Bodrogligeti, A. (1973): The Medical Terminology in the Kita b Baytarat al-Vazih, a Fourteenth-Century Mamluk-Kipchak Treatise on Veterinary Medicine. Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi 21, pp. 115–125.
.] Wiesbaden : Otto Harrassowitz Verlag . Chirli , Nadejda 2005 . Ermeni Kıpçakça Dualar Kitabı Algış Bitigi [Armeno-Kipchak Prayer Book ‚Alghysh Bitigi‘] . Sota : Haarlem . Csató , Éva Ágnes and Lars Johanson 1995 . ‘Zur Silbenharmonie des
In V. Gordlevskij’s words, “In order to understand the history of Turkic peoples it is necessary to study the Mongols”. But the other way round is also true: in order to understand the history of the Mongols a knowledge of Turkic history is indispensable. The present article tries to elucidate some aspects of the Turkic impact on Mongol history by investigating the role of the Turks (Uighurs, Kipchaks and Kanglis) who stood in the service of the Yuan, Mongol dynasty of China in the 13th–14th centuries.
After the formation of the Chagatay and Jochi Uluses the local Mongol nobility was converted to Islam and assimilated by the local Kirghiz and Kipchak Turkic nomads. When these Uluses were disintegrated into smaller hordes (Özbeg, Nogay, Kazak, Kirghiz, etc.), the Turkic-speaking Muslim nobility ruled the newly-formed new nomadic states. The epic tradition of these nomads underwent fundamental changes, and the heroes of the epic songs became the historical or legendary founders of the tribes. When the Oirat Mongols and Jungars attacked their territories during in 16th–18th centuries the Buddhist Oirats became the major enemies of the Muslim Turks who called them
. But the meaning of
is broader in the epic tradition of these Turkic peoples: it can mean Non-Muslim or enemy of all kind. The present article analyses the historical and cultural background of the word
in written and oral sources.
the most correct chronologers . Vol. 1 . New York : T. Carlton & J. Porter . [Available at https://biblehub.com/ commentaries; without page numbers indicated; accessed 8 April 2020]. Berta , Árpád 1998 . ‘West Kipchak languages.’ In: Lars
, Murat 2018 . ‘Oghuzic and Kipchak Characteristics in the Book of Leviticus, Gözleve Bible (1841).’ Rocznik Orientalistyczny LXXI/ 2 : 66 – 76 . Işık , Murat 2020 . ‘The Animal Names in the Book of Leviticus of the Gözleve Bible (1841). Part I
The author presents a historical-etymological analysis of two Russian words – kunžut ‘sesame’ and xamovnik ‘weaver’. According to her argumentation, Russian kunžut has Tokharian origin, it was borrowed from Tokharian A by Old Uygur before the 12th century. From Old Uygur, it was intermediated by Middle Mongol and Middle Kipchak to Russian. Xam, the stem of xamovnik is preserved in one of the Old Novgorodian birk barch letter from the beginning of the 14th century. It was borrowed from the Cantonese dialect of the Chinese language by West Old Turkic, and a West Old Turkic form was borrowed by Old Russian.
Apart from the Edige epic, the story of Čora Batir is the best-known and most popular Nogay epic of Kipchak origin. Since the first publication of a version by the Russian Turcologist, I. Berezin (1862), a large number of variants, among them Nogay, Crimean and Dobrudjan Tatar, Kazak, Karakalpak, Kazan Tatar, Bashkir and Karachay-Balkar versions, have cropped up and been brought to light. An early variant of the epic was recorded by the Hungarian Turcologist, Ignác Kúnos, but it has remained in manuscript. He collected his material from Crimean Tatar informants in a Russian prisoner-of-war camp near Esztergom (Hungary) in 1915. The present work, published for the first time in print, contains the original Crimean Tatar text and its translation, supplied with an introductory study and annotations. The main value of the epic variant recorded by Kúnos lies in that its content and plot show close relationship with the earliest recorded Nogay texts.