It is easy to answer the question why Anatolia, though I should probably go deeper than “I am from Anatolia” and start with describing what region I am talking about, how it is defined geographically and what the etymology of the name Anatolia is.
The region that will be the topic of this forum is basically the present day Turkey/Türkiye. I know that this is not identical to Anatolia, but this is what I will consider as Anatolia. It is true that geographically speaking the present day Anatolia is bounded in the north by the Black Sea, in the south by the Mediterranean, in the west by the Aegean Sea and the sea of Marmora and in the east by the eastern border of the present day Turkey. It is also true that the Eastern Thracia/Trakya of Turkey, the region across the Sea of Marmora, or Rumelie as it goes by this name as well, is not included in Anatolia geographically. Nor historically has it ever been part of the Anatolian geographical mass. However, if we go back in history we will see that Anatolia never had the borders it has today, either. What was called Anatolia used to be the region that stretched from the Aegean Sea to the Euphrates/Fırat. East of Euphrates was not Anatolia; part of it was called Armenia and the other parts close to the Arabic lands were something else. In fact, if we go even further back in history, to the time when this term is found in official documents as a term for a geographical region for the first time, we will see that it wasn’t used even for the whole area described above, but for a much part of this area. Perhaps the term Anatolia was more than a geographical term.
When we try to get to the evidence about this term, showing where and when it was used for the first time, we are unable to go back further than the middle ages. Although it is often claimed that Anatolia was used by the ancient Greeks to define those areas east to them, where the sun rises, I have so far been unable to find any proof of this. However, according to this evidence, Anatolia was indeed used to indicate the region east to Constantinople during the Byzantium period.
From Constantine VII Porphyogenitus, De thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi [Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1952], pp. 59-61.
“This is the work of the Emperor Constantine, son of Leo, on the themes of the empire of the Romans, whence they derive their names and what they mean and their nomenclature, of which the first group of names is from ancient times but the second received their names more recently.
The first theme is called Anatolikon. It seems to me that the titles of the themes did not originate in the manner commonly believed. For not one is ancient nor has any historian mentioned such names as the themes possess today. But formerly and at the beginning there were battalions and legions enrolled according to nation [people from the same place of origin], as for instance the legion of the forty martyrs which was called Thunderbolt, and another, Marmariton, and another, Pisidian, still another, Thessalian; and still others otherwise named. (…)</p>
But now the Roman Empire is no longer united in East and West, and, having been dismembered during the reign of Heraclius of Libya (since those who ruled after him did nit know how best to exercise their authority), they [the Byzantine emperors] divided their own authority and their battalions into smaller segments, and they [the emperors] were Hellenized and discarded the language of their fathers, the Roman [Latin] tongue. (…) The name of this theme [to be discussed below] is Greek, and not Roman, and received its name from its geographical location.</p>
On the First Theme, Called Anatolikon. This theme is called Anatolikon, not because it is above and in the direction of the east whence the sun rises, but because it lies east of us who are the inhabitants of Byzantium and Europe. But by the people of Mesopotamia, Syria, and greater Asia, in which live Indians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians, is called “western” and it is within Asia Minor…In order not to babble and mislead [anyone] about the names of the themes, we shall say only that the truth is as follows: the Anatolikon theme, as we now call it, consists of five peoples. Beginning with the town of Merou [Myra], it is called Phrygia Salutaria, up to Contum. The regions close to Isauria, which extend up to the Taurus, are called Lycaonia. [Constantine then gives the boundaries of the areas of Phrygia, Caria, Pisidia, Lycia.]… All the areas which are in the middle and close to, and extending up to, the Taurus Mountains are called the theme of Anatolikon” (Geanakoplos, 66-67).
</p>
Constantine’s explanation is from the tenth century; he was the emperor between the years 913 and 959. It is difficult to tell from this article what prompted this discussion about the meaning of Anatolikon, but the disagreement over this issue of Anatolikon is clearly there. The emperor is especially against the idea that the etymology of the term Anatolikon is linked to the fact that the region is where the sun rises from. Considering that there were provinces to the east of Anatolikon, the emperor’s disagreement does make sense. Why name a region in the middle of Asia Minor the East, when this is not even the easternmost province of the empire. Then again one may claim that this was where the eastern border was at the end of the 7th century, at the time of the war against the Muslim Arabs. At any rate, his explanation is that this region is called Anatolikon because it lies east of Byzantium and Europe. By Byzantium he means Constantinople, which is situated in Europe. The reference point seems to be Constantinople/İstanbul. It is called Anatolikon because it lies east of Byzantium. It seems that difference of some kind is perceived between Byzantium and the theme of Anatolikon, at least as far as Constantine is concerned; for he specifies that it “lies east of us who are the inhabitants of Byzantium and Europe.” He doesn’t just say Byzantium, but makes sure that it is the inhabitants of Byzantium and Europe that the theme of Anatolikon lies east of. It seems that Anatolikon is not just a geographical designation, but specifies a cultural difference as well. In fact, specifying the cultural difference may have been more important than indicating where this region is geographically.