Hubbry Logo
TurkificationTurkificationMain
Open search
Turkification
Community hub
Turkification
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Turkification
Turkification
Turkification
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Turkification, Turkization, or Turkicization (Turkish: Türkleştirme) describes a shift whereby populations or places receive or adopt Turkic attributes such as culture, language, history, or ethnicity. However, often this term is more narrowly applied to mean specifically Turkish rather than merely Turkic, meaning that it refers more frequently to the Ottoman Empire's policies or the Turkish nationalist policies of the Republic of Turkey toward ethnic minorities in Turkey. As the Turkic states developed and grew, there were many instances of this cultural shift.

The earliest instance of Turkification took place in Central Asia, when by the 6th century AD migration of Turkic tribes from Inner Asia caused a language shift among the Iranian peoples of the area.[1] By the 8th century AD, the Turkification of Kashgar was completed by Qarluq Turks, who also Islamized the population.[2]

The Turkification of Anatolia occurred in the time of the Seljuk Empire and Sultanate of Rum, when Anatolia had been a diverse and largely Greek-speaking region after previously being Hellenized.[3][4][5]

Etymology

[edit]

Prior to the 20th century, Anatolian, Balkan, Caucasian, and Middle Eastern regions were said to undergo Ottomanization. "Turkification" started being used interchangeably with "Ottomanization" after the rise of Turkish nationalism in the 20th century.[6]

The term has been used in the Greek language since the 1300s or late-Byzantine era as "εκτουρκισμός", or "τούρκεμα". It literally translates to "becoming a Turk". Apart from people, it may also refer to cities conquered by the Turks or churches converted to mosques. It is more frequently used in the verb form "τουρκεύω" (to Turkify, to become Muslim or Turk).[7][8][9]

History

[edit]

Early examples of Turkification

[edit]

By 750, the Turkification of Kashgar by the Qarluq Turks was underway. The Qarluqs were ancestors of the Karakhanids, who also Islamized the population.[2] The Iranian language of Khwarezm, a Central Asian oasis region, eventually died out as a result of Turkification.[10]

Turkification of Central Asia

[edit]

The current population of Central Asia is the result of the long and complex process that started at least 1,400 years ago. Today this region consists of mainly Turkic ethnic groups, barring Persian-speaking Tajiks, although centuries ago its native inhabitants were Iranian peoples.[1] Turkification of the native Iranian population of Central Asia[note 1] began by the 6th century A.D. partly due to migration of Turkic tribes from Inner Asia. The process of Turkification of Central Asia, besides those parts that constitute the territory of present-day Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan with a majority Tajik population, accelerated with the Mongol conquest of Central Asia.[note 2][11] Mahmud al-Kashgari writes that the people who lived between Bukhara and Samarkand were Turkified Sogdians, whom he refers to as “Sogdak”.[12]

Tajiks are considered to be the only ethnic group to have survived the process of Turkification in Central Asia. Despite their clear Iranian ethnicity, some arguments attempt to denounce Tajiks' Iranian identity, and instead link them with the descendants of Arabs raised in Iran or Turks who have lost their language under the influence of Persian civilization.[1]

Turkification of Azerbaijan

[edit]

Turkification of the non-Turkic population derives from the Turkic settlements in the area now known as Azerbaijan, which began and accelerated during the Seljuq period.[13] The migration of Oghuz Turks from present-day Turkmenistan, which is attested by linguistic similarity, remained high through the Mongol period, since the bulk of the Ilkhanate troops were Turkic. By the Safavid period, the Turkic nature of Azerbaijan increased with the influence of the Qizilbash, an association of the Turkmen nomadic tribes that was the backbone of the Safavid Empire.[14]

According to Soviet scholars, the Turkification of Azerbaijan was largely completed during the Ilkhanate period. Turkish scholar Faruk Sumer notes three distinct periods in which Turkification took place: Seljuq, Mongol and Post-Mongol (Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oghuz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to Anatolia and Arran. In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran (Oghuz, with lesser admixtures of Uyghur, Qipchaq, Qarluq as well as Turkified Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran. This marked the final stage of Turkification.[13]

Turkification of Anatolia

[edit]
Main article: Turkic migration
Illustration of the registration of Christian boys for the devşirme. Ottoman miniature painting, 1558.[15]

Anatolia was home to many different peoples in ancient times who were either natives or settlers and invaders. These different people included the Armenians, Anatolian peoples, Persians,[16] Hurrians, Greeks, Cimmerians, Galatians, Colchians, Iberians, Arabs, Arameans, Assyrians, Corduenes, and scores of others. During the Mycenaean and Classical periods of Greek history, Greeks colonised the Western, Northern and Southern Coasts of Anatolia. Over the course of many centuries a process of Hellenization occurred throughout the interior Anatolia which was aided by the fact that Koine Greek was the lingua franca in political circles and also later became the primary liturgical language, and the similarity of some of the native languages of Anatolia to Greek (cf. Phrygian). By the 5th century the native people of Asia Minor were entirely Greek in their language and Christian in religion.[17] These Greek-speaking Christian inhabitants of Asia Minor are known as Byzantine Greeks, although at the time they would have considered themselves to be Romans (Rhomaioi), and they formed the bulk of the Byzantine Empire's Greek-speaking population for one thousand years, from the 5th century until the fall of the Byzantine state in the 15th century. In the northeast along the Black Sea these peoples eventually formed their own state known as the Empire of Trebizond, which gave rise to the modern Pontic Greek population. In the east, near the borderlands with the Persian Empire, other native languages remained, specifically Armenian, Assyrian Aramaic, and Kurdish.[18] Byzantine authorities routinely conducted large-scale population transfers in an effort to impose religious uniformity and quell rebellions. After the subordination of the First Bulgarian Empire in 1018, for instance, much of its army was resettled in Eastern Anatolia. The Byzantines were particularly keen to assimilate the large Armenian population. To that end, in the eleventh century, the Armenian nobility were removed from their lands and resettled throughout western Anatolia with prominent families subsumed into the Byzantine nobility, leading to numerous Byzantine generals and emperors of Armenian extraction. These resettlements spread the Armenian-speaking community deep into Asia Minor, but an unintended consequence was the loss of local military leadership along the eastern Byzantine frontier, opening the path for the inroads of Turkish invaders.[19]

Beginning in the eleventh century, war between the Turks and Byzantines led to the deaths of many in Asia Minor, while others were enslaved and removed.[20] As areas became depopulated, Turkic nomads moved in with their herds.[21] However, despite the suffering of the local Christian populations at the hands of the Turks and in particular the Turkoman tribesmen, they were still an overwhelming majority of the population 50 years after the Battle of Manzikert.[22] The Turks seem to have been aware of their numerical inferiority during this time period as evidenced by the fact many Turkish rulers went to lengths to disarm their Christian subjects. There is also evidence that the Turks resorted to kidnapping Christian children and raising them as Turks, as attested by contemporary chronicler Matthew of Edessa.[23] Intermarriage between Turks and Greek, Armenian and Georgian natives of Anatolia was not unheard of, although the majority of these unions were between Turkish men and Christian women. The children of these unions, known as 'Mixovarvaroi', were raised as Turks and were of the Muslim faith (although there were some cases of Mixovarvaroi defecting to the Byzantines). It is likely that these unions played a role in the eventual diminishment of the Christian population in Anatolia and its transition from Greek/Christian to Turkish/Muslim.[24]

Number of pastoralists of Turkic origin in Anatolia

[edit]

The number of nomads of Turkic origin that migrated to Anatolia is a matter of discussion. According to Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi, there were 200,000 Turkmen tents in Denizli and its surrounding areas, 30,000 in Bolu and its surrounding areas, and 100,000 in Kastamonu and its surrounding areas.[25][26] According to a Latin source, at the end of the 12th century, there were 100,000 nomadic tents in the regions of Denizli and Isparta.[27]

According to Ottoman tax archives, in modern-day Anatolia, in the provinces of Anatolia, Karaman, Dulkadir and Rûm, there were about 872,610 households in the 1520s and 1530s; 160,564 of those households were nomadic, and the remainder were sedentary. Of the four provinces, Anatolia (which does not include the whole of geographic Anatolia but only its western and some of its northwestern parts) had the largest nomadic population with 77,268 households. Between 1570 and 1580, 220,217 households of the overall 1,360,474 households in the four provinces were nomadic, which means that at least 20% of Anatolia was still nomadic in the 16th century. The province of Anatolia, which had the largest nomadic population with 77,268 households, saw an increase of its nomadic population to 116,219 households in those years.[28]

Devshirme

[edit]
Main article: Devshirme

Devshirme (devşirme; literally "collecting" in Turkish), also known as the blood tax, was chiefly the annual practice by which the Ottoman Empire sent military to press second or third sons of their Christian subjects (Rum millet) in the villages of the Balkans into military training as Janissaries.[29] They were then taught to speak Turkish and converted to Islam[30] with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children of the Empire for military or civil service, mostly into the ranks of the Janissaries.[31] Started by Murad I as a means to counteract the growing power of the Turkish nobility, the practice itself violated Islamic law.[32] By 1648, the practice drew to an end. An attempt to re-institute it in 1703 was resisted by its Ottoman members who coveted its military and civilian posts, and in the early part of Ahmet III's reign, the practice was abolished.

