Elmи мяъмуяси

 Gökçe Yükselen Abdurrazak Peler 

446 

language is deeply penetrated by Polish and Ukrainian Slavonic both 

syntactically and lexically. However, bulk of the vocabulary and the whole 

of declension and conjugation are Qipchaq (Clauson 1971: 7). The language 

contains four layers of Turkic words (Old Turkic, Karakhanid, Khwarezmian 

and a small layer pure Turkic words exclusive to Armeno – Qipchaq), a very 

small layer of Mongolian words, a layer of Armenian vocabulary, which is 

mostly religious terminology, a very large component of Slavonic words, 

mainly Polish or Ukrainian. Additionally there is a large component of 

Persian words, which is controversial whether they entered Armeno – 

Qipchaq through Armenian or directly from Qipchaq. When the Armenian 

and Slavonic components of this language are removed the remaining part is 

the spoken Qipchaq language of the 12

th

 and 13

th

 centuries with the Persian 

loanwords, which entered the language through the written Khwarezmian 

language (Clauson 1971: 11-12). The Armeno – Qipchaq speakers lost their 

Turkic speech in the second half of the 17

th

 century (Schütz 1966: 99).  

Despite the fact that Golden (1992: 282) regards them to be acculturated, 

the Mamluk Qipchaqs of the Near East retained their Turkic language and a 

Turkic literature flourished under the patronage of Mamluk sultans. 

Although some Mamluk sultans could speak the Arabic language a great 

proportion of them were monolingual in Turkic. Consequently the Qipchaq 

language attained an important status as the language of the ruing class. 

Turkic dictionaries were compiled in order to facilitate the learning of the 

Turkic language, original Turkic works were written or translations were 

made from Arabic and Persian, and important Turkic works written in the 

other parts of the world were copied

61

. Accordingly a lively intellectual 

connection was established with different parts of the Turkic world and 

scholars from Turkestan and the Golden Horde were delivering lectures in 

the Madrasah of Cairo, which was established by Emir Soyurgatmish in the 

14

th

 century (Eckmann 1963: 304-05). However, the Qipchaq language 

                                                                                                                   

historical, sociological and religious proofs why Armeno – Qipchaq speakers should be 

regarded from Cuman – Qipchaq descent with small Armenian elements. However, 

Dachkevytch (1982) disputes fiercely every claim connecting Armeno – Qipchaq speakers 

to Turkic descent. Vasary (1988: 269) regards Dachkevytch’s views to be extremist and 

notes that they should be discarded. 

61

 Some scholars classify the language of the steppe and the language of the Mamluks 

separately naming the former Cuman and the latter Qipchaq (Karamanlıoğlu 1962: 177-78). 

---

Some Notes on the History, the Culture and the Language of the Medieval Qipchaq - Cuman Turks 

447 

started to experience a gradual Oghuzification from the beginning of the 15

th

 

century and was replaced entirely by Anatolian Turkish at the end of the 

century (Eckmann 1964: 36)

62

. 

5.1. Qipchaq Languages of Today 

Cuman – Qipchaqs played an important role in the ethno-genesis of 

many Turkic peoples. Linguistically this has resulted in a group of modern 

Turkic languages, which are classified as the Qipchaq branch of the Turkic 

languages

63

. The Turkic languages classified under this group are Kyrgyz, 

Kazakh, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkir, Nogai, Karaim, Balkar, Karachay and 

Kumyk. The latter four are regarded to be the closest languages to that of 

Codex Cumanicus (Golden 1984: 86). 

                                                 

62

 For detailed information on the grammar of the language of Codex Cumanicus see Gabain 

1959 43-79, on the grammar of Armeno – Qipchaq see Pritsak 1959: 81-7, on the syntax of 

the Qipchaq langugae see Drimba 1973, and on the morphology of Middle Qipchaq see 

Berta 1996. 

63

 Doerfer (1965: 121-127) saw a Qipchaq substrate even in Gagauz, which is a Western 

Oghuz language. Geographical location of the speakers of this language poses a possibility 

for this connection as modern Gagauzia lays in the Western Cumania of the medieval times. 

---

 Gökçe Yükselen Abdurrazak Peler 

448 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 

 

Allsen, Th. T., 1983. “Prelude to the Western Campaigns: Mongol 

Military Operations in the Volga – Ural Region, 1217-1237.” Archivum 

Eurasiae Medii Aevi. 3: 5-24. 

Arat, R. R., 1946. Kutadgu Bilig I, Metin. Istanbul. 

Arat, R. R., 1950. “Kıpçak.” In İslam Ansiklopedisi 6. Istanbul. Pp. 

713a-717b. 

Atalay, Besim, 1985-86. Divanü Lûgat-it-Türk Tercümesi I-IV. Ankara. 

Ayalon, David, 1953a. “Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army 

I.” Bulletin of   the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of 

London. 15: 203-228. 

Ayalon, David, 1953b. “Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army 

II.” Bulletin of  the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of 

London. 15: 448-476. 

Ayalon, David, 1954. “Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army 

III.” Bulletin of  the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of 

London. 16: 57-90. 

Bang, Wilhelm, 1912. “Über das Rätsel des Codex Cumanicus.” 

Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. 12: 334-353. 

Berta, Arpad, 1998. “Middle Kipchak.” In Johanson, L. & E. A. Csato, 

eds., The Turkic Languages. London and New York. Pp. 158-165. 

Berta, Arpad, 1996. Deverbale Wortbildung im Mittelkiptschakisch-

Türkischen. Wiesbaden. 

Bosworth, C. E., 1978. “Kanghli.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam 4. 

Leiden. Pp. 542a-542b. 

Bosworth, C. E., 1986. “Kimäk.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam 5. 

Leiden. Pp. 107b-108a. 

Bretschneider, E., 1888. Medieval Researches from Eastern Asiatic 

Sources 1. London. 

Browne, Edward G., 1902. A Literary History of Persia. London. 

---