Culture Sociology - Culture Incoming from Altays to Anatolia and Balkans
Home Bibliography My Photos Writings From You Contact Me English   
Conclusion
Sociology Tamgas 
Historical Source
Countries Tamgas
Russia
Kazakhistan
Kyrgyzstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Azerbaijan
Iran
Turkey
Ukraine
Moldova
Romania
Bulgaria
Macedonia
Kosovo
Comparative Tamgas
Tombstones
Money Tamgas
Street Tamgas
Object Tamgas
Varied Photos
Links
Visitor
Total : 1252837
Today : 446

We can not treat socio-cultural phenomena without the factors affecting it. Besides, this is valid partially for the physical world. Under these conditions while comme3nting a socio-cultural event we have to establish relations with other social sciences, for minimizing the errors. At least, must be benefited from the closest disciplines to the working field (social science) and their data.

 

Else, the studies will be lack or insufficient. For example in a treatise named as "Anadolu Motifleri Sergisi"[1] (=Anatolian Motifs Exhibition), the stamps on Anatolian carpets said to be similar with some traces found at Çatalköyük near Konya, Ahlatlıbel near Ankara, Gardion, the capital of Frigia in Polatlı, and those found in Karataşi Samahöyük, and Alacahöyük and tried to be explained by this way as historical sources of the stamps on some ethnographical traces of Anatolia.

 

If so, how can we explain that near all the figures shown here, seen in the Great Turkistan? For example the figures "eli belinde (=hands on waist), bereket (=abundance), koçboynuzu (= ram horn), and haç (=cross) figures have been weaving since the first known carpet of the world across the Turkish geography. This problem can be solved in two ways. First by accepting the Anotolian of inner Asia migrated from Anatolia within the historical process.

 

The information, history presented us show that there is no migration from Anatolia to Turkistan, except (Turkish oriented) Scythians and Kimmers but there and to the shores of Danube. The results of the Turkish cultural History can be summarized as: the traditional societies believed that they would be punished if they interact with other people. So they were so rigid about interacting with others. We have to accept the traditional communities within historical process were having minimum interactions with others. In Anatolia up to 1970s it was important the family of the bride, and bridegroom to marry with, than it is today. The second information seems true. So as mentioned above to prefer comparative studies by being informed by other opinions, must be preferred to postulate something with lack of information. This will result with more reliable information.

 

The stamps on carpets, rugs, and tombstones are historical documents and like book pages of social history, socio-cultural life, and a sense; more than being artistically traces[2]. In other words, it is products of mentality and behavior on a certain point of the history. These documents express the pure senses since they were not written by official institutions. So the history-writers and the workers the ethnographic traces like carpet-rugs and tombstones. Because they are the purest historical evidences in which there is no official intervention.

 

For example it is possible to get information about structure of the family; whether it is nuclear family or wide family, by looking the structure of yurds (homes). Also by looking the seat places at home the statue and identity of the person can be determined. Only the father may sit to place named as "tör", when he is home. But if there is a guest at home, he sits to the tör even though his age is younger. Because there is a proverb in Kazakhstan which says "if a five years old guest comes to home, even the seventy years old grandfather salutes him". (Bes castagı konak kelse yetmis castağı kariye selam berir.)

 

The studies made in Turkey about this field have been deal with the location of the carpet, number of knots, and the structure of yarn, as the main problem. But more than these, the message given via the carpet-rug must be primarily important from the point of view of social sciences. And is it a right approach that naming them according to their production regions as Hakkari rug, Kars rug, Bergama rug, and etc. (same for the Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan rug, and etc.). To how many of the carpet-rugs seen in photos can be separated from each other and according to the place they knotted? Classifying to Turkish carpet-rugs and even the stamps on these carpet-rugs can be only made by practical aim, like naming them. Insisting to do it for some other reasons, does not mean something and it carries social memory and socio-cultural life to be fragmented. Because they are the productions of the same mentality and same historical consciousness, across the history. The stamps of Turkish carpet-rugs, which seem different from each other, represent the different parts of an entity. And we know from our studies about the classification that "we are moving forward by groping, using the methods of estimation nearby comparing, and hypothesis"[3].

 

Shortly, is not it necessary to evaluate the stamps on traces like carpet-rugs and tombstones as the purest evidences of social groups and social history?

 

Bibliography

 [1] GÜRAN, E., Anadolu Motifleri Sergisi, İzmir, 1986, p. 4-35.

[2] MÜLAYİM, S., "Tanımsız Figürlerin ikonografisi", Türk Soylu Halkların Halı, Kilim ve Cicim Sanatı (Uluslar arası Bilgi Şöleni Bildirileri, 27-31 Mayıs Kayseri), Ankara, 1998, p. 219.

[3] MÜLAYİM, S., Ibit., p. 219.

 

Powered by Kürşad KARA