Late Ottoman era

[edit]

The late Ottoman government sought to create "a core identity with a single Turkish religion, language, history, tradition, culture and set of customs", replacing earlier Ottoman traditions that had not sought to assimilate different religions or ethnic groups. The Ottoman Empire had an ethnically diverse population that included Turks, Arabs, Albanians, Bosniaks, Greeks, Persians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Armenians, Kurds, Zazas, Circassians, Assyrians, Jews and Laz people. Turkish nationalists claimed that only Turks were loyal to the state. Ideological support for Turkification was not widespread in the Ottoman Empire.[33]

One of its main supporters was sociologist and political activist Ziya Gökalp who believed that a modern state must become homogeneous in terms of culture, religion, and national identity.[34] This conception of national identity was augmented by his belief in the primacy of Turkishness as a unifying virtue. As part of this belief, it was necessary to purge from the territories of the state those national groups who could threaten the integrity of a modern Turkish nation state.[35][36] The 18th article of the Ottoman Constitution of 1876 declared Turkish the sole official language,[37] and that only Turkish speaking people could be employed in the government.[38]

After the Young Turks assumed power in 1909, the policy of Turkification received several new layers and it was sought to impose Turkish in the administration, the courts, and education in the areas where the Arabic-speaking population was the majority. Another aim was to loosen ties between the Empire's Turk and ethnically non-Turkish populations through efforts to purify the Turkish language of Arabic influences. In this nationalist vision of Turkish identity, language was supreme, and religion was relegated to a subordinate role. Arabs responded by asserting the superiority of Arabic language, describing Turkish as a "mongrel" language that had borrowed heavily from the Persian and Arabic languages. Through the policy of Turkification, the Young Turk government suppressed the Arabic language. Turkish teachers were hired to replace Arabic teachers at schools. The Ottoman postal service was administrated in Turkish.[39]

Those who supported Turkification were accused of harming Islam. Rashid Rida was an advocate who supported Arabic against Turkish.[39] Even before the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, the Syrian Reformer Tahrir al-Jazairi had convinced Midhat Pasha to adopt Arabic as the official language of instruction at state schools. The language of instruction was only changed to Turkish in 1885 under Sultan Abdul Hamid II.[40] Though writers like Ernest Dawn have noted that the foundations of Second Constitutional Era "Arabism" predate 1908, the prevailing view still holds that Arab nationalism emerged as a response to the Ottoman Empire's Turkification policies.[41][42] One historian of Arab nationalism wrote that: "the Unionists introduced a grave provocation by opposing the Arab language and adopting a policy of Turkification", but not all scholars agree about the contribution of Turkification policies to Arab nationalism.[41]

European critics who accused the CUP of depriving non-Turks of their rights through Turkification saw Turk, Ottoman and Muslim as synonymous, and believed Young Turk "Ottomanism" posed a threat to Ottoman Christians. The British ambassador Gerard Lowther said it was like "pounding non-Turkish elements in a Turkish mortar", while another contemporary European source complained that the CUP plan would reduce "the various races and regions of the empire to one dead level of Turkish uniformity." Rifa'at 'Ali Abou-El-Haj has written that "some Ottoman cultural elements and Islamic elements were abandoned in favor of Turkism, a more potent device based on ethnic identity and dependent on a language based nationalism".[41]

The Young Turk government launched a series of initiatives that included forced assimilation. Uğur Üngör writes that "Muslim Kurds and Sephardi Jews were considered slightly more 'Turkifiable' than others", noting that many of these nationalist era "social engineering" policies perpetuated persecution "with little regard for proclaimed and real loyalties." These policies culminated in the Armenian and Assyrian genocides.[43]

During World War I, the Ottoman government established orphanages throughout the empire which included Armenian, Kurdish, and Turkish children. Armenian orphans were given Arabic and Turkish names.[44] In 1916 a Turkification campaign began in which whole Kurdish tribes were to be resettled in areas where they were not to exceed more than 10% of the local population. Talaat Pasha ordered that Kurds in the eastern areas be relocated in western areas. He also demanded information regarding if the Kurds Turkified in their new settlements and if they got along with their Turkish population.[45] Additionally, non-Kurdish immigrants from Greece, Albania, Bosnia and Bulgaria were to be settled in the Diyarbakır province, where the deported Kurds had lived before.[46] By October 1918, with the Ottoman army retreating from Lebanon, a Father Sarlout sent the Turkish and Kurdish orphans to Damascus, while keeping the Armenian orphans in Antoura. He began the process of reversing the Turkification process by having the Armenian orphans recall their original names.[47] It is believed by various scholars that at least two million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent.[47]

Around 1.5 million Ottoman Greeks remained in the Ottoman Empire after losses of 550,000 during WWI. Almost all, 1,250,000, except for those in Constantinople, had fled before or were forced to go to Greece in 1923 in the population exchanges mandated by the League of Nations after the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922).[48] The lingual Turkification of Greek-speakers in 19th-century Anatolia is well documented. According to Speros Vryonis the Karamanlides are the result of partial Turkification that occurred earlier, during the Ottoman period.[24] Fewer than 300,000 Armenians remained of 1.2 million before the war; fewer than 100,000 of 400,000 Assyrians.

Modern Turkey

[edit]
This article is part of
a series about
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Personal
1st President of Turkey
Kemalism
Legacy

After the Great Thessaloniki Fire of 1917 displaced many of the Salonikan Jews and the Burning of Smyrna, the rebuilding of these places by the post-Ottoman Turkish and Greek nation-states devastated and erased the past of non-Turkish (and non-Hellenistic) habitation.[49] According to historian Talin Suciyan, for non-Muslims in the Republic of Turkey, Turkification resulted in "de-identification, in which a person loses all references to his or her own grandparents, socialisation, culture and history, but cannot fully become part of the society, culture, and politics of the imposed system". There continues to be state-organized discrimination, such as keeping files of citizens of non-Muslim descent.[50]

Ottoman Turkish classical music was banned from the school curriculum. Ottoman archival documents were sold to Bulgaria as recycled paper. Sunday was made the official rest day instead of Friday (the traditional rest day in the Muslim religion).[51]

Political elites in the early Republic were divided: the modernist agenda, which promoted radical transformation, erasing all vestiges of the Ottoman past, and moderate nationalists, who preferred a softer transition that retained some elements of Ottoman heritage.[52]

Ethnonational identity

[edit]

When the modern Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923, nationalism and secularism were two of the founding principles.[53] Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the leader of the early years of the Republic, aimed to create a nation-state (Turkish: Ulus) from the Turkish remnants of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Ministry of National Education in 2008 defines the "Turkish People" as "those who protect and promote the moral, spiritual, cultural and humanistic values of the Turkish Nation."[54] One of the goals of the establishment of the new Turkish state was to ensure "the domination of Turkish ethnic identity in every aspect of social life from the language that people speak in the streets to the language to be taught at schools, from the education to the industrial life, from the trade to the cadres of state officials, from the civil law to the settlement of citizens to particular regions."[55] In 2008, the then Defense Minister of Turkey; Vecdi Gönül remarked defending the actions of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk regarding the Turkification of Anatolia: "Could Turkey be the same national country had the Greek community still lived in the Aegean or Armenians lived in many parts of Turkey?"[56]

The process of unification through Turkification continued within modern Turkey with such policies as:

  • According to Art. 12 of the Turkish Constitution of 1924, citizens who could not speak and read Turkish were not allowed to become members of parliament.[57]
  • A law from December 1925 demanded that clothes worn by employees in all companies must be of Turkish production.[58]
  • A Report for Reform in the East was released in September 1925 according to which non-Turkish languages shall be forbidden.[59][60]
  • On 18 March 1926 a Civil Servants Law came into effect, which allowed only Turks to become civil servants and explicitly excluded Armenians and Greeks to become such.[61]
  • On 28 May 1927 it was decided that business correspondence must be in Turkish language, and foreign assurance companies must employ Turks, except for the director and the deputy director.[58]
  • The Law 1164 from September 1927 [62] enabled the creation of regional administrative areas called Inspectorates-General (Turkish: Umumi Müfettişlikler), where extensive policies of Turkification were applied.[63] The Inspectorates Generals existed until 1952.[64]
  • Citizen, speak Turkish! (Turkish: Vatandaş Türkçe konuş!) – An initiative created by law students but sponsored by the Turkish government which aimed to put pressure on non-Turkish speakers to speak Turkish in public in the 1930s.[65][66][67] In some municipalities, fines were given to those speaking in any language other than Turkish.[68][69][70][71]
  • The Law 2007 of 11 June 1932 reserved a wide number of professions like lawyer, construction worker, artisan, hairdresser, messenger, etc. to Turkish citizens and forbade foreigners also to open shops in rural areas. Most affected by the Law were the Greeks.[72][73]
  • 1934 Resettlement Law (also known as Law no. 2510) – A policy adopted by the Turkish government which set forth the basic principles of immigration.[74] The law was issued to impose a policy of forceful assimilation of non-Turkish minorities through a forced and collective resettlement.[75]
  • Surname Law – The surname law forbade certain surnames that contained connotations of foreign cultures, nations, tribes, and religions.[66][76][77][78] As a result, many ethnic Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds were forced to adopt last names of Turkish rendition.[77] Names ending with "yan, of, ef, viç, is, dis, poulos, aki, zade, shvili, madumu, veled, bin" (names that denote Armenian, Slavic, Greek, Albanian, Arabic, Georgian, Kurdish, and other origins) could not be registered, and they had to be replaced by "-oğlu."[79]
  • From 1932 on, it was implemented by the Diyanet that the Adhan and the Salah shall be called in Turkish. Imams who delivered the Adhan in Arabic were prosecuted according to the article 526 of the Turkish Criminal Code for "being opposed to the command of officials maintaining public order and safety".[80] 1941 a new paragraph was added to Article 526 of the Turkish Criminal Code and from then on Imams who refused to deliver the Adhan in Turkish could be imprisoned for up to 3 months or be fined with between 10 and 300 Turkish Lira.[81] After the Democrat Party won the elections in 1950, on 17 June 1950 it was decided that the prayers could be given in Arabic again.[82]
  • The conscription of the 20 Classes working battalions in the years 1941–1942. Only non-Muslims, mainly Jews, Greeks and Armenians were conscripted to work under difficult conditions.[83][84]
  • Varlık Vergisi ("Wealth tax" or "Capital tax") – A Turkish tax levied on the wealthy citizens of Turkey in 1942, with the stated aim of raising funds for the country's defense in case of an eventual entry into World War II. Those who suffered most severely were non-Muslims like the Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and Levantines, who controlled a large portion of the economy;[85] the Armenians were most heavily taxed.[86] According to Klaus Kreiser for President Inönü the aim of the tax was to evict the foreigners who control the Turkish economy and move the economy to the Turks[87]
  • Article 16 of the Population Law from 1972 prohibited to give newborns names that were contrary to the national culture.[88]
  • Animal name changes in Turkey – An initiative by the Turkish government to remove any reference to Armenia and Kurdistan in the Latin names of animals.[89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]
  • Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey – An initiative by the Ottoman and Turkish governments which involved seizure of the assets, properties and land of the Armenian community of Turkey.[97] The policy is considered a nationalization and Turkification of the country's economy by eliminating ownership of non-Turkish minorities which in this case would be of the Armenian community.[98]
  • Geographical name changes in Turkey – An initiative by the Turkish government to replace non-Turkish geographical and topographic names within the Turkish Republic or the Ottoman Empire, with Turkish names,[99][100][101] as part of a policy of Turkification.[102][103][104] The main proponent of the initiative has been a Turkish homogenization social-engineering campaign which aimed to assimilate or obliterate geographical or topographical names that were deemed foreign and divisive against Turkish unity. The names that were considered foreign were usually of Armenian, Greek, Laz, Slavic, Kurdish, Assyrian, or Arabic origin.[99][101][103][104][105] For example, words such as Armenia were banned in 1880 from use in the press, schoolbooks, and governmental establishments and was subsequently replaced with words like Anatolia or Kurdistan.[106][107][108][109][110] Assyrians have increased their protest regarding the forced Turkification of historically Aramaic-named cities and localities and they see this process as continuing the cultural genocide of their identity and history (as part of the wider erasure of Assyrian, Kurdish and Armenian cultures).[111][112][74]
  • Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code) – An article of the Turkish Penal Code which makes it illegal to insult Turkey, the Turkish nation, or Turkish government institutions. It took effect on 1 June 2005, and was introduced as part of a package of penal-law reform in the process preceding the opening of negotiations for Turkish membership of the European Union (EU), in order to bring Turkey up to the Union standards.[113][114]
  • Turkification was also prevalent in the educational system of Turkey. Measures were adopted making Turkish classes mandatory in minority schools and making use of the Turkish language mandatory in economic institutions.[115]

Imprecise meaning of Türk

[edit]

The Ottoman elite identified themselves as Ottomans, not as Turks, because the term was associated mainly with Turkmens.[116][117][118] Ottomans, like Central Asian Turkic peoples, firstly identified themselves via tribal descent and secondly viewed the various peoples under their dynastic rule (devlet) as part of a unique civilization, while viewing other Turkic peoples as more alien; seeing as they claimed Kayı ancestry through the House of Osman, the modern notion of "Turk" as a uniquely inter-ethnic label would not be communicable.[119]

In the late 19th century, while "Turk" was still a pejorative for poor Yörük-Turkoman farmers and pastoralists of ignoble origins, European ideas of nationalism were adopted by the Ottoman elite, and when it became clear that the local Turkish-speakers of Anatolia were the most loyal supporters of Ottoman rule, the term Türk took on a much more positive connotation.[120][121]

The imprecision of the appellation Türk can also be seen with other ethnic names, such as Kürt ("Kurd"), which is often applied by western Anatolians to anyone east of Adana, even those who speak only Turkish.[117]

Thus, the category Türk, like other ethnic categories popularly used in Turkey, does not have a uniform usage. In recent years, centrist Turkish politicians have attempted to redefine this category in a more multicultural way, emphasizing that a Türk is anyone who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey.[122] After 1982, article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship".[123]

Genetic testing

[edit]
Main article: Genetic studies on Turkish people

The population of Asia Minor (Anatolia) and Balkans including Greece was estimated at 10.7 million in 600 AD whereas Asia Minor was probably around 8 million during the High Middle Ages (950 to 1348 AD). The estimated population for Asia Minor around 1204 AD was 6 million, including 3 million in Seljuk territory.[124][better source needed] Turkish genomic variation, along with several other Western Asian populations, looks most similar to genomic variation of South European populations such as southern Italians.[125]

Data from ancient DNA – covering the Paleolithic, the Neolithic, and the Bronze Age periods – showed that Western Asian genomes, including Turkish ones, have been greatly influenced by early agricultural populations in the area; later population movements, such as those of Turkic speakers, also contributed.[125] The first and only (as of 2017) whole genome sequencing study in Turkey was done in 2014.[125] Moreover, the genetic variation of various populations in Central Asia "has been poorly characterized"; Western Asian populations may also be "closely related to populations in the east".[125]

An earlier 2011 review had suggested that "small-scale, irregular punctuated migration events" caused changes in language and culture "among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants," which explains Anatolian populations' profile today.[126]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Turkification

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Turkification denotes the assimilation of non-Turkic populations into Turkish linguistic, cultural, and ethnic frameworks, primarily through coercive and incentivized mechanisms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey. In the Ottoman context, this involved practices like the devşirme system, whereby Christian boys from Balkan regions were conscripted, converted to Islam, and trained for elite military and administrative roles, effectively integrating them into the Turkish-speaking ruling class over generations. The process accelerated with Anatolia's gradual Islamization, where local populations adopted Turkish norms following initial religious conversion, contributing to a demographic and cultural shift without large-scale Turkic migration. Under the early Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's reforms— including the 1928 adoption of the Latin alphabet and purification of the Turkish language by expunging Arabic and Persian influences—sought to consolidate national identity, imposing Turkish as the sole medium of education and administration while marginalizing minority languages such as Kurdish. These policies, framed as modernization, encompassed economic measures like the nationalization of non-Turkish minority enterprises and facilitated population exchanges with Greece, drastically reducing non-Muslim communities and embedding Turkish dominance amid controversies over suppression of ethnic distinctiveness.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

Turkification refers to the historical processes by which non-Turkic populations adopted , cultural practices, and ethnic self-identification, extending beyond military to encompass sustained assimilation dynamics. This phenomenon manifests through mechanisms such as large-scale migration of Turkic pastoralist groups, intermarriage with elites and communities, to under Turkic-led polities, and deliberate state policies enforcing linguistic uniformity. Empirical patterns indicate that demographic advantages—arising from nomadic mobility and settlement policies—often accelerated these shifts, as incoming Turkic elements gained numerical or institutional leverage over indigenous groups. The scope of Turkification includes both voluntary , driven by economic incentives like access to pastoral lands or administrative roles, and coerced elements, such as forced relocations or cultural mandates in centralized states. Causal realism underscores cultural as a key , where ruling Turkic strata imposed , , and identity markers on subordinates, fostering homogenization without requiring total replacement. Examples span nomadic expansions in , where inter-tribal alliances led to linguistic convergence, to later state-driven efforts prioritizing Turkish as a unifying medium over diverse substrates. Distinct from analogous processes like or , Turkification emphasizes the pastoralist heritage of Turkic groups, migrations and settlements that disrupted sedentary societies more disruptively than static imperial administrations. While propagated Semitic linguistic norms through scriptural and religious channels post-7th-century conquests, and disseminated via urban poleis and philosophical , Turkification integrated Islamic frameworks with steppe-derived mobility, often yielding hybrid identities under Sunni rather than wholesale erasure of pre-existing elements. This specificity highlights causal pathways rooted in equestrian warfare and transhumant economies, rather than purely ideological or mercantile .

Etymology and Terminology

The term Turkification emerged in 19th- and early 20th-century European historiography as a descriptor for cultural, linguistic, and demographic assimilation processes within the Ottoman Empire, often framed with pejorative undertones implying coercive imposition by a dominant Turkish element on subject populations. This usage paralleled analogous terms like Russification or Germanization, reflecting Orientalist interpretations of imperial decline and nationalist stirrings, where Ottoman policies toward minorities were portrayed as artificially engineered homogeneity rather than organic integration. Such framing frequently overlooked pre-modern fluidity in identity formation, projecting contemporary ethnonational grievances onto earlier dynamics. The term Türk traces to ancient self-designations among Central Asian nomadic confederations, appearing in 8th-century as Türük, denoting tribal polities rather than a strictly ethnic . In Byzantine sources from the onward, Tourkos or Turkoi broadly signified steppe and later Seljuk invaders, serving as a catch-all for perceived threats irrespective of precise lineage, thus embodying cultural rather than genealogical rigidity. Within Ottoman , Türk carried class-inflected connotations, often derogatorily applied to rural Anatolian Muslim peasants by urban elites who prioritized supra-ethnic Osmanlı identity, highlighting the term's pre-modern elasticity beyond modern racial or civic fixity. Contemporary debates underscore Türk's multifaceted valence—spanning linguistic affinity among Turkic-speaking groups, ethnic descent claims, and post-1923 Republican civic nationalism—complicating Turkification's application as either voluntary cultural convergence (e.g., via trade, conversion, and intermarriage) or state-enforced erasure. Historiographic imprecision arises when the term elides these distinctions, retrofitting pre-nationalist assimilation—common across Eurasian empires— with anachronistic narratives of perpetual victimhood, disregarding empirical evidence of bidirectional influences and adaptive agency among assimilated groups. Sources advancing loaded interpretations warrant scrutiny for ideological biases, as academic narratives shaped by 20th-century minority advocacy often amplify coercion while underemphasizing migration-driven demographic shifts verifiable through Ottoman tax records and linguistic substrate analysis.

Historical Overview

Early Turkic Expansions and Central Asia

The Göktürk Khaganate, founded in 552 CE by of the Ashina clan after defeating the , initiated the primary waves of Turkic expansion in . This polity rapidly grew from the and westward, encompassing territories up to the and exerting over diverse populations, including Iranian-speaking groups in the western reaches. The subsequent division into Eastern and Western khaganates around 582 CE amplified this reach, with the Western branch subjugating sedentary communities in areas like , where predominated. Turkic dominance manifested through replacement, as conquered and administrators adopted the for integration into the khaganate's and systems, fostering linguistic shifts among ruling strata. In steppe zones, this extended to broader populations via folk , where the of Turkic-speaking nomads—bolstered by their organizational superiority in warfare—encouraged alignment with mobile pastoralist practices over localized sedentary traditions. Sogdian speakers, entrenched in oases as traders and , exhibited greater resistance; their endured as a Central Asian and even influenced Turkic administration, with Sogdian script adapted for early Turkic inscriptions. The , established in 744 CE amid Göktürk decline, perpetuated this by consolidating Turkic control over the eastern steppes before its fall in 840 CE prompted migrations southward into the . There, Uyghur settlers encountered Tocharian-speaking Indo-European communities, leading to bilingual environments where Tocharian texts show Turkic loanwords and administrative terms by the . Tocharian cultural production continued into the under Uyghur kingdoms like , but systematic ensued through intermarriage, economic incorporation, and the adaptive pull of Turkic for regional mobility and . Environmental and socioeconomic factors underpinned these shifts: the vast steppes favored Turkic's suitability for coordinating dispersed herding and raiding economies, prompting voluntary among Indo-European and Iranian groups to access alliances and resources, distinct from oases where trade insulated Persian and Sogdian variants longer. hegemony, rather than pervasive , drove this , as evidenced by the khaganates' reliance on tributary vassals who retained local customs while shifting linguistically for elite cohesion. By the 11th century, Turkic had supplanted prior languages across much of the steppe, setting precedents for later expansions without uniform .

Turkification of the Caucasus and Azerbaijan

The process of Turkification in the Caucasus and Azerbaijan began with the incursions of Oghuz Turkic tribes under the Seljuk Empire in the 11th century, imposing a linguistic and cultural overlay on pre-existing Caucasian Albanian, Georgian, and Iranian populations. Following the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Seljuk forces under Sultan Alp Arslan expanded into the South Caucasus, subjugating Armenian and Georgian principalities and establishing control over Arran (modern Azerbaijan), where they encountered indigenous Caucasian-speaking communities and Persianized elites. This era marked initial settlements of nomadic Oghuz groups, who introduced Turkic administrative practices and military recruitment, but did not entail wholesale population displacement; instead, intermarriage and patronage networks facilitated gradual assimilation among local strata. By the 13th-16th centuries, under Mongol successors like the Ilkhanate and subsequent Turkic confederations such as the Atabegs of Azerbaijan (Eldiguzids, 1136-1225) and the Qara Qoyunlu (1375-1468), administrative Turkicization intensified through elite dominance, where Turkic-speaking rulers and their retinues imposed Oghuz dialects as the lingua franca of governance and warfare. The Safavid dynasty (1501-1736), originating from Turkic Qizilbash tribes in Ardabil, further entrenched this by mobilizing Oghuz nomadic elements for state-building, blending them with indigenous Iranian and Caucasian substrates without eradicating underlying cultural persistence, such as Lezgin and Talysh enclaves. Azerbaijani identity emerged as a hybrid, retaining Caucasian toponyms and folk traditions amid the shift to Turkic speech, driven more by socio-political incentives than mass migration. Empirical evidence underscores the incomplete nature of this Turkification: genetic analyses reveal Azerbaijanis' Y-chromosome profiles dominated by autochthonous Bronze Age Caucasian haplogroups (e.g., J2 and G) with contributions from West Asian migrations, estimating Central Asian/Turkic admixture at under 15%, far below levels implying demographic replacement. Linguistic dominance of Oghuz Turkic, however, reflects elite-driven language replacement, where Turkic military and administrative classes supplanted Iranian dialects like the extinct Old Azeri (a Northwestern Iranian tongue) through intergenerational transmission in urban centers and courts, preserving a substrate of Persian loanwords and Caucasian phonetic influences. This model aligns with patterns of cultural persistence, as evidenced by ongoing non-Turkic minorities (e.g., 5-10% Talysh and Lezgin speakers in Azerbaijan as of recent censuses), illustrating Turkification as an accretive rather than erasure process.

Seljuk and Early Ottoman Phases in Anatolia

The in 1071 marked a pivotal defeat for the against the Seljuk Turks under , resulting in the capture of and the opening of central to large-scale Turkic incursions. This event catalyzed the migration of Oghuz Turkic tribes, with nomadic pastoralist groups—estimated in Byzantine and Islamic chronicles as numbering from of thousands to over a million—flooding into the region over the subsequent decades, rapidly establishing Seljuk dominance across approximately 78,000 square kilometers by 1080. These migrants, primarily semi-nomadic warriors and herders from Central Asia, exploited the power vacuum created by Byzantine internal strife and prior raids dating to the 1030s, which had already prompted significant depopulation through warfare, flight of Greek and Armenian populations to coastal enclaves, and economic disruption. Pre-existing demographic pressures in Anatolia, including recurrent plagues and the exhaustion from Byzantine-Seljuk border conflicts in the mid-11th century, further facilitated Turkic settlement by reducing indigenous densities in rural highlands and plateaus, where pastoral economies proved more resilient than disrupted sedentary agriculture. The Seljuk , established around 1077, institutionalized this influx through the land-grant system, assigning revenue rights from conquered territories to Turkic military elites and tribes in exchange for loyalty and defense, thereby anchoring nomadic groups to Anatolian soil and encouraging intermarriage with local converts. This mechanism, rooted in earlier Abbasid practices but adapted for frontier conditions, provided economic incentives for assimilation, as grantees cultivated ties with remaining Christian peasants via tax collection and shared agrarian labor, without documented policies of mass expulsion or extermination—contrasting with later Ottoman-era events and aligning with patterns of gradual demographic replacement observed in other steppe migrations. Sufi dervishes and heterodox men (babas), migrating alongside Turkic warriors from the 12th century onward, played a key in cultural and religious shifts by establishing lodges (tekkes) that served as centers for syncretic blending shamanistic elements with Islamic , appealing to both newcomers and war-weary through charitable and spiritual . These figures, often operating independently of orthodox ulema, promoted conversions via personal influence and economic rather than , accelerating the transition from a Greco-Armenian Christian to Turkic-Muslim dominance by the 13th century, as evidenced by the proliferation of Persianate-Islamic architecture and Turkic toponyms in inland Anatolia. The early Ottoman beylik, emerging post-1300 amid Mongol disruptions to the Rum Sultanate, inherited and extended these dynamics, with ghazi frontier warriors continuing pastoral settlements and alliances with dervish orders to consolidate Turkic identity amid ongoing Byzantine retreats. By the mid-15th century, this process had shifted Anatolia's core from minority Turkic presence to majority, driven primarily by sustained migration and adaptive economic integration rather than singular cataclysms.

Demographic and Institutional Factors in Anatolia

The influx of Turkic migrants into Anatolia following the Seljuk victory at Manzikert in 1071 involved relatively small numbers compared to the indigenous population, with estimates placing initial settlers and subsequent waves at hundreds of thousands to around one million over decades, constituting roughly 5-10% of the estimated 8 million inhabitants prior to the invasions. This limited demographic contribution highlights the role of assimilation dynamics, such as intermarriage between nomadic Turkic groups and settled Anatolian Christians, Armenians, and Greeks, particularly in mixed urban and frontier zones where Turkic authority facilitated cultural adoption. Institutional structures amplified this process by embedding Turkic elites within local societies. The ghazi tradition of frontier warfare drew Turkic warriors into border regions, establishing military settlements that integrated nomadic elements with native peasants through shared defense and land use. The timar system allocated revenue from conquered lands to sipahi cavalry—often Turkic or converted locals—in exchange for military service, fostering a network of loyal holders who promoted Turkic language and customs among reaya (taxpaying subjects) via administrative oversight and economic interdependence, without relying on mass displacement. Complementing these was the devşirme levy, enacted from the late 14th century, which selectively recruited Christian boys aged 8-18 from Balkan and Anatolian villages—typically 1,000 to 3,000 per cycle—for conversion to Islam, rigorous training, and assignment to elite Janissary corps or bureaucracy, thereby cultivating a loyal cadre that reinforced Ottoman-Turkic dominance while limiting broader forced conversions. This system, peaking in the 15th-16th centuries, integrated non-Turkic youth into the ruling class but affected only a fraction of the population, emphasizing elite loyalty over wholesale demographic overhaul. Ottoman tahrir defterleri (tax registers), compiled from the 15th century onward, record a shift in Anatolia's composition, with Muslim households rising from under 20% in early registers to over 60% by the 1520-1530 surveys in core provinces like and , driven by conversion incentives including reduced cizye () burdens, access to timars, and urban guild privileges that favored Islamized groups. These fiscal incentives, alongside voluntary shifts amid economic pressures, accounted for the numerical ascendancy of Turkic-speaking Muslims without evidence of systematic extermination or expulsion on a scale to explain the transition alone.

Mechanisms and Processes

Linguistic and Cultural Assimilation

The adoption of Turkish as a vernacular in proceeded through extended periods of societal bilingualism, where local Greek, Armenian, and other speakers initially retained their native tongues while acquiring Turkish for practical utility in , , and inter-community dealings under Seljuk and early Ottoman rule from the 11th century onward. This dynamic enabled substrate influences from pre-existing languages to shape Anatolian , manifesting in lexical borrowings—such as Greek-derived terms for everyday objects and administrative concepts—and phonological adjustments that accommodated non-Turkic speakers, thereby accelerating shift among lower strata. Contact-induced simplification, akin to pidgin formation, likely played a role in disseminating accessible varieties of Turkish among peasants and pastoralists, as evidenced by early Turkic-Iranian interactions extending into Anatolia, where streamlined grammar and vocabulary facilitated communication across linguistic divides without requiring full mastery of classical forms. Such mechanisms prioritized functional utility over purity, allowing rapid dissemination in rural settings where economic interdependence with Turkic nomads incentivized adoption. Cultural assimilation paralleled these linguistic shifts through the integration of Turkic epic traditions into regional folklore, exemplified by the Oghuz narratives in the Book of Dede Korkut, compiled around the 15th century but rooted in 11th–13th-century migrations, which embedded heroic steppe motifs—raids, kinship loyalties, and oral bardic performance—into Anatolian storytelling. This syncretism produced hybrid survivals, such as localized variants of nomadic archetypes adapted to Anatolian landscapes, appealing to converts via shared themes of valor and communal identity evidenced in persistent folk tales across eastern regions. The overall resembles the Latinization of Roman provinces, where provincial populations shifted to for its value in administration, , and social advancement, overriding native substrates through emulation and pragmatic incentives rather than wholesale replacement by migration alone. In both cases, sociolinguistic prestige and network effects drove endogenous assimilation, with substrate traces persisting in regional idioms long after dominance was achieved.

Religious Conversion and Social Integration

The adoption of Islam served as a primary mechanism for social integration into Turkic-dominated societies in Anatolia, particularly following the disruptions of the 13th-century Mongol invasions, which weakened Byzantine and Seljuk structures and created opportunities for spiritual and communal realignment. Sufi orders, including the Bektaşi tariqa, played a pivotal role in facilitating pragmatic conversions among rural Christian populations, offering networks of protection, communal support, and pathways to social elevation amid post-invasion instability. These dervish communities emphasized mystical and inclusive interpretations of Islam, attracting converts through charitable activities, land grants, and alliances with emerging Ottoman beyliks, thereby embedding Turkic-Islamic norms in local practices without requiring wholesale cultural upheaval. Ottoman administrative records, such as the 16th-century tahrir defters, document a marked decline in Christian adherents in , from comprising a significant portion of the population in the early to roughly 5-10% by the mid-16th century in surveyed provinces, reflecting sustained conversion trends driven by material incentives. Conversion exempted individuals from the imposed on non-, while enabling access to , membership, and administrative roles reserved for , thereby enhancing economic security and upward mobility in a hierarchical system favoring Islamic adherence. Intermarriage patterns further accelerated integration, as unions between Muslim men and Christian women resulted in Muslim-raised offspring, gradually eroding distinct confessional boundaries in mixed communities. The shared Abrahamic heritage between and mitigated doctrinal barriers for many converts, allowing familiar monotheistic and prophetic narratives to frame the transition as a refinement rather than rejection of prior beliefs, which eased social cohesion in fluid frontier zones. In contrast, compact, institutionally robust communities like the , bolstered by their Apostolic Church's organizational strength and geographic clustering, demonstrated higher resistance to such shifts, preserving endogamous practices and ecclesiastical autonomy that insulated them from pervasive assimilation pressures.

Migration, Settlement, and Population Dynamics

The migration of Oghuz and Turkmen tribes into Anatolia began accelerating after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, with estimates suggesting around 200,000 to 500,000 individuals entering between 1071 and 1260, primarily as nomadic groups seeking pasturelands and fleeing conflicts in Central Asia. These waves intensified in the 13th century due to Mongol invasions displacing further Turkmen populations westward, leading to dispersed settlements across rural plateaus and river valleys where local Byzantine-era populations had been depopulated by prior warfare. The nomadic herding economy of these tribes, centered on sheep and goats, facilitated high mobility and sustained population growth through access to underutilized frontiers, enabling gradual outnumbering of sedentary indigenous communities in peripheral areas via seasonal transhumance and resource competition. Settlement patterns emphasized rural encampments over urban centers initially, with tribes like the Afshar, Bayat, and Kayı establishing yaylas (summer pastures) that supported denser demographics compared to fragmented agriculturists affected by 11th-12th century disruptions. By the , partial sedentarization occurred as herds expanded into abandoned lands, contributing to a Turkmen nomadic share estimated at up to half of Anatolia's population in some regions by the early Ottoman period, though exact figures remain debated due to sparse contemporary censuses. Evidence from Ottoman-era waqf endowments and probate inventories reveals intermarriage patterns, with naming conventions shifting from mixed Greco-Turkic forms in the 15th-16th centuries to predominantly Turkic by the 18th, indicating generational assimilation where hybrid offspring adopted Turkic identities for social and economic integration in pastoral communities. These dynamics paralleled other nomadic expansions, such as Mongol movements into Persia, where Malthusian constraints—overgrazing, clan rivalries, and climatic variability in the steppes—propelled groups toward fertile, less contested peripheries like , fostering self-reinforcing demographic dominance through higher fertility rates tied to mobile herding lifestyles.

State-Driven Policies and Coercion

The Ottoman millet afforded non-Muslim religious communities administrative autonomy in personal status laws, , and communal governance, often permitting the use of vernacular languages within those spheres. Nonetheless, interactions with the imperial required adherence to as the sole of state administration, compelling community representatives and collectors to master it for legal petitions, disputes, and fiscal obligations. The reforms, initiated with the 1839 and extending through 1876, pursued administrative centralization and equalization under law, expanding a standardized bureaucracy that prioritized proficiency across provinces. This restructuring eroded prior decentralizations, imposing linguistic demands on peripheral elites previously reliant on local intermediaries and dialects, thereby incentivizing Turkish adoption for access to reformed and judicial roles amid heightened state oversight. Population policies escalated during the empire's terminal phase, with treaties following the Balkan Wars enabling initial voluntary exchanges—such as those with Bulgaria in 1913 and Greece in 1914—though executed amid reciprocal expulsions totaling hundreds of thousands amid ethnic violence. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne formalized compulsory transfers via its annexed convention, relocating roughly 1.5 million Greek Orthodox from Turkey to Greece and 400,000–500,000 Muslims from Greece to Turkey starting May 1, 1923, to avert irredentist threats after the Greco-Turkish War's mutual displacements. These interventions, reactive to wartime collapse and nationalist upheavals, marked episodic coercion rather than systemic doctrine, as prior demographic shifts in Anatolia had largely preceded modern ethnic state-building.

Empirical Evidence

Genetic Studies and Ancestry Analysis

Autosomal DNA analyses of modern Turkish populations demonstrate a genetic continuity with pre-Turkic Anatolian, Caucasian, and Levantine ancestries comprising the majority, typically 70-90%, alongside modest Central Asian admixture estimated at 9-15%. A comprehensive 2021 study sequencing over 3,000 unrelated Turkish individuals identified an average Central Asian contribution of 9.59% via ADMIXTURE modeling, underscoring extensive intermixing with Balkan, Caucasian, and Middle Eastern gene pools rather than wholesale replacement. Earlier work using SNP genotypes from regional Turkish samples similarly apportioned ancestry as approximately 40% European, 35-45% Middle Eastern, and 9-15% Central Asian, depending on the number of ancestral components modeled. These findings align with broader Eurasian population structures, positioning Turks genetically intermediate between neighboring West Eurasian groups with limited East Eurasian input. Y-chromosome data reveal a male-biased influx from , with haplogroups C-RPS4Y and O3-M122—markers associated with Turkic origins—contributing 8.5-15.6% to paternal lineages, particularly elevated in eastern and rural areas suggestive of elite military dominance during Seljuk and early Ottoman expansions. Predominant Y-haplogroups such as J2a (18.4%), R1b (14.9%), and R1a (12.1%) nonetheless trace to indigenous West Asian and European sources, indicating that incoming Turkic males integrated into and overlaid existing hierarchies without displacing paternal pools en masse. This asymmetry supports models of small conqueror groups linguistic shifts, akin to other migrations. Mitochondrial DNA profiles exhibit even lower Central Asian signals, at around 8.13% via haplogroups D4c and G2a, reflecting strong maternal lineage continuity from pre-existing Anatolian and regional populations. The congruence of low autosomal and uniparental Central Asian proportions across studies counters expectations of large-scale demographic turnover, favoring diffusion of Turkic culture and language through elite mediation over mass population influx or erasure. Regional heterogeneity persists, with marginally higher steppe ancestry in central and eastern Turkey correlating to historical settlement patterns of Oghuz tribes.

Linguistic and Archaeological Data

The Turkish language exhibits a significant substrate of loanwords borrowed from the Greek and Armenian languages spoken in Anatolia prior to the Seljuk migrations of the 11th century, indicating sustained bilingual contact and gradual linguistic assimilation rather than wholesale imposition. Examples include Greek-derived terms such as anahtar ("key," from Greek ankatharion) and efendi ("master" or "sir," from Greek authentes), alongside Armenian borrowings like deri ("leather," from Armenian tari) and azap ("torment" or "auxiliary soldier," from Armenian azap), as cataloged in systematic analyses of Ottoman Turkish vocabulary. These integrations, numbering in the hundreds for each source language, reflect phonological adaptations through prolonged interaction in mixed communities, consistent with elite-driven language shift models where Turkic terms overlaid but did not eradicate local lexicons. Place-name evidence in Anatolia further supports incomplete linguistic replacement, with numerous toponyms preserving pre-Turkic roots—particularly Greek in western regions—augmented by Turkic suffixes after the 11th century. In western Anatolia, hydronyms like the Menderes River (from Greek Maiandros) and settlement names such as İzmir (from Greek Smýrna) retain core Indo-European elements, while others incorporate Turkic modifiers like -hisar ("fortress") or -köy ("village") onto Greek bases, evidencing an overlay process tied to Seljuk settlement patterns post-1071. Such survivals, documented across surveys of over 4,000 Anatolian locales, imply demographic continuity and localized Turkic naming superimposed on enduring indigenous frameworks, rather than systematic eradication. Archaeological findings underscore material continuity from Byzantine to Seljuk periods, with pottery assemblages and settlement structures showing evolutionary rather than ruptural changes, compatible with nomadic Turkic integration into established landscapes. At sites like in southwestern Anatolia, ceramic continuity from ca. 650–1250 CE includes unglazed tablewares and cooking pots evolving from Byzantine chaff-tempered forms to Seljuk-influenced glazed variants, without depositional breaks signaling destruction or abandonment. Surveys in the region reveal Middle Byzantine occupations uninterrupted from early phases, with Seljuk-era nomadic indicators—such as mobile hearth features and tent-like postholes in peripheral campsites—coexisting alongside fortified villages, pointing to symbiotic rather than displacing settlement dynamics.

Anthropological and Demographic Records

Ottoman tahrir defters, comprehensive tax and cadastral registers compiled between the 15th and 17th centuries, offer the primary quantitative demographic data for Anatolia, enumerating households by religious affiliation and tracking shifts in Muslim versus non-Muslim populations. These records document a gradual expansion of Muslim communities, with the proportion of Muslim nefer (adult male taxpayers) rising from roughly 20-40% in early 15th-century surveys of regions like Karaman and Rum to 70-90% by the late 16th century in comparable areas, reflecting endogenous growth through conversion and localized immigration rather than wholesale demographic displacement. Total population figures derived from tahrir aggregates indicate relative stability in Anatolia, with estimates ranging from 4-6 million in the 16th century—following recovery from 14th-century disruptions—showing no evidence of exponential influx sufficient for replacement, but rather incremental increases averaging 0.5-1% annually in Muslim segments before stabilizing or contracting amid 17th-century pressures like famine and warfare. Anthropological examinations of skeletal collections from Anatolian sites spanning Byzantine to Ottoman eras reveal continuity in cranial metrics, such as bizygomatic breadth and facial indices, with populations exhibiting persistent Mediterranean and Anatolian Highland affinities despite cultural transitions, suggesting admixture over substitution. Historical assessments of Turkic pastoralist entries into from the 11th to 14th centuries place cumulative numbers below 500,000-1 million, a inadequate to overhaul a resident base of several million without extensive local integration, as corroborated by the scale of nomadic encampments recorded in early Seljuk and Ottoman administrative notes.

Debates and Perspectives

Claims of Coercion and Violence

Allegations of in Turkification trace back to the Ottoman devshirme system, implemented from the late 14th to 17th centuries, whereby Christian boys from Balkan regions were forcibly recruited, converted to , and integrated into the empire's and administrative elite as . This practice, described by contemporary accounts as a "blood tax," involved separating children from families and subjecting them to cultural and religious reorientation, which critics frame as an early mechanism of forced assimilation into Turkish-Islamic norms. However, the system's scope was limited to select cohorts rather than broad populations, and records indicate it affected thousands annually at peak but ceased by the early 17th century amid declining efficacy and resistance. In the late Ottoman period, particularly under the (CUP) from 1908 onward, minority narratives, especially Armenian and Greek, portray policies as systematic aimed at ethnic homogenization. Armenian accounts claim the 1915 relocations and massacres, resulting in an estimated 600,000 to 1.5 million deaths, constituted a genocidal effort to eradicate non-Turkic Christian elements and facilitate Turkification of . Similarly, Greek sources allege pogroms and forced expulsions in Pontus and Smyrna between 1914 and 1922, with deaths numbering 300,000 to 750,000, as deliberate cultural erasure tied to nationalist Turkification drives. These claims often invoke terms like "cultural genocide," drawing on Raphael Lemkin's formulations of destroying group intellect and heritage, though reliant on survivor testimonies and diaspora historiography that selective sourcing may amplify intent over wartime chaos. International observers during the League of Nations era (1919-1937) critiqued CUP and early Republican actions as embedded in violent nation-building, with reports highlighting forced migrations and suppressions of minority languages and religions in Anatolia as extensions of Turkification. League petitions from Assyrian and other groups documented coercion, including property seizures and identity changes, framing them as state-orchestrated to consolidate Turkish dominance. Yet, evidentiary constraints persist: pre-19th-century documentation lacks substantiation for mass-scale violence as the principal driver of Turkic linguistic or demographic shifts, with broader assimilation patterns appearing gradual and incentive-based rather than predominantly coercive. Claims frequently conflate incidental war-related fatalities—exacerbated by disease and logistics—with premeditated extermination policies, underscoring gaps in causal attribution beyond episodic upheavals.

Natural Assimilation and Elite Dominance Models

The elite dominance model, as articulated in linguistic and archaeological frameworks, explains cultural and linguistic shifts through the imposition of prestige by a minority rather than mass population replacement or coercion. In the context of Anatolia's Turkification following the Seljuk victory at Manzikert in 1071 CE, small groups of Oghuz Turkic warriors and nomads established political control over a predominantly Greek- and Armenian-speaking , gradually disseminating Turkish as the language of administration, military, and elite social networks. This process mirrors historical precedents where conquerors leveraged power asymmetries to foster voluntary adoption for socioeconomic advancement, with local populations retaining genetic continuity while shifting identifiers. Comparative cases underscore the model's applicability without invoking exceptional violence. Arabization across and the involved negligible Levantine genetic input—modern derive approximately 17% ancestry from sources, with the majority tracing to indigenous North African and ancient Egyptian lineages—yet supplanted Coptic and other vernaculars through elite prestige in governance and post-7th century conquests. Similarly, the 9th-10th century Magyar incursions into the Carpathian Basin introduced a Uralic language via a conquering elite comprising about 30% of the founding male lineages, as evidenced by Y-chromosome haplogroups, while the broader population exhibited continuity with prior Indo-European and Slavic elements. These parallels normalize Turkification as a pragmatic adaptation in empire-building, where linguistic prestige incentivized assimilation amid sustained demographic majorities. Empirical data from population genetics supports elite-driven dynamics in Anatolia, revealing limited Central Asian admixture in modern Turkish genomes—typically 9-15% East Eurasian components amid 70-80% continuity with Bronze Age Anatolian, Greek, and Caucasian ancestries—indicative of sparse Turkic settler input diluted over centuries. Y-chromosome and mitochondrial estimates occasionally reach 30% Central Asian affinity, aligning with male-biased elite migration, but autosomal profiles confirm no wholesale replacement. Urban Christian communities demonstrated resilience through endogamy and insular institutions, preserving Greek or Armenian identities into the 19th century, yet urbanization and economic interdependence eroded barriers, facilitating gradual linguistic convergence without necessitating demographic upheaval. This pattern, observed in Ottoman tax and millet records, highlights adaptation via opportunity rather than uniform imposition, challenging narratives of pervasive victimhood.

Minority Narratives and Resistance

Armenian communities in the Ottoman Empire documented narratives of cultural erosion through forced conversions, destruction of churches, and suppression of Armenian language and script, particularly intensifying during the late 19th and early 20th centuries amid rising nationalist tensions. Resistance efforts included clandestine preservation of religious texts and oral histories via church networks, with emigration waves to Russia and the Caucasus serving as a means to safeguard identity outside Ottoman control. Greek Orthodox groups, especially along the recounted systematic cultural suppression through relocations and linguistic bans, countered by guerrilla actions against Ottoman forces and reliance on monastic traditions for continuity. The 1923 mandated by the forcibly displaced approximately 1.5 million Orthodox from to enabling the maintenance of Hellenic in while highlighting as a survival strategy against assimilation pressures. Kurdish accounts emphasize historical resistance to Turkification via tribal uprisings and underground language instruction, with early Republican-era policies banning Kurdish names and publications prompting revolts like the 1925 Sheikh Said rebellion to defend ethnic markers. Persistent Kurdish identity in southeastern Anatolia persisted through familial transmission of folklore and dialects, defying state-driven homogenization. Small pockets of Assyrians in regions like and sustained Aramaic-speaking Christian communities through geographic isolation and endogamous marriages, preserving liturgical practices despite non-recognition as a distinct minority under the Lausanne . These holdouts, numbering fewer than 25,000 in modern , underscore incomplete assimilation by demonstrating sustained ethnic cohesion absent uniform . The Ottoman millet system granted religious minorities semi-autonomous over personal status laws and fostering pre-nationalist tolerance that allowed communities like and to administer internal affairs for centuries, thereby tempering total cultural submersion until ethno-nationalist ideologies amplified claims of unrelenting This framework's emphasis on rather than ethnic lines facilitated identity retention via communal institutions, contrasting with later secular assimilation drives.

Nationalist Defenses and Comparative Historical Contexts

Turkish nationalist perspectives frame Turkification as a constructive process of cultural and political integration that ensured the Ottoman Empire's administrative coherence following conquests like the 1071 Battle of Manzikert and the 1453 fall of Constantinople, replacing Byzantine fragmentation with unified governance that facilitated economic stability and infrastructure development across Anatolia. This narrative echoes Roman imperial strategies, where assimilation through Latin language adoption and elite incorporation into citizenship structures integrated diverse provinces into a cohesive polity lasting over four centuries, as Ottoman sultans claimed succession to Roman imperial legitimacy post-1453. Similarly, British colonial administration in India promoted English-language education among local elites from the 1830s onward, fostering administrative loyalty and economic integration without wholesale population replacement, a model paralleled in Ottoman elite conversion systems that bolstered military and bureaucratic efficiency. Defenses against characterizations of Turkification as genocidal emphasize the reciprocity of violence in Balkan-Ottoman conflicts, positioning population movements as mutual outcomes of existential wars rather than unilateral In the Greek War of Independence (1821–1830), Greek forces perpetrated the Tripolitsa on , 1821, killing an estimated to Muslim civilians, an event Turkish officials describe as an indelible atrocity initiating cycles of retribution. The (1912–1913) resulted in the deaths and forced expulsion of approximately 800,000 to 1 million Ottoman Muslims through and by Serbian, Bulgarian, and Greek armies, prompting refugee crises that reshaped demographic realities independently of central Ottoman The 1919–1922 Greco-Turkish War featured documented atrocities by Greek forces against Anatolian Muslim communities, including village burnings and killings, countered by Turkish reprisals, leading to the 1923 Lausanne Convention's compulsory exchange of 1.5 million Greek Orthodox from for 500,000 Muslims from as a bilateral mechanism to terminate ongoing ethnic strife. Turkish founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk advocated national unity through inclusive Turkish identity in his 1927 speech and 1933 Republic anniversary address, promoting assimilation as a pragmatic response to imperial dissolution, where "Ne mutlu Türküm diyene" encapsulated voluntary cultural alignment for collective prosperity amid power vacuums. In multi-ethnic empires, assimilation arises causally from the dominant group's control over institutions, and as evidenced by Roman provinces shifting to Latin dominance by the CE despite initial resistance, or Habsburg failures to impose Germanization leading to 1918 fragmentation; Ottoman Turkification, by this logic, reflects inevitable in dynamics rather than exceptional malice, with Turkish nationalists arguing overlooks universal patterns of imperial consolidation for

Modern Implications and Legacy

Republican Turkey and Nation-Building

![Portrait of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk](./assets/Portret_van_de_Turkse_leider_Mustafa_Kemal_Ataturk_AtatAtat%C3%Bürk_Kemal_Pascha Following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey on October 29, 1923, the new state pursued aggressive nation-building policies centered on fostering a unified Turkish national identity. These efforts included the abolition of the Ottoman millet system, which had granted communal autonomy to religious minorities, in favor of a civic citizenship model defined by political loyalty to the state rather than ethnic or religious affiliation. Article 88 of the 1924 Constitution declared that "the people of Turkey, regardless of religion and race, are Turks as regards citizenship," thereby promoting a supranational Turkishness as the basis for inclusion. Central to these policies were linguistic reforms under culminating in the 1928 alphabet switch from to a Latin-based one, announced in and implemented on to facilitate mass education and sever ties with Ottoman-Islamic heritage. This part of broader efforts to purify Turkish of and Persian influences starting in 1932, aimed at modernization and national cohesion by standardizing communication and promoting rates, which stood at approximately 8-10% in 1927, began to rise post-reform, with male literacy showing marked provincial improvements by 1935, enabling broader access to and administrative integration. These measures yielded benefits in economic integration and modernization, as a and script supported unified schooling, bureaucracy, and market participation, reducing regional fragmentation inherited from the empire. However, the push toward provoked resistance, particularly among , exemplified by the of 1925, triggered by opposition to secular reforms, centralization, and incipient Turkification policies that threatened local identities and . The uprising, blending religious and ethnic grievances, was suppressed, leading to the 1925 Report for Reform in the East, which explicitly advocated Turkifying Kurdish populations through settlement and . In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, external pressures from European Union accession aspirations prompted partial easing of restrictions, with reforms in the 2000s allowing limited Kurdish-language broadcasting and education to meet human rights criteria. Despite these changes, core elements of the Republican identity framework—emphasizing Turkish as the lingua franca and civic unity—have endured, sustaining national cohesion amid ongoing debates over minority rights.

Regional Extensions and Ongoing Processes

Following the 1974 Turkish military intervention in Cyprus, Turkey implemented a policy of settling mainland Turkish citizens in the occupied northern territory, with approximately 30,000 immigrants arriving between 1974 and 1980 to address labor shortages and bolster the population. This process coincided with the displacement of about 170,000 Greek Cypriots from the north, reducing their presence there by over 99% while increasing the Muslim population by more than 200%. Critics, including Cypriot authorities, have characterized these settlements as illegal demographic alterations aimed at altering the island's ethnic composition. In northern Syria, Turkish operations since —such as in Afrin in —have facilitated the resettlement of Arab and Turkmen families into Kurdish-majority areas, displacing over ,000 Kurdish residents amid reports of and property seizures. Turkish officials justify these actions as measures against PKK-affiliated groups like the YPG, establishing security zones along the to prevent cross-border threats. Similar patterns emerged in other areas like and Tel Abyad following operations, where demographic shifts favored non-Kurdish populations through state-backed allocations. In Iraqi Kurdistan border regions, Turkish presence has expanded in the 2020s through bases in the "," but of systematic settlements remains sparse compared to , focusing instead on operational outposts for PKK suppression. As of 2024, post-Assad developments have prompted Turkish proposals for deeper integration, including potential administrative control and further demographic adjustments framed as stabilization, though on a scale limited by logistical constraints and international rather than historical models. No recent genetic studies indicate significant ancestry shifts from these interventions, with demographic changes primarily affecting local ethnic balances without broad population replacement.

Impacts on Identity and Society

The assimilation processes associated with Turkification fostered a unified Turkish that has supported the country's geopolitical stability and projection as a with a GDP of $1.11 in and the second-largest in NATO by personnel. This cohesion, rooted in shared language and cultural norms among over 80% of the population identifying as ethnic Turks, has enabled assertive foreign policies, including interventions in Syria and Libya since 2016, enhancing Turkey's strategic leverage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. Turkification's cultural legacy extends via diaspora networks, as seen in the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), founded in 2009, which coordinates economic, educational, and diaspora initiatives among member states like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, amplifying Turkish soft power through shared linguistic ties and totaling over 150 million Turkic speakers globally. OTS programs, such as youth and business forums, facilitate cultural exports like Turkish media and language education, strengthening transnational identity bonds. Lingering effects include tensions from unassimilated minorities, notably Kurds comprising 15-20% of the population, whose suppressed cultural expressions contributed to the PKK insurgency from 1984 to 2025, resulting in over 40,000 deaths before the group's dissolution amid peace negotiations. However, assimilation has produced hybrid outcomes, with genetic analyses of over 3,000 Turkish individuals showing extensive admixture from Central Asian, European, and Middle Eastern ancestries, indicative of diverse population integration since the 11th century. Similarly, Turkish cuisine reflects fused elements, incorporating Byzantine staples like yogurt-based dishes alongside Central Asian meats and Persian spices, as evidenced by the adaptation of dolma variants across Ottoman-influenced regions. Empirically, these dynamics yielded net stabilization in Anatolia, transitioning from post-Seljuk fragmentation—with chronic warfare and depopulation in the 11th-13th centuries—to a consolidated society underpinning modern state resilience, as measured by Turkey's containment of internal conflicts and sustained demographic growth to 85 million by 2025.

References

  1. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/history-middle-east-since-1800/turkification
  2. https://www.academia.edu/33717991/Turkification_Background_Beliefs_and_Consequences
  3. https://worldhistorycommons.org/devshirme-system
  4. https://belleten.gov.tr/tam-metin/248/eng
  5. https://www.razibkhan.com/p/the-turkification-of-anatolia-tales
  6. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/693215
  7. http://www.rifatbali.com/images/stories/dokumanlar/basel.pdf
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/embedded-turkification-nation-building-and-violence-within-the-framework-of-the-league-of-nations-19191937/92FBA349455454FCFD2EDC8C20F982F5
  9. https://www.academia.edu/884487/_Turkification_Policies_in_the_Early_Republican_Era_
  10. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004425613/BP000008.xml
  11. https://macedonia.kroraina.com/en/svp/svp_11.htm
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229480579_Contextualising_%27Turkification%27_nation-building_in_the_late_Ottoman_Empire_1908-18
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348918987_The_Turkification_of_Toponyms_in_the_Ottoman_Empire_and_the_Republic_of_Turkey
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2005.00222.x
  15. https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-1285
  16. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004307759/B9789004307759_003.pdf
  17. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7n39p1dn;chunk.id=s1.3.1;doc.view=print
  18. https://avesis.metu.edu.tr/yayin/824e9dbb-7b4e-4972-a30d-9f7657c74d99/the-role-of-language-in-the-formation-of-turkish-national-identity-and-turkishness/document.pdf
  19. https://peachv.org/index.php/geography-menu-one/steppe/antiquity/turkic-khaganate
  20. https://silkroadresearch.blog/2018/10/08/turkic-khaganate/
  21. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sogdiana-iii-history-and-archeology/
  22. https://zenodo.org/records/14779199/files/35-39%2BThe%2BEthnic%2BComposition%2Bof%2Bthe%2BTurkic%2BKhaganate.pdf
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7612788/
  24. https://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp337_tocharian.pdf
  25. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/tocharian-language/
  26. https://zenodo.org/records/14779199/files/35-39%2BThe%2BEthnic%2BComposition%2Bof%2Bthe%2BTurkic%2BKhaganate.pdf?download=1
  27. https://iranologie.com/the-history-page/the-seljuqs/
  28. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=137335
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385797446_Exploring_the_Turkic_Identity_of_Azerbaijan%27s_Ethnic_Groups_A_Comprehensive_Analysis
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10530682/
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373849877_Origins_of_East_Caucasus_Gene_Pool_Contributions_of_Autochthonous_Bronze_Age_Populations_and_Migrations_from_West_Asia_Estimated_from_Y-Chromosome_Data
  32. https://www.thecollector.com/battle-manzikert-seljuk-vs-byzantine-empire/
  33. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3798871
  34. https://qalam.global/en/articles/byzantium-and-the-turks-the-fall-and-rise-of-civilizations-en-5
  35. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004493186/B9789004493186_s006.pdf
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274473951_Sufi_Shaykhs_and_Society_in_Thirteenth_and_Fifteenth_Century_Anatolia_Spiritual_Influence_and_Rivalry
  37. http://krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-17-0-000-14-Web/Anth-17-1-000-14-Abst-PDF/T-ANTH-17-1-147-14-1030-Aktas/T-ANTH-17-1-147-14-1030-Aktas-Tx%5B17%5D.pmd.pdf
  38. https://repository.bilkent.edu.tr/bitstreams/a3adabe6-3f5b-4ec2-9128-d4115748a93a/download
  39. https://theothertour.com/turks-enter-anatolia/
  40. https://digitalcommons.calvin.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1225&context=calvin_facultypubs
  41. https://repository.digital.georgetown.edu/downloads/a44138c0-2d7c-463b-8ecf-8316440ed2d7
  42. https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2022/18/shsconf_icprss2022_03029.pdf
  43. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=econ_wpapers
  44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3880031
  45. https://research.flw.ugent.be/en/projects/asia-minor-linguistic-area-greek-turkish-armenian-language-contacts-and-anatolian-substrate
  46. http://www.turkdilleri.org/turkdilleri/sayilar/tda21-1/MKappler.pdf
  47. https://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Johanson2006.pdf
  48. https://worldhistoryedu.com/the-oghuz-turks/
  49. https://www.academia.edu/22496254/Heroes_and_Saints_in_Anatolian_Turkish_Literature
  50. https://academic.oup.com/book/55330/chapter/428803645
  51. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamic-world/Ottomans
  52. https://www.rienner.com/uploads/53e278dea4631.pdf
  53. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=faculty_publications
  54. https://www.academia.edu/84544272/The_Oghuz_Turks_of_Anatolia
  55. https://www.islamawareness.net/CentralAsia/Turkmenistan/turkmenistan_article0001.pdf
  56. https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/12/26/influx-of-anatolian-turks-in-the-balkans-and-eastern-roman-territories-until-the-beginning-of-the-14th-century/
  57. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-social-history/article/winterquartering-tribes-nomadpeasant-relations-in-the-northeastern-frontiers-of-the-ottoman-empire-1800s1850s/7443D5729920C9F9171E2D7179F69432
  58. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004425613/BP000008.xml?language=en
  59. https://historum.com/t/demographics-of-anatolia-after-manzikert.67875/
  60. https://www.academia.edu/1972418/Spouse_Selection_and_Marital_Mobility_in_the_Ottoman_Empire_Observations_from_Eighteenth_Century_Kastamonu
  61. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01615440.2011.624984
  62. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/population-changes-in-ottoman-anatolia-during-the-16th-and-17th-centuries-the-demographic-crisis-reconsidered/6C31B15E42837F9AE1196D2C01742E2C
  63. https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire/The-Tanzimat-reforms-1839-76
  64. https://www.britannica.com/place/decline-of-the-Ottoman-Empire-2230672/The-struggle-to-modernize-the-empire-from-1789-to-1924
  65. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00263206.2021.1958204
  66. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/lausanne-peace-treaty-vi_-convention-concerning-the-exchange-of-greek-and-turkish-populations-signed-at-lausanne_.en.mfa
  67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1x76f3x
  68. https://www.merip.org/2013/06/the-greek-turkish-population-exchange/
  69. https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/titel_460.ahtml
  70. https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3429/are-there-any-loanwords-between-turkish-and-armenian
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288445894_Greek-Turkish_Language_Contact_in_Asia_Minor
  72. http://minoablog.blogspot.com/2010/08/pre-greek-place-names-of-aegean.html
  73. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Turkey-kept-Greek-names-in-all-their-major-cities-after-the-deportation-of-Greeks
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Athanasios-Vionis/publication/310102347_Ceramic_Continuity_and_Daily_Life_in_Medieval_Sagalassos_SW_Anatolia_ca_650-1250_AD/links/5828df0f08ae254c508672e9/Ceramic-Continuity-and-Daily-Life-in-Medieval-Sagalassos-SW-Anatolia-ca-650-1250-AD.pdf
  75. https://www.academia.edu/100791117/Surveying_the_Troad_Byzantine_sites_and_their_pottery
  76. https://www.nomadsed.de/uploads/tx_pdfviewer/owh9_yakar.pdf
  77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4282758
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12223272/
  79. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/waning-devshirme-system
  80. https://www.britannica.com/event/Armenian-Genocide
  81. https://academic.oup.com/hgs/article/27/1/57/762210
  82. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/republic-of-paradox-the-league-of-nations-minority-protection-regime-and-the-new-turkeys-stepcitizens/BA20A2F8D5770CDC78FEBBF5232AF91C
  83. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=45873
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250195953_The_Ottoman_Documents_and_the_Genocidal_Policies_of_the_Committee_for_Union_and_Progress_Ittihat_ve_Terakki_toward_the_Armenians_in_1915
  85. https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/the-epic-story-of-how-the-turks-migrated-from-central-asia-to-turkey/
  86. https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/03/11/turks-are-anatolian-under-the-hood-somewhat-more-greek-than-armenian/
  87. https://egyptindependent.com/dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-not-arabs/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5644363/
  89. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192269
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8433500/
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11385601/
  92. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Central-Asian-Turkic-admixture-in-Anatolia-A-Individuals-from-Capalibag-1300-to-1650_fig4_363157583
  93. https://journals.openedition.org/eac/2653
  94. https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/05/19/greek-genocide-pontian-greeks/
  95. https://hrf.org/latest/the-survival-of-kurdish-identity-in-turkey/
  96. https://mackseyjournal.scholasticahq.com/api/v1/articles/27872-the-kurds-of-turkey-a-tale-of-survival-resilience-and-uncertainty.pdf
  97. https://www.atour.com/education/20000825e.html
  98. https://www.assyrianpolicy.org/post/api-statement-on-the-status-of-assyrians-in-turkey
  99. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449057.2015.1101845
  100. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/tolerance-minorities-and-ideological-perspectives
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31389546_Comparing_Empires_The_Ottoman_Domains_and_the_British_Raj_in_the_Long_Nineteenth_Century
  102. https://ttk.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/1-Ali-Fuat-Ing.pdf
  103. https://scalar.usc.edu/works/usm-open-source-history-text-the-world-at-war-world-history-1914-1945/media/document%2814%29.pdf
  104. https://speakola.com/political/m-kemal-ataturk-10th-anniversary-republic-1933
  105. https://www.academia.edu/33937564/Empires_and_Nation_Building_Russification_and_Turkification_Compared
  106. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/43865_2.pdf
  107. https://legal.un.org/legislativeseries/pdfs/chapters/book4/book4_turkey.pdf
  108. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4289952
  109. https://newlinesmag.com/essays/how-turkey-replaced-the-ottoman-language/
  110. https://www2.arpel.org/fetch.php/u5G810/246500/TheTurkishLanguageReformACatastrophicSucces.pdf
  111. https://www.ekrembugraekinci.com/article/?ID=628&literacy-in-ottoman-society-was-higher-than-believed
  112. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1570466
  113. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13608746.2011.577954
  114. https://www.wrmea.org/2000-june/turkey-s-kurds-look-forward-to-enhanced-cultural-rights-as-turkey-moves-toward-eu-membership.html
  115. https://cyprusreview.org/index.php/cr/article/download/95/63/97
  116. https://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/en/topics/the-other-face-of-cyprus-the-silent-decline-of-the-turkish-cypriot-community
  117. https://pace.coe.int/files/10153/html
  118. https://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/Embassies/Embassy_Vienna/vienna.nsf/page74_en/page74_en?OpenDocument
  119. https://dckurd.org/2023/03/30/turkish-de-kurdification-afrin/
  120. https://www.meforum.org/meq/turkeys-demographic-engineering-in-syrias-afrin-region-a-closer-look
  121. https://www.crisisgroup.org/visual-explainers/turkiyes-pkk-conflict-visual-explainer
  122. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6874e04e730a1bf28e2f9305/SYR%2BCPIN%2BKurds%2Band%2BKurdish%2Bareas.pdf
  123. https://www.asocenter.org/files/The%2520Demographic%2520Changes%2520in%2520the%2520Syrian%2520%2520Kurdish%2520Cities.pdf
  124. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c985lw7lywlo
  125. https://nlka.net/eng/ankara-and-the-new-syria-project-control-turkification-and-annexation/
  126. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/03/border-nation-the-reshaping-of-the-syrian-turkish-borderlands?lang=en
  127. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/turkeys-growing-foreign-policy-ambitions
  128. https://www.iemed.org/publication/turkeys-role-as-a-regional-power/
  129. https://turkicstates.org/en
  130. https://www.turkicstates.org/en/areas-of-cooperation-detail/9-diaspora-cooperation
  131. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/kurdish-pkk-dissolves-after-decades-struggle-with-turkey-news-agency-close-2025-05-12/
  132. https://travelatelier.com/blog/turkish-food/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.