Throughout a century, strategically manipulating historical narratives has become a potent tool for nationalist political elites. Their objectives have consistently revolved around constructing a governance model devoted to the intricate nation-building process. This intricate endeavor traces its origins to the ideological constructs fostered by the Unionists, particularly the Union and Progress Party, within the Turkish context. This ideological construct is characterized by an imposing and uniform Turkish supremacist identity firmly anchored in conceptions of racial and ethnic lineage. This historical thesis has found refuge within the educational framework, permeating society from the earliest stages of childhood education to the hallowed halls of academia. Its indelible influence is notably evident in the shaping of educational curricula, state-controlled media outlets, most notably the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT), which, for a significant duration, monopolized the airwaves, and the pervasive role it plays in the process of socialization.
The bedrock of this historical thesis is premised on the notion that the Anatolian Peninsula’s demographic tapestry is predominantly woven with threads of Turkish ethnicity. Simultaneously, it systematically marginalizes a multitude of minority communities, encompassing but not limited to Kurds, Jews, Turkish Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Arabians, Bosnians, Circassians, Romans, Gypsies, Daghestanis, Chechens, Lazis, and Georgians. These minority groups, ostensibly perceived as incongruous with the Turkish racial and ethnic archetype, are coerced into a rigorous program of Turkization following the overarching narrative.
At its nucleus, the Turkish history thesis asserts that Turks embarked upon a grand-scale migration from Central Asia’s depths to Anatolia’s fertile soils. They engineered their ascendancy as the preeminent ethnic entity, securing unassailable political hegemony over the region. This narrative further posits the historical existence of “proto-Turks” in Anatolia, a presence antedating the 11th century. However, this contention lacks corroborative substantiation and endeavors to propagate the notion that Turks are, in essence, indigenous to Anatolia, negating the hypothesis of their arrival at a later juncture. Moreover, proponents of this narrative endeavor to extend its reach by asserting that all nations trace their origins to Turkish progenitors, often leveraging specious theories like the “Sun Language Theory,” a concept that gained prominence during the era of Ataturk. These assertions, nonetheless, stand in stark discordance with the scholarly disciplines of history, archaeology, anthropology, folklore, and musicology. In addition, they face resolute contradiction from contemporary DNA research, which furnishes irrefutable evidence regarding the dynamics of ethnic migration.
In its essence, the Turkish history thesis serves as a vehicle to authenticate Anatolia’s Turkish identity, thereby buttressing the establishment of a Turkish nation-state within the precincts of Anatolia. This enterprise, however, encounters an array of substantial challenges:
The tangible historical evidence chronicling the presence of Turks in Anatolia crystallizes only in the 11th century.
The prevailing archaeological and historical record overwhelmingly underscores the existence of civilizations that predate the arrival of Turks in Anatolia, a fact readily acknowledged within the annals of international academic discourse.
The existence of diverse ethnic communities possessing no historical ties to Central Asia directly undermines the tenets of the Turkish history thesis.
Contemporary research involving DNA analysis compellingly suggests that Turkophones, individuals fluent in the Turkish language, exhibit predominantly genetic affinities with Anatolia, Ancient Anatolia, Armenians, Turkish Greeks, Assyrians, and other regional ethnicities, along with varying degrees of connection to Caucasian, Middle Eastern, Balkan, or East European origins.
In stark contrast, the influence of Central Asian ancestry among Turkophones remains marginal.
As such, the revelation that the genetic composition of Anatolian populations is mainly devoid of Central Asian origins fundamentally undermines the foundational premise of “genetic or ethnic Turkishness,” as championed by the Turkish history thesis. Remarkably, this revelation harmonizes with the perspectives articulated by esteemed Turkish historian Halil Inalcik and Western scholars of Turkology, historians, and archaeologists, who advocate the notion that Turkophones in Anatolia are the result of a harmonious amalgamation of indigenous Anatolian populations and immigrant communities from Central Asia.
These revelations precipitate a probing inquiry into the mechanisms underpinning the dominance of the Turkish language in Anatolia. To unravel this complex phenomenon, it is imperative to scrutinize the pivotal role played by dominant elites throughout history. Human communities, through the annals of time, have demonstrated a remarkable propensity for swift shifts in religious and linguistic affiliations, thereby complicating the straightforward ascription of ethnic origins based on these parameters. Noteworthy examples include the linguistic Slavicization of Bulgarians who were not originally of Slavic stock and the linguistic Arabization of indigenous Egyptians after their political subjugation by Arab rulers. Comparable dynamics have unfolded in North Africa and South America, where linguistic assimilation transpired following their exposure to the linguistic influence of Portuguese, Spanish, and other colonial powers. The common thread binding these scenarios is the phenomenon of linguistic assimilation, typically following the political ascendancy of a minority group. These ruling elites impose their language and religion upon the majority population, solidifying their linguistic and cultural dominance. The longer this political control persists, the more pervasive and encompassing the process of linguistic assimilation becomes.
In parallel, Anatolia witnessed a parallel trajectory. Despite the numerical minority of the Turkish-speaking military and political elite, their ascendancy catalyzed the gradual process of Islamization and linguistic Turkification across the region. Their dominance primarily propelled this transformation and was further facilitated by intermarriage between their descendants and the native populace.
Nonetheless, the Turkish history thesis engenders ethical and political considerations requiring meticulous scrutiny. Ethically, the classification of Turkophones as Turks predicated solely upon racial and ethnic criteria invites a nuanced ethical discourse. It raises pertinent questions concerning the ethicality of tethering national identity to a specific ethnic lineage. This perspective is perceived as encapsulating fascistic undertones, further compounded by the imposition of the label “ethnic Turk” upon individuals whose ties to Central Asia are tenuous at best, thereby exacerbating an ethical conundrum. Concurrently, the imposition of Turkish language and culture upon individuals whose native language deviates from Turkish, accompanied by the rhetoric of “how happy is s/he who says I am a Turk,” coerces these individuals into an identity defined by Turkish ethnicity. This policy evokes substantial concerns surrounding the forced assimilation of non-Turkish communities, most notably the Kurds, who are pressured to adopt the Turkish language, naming conventions, and cultural norms. These pressures, in effect, compel them to espouse a Turkish identity despite the conspicuous absence of a unifying supra-identity among these disparate groups.
The exigency for a comprehensive reevaluation of the Turkish history thesis is evident and pressing. This imperative should be anchored in a civil initiative, divorced from the machinations of political authorities, given the propensity of political agendas to impose a singular historical narrative that perpetuates a symbiotic relationship between history, identity, and the state within the Anatolian milieu. A revised historical narrative should endeavor to provide an unvarnished account of Anatolia’s history, eschewing embellishments or marginalizations of any ethnic enclave.
