written historiography of the period. The first break in Turkish history is the Islamization of the Turks; this can be thought of as a transformation that culminated in the majority in Turkish society adopting Islam. Undoubtedly, Islam brought important changes to the culture of the Turks during this period, not only in social life but also in lifestyle—especially in art and thought. The change in historiography and historical thought was one of them. The Turks gained experience in writing history by seeing themselves in surrounding cultures and acquired a historiographical method suitable for the character of the Islamic period from Arab and Iranian historians.
The second main period, the Islamic period, begins with the hierarchical acceptance of the new religion among Turks for various reasons (political and economic). It is known that different forms of Islam emerged due to their new religious interpretation. It can be said that during the period, although most of the Turkish society initially lived in rural areas, an organization and culture that would establish cities was achieved in time. The most basic feature of Islamic period historiography is that God is always at the center of the narrative; here, thoughts about why God will be pleased with the research, writing, and transferring of history to the future are explained, supported by verses. In the development of historical events, the will of God can take its place in the text as the most valid reason. Depending on the idea that God owns time, the Islamic period is constructed in a linear form. The second breaking point confronting Turkish historiography is the process of Westernization—and therefore, the process in which secularization began to affect the Ottoman Turks. The period in question is the period that started from the Nizam-ı Cedid movement or the Tanzimat Edict, covering both Constitutional periods and entering a new phase with the proclamation of the Republic in political history narratives.
The third period in Turkish historiography is the modern period dominated by secular typing. Modern period historiography can be expressed with four characteristic features: (1) the search and emphasis on objectivity in historiography, (2) the tightening of the historian-power relationship, (3) the strengthening of the narrative feature of history, and (4) the strengthening of the theoretical, functional, and utilitarian side of history. The text continues with a discussion section, evaluating the whole of the proposed model and presenting conclusions.
