Özet:

This article analyses the historical theory of the most well-known and charismatic names of Eurasianism, which is one of the popular flows of Russian thought life after the Cold War, in the context of the basic conceptualizations of the historic and ethnographic theory of Lev Nikolayevich Gumilev and the views that the writer advances on the Turkish ethnography. Gumilev’s theory of ethnogenesis and passion provides a universal perspective on historical dynamism. Gumilev, according to his theoretical views, was based on the ancient and medieval history of the migrants of the Eurasian peoples. His primary contribution to the Eurasianism is also related to this. In accordance with the historical philosophies of the classical Eurasians, Gumilev, Turkish (Turan) and Russian (Slav) elements were seen as the basic organic components of the Eurasian civilization. In fact, Gumilev, on the one hand, developed his meta-thesis, which has a very interesting and complex terminology, while on the other hand he tried to justify the idea of ‘Slav-Turan synthesis’, the basic Eurasian thesis, according to his theoretical views. As you will see, there are some contradictions between Gumilev's theses on Turkish ethnogenesis and his theoretical opinions. In the result section, these fundamental contradictions are referred to. The Ethnogenesis of the Turks in the Historisophical Views of Eurasianist Lev N. Gumilev Abstract This article examines one of the well-known and charismatic figures of Russian Eurasianism Lev N. Gumilev's theory of history in the context of his main concepts and views concerning the ethnogenesis of Turks. Gumilev's theory of ethnogenesis and passionarity presents universal perspective on dynamisms of history. His theoretical ideas especially focused on ancient and medieval stories of nomads of Eurasian steps. In accordance with the classical Eurasianist history of philosophy Gumilev considers Turkish (Turanic) and Russian (Slavic) elements as the organic components of the Eurasian civilization. Thus Gumilev on the one hand constructed his meta-theory and its complex terminology and on the other hand basic Eurasianist thesis - 'Slavic-Turanic syntheses'- is determined on the basis of his theoretical presumptions. There is a contradictory relationship between his theoretical views and his ideas concerning the ethnogenesis of the Turks. In the conclusion, these displayed paradoxes are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler: