TITLE

BİR DÖNEMİN İKİ FARKLI ANLATIMI - KÜL TİGİN YAZITININ ÇİNCE VE TÜRKÇE METİNLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRMASI

AUTHOR(S)
YALINKILIÇ, Tuba
PUB. DATE
December 2013
SOURCE
Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology & Fisheries;2013, Vol. 2 Issue 4, p27
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The Orkhon inscriptions consist of not only the ancient Türkic texts which have been very attractive to Türkologistst, and also the Chinese texts written by Tang authorities, which have not been investigated enough. Although Bilge Tonyuquq Inscriptions are only Türkic and were erected by Türk Khanate, Kül Tegin and Bilge Qaghan Inscriptions are located in the center area of Türk Khanate and the front parts of the inscriptions were written by Tang and the monuments themselves were established by Tang craftsmen who made the monuments with Tang style, and the Türkic part was made by Türks on the other parts of the monuments. Tang Emperor Xuanzong himself drfted the Chinese part of the Kül Tegin Inscirption, and he ordered a high official did the same with the Bilge Qaghan Inscription, both texts are for mourning the dead Türk leader. Both Chinese and Türkic inscriptions are talking about the history of the relationship of the Tang and the Türks. However, while the Chinese parts recognize the long term friendship between Tang and Türks, the Türkic parts insist that Tang had been a major enemy of the Türks, a trouble maker, and a thread. With a history shared by Türks and Tang, why did both sides give so different stories? Research has shown that the differences in the historical discourse given by Tang and Türks are not for seeking the historical truth, the discourse served for political purposes. Both Chinese and Türkic inscriptions all assume that the audience were the the elites in Türk Khanate. To continue the practice of winning over Türks and to maintain this relation, Tang used a gentle and friendly historical discourse. But the Türkic parts were working on reminding Türks, in particular the elite groups, Tang had been antagonistic to Türks since the very beginning that Türks tried to establish their own country. Türk Khanate's restoration movement was the focus of this discourse, because of which Türkic inscriptions emphasize the importance and necessity of the maintaining of Khanate. Obviously it is beneficial for Türk Khanate to describe Tang as an enemy, because it would help internal unity and the consolidation and strengthening of the authority of the Qaghan. Historical discourse as a power has fully demonstrated its political nature. Despite the contradictory and opposite of the discourse of Tang and Türks, both used history as a key source for their political agenda, which shows the true fact upon the relation between Tang and Türks.
ACCESSION #
94761187

 

Related Articles

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics